Brangelina thread

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

More like this

By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here. I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.

Thanks Tim,

I was rather hoping for 'Batty Brad's World of Madness' in honour of his run in with Prof Lewandowsky...

Bernard J's question still needs an answer.

Hey @ bill ol buddy ol pal

Thank you for being my first guest!

I don't read much BernardJ. What are you, his wingman? :-) Is he still stalking me to see if I know neutral pH = 7.0? LOL. Let's hope the yahoos will leave this thread alone. Anyway thanks again for the heavy metal enlightenment.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ chameleon, welcome to Brad's Place!

How are things?

I hear quite a few of these pseudointellectual chunderstorms have condescended on you lately…

"And that’s why we try to explain to chameleon that you don’t mindlessly accept the untested claims of any scientist. You look for claims that have survived scrutiny – that are the outcome of the scientific process.
Maybe you’ll have better luck explaining that to her."

... and I hope you’ll think of Brad’s Place as a kind of asylum.

An asylum of sanity, lucidity and good faith in a world of Mindlessly, Claims, Scrutiny, Untested, Accept, Survived, Claim, ...

Let me share a quotation that comes damn close, I think, to saying what I hope Brad’s Place will come to mean in our lvies and for generations of deltoids to come.

"The measure of good science is neither the politics of the scientist nor the people with whom the scientist associates. It is the immersion of hypotheses into the acid of truth.That’s the hard way to do it, but it’s the only way that works.”

It was an op-ed by Ted Koppel, who's Not Even A Scientist… but don’t you think his words hit closer to the heart of the thing than our mutual lecturer’s? :-)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

BTW Bill just popped in to the jan thread and answered BJ's pop quiz.
7 or if we are talking ranges 6.5 - 7.5.
Yes @ Brad,
I do like that quote.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the tribe of 'ritual intellectual humiliation' will somehow condescend at you quoting it though!
Can Brad's world also have a deny/alist/ism meter?
Maybe you could give a gold star or something to the one who manages to use it the most in one comment at the end of each page?
Maybe 2 stars if they can specify exactly what is being denied when the word is used.
Maybe half stars for synonyms?

By chameleon (not verified) on 02 Feb 2013 #permalink

Turns out Anthony Watts' claims didn't survive the acid of truth...and yet you still recommend his website?

Why pretend you're interested in the truth, Brad, when we all know you're just a pathetic liar?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ chameleon

"Can Brad’s world also have a deny/alist/ism meter?"

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

When Tim first asked me if I'd be willing to contribute a whole thread to scienceblogs, I was honoured to be singled out. One of the reasons I gladly agreed was that I think we can make something special here. And that will involve, among other things, regular use of the scienceblogs blogging platform's denialinguistics analytics functionality.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 03 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Vince points out that I'm "a pathetic liar" as if it's come kind of epiphany.

Hey, Vince:

Have I ever claimed to be good at lying? No.
Have I ever claimed to be good at bull-fighting? No.

And like most people I have the sense to do what I'm good at and avoid what I'm pathetic at. Anything less will get you gored.

By the way:

What I lack in lie-telling skillz, I make up for in lie-detecting. Lying will not avail you at Brad's Place.

Our friend Vince may recall (as if it were yesterday!) what happened when a certain deltoid pretended the Hockey Stick reconstruction of historical temperatures had been "confirmed" as "correct" by the BEST stud. Before I'd even had a chance to read the comment, no less a personage than Lotharsson himself jumped in to urge the liar to admit the claim was 75% untrue just in case I came across it.

When Lotharsson tells you it's a bad idea to make stuff up when I'm around, believe me: he knows what he's talking about.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

BEST confirmed the hockey stick is correct.

Bad luck Brad.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Really Vince? Oh, for some reason I thought you were lying.

So then, you were telling the truth and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study agrees with Mann’s conclusions that there was no coherent MWP, or that even if there was, it fell short of late 1990s temperatures? (How much warmer does the BEST study say we are now compared to, say, the maximum medieval temperature?)

You weren't just making things up: the BEST study showed relatively stable temperatures for many centuries—the “shaft”—until an unprecedented upturn around 1900, just as Michael Mann et al. have been trying to tell us?

Is this true Vince? Have I underestimated your probity and/or affinity with reality?

This changes everything.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Vince

"BEST confirmed the hockey stick is correct"

How? BEST only goes back to about 1750 AD, Hockey stick controversy is about reconstructions for temps ~900yrs ago ~ the MWP. BEST doesn't say anything about this, how can it show the Hockey stick is correct?

Is he still stalking me to see if I know neutral pH = 7.0?

So that's your answer Brad? Or are you not as certain of the fact as you were previously?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ GSW

Yes, I'm looking forward to the answer too.

Vince has made it clear he thinks I'm a crap liar, so presumably we're in for a masterclass from one of the best.

Take your time, Vince.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Bernard J,

How many syllables in the word UNIONIZED? Isn't that what you're really asking me?

Go ahead and think I skipped high school chemistry. Go ahead and think I never learnt to read without moving my lips, on account a' me being stuck in the revolving door of the penal system ever since I stole my first car at the age of 9.

Nobody cares.

Can't we go back to our deal, where you refuse to talk to me until I dignify your retarded little shibboleth with my attention?

Please?

Everyone wins.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

How many syllables in the word UNIONIZED? Isn’t that what you’re really asking me?

Brad, Brad, Brad...

Keep your pants on young feller-me-lad, I'm just making sure that "7" is your final answer.

It's a pity for you though, because your final answer is wrong.

You see, pH is very temperature dependent, so the pH at which neutrality occurs at one temperature is different to that at which neutral pH occurs at another temperature. To illustrate, cast your eye over these values:

T (°C) pH
0 7.47
10 7.27
20 7.08
25 7.00
30 6.92
40 6.77
50 6.63
100 6.14

Putting this into a concentration context this means that for pure water neutral pH, at boiling point and at sea level, has 21.4 times as many hydronium ions in solution as does a pH neutral water sample at the point of freezing.

Are you seeing where this is going?

At boiling point, pH 6.2 is basic.

At freezing point, pH 7.4 is acidic.

It's worse for you though, because pressure affects pH, especially when there are other compounds in the aqueous solution. Isotopic composition also alters pH response.

And for Chameleon who was wetting her pants thinking that I didn't know about pH neutrality, she might be interested to know that I gave her fellow swamp numpties a lesson about pH well over four years ago. She and Brad would do well to read my more detailed discussion about pH at that last link, and especially to discover that even at standard temperature and pressure neutral pH is not 7.

The short of it is that there is no unique pH that defines neutrality, and there is no unique hydronium ion concentration in water that defines pH neutrality. When chemists refer to acidification, all that it means is that the concentration of hydronium ions is increasing.

This is the important thing, and in the case of ocean acidification it is a serious threat to hydronium ion-sensitive calcifers.

And Brad, I'm not sure what febrile sweating invoked the question you put to me, but the answer is a resounding "NO". Where on earth did you dig out references to unionisation? Or is this just a lame attempt at the logical fallacy of guilt by association?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

" Where on earth did you dig out references to unionisation?"

Same place he digs out all his "facts" from: his anus.

Well, it's the only thing he can see. That and the stick rammed up there...

Bernard, Bernard, Bernard,

You done?

Is that out of your system?

Don't do that again.

Nobody asked for a lecture. Nobody sat for an exam. I never responded to your question, but if you really feel the need to use your red pen, use it on Conspiracy Queen Oreskes, erroneous even in her Errata!, who foists on the public this simplistic and comforting lie.....

"P. 67 - Neutral pH is listed as 6; it should be 7."

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/resources.html

At Brad's Place we talk like adults & adults.

Not teachers & pupils.

Is that clear? Do you think you can manage that next time, Bernard?

I won't read your whole comment—I'll leave it for those who have a dog in the OA race, which I don't—but I do note that you take it on yourself to tell me how chemists speak. "When chemists say... it means..."

But Bernard, what comes across unmistakably obviously is that you're not a chemist, are you?

When a chemist is asked:

How many syllables in the word UNIONIZED?

he/she doesn't reply:

"the answer is a resounding “NO”. Where on earth did you dig out references to unionisation? Or is this just a lame attempt at the logical fallacy of guilt by association?"

... does he/she? :-)

Lighten up Bernard—then you might actually win friends and influence people.

;-)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Wow

"Same place he digs out all his “facts” from: his anus. Well, it’s the only thing he can see. That and the stick rammed up there…"

When Tim approached me with the idea of expanding my regular contributions to his site into a whole thread of my own, I said Yes, yes, yes. Let's do this. Creatively, one of the goals we both had, I think, was to make Brad's Place a bit more sophisticated, polite or whatever than your standard entropic, polemical, peripatetic shitfight, into which other threads seem to monotonically decline.

So right from the start, we've enforced and expected a certain tone from the commenters here, Wow.

Brad's Place is not for adolescents.

It is for grown men and women.

Fuck off.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Brad

Sorry Brad, can I just check your #17, so Orsekes in the errata to her book states that Neutral pH is 7, and from Bernard's post, he has come with some pedantic scheme to prove her wrong?

The next point obviously is, what's got into Bernard? has he seen the light at last, critically evaluating everything he's told?

It's a positive turn of events, but I think his criticism of her is nit-picking somewhat. A Neutral pH of 7 at STP is routinely stated, often without the STP (it's assumed), a bit lazy perhaps but everyone understands the common meaning.
Where's Bernard coming from on this?
;)

So, GSW, you agree Brat has it wrong and moreover that he has "educated" himself not from the primary literature but by a book for Joe Homeowner.

And you also agree that he's wrong when he claims he knows better than Jeff or Bernard, despite his claims that he knows not only better than they, but all other chemistry scientists what Acididy is all about.

Where is GSW going with this...?

It's not going to help Brat. Quite the opposite, it's devastated his empty claims.

LOL

:D

Brad’s Place is not for adolescents.

No, Brad's place was made to CONTAIN the ravings of an adolescent with delusions of competency.

It is also not yours.

It's Tims.

So fuck off yourself, you whining little streak of warm piss.

See also your delusions about "creativity" and what happened in your head as opposed to in reality.

It's another technique of the 14 year old. Fantasies.

@ GSW, welcome back to the asylum :-)

"Where’s Bernard coming from on this?"

No effing idea, GSW!

If you read the afterdribble of his comment it appears Wow and Bernard have come to believe, in a kind of folie a deux, that I'm fighting them on the "ocean acidification" idea.

One might assume this was the continuation of a long and inane debate about "OA" from another thread.

It isn't.

As far as I’m aware, I haven't opined, declaimed, written or even thought about OA in months, and I certainly haven't been haggling over it with these two. If I ever mentioned OA it must have been a throwaway line—I don't care about, have any real position on, or have any interest in the topic.

