Chinese corporate hackers, the Chamber of Commerce, Fakegate

What do they have in common?  Apparently some methodologies, uncovered by the hacktivist group Anonymous.

Details can be found in an interesting, if dense, article at The Nation, which describes how Anonymous revealed dealings the Chamber of Commerce was having with a Cyber Security firm that did not limit itself to defensive measures.

Attorneys for the Chamber were caught negotiating for a contract to launch a cyber campaign using practically identical methods to those attributed to the Chinese, which reportedly could be used to cripple vital infrastructure and plunder trade secrets from Fortune 100 companies. The Chamber was seeking to undermine its political opposition, including the Service Employee International Union (SEIU) and MoveOn.org, but apparently had to scotch the plan after it was revealed by Anonymous.

[...]

The story of both the Mandiant report and the American lobbyist hacking conspiracy begins in February of 2011, when the hacktivist group Anonymous stole some 70,000 e-mails from a Bethesda, Maryland-based firm called HBGary Federal and dumped them onto the Internet. HBGary Federal was an affiliate of HBGary, a firm that maintained a database and discussion forum of hacking software called Rootkit.com, which served as a “malware repository where researchers stud[ied] hacking techniques from all over the world.” It appears the Chinese hackers, known as the “Comment Crew,” had participated to gain the types of software used to compromise computers owned by dozens of American interests.

The connection to the Heartland Institute is just circumstantial and I make that connection here:

The presentations, which were also leaked by Anonymous, contained ethically questionable tactics, like creating a “false document, perhaps highlighting periodical financial information,” to give to a progressive group opposing the Chamber, and then subsequently exposing the document as a fake to undermine the credibility of the Chamber’s opponents.

I think we have here by far the most plausible explanation for the still mysterious beginning of the whole FakeGate controversy from just over a year ago.  Heartland itself is likely the source of the initial forged document that came into Peter's possession, but rather than simply running with it into their trap, he unexpectedly sought to verify its contents with a subterfuge of his own and thus got his hands on the real goods.  (BTW, that is what is called real skepticism!).  This also explains Heartlands rather shrill protestations, it is very hard to stomach when plots like that back-fire into your own face!

So, except for the absence of actual evidence, I think we can say "case closed"!

Any thoughts?

 

More like this

Hacktivists have struck a blow against the regime in Zimbabwe by attacking a number of government websites. The cyber-assault appears to have been in support of newspapers who published secret cables in the ongoing WikiLeaks saga, to the annoyance of the-powers-that-be in the country. Grace Mugabe…
Shorter David Klinghoffer: National Center for Science Education, Darwin/Climate Enforcers, Humiliated by Forged Document Scandal: Ethical questions about someone with no formal ties to NCSE clearly demonstrates the scientific, pedagogical, and moral failings of NCSE. So Peter Gleick outed himself…
A secret fundraising document from a shadowy anti-science institute was accidentally made public. The document candidly lays out the anti-science agenda of group, including efforts to undermine science education in public schools, but also plans to broadly redefine society. The year was 1998, and…
This seems to be fairly big news. The Heartland Institute is a conservative and libertarian "think" tank that cut its teeth on denying the dangers of cigarette smoking back in the 1990s. These days the Heartland Institute seems to be focused on Anthropogenic Climate Change Denialism and Science…

I like your reasoning! When Heartland protested 'fake!' they were correct,only neglecting to admit it was their own work! Chuckle. What a miserable soul-destroying existence,working for a bunch of liars for hire.

The money is good, though.

It takes much less effort and absolutely no research to make shit up, whereas if you're restricted to having to prove your stuff, that can get expensive, cutting in to the profit margin.

I always thought the fake documents about GW Bush military service were a plant of this type. It was such an easy way to shut the issue down, and those guys were devious enough to use it.

By Susan Anderson (not verified) on 16 Mar 2013 #permalink

Nick, Susan, Russell

Is it maybe your hidden agenda to spin some republican policy bashing here? Have you ever, only in a sole instance, agreed to anything President Bush or the Heartland Insitute has said? No? Then you are only partizan (green, left, liberal, AGW alarmistic, against shale gas etc.) and not objective.

Freddykaitroll doesn't know who Russell Seitz is. Quite funny. In case he doesn't know, Russell's a Republican.

Freddykaitroll shows some old fashioned partizan thinking: if you are not for me, you are against me, and thus anyone criticizing Heartland or a Republican must be a Democrat.

Marco, wrong answer, you failed to answer my question: have you ever abstained from bashing republican party policy?

Freddy, wrong response- my position of record is that the political neutrality of scientific institutions must first exist in order to be respected.

Heartland, which makes a living by traducing that principle, is a for profit corporate PR firm masquarading as a libertarian think tank, and has done the republican party a great dissservice by its serial incorporation of every known species of climate crackpottery into what ought to be the scientifically sober case against regulation.

My bibliography speaks for itself , and were you familliar with it you would know it has and has and continues to evoke bitter recrimination from Democrats and the environmental left .