Given that neither I nor anybody else on this thread was talking about OA until this father-and-son doorknocking team burst in, I think it’s the height of Bible-bashing boorishness on their part to inflict their boring obsession on my guests.

(Bernard, I’m begging you, as the adult of the pair, to take Wow and “ocean acidification” to someone that cares about them. You’re welcome at Brad’s Place any time, of course, but please be considerate and take your cue from what the other adults are talking about, and not what you’re itching to lecture someone on. Just because we’re nodding politely doesn’t mean it’s a Successful Social Interaction, OK?)

Cat owners sometimes say that if you give a domestic cat nothing to do and nowhere to go, its brain, every few hours, "invents" little targets for it to chase (presumably mice or something). When my friend's cat spontaneously tears down the hall, my friend says it's "hallucinating."

Something like that may be going on here.

Wow is floridly inventing all sorts of statements and opinions on my part:

“he claims he knows better than Jeff or Bernard, despite his claims that he knows not only better than they, but all other chemistry scientists what Acididy is all about. … Quite the opposite, it’s devastated his empty claims. … “

Wow, WHERE did I claim I know better than them or other “chemistry scientists” [a.k.a. chemists]?

WHAT empty claims is Bernard "devastating"?

If you can’t QUOTE me—which you won’t be able to—that’s because you’re SEEING THINGS, kiddo.

Sometimes though, when he’s really testing the limit of my tolerance for other people’s children, Wow says something that makes me wonder… is it all a brilliant parody?

"See also your delusions about “creativity” and what happened in your head as opposed to in reality.
It’s another technique of the 14 year old. Fantasies."

LOL.

This may be the funniest shit you’ve written, Wow, since you criticised me for judging that fanatical cleric Abu Hamza without “sharing drinks with him” and getting to know him!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Brad Keyes
February 4, 2013

@ GSW, welcome back to the asylum"

At least you're beginning to realise why Brad is only allowed to post in this thread.

"since you criticised me for judging that fanatical cleric Abu Hamza without “sharing drinks with him”"

I criticized your hypocrisy.

And your idiocy, which you just repeated by that claim...

"If you can’t QUOTE me"

I can and have.

Brad Keyes the sore loser said:

I won’t read your whole comment

You should Brad, because it underscores the point that neutral pH is not the fixed thing that you and many others imagine. Stop being cut up because I pointed out that you couldn't raise this issue, even after you had four days to look up the answer.

But Bernard, what comes across unmistakably obviously is that you’re not a chemist, are you?

When a chemist is asked:

How many syllables in the word UNIONIZED?

he/she doesn’t reply:

“the answer is a resounding “NO”. Where on earth did you dig out references to unionisation?

Brad, you clearly can't even parse your own posts. To remind you what you typed at #14 above, read this - you can let your lips move if it helps with comprehension:

How many syllables in the word UNIONIZED? Isn’t that what you’re really asking me?

Look carefully at my post at #15. I copied that line exactly, and it is obviously your second question to which I was responding.

Perhaps you were hoping that I would say "it depends" so that you didn't have to put your head in a noose and commit to a particular answer yourself about pH, but that's just erecting straw men. The fact is that you're fixating on an openly-recognised typo. And you are avoiding the fact that anyone who says that the oceans are "not acidifying" is simply wrong.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad Keyes the sore loser said:

I won’t read your whole comment

You should Brad, because it underscores the point that neutral pH is not the fixed thing that you and many others imagine. Stop being cut up because I pointed out that you couldn't raise this issue, even after you had four days to look up the answer.

But Bernard, what comes across unmistakably obviously is that you’re not a chemist, are you?

When a chemist is asked:

How many syllables in the word UNIONIZED?

he/she doesn’t reply:

“the answer is a resounding “NO”. Where on earth did you dig out references to unionisation?

Brad, you clearly can't even parse your own posts. To remind you what you typed at #14 above, read this - you can let your lips move if it helps with comprehension:

How many syllables in the word UNIONIZED? Isn’t that what you’re really asking me?

Look carefully at my post at #15. I copied that line exactly, and it is obviously your second question to which I was responding.

Perhaps you were hoping that I would say "it depends" so that you didn't have to put your head in a noose and commit to a particular answer yourself about pH, but that's just erecting straw men. The fact is that you're fixating on an openly-recognised typo. And you are avoiding the fact that anyone who says that the oceans are "not acidifying" is simply wrong.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad Keyes the sore loser said:

I won’t read your whole comment

You should Brad, because it underscores the point that neutral pH is not the fixed thing that you and many others imagine. Stop being cut up because I pointed out that you couldn't raise this issue, even after you had four days to look up the answer.

But Bernard, what comes across unmistakably obviously is that you’re not a chemist, are you?

When a chemist is asked:

How many syllables in the word UNIONIZED?

he/she doesn’t reply:

“the answer is a resounding “NO”. Where on earth did you dig out references to unionisation?

Brad, you clearly can't even parse your own posts. To remind you what you typed at #14 above, read this - you can let your lips move if it helps with comprehension:

How many syllables in the word UNIONIZED? Isn’t that what you’re really asking me?

Look carefully at my post at #15. I copied that line exactly, and it is obviously your second question to which I was responding.

Perhaps you were hoping that I would say "it depends" so that you didn't have to put your head in a noose and commit to a particular answer yourself about pH, but that's just erecting straw men. The fact is that you're fixating on an openly-recognised typo. And you are avoiding the fact that anyone who says that the oceans are "not acidifying" is simply wrong.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Bernard J,

Why are you stalking me? Have I led you on by expressing interest in your pet topic, the hydronium ion?

If so, I'm sorry. I'm not interested.

Have you got me mixed up with someone else, Bernard? Has some other denier been asserting the invariability of pH neutrality over all pressures and temperatures?

Do all we deniers look alike to you? That's a little offensive, frankly!

LOL

"You should Brad, because it underscores the point that neutral pH is not the fixed thing that you and many others imagine."

I don't imagine it's any such thing. I'm well aware it depends on pressure and temperature. I just don't care.

Besides Naomi Oreskes, who else thinks neutral pH is a constant? Who are these "many others" who imagine so? (Well, probably most people do—I had no idea how mutlifactorial it was until university.) Why not go bore them?

NOBODY AT BRAD'S PLACE CARES.

" Stop being cut up because I pointed out that you couldn’t raise this issue, even after you had four days to look up the answer."

What makes you think I'd waste a minute looking up an answer to a question only you and Wow care about?

" And you are avoiding the fact that anyone who says that the oceans are “not acidifying” is simply wrong."

No, I'm really not; I just don't care.

Bernard, the fact that you thought the "UNIONIZED" test was about unionisation and "guilt by association" is simply hilarious.

Relax, mate. It was a test of your chemistry background. So you're not a chemist. So what? Not the end of the world.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

By the way, I'm not fixated on Oreskes' typo of 7 -> 6.

Seeing it in the context of what appeared to be a pattern of inattention to detail was what raised questions.

But that appearance was largely bogus, I think. The beryllium example is a good one. Her usage of it was defensible.

If she compulsively made these mistakes, it might mean something—and some people on my "side" have been wrongly led to believe Oreskes is some sort of bimbo, or scientist lite, or celebrity scientist. I believed that for a while. It's not true. Whatever else one thinks of her, she's no lightweight and we're doing ourselves a disservice by underestimating her IQ.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

To quote myself from the other thread:

"@ Turboblocke,


Thanks for that!


Anyway, you’ve performed a climate miracle:
A MIND WAS CHANGED.


I read Oreskes’ characterisation of beryllium (“a heavy metal”) as meaning: “a heavy metallic element.”
I hadn’t seen your definition of heavy metals before (nor did I even know it was a thorny question).


It’s obvious that Oreskes knew what she was saying there and that Berylliumgate has been a waste of everyone’s time. My apologies to everyone who was bored by it.


bill is right: “This ‘heavy metal’ thing is the most pointless pedantry imaginable.” 


What a fool I’ve been. What a handsome fool.


2. Since I’d been mistaken on that idea for the last 3 years, I felt I should re-examine some other questions I’ve raised about Oreskes’ craft.


3. I now consider the DDT one also to be a complete non-issue, but here’s the link if you want to listen:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/06/07/the-naomi-ore…


DDT “was not a magic bullet to cure malaria that its advocates are claiming””
Where did Oreskes make this claim?


Fast forward to the 23:40 mark.

You may know that we all became a bit polarised around here….!


• I said the reference to DDT as a product “to cure” malaria (effective or otherwise) was a shibboleth for medical-[il]literacy


• everyone else said it was a reasonable verb


Both these extreme positions are false, and constitute a false dichotomy.

Nobody saw the “third way” because we were too busy fighting.


Sorry, people: you can’t call a mosquito-eradication program a “cure for malaria.”


How about we call a condom-distribution, needle-exchange drive a “cure for HIV/AIDS”?


Words mean things.

Nuking every mosquito and its larvae wouldn’t cure malaria. It would just prevent infections. 


What Oreskes said was nonsense.


How are we going to get around this? 
What’s the third way? The one nobody here—not Lotharsson, not any other believalist—was clever enough to think of? 
Well, I was clever enough:


The third way is to bear in mind that people MISSPEAK. Medically-literate people say medically-illiterate things by accident.


As Oreskes did.
 What impressed me on listening to the full interview yesterday—I’d only heard a minute or so of it previously—was that Oreskes does take care to put the terms “prevent”, “treat”, “eradicate”, “control” and “cure” in the correct places, and apparently knows how. She only misspeaks once. Her speech makes the null hypothesis (that she has no medical theory and is more-or-less guessing) astronomically improbable!


Rather irritated (at myself et al.) about the time I’ve wasted prosecuting trivia against Oreskes. 


Bottom line: Oreskes is a lot more careful and knowledgeable than I realised. 
A lot of people on my “side” are underestimating Oreskes’ intelligence. And looking petty for insulting it.


"

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

I think you may be right BradK,
Bernard may be confused about identity here.
BTW BradK,
Impressive and balanced comment re Oreskes.
It could easily have been a poor proof reading/editing of typo mishap. The proof reader may not have known the accepted definition of neutral PH....which despite BJ's long and thrice repeated lecture...does have a simple answer.
I can't imagine Oreskes would have wanted to correct that mistake by inserting Bernard's lecture in its place.
It should have been corrected as 7 in this context or there is also a case for discussing a range which is commonly accepted as 6.5 to 7.5 for the purpose of something like this book.
I also like your attitude re
1) Admitting an error if you have made one and
2) Forgiving others if they have made an error.
Good for you Brad K!
You could do much to lift the tone of commenting here.
It would be great if more people could see the 'third way' because they weren't so busy fighting and boxing at shadows!

By chameleon (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad says,

So then, you were telling the truth and the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study agrees with Mann’s conclusions that there was no coherent MWP,

GSW says

Hockey stick controversy is about reconstructions for temps ~900yrs ago ~ the MWP.

Considering the Deniers' first (vapid) criticism of Mann's hockey stick was that it excluded the period of the hypothesised Mediaeval Warm Period, it's hilarious to see you get your stories wrong now by claiming it covered that period but excluded the relevant data.

Here's a hint guys, check your history books and complete the following sentence:
"The middle ages ended...."
a. 1450.
b. 1450.
c. 1450.
d. I'm a denier fuckwit and haven't got a clue.

(Multiple answers are correct)

Perhaps you've spent too long here and need to return to the foetid swamp of deliberate ignorance that is WUWT to bone up on your denialist talking points?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Of course, we didn't need BEST to tell us that Mann was correct, we already had
Wahl & Ammann: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007…

Huang, Pollack and SHen from borehole data:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_bo…

Smith, Baker, etc... using stalactites:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html

Oerlemans from Glaciers:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/oerlemans2005.html

Gosh, eh Brad? All the temperature reconstructions agree, even the Koch-funded one.

Almost like reality just isn't on your side?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

As for thie Mediaeval Warm Period the deniers hang their hats on - I wonder if there is room for scepticism about what that period's temperatures were like?

Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.

Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=118

Gosh. If one of them "fraudulent scientists" was telling me to unequivocally believe that the MWP was warmer than today, I'd be inclined to be *very* sceptical.

But not Brad and his buddies, it seems - apparently his scepticism is very selective........I wonder why that is?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Vince

"Of course, we didn’t need BEST to tell us that Mann was correct..."

Well that's good, because the BEST study doesn't tell us, does it?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Vortical Vince:

Instead of desperately and loudly trying to spin spin spin your way out of this, how about finding a quote from the BEST study (or any of their press conferences... or any of their team members...) sharing your opinion that the BEST study confirmed the correctness of the "Hockey Stick" of Mann et al.?

Or don't they agree with you?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

....aaaand the whirlwind becomes a tumbleweed.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Here's a multiple choice for you Brad:

1/ BEST contradicted the "Hockey Stick"

or

2/ BEST confrmed the "Hockey Stick"

Good luck!

And I notice you fail to admit your error as to the temporal situation of the Middle Ages, let alone acknowledge having learnt something new today.
Denialism in action!

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

I think Heartland needs to supply you better material. If they have any.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

“Of course, we didn’t need BEST to tell us that Mann was correct…”

Well that’s good, because the BEST study doesn’t tell us, does it?

Of course it does. It confirms Mann's Hockey Stick in spades.

Let's just repeat the bit you quickly ignored, though- a short selection of the very moany other reconstructions that ALSO confirm Mann's Hockey Stick was correct:

Wahl & Ammann: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007…

Huang, Pollack and SHen from borehole data:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_bo…

Smith, Baker, etc… using stalactites:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html

Oerlemans from Glaciers:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/oerlemans2005/oerlemans2005.html

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 04 Feb 2013 #permalink

Have you got me mixed up with someone else, Bernard? Has some other denier been asserting the invariability of pH neutrality over all pressures and temperatures?

Brad, you made no mention of temperature or of pressure until after I raised the issue, despite the fact that I gave you four days of thinking time with which to respond to my question. You are introducing another straw man, but that is hardly surprising as that is your one of your favoured logical fallacies of first resort.

Ignoring your attempt at yet another red herring, there are two issues that you raised. The first is that of whether oceans are acidifying when pH decrease is occurring above neutral pH. Do you remember this post at #8 of page 3 on the January thread?

@bill nails it:

“(Did you encounter our ‘Atmospheric Chemistry Graduate’ a few days back who was running the ‘OA ain’t acidification because the pH will still be above 7′ line?)”

How long until this phraudulent ”pH 7.0” phallacy has insinuated itself into every single corner of the Faux Skeptic flat-earthosphere?

Poor, poor denihilists. So close. You would have had, at long last, a valid and devastating argument on your hands, and those venal alarmist sudoscyentiztz would have been shame-bound to concede that the entire mendacious language of “acidification” was nothing but science-as-an-extension-of-politics…

… if only you’d known a basic scientific fact which, uh, most 13-year-old children know. If only you ‘d known what actual, er, experts think the pH of a neutral solution is.

It’s remarkable that anyone claiming to be scientifically-literate could have gotten this wrong—nevertheless, dear, denihilist dilettantes, read it and weep weakly acidic tears:

“Yet its rain had a measured pH of 4 or less (neutral pH is 6, ordinary rain is around 5); one sample measured 2.85—about the same as lemon juice, acidic enough to bum a cut.”

In your trainwreck of logic you first attempt to dismiss the matter of acidification above pH 7 by saying that it would have been "a valid and devastating argument… if only you’d known a basic scientific fact ...". Perhaps in your mind this reads as something else, but any rational person would see this as an attempt to;

1) ridicule the fact of ocean acidification, and
2) discredit Naomi Oreskes.

Further, you said in the quoted screed above "If only you ‘d known what actual, er, experts think the pH of a neutral solution is", to which I responded by attempting to ascertain whether you actually knew what experts know about the pH of a neutral solution, but after four days you could not answer the question. It seems a little rich to me that you would mock others about commentary on pH when you cannot provide accurate and informed information yourself.

But perhaps that's just me...

And Brad, I have never claimed to be a chemist. But I seem to know a damned sight more about pH than do you, if your fumbling evasions on this and the open thread are any indication.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Vince

Some background reading on the "Hockey stick controversy" for you.

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

from the first line,

"In the hockey stick controversy, graphs showing reconstructions of the temperature record of the past 1000 years"

What is the point of pretending you are unaware of MBH 1999? also refering to the the graphic on the right of that page,

"Figure 2.20 from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) of 2001, based on Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 (MBH99), became the iconic hockey stick graph."

See the" iconic hockey stick graph" - MBH99! I mean I'd be the last person to argue that you are not as daft as a box of spanners, but do you have to put on such a show?

Anyway the question was, how can a temp series that only goes back to 1750 AD possibly tell you anthing about temps hundred of years before? and in particular, show the Hockey stick was correct about temps during a previous warm period, the MWP.

Is this just a personal view of yours or is it something you picked up from somewhere else (sks perhaps, they produce all kinds of weird and wonderful things).

It's funny how those who want to push an idea of "uncertainty" about the well-established fact of recent unprecedented warming get so hung up about the mostly unsupported conjecture about a supposed "MWP".

Apparently deniers' scepticism only works one way.

MBH98 was the birth of the "hockey stick".
Confirmed by many subsequent reconstructions, after criticism from the paid-disinformation lobby and their useful idiots that it didn't go back far enough, it was then extended back to about 900 without any controversy except that manufactured by those merchants of doubt whose scepticism only works when it co-incides with their politics.

Political ideologues have been polluting the world's media with their lies and stupidity for a couple of decades now (longer if you count the same activity whilst in the pay of the tobacco companies).

The fun thing about trolling you lot of intellectual pygmies is that you are paid to keep coming back for more.

It's the trolling that keeps on giving.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Vince

Your "daft as a box of spanners" pretense continues and it's all the fault of "Political ideologues". Not much of defense is it Vince? You can't get your facts straight and it's someone elses fault.
;)

More projection from one of the nutcases that treat crank-blog WUWT as a valid source for information.

MBH98 was the "Hockey Stick".
Not sure what Wikipedia says, and not too interested in it - I get my knowledge from more reliable sources, although I understand why the likes of GSW stick with Wikipedia.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Vince

I think you'll find it's the same everywhere Vince (including the IPCC reports) or have you become an IPCC denier too? prefer your own version of things, not much "comfort" for you anywhere else.

;)

Vince!
Pay attention!
Unless you're pretending there was no MWP you need to understand time frames.
BEST does not use the same start/stop timeframes.
It neither confirms or disproves Mann's work!
Unless you have access to BEST information that no one else has, you need to rethink your 'confirm' assertion.

By chameleon (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

There isn't enough data to confirm there was any MWP.

I remain sceptical of any MWP.

Those who assert a MWP in the absence of sufficient data are clearly engaged in fraud.

Those who believe the MWP fraudsters are gullible believers.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Vince

FTFY:

"BEST didn't look back far enough to confirm there was any Hockey Stick.

...

Those who assert that BEST had anything to say about the Hockey Stick's correctness in the absence of sufficient data are clearly engaged in fraud."

FTFY.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

Those who believe the MWP fraudsters are gullible believers.

But.. but Vince.. it's all they've got to convince themselves that they're not living in exceptional times. Belief in the fictional allows them to switch off and believe their responsibility to the present has beern discharged.

Of course there's no comeback against the liars and operatives who sold the lie, and neither does there need to be. The believers will defend the lie because it's all they've got and reality - as defined by actual data - can never compete against a golden age, especially an imaginary one.

It's...

@ Vincent's Logic Hour!

My uncle had a blood test (FBC, lipids & liver function proxies) the other day.

Did you know, kids, that this brings us to an inescapable dichotomy: my uncle's results either

1/ contradicted the “Hockey Stick”

or

2/ confrmed the “Hockey Stick”

?

Which is it? Take your time.

And that, kids, was Thinking With Vincent.

More exciting episodes coming up!

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ BernardJ

"And Brad, I have never claimed to be a chemist."

BernardJ, I know you belong to a cult of humorlessness, so it was stupid of me to expect you to understand facetiousness. I apologise. The "unionized" shibboleth comes from a famous remark by Asimov. It seemed apt, as you appeared to be following me all over the internet, itching for a chance to subject me to your personal litmus test.

Lest there be any confusion:

I'm not accusing you of falsely claiming to be anything you're not.

OK?

”But I seem to know a damned sight more about pH than do you,”

Guess what: you CARE a damned sight more about pH than I do, too.

”if your fumbling evasions on this and the open thread are any indication."

I wasn’t trying “evade” your question, I was trying to avoid your question, and you, and this situation we’re in right now, because I just knew it was going to be your cue to segue into a 2-hour lecture I have no interest in sitting through.

You know that intense, tedious monomaniac who seems to be at every party, the one nobody wants to make eye-contact with, and if they do, they try not to be inveigled into a dialogue with him, and if they are, they try not to mention any of his trigger words?

That guy is you, and nobody was trying to “evade” the lecture you gave, gave, and gave us again, so much as “avoid” it.

Your single interesting point, if I’ve skimmed you correctly, seems to be that “acidification” is a perfectly legitimate term for what’s happening in the oceans, whether or not they actually become “acid” (subneutral in pH) for their particular pressure/temperature conditions.

If (HINT ! HINT !) you made this point a lot better, without burying it in so much pious, didactic fibre, we’d be more inclined to read (and even agree with?) your soliloquies, Brad’s Place is, after all, a temple of learning, reflecting, confessing, and correcting—an oasis of skepticism in a desert of dogma.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

confrmed the “Hockey Stick”

Your beloved icon the "hockey stick" is so-called because of the sharp rise in temperature shown throughout the 20th Century, is it not?

Do you dispute the very reason for it's iconic name? The name that frothing deniers have given themslves coronaries over in trying to discredit it? Although without success it should be clearly noted.

BEST confirmed that. Get over it. The problem isn't with the data. The problem is denial of it.

MBH98 first showed the 'Hockey Stick'.

BEST also showed a "Hockey Stick'.

Therefore BEST agrees with MBH98 that there is a hockey stick: a sharp and unprecedented rise in recent temperatures.

And, as all the relevant experts are telling us, this is clearly caused by the unprecedented rise in CO2 in the atmosphere.

More CO2, more heat...hockey stick. Confirmed by BEST.

Why does Brad seemingly not understand this?

Why does he rely on imaginary data about a supposed MWP to deny the hockey stick?

I guess that's what happens when you prefer belief to data.

The data says there is a hockey stick. Lots of data says it, including the Koch-funded BEST study.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad rabbits on thusly:

@ Vincent’s Logic Hour!

My uncle had a blood test (FBC, lipids & liver function proxies) the other day.

Was there a temperature reconstruction involved?

No?

Fail, Brad, yet another sad, sad fail on your part.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ check:

Your beloved icon the “hockey stick” is so-called because of the sharp rise in temperature shown throughout the 20th Century, is it not?

No.

The sporting equipment analogy is almost entirely (~80%) due to the long, straight "shaft" FOLLOWED by the "blade" (~20%).

But you knew that, didn't you.

In fact, the only reason the "blade" (an imperceptibly slow improvement in the world's weather over the last couple of centuries) can even be described as "sharp" or "dramatic" by otherwise sensible adults, with a straight face, is that it was allegedly preceded by almost a millennium of even LESS dramatic climate change.

Do you dispute the very reason for it’s iconic name?

Mate.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Was there a temperature reconstruction involved?"

Nope!

It was completely silent and agnostic on such questions as the temperature during the Battle of Hastings, the Black Death, the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, the Baroque period, etc.

Just like BEST, in other words.

So I ask again—and no dodging the dilemma, please:

Did my uncle’s blood test results

1/ contradict the “Hockey Stick”

or

2/ confirm the “Hockey Stick”

?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

Where are you getting the data for your assertions from, "Brad"?

Did my uncle’s blood test results

What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About.

Vince @ #9
BEST confirmed the hockey stick is correct.
Bad luck Brad.

Then @ #57
MBH98 first showed the ‘Hockey Stick’.

BEST also showed a “Hockey Stick’.

Therefore BEST agrees with MBH98 that there is a hockey stick: a sharp and unprecedented rise in recent temperatures.

Vince!
http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/
Please point us to where any of this CONFIRMS the hockey stick and MBH98

From Muller in 2004:
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen?[11]
He went on to state "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions."[11]
From Muller after the release of BEST
the BEST project did not delve into the proxy data sets used in the "hockey stick", the importance of the work regarding the modern temperature record is explained on the BEST web site:
Existing data used to show global warming have met with much criticism. The Berkeley Earth project attempts to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses by making available an open record to enable rapid response to further criticism and suggestions. Our results include our best estimate for the global temperature change and our estimates of the uncertainties in the record.[15]

By chameleon (not verified) on 05 Feb 2013 #permalink

Hilariously, Chameleon reminds us what Muller mistakenly asserted in 2004,

Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

Of course, BEST has now proven that Muller was wrong in 2004, and that MBH98 is correct in 1998.

As Muller himself had to admit after finding out that the data contradicted his previous position:

"The world temperature data has sufficient integrity to be used to determine temperature trends," Muller told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

BEST's preliminary results show a warming trend of 0.7 degrees Celsius since 1957. That result, which Muller called "unexpected," is similar to the findings of independent analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.K. Hadley Centre.

See that "unexpected" in there? That's Muller telling you that you are wrong.
What he's saying is that the crank nonsense from crank-blogger Anthony Watts' crank blog called WUWT is wrong, and that the scientific consensus among climate scientists turns out to have been (unsurprisingly to normal people) correct after all.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Ummm Vince?
The question is about your assertion that MBH98 and the hockey stick is CONFIRMED by BEST.
Notice he says NOTHING AT ALL about MBH98 and/or the Hockey Stick?
My question and my link above also has sweet fa to do with WUWT.
I linked the actual BEST papers and asked you to point us all to where BEST confirms MBH98 and the hockey stick.
I also linked to the report after the release of BEST.

By chameleon (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Just reminding you Vince,
You've asserted this:
Vince @ #9
BEST confirmed the hockey stick is correct.
Bad luck Brad.

I linked to the BEST site and asked you to point out where BEST has done this.
As well as Muller's comments from 2004 (which I did NOT obtain from WUWT) I also linked his comments after the release of BEST information.
You're assertion here:
See that “unexpected” in there? That’s Muller telling you that you are wrong.
What he’s saying is that the crank nonsense from crank-blogger Anthony Watts’ crank blog called WUWT is wrong, and that the scientific consensus among climate scientists turns out to have been (unsurprisingly to normal people) correct after all.'
Is nonsense Vince.

Muller has never spoken to me and I am CONFIDENT that his use of the word UNEXPECTED has nothing at all to do with WUWT, your idea of cranks or a CONFIRMATION of MBH98 and the Hockey Stick.

By chameleon (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Kinda strange that the United States National Academy of Sciences and more than a half dozen subsequent studies have all vindicated the findings of Mann et als 1998 paper.

Strange in that Chameleon ignores that little factoid.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Why does Brad seemingly not understand this?"

Because he's a retard.

Simples.

JeffH,
Does BEST confirm MBH98 and the hockey stick?

By chameleon (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Cammy, despite "Brad's" objections, the common period shared by both studies show exceptional warming during the 20th Century. The 'blade' is the so-called hockey stick.

Wittering about how many unicorns lived during the wondrous but flawed denier myth that is the MWP doesn't change that.

chubby, given that the project was there to see if MBH98 was right or merely the result of incorrect data homogenisation, and that the result of it is that the data really DOES show the increasing trend that MBH98 does, even the bloody AUTHOR says "Yes".

Why the hell do you have a problem with that?

10 killer questions for climate extremists

1. CO2 concentration has risen by 10% in the past 23 years, but the RSS satellite global lower-troposphere temperature-anomaly record shows warming over that period that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How come?

2. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that …to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy – the headcount fallacy. Some 95% of all published arguments for alarm about our influence on the climate say we must believe the “consensus”. Why was Aristotle wrong?

3. Aristotle, 2350 years ago, demonstrated that to argue that the “consensus” is a “consensus” of experts is a logical fallacy – the fallacy of appeal to authority. What has changed since 2350 years ago to make argument from appeal to authority acceptable rather than fallacious?

4. There has been 0.6 Celsius global warming since 1950. There are 5-7 times more polar bears today than there were in 1950. In what meaningful sense, then, are polar bears a species at imminent threat of extinction caused by global warming?

5. A recent paper shows that a naturally-occurring reduction in cloud cover has had four and a half times more warming effect than man-made increases in CO2 concentrations. Why are you so certain that the recently-published paper is wrong?

6. In the past 247 years – almost a quarter of a millennium – the trend in rainfall over England and Wales shows an increase of just 2 inches/year, or 5%. Why do you regard so insignificant an increase over so long a period as being beyond the natural variability of the climate?

7. Australia’s carbon tax, a typical measure intended to make global warming go away, will cost $150 billion over ten years. In that time, the tax is intended to abate 5% of Australia’s CO2 emissions, which represent 1.2% of global emissions. Do you agree, therefore, that at a cost of $150 billion the Australian scheme, if it succeeds, will abate just 0.06% of global CO2 emissions over ten years, at a cost of $150 billion?

8. The IPCC’s own climate-sensitivity equations show that abating 0.06% of global carbon emissions would reduce CO2 concentration from a predicted business-as-usual 410 microatmospheres to 409.988 microatmospheres, and that this would reduce global mean surface temperature by just 0.0006 Celsius degrees – if the carbon tax succeeded every bit as fully as its framers had intended. Do you consider that spending $150 billion to cut surface temperature by 0.00006 Celsius degrees is a sensible, proportionate, cost-effective use of other people’s money?

9. If Australia’s carbon tax were adopted worldwide, and if it worked every bit as well as its inventors had intended, it would cost $317 trillion to abate the one-sixth of a Celsius degree of warming that is predicted for the current decade. That is $45,000 per head of the global population over the period, or 59% of global GDP? Compared with the 1.23%-of-GDP cost of paying to abate the damage from 1/6 C of warming the day after tomorrow, is it worth spending 59% of GDP today?

10. In 2005 the UN said there would be 50 million climate refugees because of rising sea levels and other effects of global warming by 2010. Where are they?

If I suspected for a nanosecond that you understood even half of the big words PantieZ, you might have been in luck for the answers.

But as it's just another of your vacuous cut'n'pastes from some denier troll reservation <b<and the answers are readily available with some application by the enquirer you're out of luck.

Do your own homework.

Guess where that load of bullshit questions originated. None other than the putrid and dishonest mind of the Discount Monk as spewed out in the fishwrap from the SPPI.

Needless to say it is all dishonest nonsense. That explains why our denier trolls picked up on it, their excuse for minds only operate in RO(BS)M.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

All 10 laughably easy.

Why do deniers believe everyone is as retarded as they are?

1. "statistically indistinguishable from zero. How come?"

Because you can't get a statistically significant trend in that time.

Take a longer interval.

2 "to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy – the headcount fallacy"

Since you're arguing by fallacy by appeal to authority, you're wrong.

2 "to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy – the headcount fallacy"

Since you're arguing by fallacy by appeal to authority, you're wrong.

3 "to argue from “consensus” is a logical fallacy – the headcount fallacy"

Since you're arguing by fallacy by appeal to authority, you're wrong.

4. "There are 5-7 times more polar bears today than there were in 1950."

There aren't.

5. "Why are you so certain that the recently-published paper is wrong?"

Nobody has claimed that an unnamed paper is certainly wrong.

6. "Why do you regard so insignificant an increase over so long a period as being beyond the natural variability of the climate?"

Because it is a trend that has continued for 247 years. That isn't a variation. It's a trend.

7. "Do you agree, therefore, that at a cost of $150 billion the Australian scheme, if it succeeds, will abate just 0.06% of global CO2 emissions over ten years, at a cost of $150 billion?"

No.

8. "Do you consider that spending $150 billion to cut surface temperature by 0.00006 Celsius degrees is a sensible, proportionate, cost-effective use of other people’s money?"

It's our money too. You've made evidence-free claims there (again). And yes.

9. "is it worth spending 59% of GDP today?"

Since we'd not spend 59% of GDP, the answer is moot.

10. "Where are they?"

Where are the claims?

Really, for "killer questions", you'd have thought the denialidiots could have managed something at least marginally difficult...

Cheers Ian, I suspected that the general air of pompous, inbred twattery and faux "accuracy" (viz.2350 years ago) had the stench of Brenchley about it.

Hahaha...funny chek. I know, you can't answer any of the questions without lying. Who's the deniers, CAGW mongers or sceptics, one may wonder.

As i said, wow, you alarmistas can't answer without lying. Just a lot of made up stuff. Pathetic indeed. Your blinders are of the really big model.

It's a given that you're too incomptent to check for yourself (or reason for yourself) PantieZ, so of course you'll believe a liar like Monckton. You're a true believer.

"Just a lot of made up stuff."

Yup, that was your list of 10 all right.

Care to show evidence for your claims of lying, you specious retard?

"Who’s the deniers, CAGW mongers or sceptics"

You are, panties.

Indeed, you can be seen as denier by pretending two sides that don't even exist.

There are no CAGW mongers (they are a fiction of deniers like panties here) and there are no skeptics who disagree with the IPCC.

Oh for crying out loud, did the clown actually go back to quoting Monckton? Pentax, did you really think nobody would notice you quoting a proven pathological liar and political shill as long as you did it in a different thread?

@ Vince

Too much whirling has left you confused and disoriented.

Do you even know where you are? You are at Brad's Place.

This is not a house of lies.

What were you thinking? Were you high? Did you really expect to get away with affirming two such grotesque fictions in a single sentence:

"Of course, BEST has now proven that Muller was wrong in 2004, and that MBH98 is correct in 1998."

No it didn't.

How many ways are there of explaining this to you?

BEST studied Earth surface temperatures for the last 250 years.

Therefore, no matter what BEST found, you couldn’t possibly be telling the truth when you claim they confirmed:

1. that Mann’ schtick was “correct,” i.e. that the recent warming trend really is unprecedented in a millennial context because Earth surface temperatures had been comparatively static for century upon century upon century upon century [MH98] (upon century upon century upon century upon century [MBH99])

2. that Muller had been “wrong” to criticize Mann’s algorithm—in other words, Mann’s private, home-coded, non-standard, unexplained, undocumented statistical methods were kosher all along; they had (for example) no a priori tendency to create a hockey-stick shape

It’s logically vertiginous, if not delirious, to believe that either of these claims could have been “proven” by any discovery (no matter what it was) about Earth surface temperatures from1750 onwards.

In exhorting us to believe 2 claims you yourself can’t even think are true, you’re LYING.

Nobody lies with impunity in this house.

Nota bene:

Jeff Harvey has too much integrity to second your lies.

Lotharsson himself will not risk damage to Brand Lotharsson by backing you up.

Smarter people than yourself are washing their hands of your lies, Vince.

You’ll be uncomfortable, unwelcome and unsuccessful at Brad’s Place until you confess your lies and repent.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

"This is not a house of lies"

Says the inveterate liar, who goes on lie, having been spoonfed a bellyfull of denier tripe washed down with frothing denier lies: "in other words, Mann’s private, home-coded, non-standard, unexplained, undocumented statistical methods"
[citation sorely needed] And btw, "Brad's" arse is not a reliable source.

@ chek

Welcome back to Brad's Place.

Last time we met, you voiced confusion about the hockey-stick analogy, thinking perhaps that it referred to the "rapid" warming of the last couple of centuries. I explained that this was merely the "blade" and that a hockey stick also needs a "shaft" or "handle" several times longer than the blade itself.

I trust I managed to make that clear for you.

Now you're back for more. Your desire to learn is commendable.

This time you're skeptical (... as it were) of my characterisation of MBH98's data-crunching steps as "Mann’s private, home-coded, non-standard, unexplained, undocumented statistical methods.”

You ask me for a "citation."

I cite a matter of historical fact:

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, who'd spent years begging, borrowing and stealing the necessary methodological details, which Mann had strangely omitted from his paper.

If you still deny that Mann's methods were "unexplained" and "undocumented", then you're denying a negative—affirming a positive—and the burden of proof is upon you, not us.

If you're right, however, it should be very easy for you to prove it: simply read MBH98 for yourself and tell us all, step by step, how the authors got from the original dendro data to the final graph.

Succeed and you'll be hailed as smarter than anyone inside or outside climate science. But don't get your hopes up. Remember, SEVEN YEARS after the paper was published, the methods of Mann were still a mystery to the mind of man. To quote the Wall St Journal, 2005:

"Mr. McIntyre thinks there are more errors but says his audit is limited because he still doesn't know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it. "Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in," he says.""

I repeat, the supposedly scientific paper had already been in print for SEVEN YEARS, and was still a methodological black box.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ chek

I also see that you think I'm an "inveterate liar." Please enlighten us all by quoting a lie I've told.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Steve McIntyre, who’d spent years begging, borrowing and stealing the necessary methodological details, which Mann had strangely omitted from his paper."

McIntyre and his hokey methods in service to Smokey Joe Barton and the fake Wegman Report were gutted and hung up to dry years ago "Brad". Get with the program, or at least try to keep up.

Mann's data is freely availble, but it's already been legally established that his personal tools are his intellectual property and are not public property.

The self-appointed, know-nothing auditor strings dupes like youi along with his tales. Any real scientist might - if he were too lazy to get his own - request the data, but never the method (which in any event the NAS verified).

Yoiu're a gullible mug "Brad", swallowing evey piece of misinfo, disinfo and lies excreted from the body politic of a scared fossil fuel lobby..

Oh, and this isn't your fiefdom "Brad" - it's the shitbucket you're confined to. A Möbius strip of dirty protest covering walls, floor and ceiling wrapped around your lying butt and egregious found out lies.

@Jeff Harvey,

welcome to Brad's Place!

Recently you asked about AGW denier psychology:


“Which therefore begs the question: why do they hold such views?”


Simplez:

1. let’s find some AGW deniers.


(Don’t you have AGW denier friends you could ask? 
I can’t think of anyone in my immediate circle but if I meet one, I’ll let you know.)

2. let’s ask them.


Surely this would be an improvement on the current method: speculatively, unempirically pop-pscyhologising about their "motives." Surely we can do better than Lewandowsky.

PS ‘begs the question” is a logico-legal phrase that you don’t mean here!


Better to say: “raises” or “prompts” or “inspires the question.”


By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Please enlighten us all by quoting a lie I’ve told."

How about every word you've typed about Dr. Mann for starters.

For these comments
[citation sorely needed]
"February 4, 2013
BEST confirmed the hockey stick is correct.
Bad luck Brad."
February 6, 2013
Of course, BEST has now proven that Muller was wrong in 2004, and that MBH98 is correct in 1998.

By chameleon (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad says,

“Of course, BEST has now proven that Muller was wrong in 2004, and that MBH98 is correct in 1998.“

No it didn’t.

Yes it did.

It's difficult to figure out a plainer way of explaining this to Brad - MBH98 presented a temperature reconstruction that showed unprecedented recent warming.

BEST did the same, thus confirming that MBH98 was correct, as have numerous other studies in the intervening years.

they had (for example) no a priori tendency to create a hockey-stick shape

That's correct - Muller was wrong because Mann's maths did no such thing.
Interesting that you've already forgotten your dishonest insistance that the blade wasn't the relevant thing here, by admitting that the blade is what it's all about.

The incompetent and/or fraudulent analysis by McIntyre and McKitrick that claimed the contrary was quickly proven to have been cobbled together in a highly suspect way, presenting only the carefully-cherry-picked fraction of their data that supported their preconceived conclusion.

Man was right all along, as confirmed by the Koch-funded BEST study which showed the same hockey stick.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

I repeat, the supposedly scientific paper had already been in print for SEVEN YEARS, and was still a methodological black box.

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

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

1/ He's not a genuine scientist

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

3/ He was obsessed with misusing FOI to harass Mann

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

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

6/ Almost everything he says is wrong.

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

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ chek:

"Mann’s data is freely availble,"

1. Right, thanks to years of FOI campaigning.

2. It doesn't follow that anyone knows which of those data Mann actually USED for MBH98. For instance, a very basic question: how many trees is their graph based on, chek?

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." Which he didn't disclose.

"...but it’s already been legally established that his personal tools are his intellectual property and are not public property."

Huh?!

I hate to break it to you, but scientists have to show their working.

Otherwise the whole "methods" section of a scientific paper becomes merely an added extra, like the "Making Of" special feature on the DVD of your favourite movie.

You can choose to believe what "scientists" "conclude" on the basis of mystery methods if you like, and the less-gullible among us can choose not to, and nobody can say who's being more or less "scientific" because it's no longer science we're disagreeing about. It's about "whose arbitrary, unexplained pronouncements on the natural world do you trust?"

Welcome to the bold new Middle Ages, rube.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Vince?
You now assert that:
" Man(n) was right all along, as confirmed by the Koch-funded BEST study which showed the same hockey stick."
You have been linked to the BEST papers.
Where is that particular confirmation?

By chameleon (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Vince:

"they had (for example) no a priori tendency to create a hockey-stick shape

That’s correct – Muller was wrong because Mann’s maths did no such thing."

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

LOL!

"Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he now agrees that Dr. Mann's statistical method "preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data." Dr. Zwiers, chief of the Canadian agency's Center for Climate Modeling and Analysis, says he hasn't had time to study Dr. Mann's rebuttals in detail and can't say who is right.
Dr. Mann, while agreeing that his mathematical method tends to find hockey-stick shapes, says this doesn't mean its results in this case are wrong."

online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB110834031507653590,00.html

Hahahahaha

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

I move that Vince not be permitted to tell any new lies until he has justified/retracted his numerous outstanding lies.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

"1. Right, thanks to years of FOI campaigning"

Wrong. "My research is all based on data sets regarding the Earth’s climate that are freely and widely available to all researchers" - Dr Michael Mann.

You're just regurgitating denier lies "Brad". Anything you say without citation will be ignored as just yet more johnny-come-lately conflated denier lies.

Actually, as Dr. Mann's 2005 letter to Congressman Barton states, Dr. Mann's data is available on Internet at government and university sites. On page 6 of his letter to Congressman Barton, Dr. Mann even provides the link where the computer code used to make his 1998 "hockey stick" graph can be accessed.

"2. It doesn’t follow that anyone knows which of those data Mann actually USED for MBH98. For instance, a very basic question: how many trees is their graph based on, chek?"

Read the paper and find out, dumbass. It's hidden in plain sight. Chalk up another blogscience lie that "Brad" swallowed

"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.” Which he didn’t disclose."

See above.
And - "The NRC committee stated that "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators". It said "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium", though there were substantial uncertainties before about 1600. It added that "Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that 'the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium' because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales." It noted that "Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence"
- NRC report June 2006.

Mann's results have since been confirmed by other studies many times (maybe ten, I lost count but I frankly I'm not getting into a bloody hockey stick debate here and now in 20fucking12 because of some know-nothing turning up knowing fuck all..

You're just another dumbassdenier repeater who - like Ben Santer said years ago - thinks that fixating on Mann and/or the hockey stick will kill the IPCC. It won;t.

Remember those citations in future, shitbucket. Otherwise it goes without saying you're just spraying old, old ancient and worthless denier shit around, Braddyboy. And that isn't worth answering.

.

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

What a pathetic lying troll.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Ian

"What as pathetic troll Keyes is."

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

Where does BEST diverge from the hockey stick, moron?

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Lotharsson (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chameleon needs it spelled out to her:

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

Let me type this really really slowly for you:

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

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

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

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

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

Mann’s data is freely availble,”

1. Right, thanks to years of FOI campaigning.

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

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

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

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

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

1/ He’s not a genuine scientist

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

3/ He was obsessed with misusing FOI to harass Mann

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

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

6/ Almost everything he says is wrong.

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

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

PeterD asks Brad about his "source",

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

Easy!

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

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

...and which part of MBH98 was confirmed by BEST?

The upturn at the end!

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

Thanks for your help there, Brad.

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

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

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

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 06 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

@ chek

"Where does BEST diverge from the hockey stick, moron?"

When did I say it diverged from it, imbecile?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

When did I say it diverged from it, imbecile?

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

Stop being such a predictably evasive cretin "Brad", .

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

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

Again, you little weasel, this is Monckton:

h_ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
h_ttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/mike-steketees-respon…
h_ttp://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2010/0409/20100409_103701_Monckton_Mystery_Solved.pdf
h_ttp://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/monckton-jumps-shark-gets-eaten.html
h_ttp://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/monckton-lies-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-the-continuing-saga-of-a-practicer-of-fiction/
h_ttp://www.politicususa.com/christopher-monckton-man-lies-credentials-question…
h_ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/monckton-lies-to-ap-denie_b_3922…
h_ttp://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html

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

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

You just don't want to accept them.

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

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ chameleon:

"Vince is now asserting that it is the SAME hockey stick!"

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

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Hey kids,

Let's play Logic With @Wow!

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

"when did I say it diverged from it?"

You've already been told.

Are you that hard of reading?

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

Are we really?

Well, we are wrong, aren't we.

Brad contravenes reality with:

BEST didn’t show ANY hockey stick.

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

Neither of which is seen in the BEST findings.

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Vince:

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

Make up your mind, Sigmund Freud.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

“when did I say it diverged from it?”

You’ve already been told.

Are you that hard of reading?

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

Stop lying, alarmist trolls.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Richard Muller:

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

By chameleon (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Vince:

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

Make up your mind, Sigmund Freud.

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

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

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

Ooh, look, more dishonesty - Brad just can't help himself:

We know, thanks to the Climategate whistleblower,...

As the Norfolk Constabulary say,

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

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

Have you learned your lesson?

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

@Vince

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

Stop lying, Vince.

BEST didn't study Mann's mathematics!

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 07 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

@Vince,

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

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

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

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

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

1. that BEST "proved" that Mann's Hockey Stick [MBH98, 99] was "correct"

2. that BEST "proved" that Mann's Hockey Stick was not an artifact of Mann's math

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

Remember, bad science + correct result = bad science!

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

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

Are you that hard of reading?

… which is understandable, because no such quote exists.

So, yes, you are that hard of reading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I'll stick to "whistleblower" until proven otherwise, thanks.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Wow, I'm calling your bluff.

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

Show us the quote or go tell your lies elsewhere.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

IT'S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!

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

What a hoot!!!

@chek

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

Unprecedented, chek?

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

Subtle.

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

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

"IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!"

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ chek:

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

Sorry, kiddo, you're lying here.

Hell, where AREN'T you lying?

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve got a lot of data

Interestingly, you're the only one who can see it...

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

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

It found that the MBH98 temperature record was sound.

Go to the source:

http://berkeleyearth.org/

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

OK, I'll .......... speak .............very ............slowly...........especially ............for ........you .............."Brad".

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

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

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad’s Place is my thread.

It's not your blog.

Whose did you think it was?

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

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

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

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

Wow @ #54:

I was quoting chek:

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Brad’s Place is my thread. "

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

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

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

“IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!”

Then quote it.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

Which was exactly what was confirmed by BEST.

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

@ chek:

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

Which was exactly what was confirmed by BEST."

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

Why not?

BECAUSE THEY ONLY STUDIED THE LAST 250 YEARS.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"why can’t you people obey Lazarus’ Maxim?"

Why can't you apply yourself?

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

"“IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!”

Then quote it."

CAN'T YOU READ!!!!!

IT'S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!!!!

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

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

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

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

"““IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!”

Then quote it.”

CAN’T YOU READ!!!!!

IT’S ON THIS BLOODY PAGE!!!!"

Then quote it.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

You're still not comprehending the difference between regional events and global hemispherical reconstructions are you "Brad".

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

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

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

@chek's comeback was:

"Only it didn’t, despite the best efforts of liars and sophists..."

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@chek, thank you for your concern:

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

but what is a "global hemispherical reconstruction"? Is it global or hemispherical?

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

You're not very bright, are you.

"They didn’t make the CRU look bad?!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

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

Why are you so very DETERMINED to be dumb?

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

Which claims have you made?

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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

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

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

"Is it global or hemispherical?"

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

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

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

Nope. Are you?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Nope."

Got proof?

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

You were told.

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

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

It's two.

Two HEMI spheres in a SPHERE.

Jeesus frigging christ, you're thick!

And, apparently you have data for neither.

"that it was just word salad."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!

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

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

But he doesn't read.

He only concludes.

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

What a frigging pissant retard.

@ Wow,

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

No results found for "global hemispherical reconstructions".

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"According to google, word salad:"

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

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

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

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

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

I guess you agree I'm around 3.88 million times smarter than you, too, eh?

After all, you "found" zero matches. I found millions.

@ Wow, it's trivial to find articles about global reconstructions AND/OR hemispheric reconstructions. The question I'm asking—which you keep dodging, for some reason—is:

"what is a global hemispheric reconstruction?"

HINT: to search google for an exact phrase, use quotation marks around it—e.g., "global hemispheric reconstruction."

No results found for "global hemispheric reconstruction".

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"@ Wow, it’s trivial to find articles about global reconstructions AND/OR hemispheric reconstructions"

YOU found zero.

I guess you're just agreeing with us that even the trivial is beyond your capabilities!

"to search google for an exact phrase"

Why do you want to do that?

"“@ Wow, it’s trivial to find articles about global reconstructions AND/OR hemispheric reconstructions”

YOU found zero."

Wrong. When I omitted the quotes, I got over 5 million hits, of which several were scholarly articles.

But they were about "global AND hemispheric reconstructions", "reconstructions ON global, hemispheric AND regional scales", etc.

That is why you mustn't omit the quotes.

Hurry up. You still owe us an explanation of "global hemispheric reconstruction."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

““@ Wow, it’s trivial to find articles about global reconstructions AND/OR hemispheric reconstructions”

YOU found zero.”

Wrong

Nope, I was right. EVEN YOU admit it:

"No results found for “global hemispheric reconstruction”"

Hurry up. You still owe us an explanation of “global hemispheric reconstruction.”

Shit, catch up on paying your dues, retard, before demanding payment.

"“to search google for an exact phrase”

Why do you want to do that?"

To see whether anyone else in the history of the Internet has ever used those 3 words in that order before, or whether you and chek are inventing your own private terminology.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

Wow @ #6

I don't get your strategy. Why are you linking people to a question you refused to answer: "which claims about the MWP would you like to know my source for?" Such a link will only add to the Internet's impression that you're evasive.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"To see whether anyone else in the history of the Internet has ever used those 3 words in that order before"

Why did you feel that was needed?

Was it merely some form of desire to find a complex googlewhackblat?

Insanity?

Boredom?

"I don’t get your strategy."

It's called "ask" not strategy.

"Why are you linking people to a question you refused to answer"

I'm not. I'm linking to a question YOU have refused to answer.

I guess this is yet more concrete proof that "reading" isn't something you do, is it you warm streak of piss.

"Brad" your referenceswere to MBH98//99 - one was global one was hemispheric - hence global hemispheric or global/hemispheric if you prefer. Now put your one good synapse back in the jar and let it rest. It's just learned something, you petty little word parser you. But then that's all you've got isn't it? You certainly don't have even any basic knowledge..

No hold on wait... this needs to be examined too.
Wow, did they know they could embarrass the CRU “scientists” merely by obtaining their emails

Firstly there were several instances of universities studying climate being burgled, or having to chase phoney technicians off the premises. It wasn't just UEA that was under attack.

Secondly, there was one person in particular with a raging hard on for UEA data who was personally insulted by Phil Jones telling him to take a hike. I stronly suspect - not that I'm advocating such a thing - Heaven forfend! - that if Stevie and his inner coven were waterboarded, some leads would bereadily forthcoming for the authorities to follow up.

Thirdly following on from the above, I think the hackers were too incomptent to hack UEA's data, and had to settle for the back up mail server.

Which as we now know gained them nothing but a minor blogstorm in the crankosphere unnoticed by the general public who don't care what happens in crankworld, and the end of tolerance for them by scientists. As Tim Ball and CEI are discovering.

The only people who should be embarrassed were those trying to spin "trick" and "hide the decline" into something nefarious, but they don't understand the concept of shame (except as a ploy to adopt when caught).

As your last argument ("you warm streak of piss") makes clear, you have no argument. It's quite obvious to both of us that "global hemispheric reconstruction" is word salad. If it had been used by actual scientists at some point, then we might give it the benefit of the doubt by presuming it was a term of art with a meaning obvious to those scientists, if not to us.

But apparently it hasn't been written before. You and chek appear to be the only people on earth who know what you mean by "global hemispheric reconstruction", and you're conspicuously unwilling to tell the other 6,999,999,998 of us what it means. How cute—you and your widdle fwend have a private wanguage! ;-) You're adorable, Wow. :-)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ chek, thank you for FINALLY conceding that an "or" sign was missing.

"“Brad” your referenceswere to MBH98//99 – one was global one was hemispheric – hence global hemispheric or global/hemispheric if you prefer."

See Wow—chek can do it.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

As your last argument (“you warm streak of piss”) makes clear, you have no argument

Yup, pegging straight zero for comprehension.

You are wrong.

I have plenty of argument, and you ARE a warm streak of piss. The fact of one does not mean the nonexistence of the other.

However, you have nothing other than cod-psychology to work with and hence have to clutch at straws to pretend you have no case to answer.

Which rather goes to prove you have nothing.

Ironic, eh?

"@ chek, thank you for FINALLY conceding that an “or” sign was missing."

What the FUCK?????

All this whining and pissing and moaning and all you had to do was ask "Do you mean hemispheric or global?"

???

Fucking drama queen, aren't you!

"See Wow—chek can do it."

Do what? All your fucking work for you, you lazy gobshite?

"You and chek appear to be the only people on earth who know what you mean by “global hemispheric reconstruction”,"

Nope.

People who have a working brain cell have.

They just don't know why the hell you're so fucking ignorant.

PS in other words "Prove it".

And note too that despite Brat-the-twat prancing around with his "or", no actual data or proof or anything is forthcoming.

Answers are only for "lesser mortals", not for this dripping bumgravy.

See Wow—chek can do it.

No, Wow has you pegged as a petty, incompetent ignoramus too.

@ chek, thanks for writing a responsive comment for a change. I'm not convinced by your argument, but I respect your right to make it and the right of all others to swim if they can't put up an argument.

"Firstly there were several instances of universities studying climate being burgled, or having to chase phoney technicians off the premises. It wasn’t just UEA that was under attack."

Did any other climate science department's emails get stolen? (Not a rhetorical question—I honestly don't know.)

Secondly, there was one person in particular with a raging hard on for UEA data who was personally insulted by Phil Jones telling him to take a hike.

Who, Warwick Hughes? The scientist to whom Phil Jones wrote the infamous question:

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

Again, though: why would he or anyone else go to the effort and risk of stealing the CRU's backup email data without some a priori reason to think the theft would turn up such juicy meat as "hide the decline", "redefine the peer-reviewed literature if necessary," "beat the crap out of [Patrick Michaels]", etc.?

"The only people who should be embarrassed were those trying to spin “trick” and “hide the decline” into something nefarious, but they don’t understand the concept of shame (except as a ploy to adopt when caught)."

Who tried to spin "trick" into something nefarious?

Its nefariousness is wholly and obviously subordinate to that of the following phrase. (A "trick" to do something kosher is itself kosher, as everyone knows. A "trick" to do something haram is itself haram.)

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Did any other climate science department’s emails get stolen?"

So you admit it was stolen from CRU.

"Who, Warwick Hughes?"

You're a moron, you know that?

"why would he or anyone else go to the effort and risk of stealing the CRU’s backup email data without some a priori reason..."

It's called "a fishing expedition" you dripping bumgravy.

Are you SERIOUSLY pretending to have gone to university to study philosophy and HAVEN'T HEARD of Richelieu?

Fucking hell, you're a moron!

"Who tried to spin “trick” into something nefarious? "

Yup, more proof you're a moron.

"The verb “to hide” is anti-scientific in se."

FUCKING RUBBISH!

Really, WHAT decline was hidden?

REALLY.

REALLY REALLY.

WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?

WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?

_WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?_

Since punctuation is clearly too much to expect of you, I suppose I'll have to fix this myself:

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

Yes, I understand it with blinding clarity. The two sets are distinguished by these facts:

1. one contains events, the other contains reconstructions

2. one contains regional things, the other contains global/hemispheric things

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Wow reveals a deep unfamiliarity with climate-science news:

"WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?"

Jones hid the decline in MXD of his dendro proxies for the period 1960-present. Look at the graph he presented to the WMO—not only is the decline gone, it's been replaced by an incline.

Everyone else seems to know this, Wow. Weren't you paying any attention in the period 2009-present?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Jones hid the decline in MXD of his dendro proxies for the period 1960-present. "

No, there is no decline in the proxies. He has more proxies from 1960 onwards than for earlier times.

TRY AGAIN.

"it’s been replaced by an incline."

WRONG!!!!

Go on, show the specific graph you mean and tell me the colour of that line and I'll tell you what is going on, because YOU, you retard, are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY CLUELESS.

"Everyone else seems to know this, Wow."

NOBODY knows "this", because "this" is completely made up!

My god, don't you know what the result of SIX NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS into it was?

WERE YOU UNDER A ROCK????

Or are you just completely and utterly incapable of learning anything?

@ Wow:

"“Did any other climate science department’s emails get stolen?”

So you admit it was stolen from CRU."

No, but since you claim other universities were being targeted by burglars and phoney technicians, I want to know if said criminals ever stole CLIMATE SCIENTISTS' EMAILS. Did they?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"1. one contains events, the other contains reconstructions"

Which one contains events and which one reconstructions????

““Did any other climate science department’s emails get stolen?”

So you admit it was stolen from CRU.”

No

Then why did you ask about other emails being stolen???

Don't you have a clue what you're writing?

but since you claim other universities were being targeted by burglars

Liar.

I want to know if said criminals ever stole CLIMATE SCIENTISTS’ EMAILS. Did they?

Yes.

@ Wow:

“Jones hid the decline in MXD of his dendro proxies for the period 1960-present. ”

No, there is no decline in the proxies. He has more proxies from 1960 onwards than for earlier times.

I didn't say there were fewer proxies from 1960 onwards. I said that there was a decline in the maximum latewood density [MXD] thereof.

Read all the words.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"My god, don’t you know what the result of SIX NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS into it was?"

My god, do you actually think SIX NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS INVESTIGATED "HIDE THE DECLINE"?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

I didn’t say there were fewer proxies from 1960 onwards

Yes you did: "the decline in MXD of his dendro proxies "

Since the trees still laid down wood in their growth, there's more wood laid down.

You also seem to be REALLY REALLY confused about what the hockey stick is about.

It's about TEMPERATURE.

Not how thick a tree ring is.

What a useless splat of bumgravy you are, Brat.

My god, do you actually think SIX NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS INVESTIGATED “HIDE THE DECLINE”?

No, I KNOW they did.

Where the fuck were you, you lazy bag of putrid shite?

“1. one contains events, the other contains reconstructions”

Which one contains events and which one reconstructions????

The set "regional events" contains events and "global/hemispheric reconstructions" contains reconstructions.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

The set “regional events” contains events

There are not sets there.

TRY AGAIN.

@Wow:

"My god, do you actually think SIX NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS INVESTIGATED “HIDE THE DECLINE”?

No, I KNOW they did."

Would you care to name the 6, so that I might acquaint myself with their concluding assertions?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

NOTE: Events can be reconstructed.

You have to display PRECISELY what you're talking about you watery streak of piss.

Would you care to name the 6

So you admit you were ignorant of everything about the CRU other than the denier spiel.

Just fucking google it, you retard.

PS I missed one.

There were 7.

Would you care to name the 6

So you admit you were ignorant of everything about the CRU other than the denier spiel.

No, not at all. I expect I know more about the "investigations" than you do. For instance, I know how far out of their way some of them went to avoid investigating the "Hide the Decline" issue. Which is why I'd be very interested to know the names of 6 (or 7) "national investigations" that INVESTIGATED “HIDE THE DECLINE”.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

So you admit you were ignorant of everything about the CRU other than the denier spiel.

No, not at all.

So you know the 6 then?

INVESTIGATED “HIDE THE DECLINE”.

You don't even know what the bloody decline IS!

"You also seem to be REALLY REALLY confused about what the hockey stick is about.

It’s about TEMPERATURE.

Not how thick a tree ring is."

Don't worry, I'm well aware of what the graph represents, what it claims to represent, and the difference between them, thanks very much.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

Don’t worry,

I'm not the least bit worried!

I’m well aware of what the graph represents,

No, you don't. You don't know the first thing about what you're on about.

"You don’t even know what the bloody decline IS!"

Yes I do. It's the decreasing trend in the MXD of Phil Jones' dendro proxies since 1960.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

WRONG! The graph IS NOT tree ring thickness!

Do you have to be told the answer?

So, Wow, before we lose all interest / patience in you: please name 7 national investigations that INVESTIGATED the "Hide the Decline" issue.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

It also isn't Jones' dendro proxies.

And it's also NOT since 1960.

YOU KNOW NOTHING about this.

please name 7 national investigations that INVESTIGATED the “Hide the Decline” issue.

So you DON'T know what they were, then?

You ARE ignorant of everything other than denier spiel on this!

"Do you have to be told the answer?"

Not as such—we know the correct answer. However, we have no way of divining your answer, so yes, please tell us: what do you think "the decline" was?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

Not as such—we know the correct answer

You definitely don't.

So less "we" there, hmm.

Here's a hint, since you fail to grasp even the simplest of concepts: The graph IS NOT tree ring thickness!

"please name 7 national investigations that INVESTIGATED the “Hide the Decline” issue.

So you DON’T know what they were, then?"

No, of course I don't—that's why I'm asking you, though you increasingly appear to have no idea either.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

No, of course I don’t

FINALLY!!!!

You ADMIT you don't know what the hell you're talking about!

Why the hell did you make such a song-and-dance about avoiding it?

No, we don't need hints, Wow, we need a straight answer: what is your understanding of what "the decline" referred to?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

we need a straight answer

Is one using the royal "we" now?

Here's a further tip: if the graph is NOT how thick a tree ring is, but is instead about TEMPERATURE, then how can a decline hidden on it be from tree thickness figures?

Are you pretending to be a multitude because you're all lonesome in your idiocy here?

And remember, it requires YOU to say what the decline is because it is YOU that insists that this is something anti-scientific.

@ Wow:

"You ADMIT you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!"

No, we admit we don't know what the hell you're talking about when you assert that there were 7 national investigations that investigated the "Hide the Decline" issue. And we suspect you don't know either. One way to dispel our suspicion would be to actually name them. If the investigations you name DID investigate the "Hide the Decline" issue, then you and we will ALL know what the hell you're talking about. Wouldn't that be nice?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

we admit we don’t know

The royal we again? Are you suffering from multiple personality disorder?

And, correct, you don't know shit. Or jack.

And we suspect you don’t know either.

We? Still with the "we"? Well, you ARE a streak of warm piss, so "wee" may be considered correct.

JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT.

CRU investigation.

@ Wow:

"JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT."

So you don't know. Thought as much.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

when you assert that there were 7 national investigations that investigated the “Hide the Decline” issue.

This isn't the only thing you're clueless about.

WHAT IS THE DECLINE THAT IS HIDDEN.

I realise that your pin sized brain can't hold even one thought, so asking for two is beyond the pale, but there's an entire fucking THREAD for you to write your "thoughts" on.

“JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT.”

So you don’t know.

Nope, I know.

I know that you don't know how to google.

But that isn't why I say you should google it.

Do some work in your fucking lazy life you over-opinionated work-shy idiot scrounger.

Fuck, how the hell did you find about the CRU emails in the first place, you ignorant pustule?

"Nope, I know.

I know that you don’t know how to google.

But that isn’t why I say you should google it."

Says the guy who doesn't know why you put quotation marks around "global hemispheric reconstructions" in order to restrict the search to the exact phrase.

Listen, Wow, plenty of people have googled "CRU investigation" and received a smorgasbord of references to investigations that did not investigate the "Hide the Decline" issue. So unless you can do better than "google it, poopy-heads" followed by a search string that doesn't point to the answer, we have to conclude that the question has stumped you, as expected.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

Says the guy who doesn’t know why you put quotation marks around “global hemispheric reconstructions” in order to restrict the search to the exact phrase.

WRONG!

I know that.

What I don't know is why you decided unilaterally to do that.

that did not investigate the “Hide the Decline” issue

Bollocks again.

They did.

But you have to understand what "decline" was being "hidden" otherwise you're looking for the wrong thing.

Which you do because that's what you've been told to do by someone who at least as one full brain cell to work with.

YOU, however, have NO CLUE what the decline was.

Fuck, you even showed yourself that you think the investigations were into the decline:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-pa…

Since CRU investigations were investigations into the CRU and the science, these investigations were investigating the claim of "hiding the decline".

However, since you're ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS about what the hell is going on, you're left wondering.

YOU claim "hide the decline" is anti-science, but you DON'T KNOW what the phrase is about!

Par for your denier course, mind: make the conclusion, then stick to it.

followed by a search string that doesn’t point to the answer

CRU investigation, you retard.

Keyes is a dishonest troll and is wasting everyone's' time here. It is easy to show that Wow is correct and that there were in fact 7 inquiries into the science conducted by Phil Jones and the CRU at UEA.

Keyes is one of those loathsome idiots who argues for the sake of arguing. If a respected scientist stated that the sky was blue idiots like Keyes would argue that it is not. We have all met these narcissists during our university days, these were the fools who would march up to the lecturer after a lecture and tell him that everything he said was wrong. Luckily most of them never graduated and so never got into positions where they have any effect on the day to day workings of the world and its people.

The only way they can appear to be intelligent is by using big words, which they don't understand and hope that their audience doesn't either, on blogs rather in the mainstream science or in accredited literary outlets. Unfortunately for people like Keyes their audience is a great deal smarter than they are.

Keyes should be ignored.

By Ian Forrester (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Keyes should be ignored."

He should be shitcanned.

But that ain't happening.

@ Collected Wow:

"Really, WHAT decline was hidden?
REALLY.
REALLY REALLY.
WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?
WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?
_WHAT DECLINE WAS HIDDEN?_
YOU, however, have NO CLUE what the decline was.
You don’t even know what the bloody decline IS!
Do you have to be told the answer?
Here’s a hint, since you fail to grasp even the simplest of concepts: The graph IS NOT tree ring thickness!
And remember, it requires YOU to say what the decline is because it is YOU that insists that this is something anti-scientific.
WHAT IS THE DECLINE THAT IS HIDDEN.
But you have to understand what “decline” was being “hidden” otherwise you’re looking for the wrong thing.
Which you do because that’s what you’ve been told to do by someone who at least as one full brain cell to work with.
YOU, however, have NO CLUE what the decline was.
YOU claim “hide the decline” is anti-science, but you DON’T KNOW what the phrase is about!"

How much energy have you spent AVOIDING telling us what you think "the decline" means, Wow?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ Ian:

"It is easy to show that Wow is correct and that there were in fact 7 inquiries into the science conducted by Phil Jones and the CRU at UEA."

And which of those 7 actually investigated the "Hide the Decline" issue, Ian?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

Questions you have vigorously, volubly, verbosely failed to answer, Wow:

1. What does "the decline" refer to?

2. What 7 investigations actually investigated the "Hide the Decline" issue?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

Wow, you're slow.

"Says the guy who doesn’t know why you put quotation marks around “global hemispheric reconstructions” in order to restrict the search to the exact phrase.

WRONG!

I know that.

What I don’t know is why you decided unilaterally to do that."

I've explained why I did it—because you used the phrase "global hemispheric reconstruction" (which I've never seen before, and which looks pretty suspect if you ask me). In order to search for a phrase on google you need to enclose it in quotes. Otherwise you get millions of irrelevant hits about "global conference on the hemispheric repair and reconstruction of ...", yadda yadda.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

Questions you have vigorously, volubly, verbosely failed to answer, Brad:

1. What does “the decline” refer to?

2. Where is your data?

I’ve explained why I did it—because you used the phrase “global hemispheric reconstruction”

Liar again.

And the person who DID say it never used quotes around those three words.

Hint: Google puts "most relevant search results" first.

Hey, idiot-boy, did you know that we had THERMOMETERS in the 1960's?

@ Wow, you seem to object to this:

"I’ve explained why I did it—because you used the phrase “global hemispheric reconstruction”"

I forgot whether it was your phrase or chek's. Whatever. One of you said it and the other is defending it to the bitter death, never mind that it makes bugger-all sense.

Here's your killer point though:

"And the person who DID say it never used quotes around those three words."

LOL!!!

Wow, Wow, Wow... when normal people reference phrases used by others, they often use quotes, a.k.a. quotation marks, to mark the text being quoted.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

I forgot whether it was your phrase or chek’s

What do you mean "whatever"?

You've been whining at me about saying something I've not said.

When it's done to YOU, you go all screaming tart on everyone and DEMAND retraction.

When YOU do it, "Whatevah".

never mind that it makes bugger-all sense.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.

Putting quotes around it was YOUR idea. And it makes bugger all sense. But YOU did it.

Not chek, not me, not Vinny, YOU.

they often use quotes, a.k.a. quotation marks, to mark the text being quoted.

Then do so. That's fine. What ISN'T is putting it around a google search because, and you don't seem to know this, if you do so, you're not quoting someone, you're limiting to PRECISELY the words used.

And that is why you suck at google.

"Questions you have vigorously, volubly, verbosely failed to answer, Brad:

1. What does “the decline” refer to?"

I have given my answer to this twice now, Wow. Most recently, see comment #28 on this very page.

"2. Where is your data?"

Hmm. "My data". What could that mean... what could that mean...

In my left parietal lobe. On the bookshelf in front of me. Out There In Nature. In the mail? Behind your ear—look! In the primary literature?

Close?

No? Then I have no idea how to answer your ridiculous, half-formed question. Perhaps if you could articulate your needs a bit better I might be able to address them.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

I have given my answer to this twice now, Wow.

And you don't see a problem in talking about tree growth in a graph ABOUT TEMPERATURES????

THIS is why everyone knows and recognizes your incompetence.

In my left parietal lobe. On the bookshelf in front of me. Out There In Nature. In the mail? Behind your ear—look! In the primary literature?

So, like chek suspected, you have none.

So Brad, do you think the misnomered 'MWP' *was* warmer than the present? Or was the basis of this... discussion about something else?

Forgive me for just coming right out and asking, but I can't be faffed to plough back through nX comments to find out where the bone of contention is buried.

"Then do so. That’s fine. What ISN’T is putting it around a google search because, and you don’t seem to know this, if you do so, you’re not quoting someone, you’re limiting to PRECISELY the words used."

Actually we do know that, and that was the whole point. We wanted to know what chek meant when he used precisely the words he used: "global hemispheric reconstruction." Not "global or hemispheric reconstruction." Not "hemiglobal and spherical reconstruction." Not "hemoglobin construction in spherocytes."

Global hemispheric reconstruction.

Nobody else on the world wide web knows what it means, as far as we can tell.

Chek has since amended it to "global/hemispheric reconstruction", which makes a lot more sense. You don't seem to have noticed chek's intervention and are still maniacally defending the original, senseless phrase.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ BBD

That's a good question but no, it's not the bone of contention here. If I remember my ancient history, we're arguing because some long-vanished, vanquished villain vapidly averred that the BEST study (which examined Earth surface temperatures, starting at 1750) had "proven" Michael Mann's Hockey Stick "correct." Which is a numerical stretch too far even for Lotharsson to attempt in defense of the "orthodox" view, I'm afraid.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

Brad

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

Prior to that, we are of course in the dark forest of Proxy... ;-)

Actually we do know that,

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

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.

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

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

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?

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ BBD

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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???

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

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.

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.

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".

@ 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. :-)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

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

Yup, i meant proved it was correct.

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.

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?

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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

ALL SEVEN.

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.

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.

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

"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"?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

"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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

"Boring."

But readily apparent nevertheless.

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.

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).

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

;-)

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

I give up.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 08 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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/

@ 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."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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".

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

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.

“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?

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?

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.

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.

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

"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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

”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/

=)

"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.

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

Chek @ 45

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

A born empiricist, me.

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.

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.

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?

All which investigations?

ALL SEVEN CRU investigations.

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.

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.

Come on, Brat, why do you keep using "We"?

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?

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

Nothing hidden there.

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

"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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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.

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?

@ 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."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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?

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?

@ 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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

"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.

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?

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 [!]

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

WHAT do you think declined, Wow?

The intelligence of deniers, Brat.

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

… apparently because it was quoted at ClimateAudit.

Yes, that is what hearsay means.

Do you lack EVERY form of education????

Glorious example?

NOTHING WAS HIDDEN.

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!

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!".

@ 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.)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

Arrrgh! THEY PUT IT THERE!

Yes, TTGGWS put it there.

Moron.

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

"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."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

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.

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.

“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?

And what is "Mike's Nature trick"?

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???

And what was misleading about the graph, hmm?

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

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?

@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 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.”

;-)

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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.

“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.

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.

@ Wow's latest desperate fabrication:

"Except that decline isn’t hidden."

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

1. look at the graph

There is no graph.

2. where is the decline?

Nowhere.

"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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

Obviously. And?

So you admit you're deliberately changing the meaning.

"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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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.

"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."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink
“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.

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.

@ Wow,

the graph is on this page:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Muller-Misinformation-1-confusing-Mikes…

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?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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

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

Again.

Liar.

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

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?

The WMO graph was a graph of TEMPERATURES.

Not a graph of how trees were feeling.

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

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

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!!!!

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?

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.

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...

@ 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)."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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!".

"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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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.

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.

“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-pa…

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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

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.

@ 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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

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.

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.

"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”?

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

So Phil Jones was lying, was he,

No.

He was talking to colleagues.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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".

if he actually didn’t hide something?

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

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

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.

And where is the buried body of Eric?

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

"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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

But you’ve been told this already.

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

… but only after 1960.”

Evidence?

Got any

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Why not?

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".

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

Wonder how you could have missed that.

I didn't.

Just like you "missed" Steve Ballmer vowing to bury someone.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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!".

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.

By chameleon (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

"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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.

"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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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

"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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

"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.)

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."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.”

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ adelady,

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

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

@ 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.

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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."

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink

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.)

@ 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).

By Brad Keyes (not verified) on 09 Feb 2013 #permalink