By Russell Seitz (not verified) on 17 Mar 2013 #permalink

The environmental left is a false partition. There's an environmental libertarian, environmental right wing, environmental anarchists, environmental statists, and so on.

The right, though, see the left wing only.

It's probably true to a lesser extent that the left see mostly the right wing.

"Marco, wrong answer, you failed to answer my question"

Yes, we haven't answered a leading question that is irrelevant.

This also answers your question.

But you're too fucking dumb to know how.

Freddski, go check up the average nighttime minimum temperatures in Sau Paulo compared to nighttime minimum temperatures in the Sahara.

Both about the same latitude.

Oh, and go look at the CO2 concentration in those areas.

Freddykaitroll, why should I answer that question? You didn't ask me!

But worse for you: not only did I not bash the Republican party, I actually defended someone who is a Republican!

Is your head spinning already?

What fredski reads isn't based on what comes through his visual cortex. Indeed what he reads entirely comes from within his own cranium.

@Russell "my position of record is that the political neutrality of scientific institutions must first exist in order to be respected"

Agreed, but do you consider Heartland a scientific institute and not rather a political organization which opposes the political IPCC with its insane climate hysteria spin?

"My bibliography ... has and has and continues to evoke bitter recrimination from Democrats and the environmental left"

Congratulations! That's the right way to go!

Heartland Institute is a political lobby organisation PRETENDING to be a charity. Illegally.

The IPCC is a scientific report institution whose members ARE NOT PAID.

The only insane hysteria is yours, you idiot.

wow, wrong: Everybody except you knows that the IPCC has a political spin, is profoundly partizan and crowded with lefties and ecos (green peace, wwf, etc. etc. etc.), relies on manipulative methods, e.g. the insane hockey stick which did not show warm periods in the past, etc. etc. and much more disgusting stuff.

You have already lost your case and you are desperate and furious that you don't get what you desire: being someone important who pretends to be willing to save the world from floodings in a few hundred or thousand years. What a poor misguided and uninformed person you are!

"... the insane hockey stick which did not show warm periods in the past, ..."

freddykaitroll keeps repeating the lies of other climate deniers. The famous Hockey Stick has been affirmed by numerous studies since its first appearance.

No matter how many times the deniers claim that the Hockey Stick has been disproven, their assertions does not become a tiny bit truer. So they keep lying and lying and lying and ...

Here is some more information on the Hockey Stick:

"Critics, most notably Canadian mining executive Steve McIntyre, argued that the type of statistics Mann used to collate past temperatures from tree rings inevitably introduced biases toward warming in the hockey stick reconstruction. But among scientists, a 2006 National Academy of Sciences report headed by Texas A&M's Gerald North that largely vindicated temperature reconstructions settled a lot of debate."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/columnist/vergano/story/201…

Funny, argueing with climate deniers is like shooting rats in a barrel, they are no real challenge as all their assertions are easily refuted.

The only insane thing is freddy.
And his sources.

Jan, for your information: the Mann'sche hockey stick did not show the MWP! Period!

Is it that you don't understand the implications of this data fraud? Mann did not want to show that there already was a warm period, as warm as today, in the recent past. He wanted to elicit the impression in the public that the current warmth was unprecedented, what AGW church members so much like to say and is a plain lie. Therefore Mann deceived the public with his green-leftist ideology dreams. You better learn to accept this truth.

Wow, so you call the source, the paper of Mann with the hockey stick, an insane source? Interesting!

Have you ever looked at the hockey stick? Most probably not. Because then you would know that Mann constructed a chart were temperatures go strongly up only in the 20th century, leaving out a similar sharp increase during the time of the Roman Empire and the MWP. And you don't know these trivial facts?? ts ts ts ...

"Wow, so you call the source, the paper of Mann with the hockey stick, an insane source?"

No.

You really are clutching at straws (while clutching at pearls).

"Jan, for your information: the Mann’sche hockey stick did not show the MWP! Period!"

That would be because the MWP was not global, idiot-boy.

Freddykaitroll scolds others for supposedly not having looked at "the hockey stick" and then claims that "Mann constructed a chart were temperatures go strongly up only in the 20th century, leaving out a similar sharp increase during the time of the Roman Empire and the MWP".

MBH99 goes back to 1000 AD, several centuries after the time of the Roman Empire (at least 5 centuries, unless you desperately want to include the Eastern Empire, but then you're talking MWP). Trivial facts, but freddykaitroll is completely oblivious of those, apparently...

Well the facts aren't in the denier blogs that freddy reads for his "information".

Jan, Marco, Wow

have you ever been interested in what Keith Briffa said about Mann's hockey stick?

freddy, have you ever had anything to say?

wow, since you don't appear to know who Keith Briffa is (you obviously mix him up with me), I have to give you a few lessons in order to provide you with the chance to learn more about the frauduent hockey stick

1: The data for the hockey stick construction came primarily from investigations of Yamal peninsula (Siberia, Russia) trees. So the investigation had nothing to do with global data, in sharp contrast to the lies you have badly delivered here.

2: The Yamal tree sample data from which the hockey stick was constructed came from only 12 specimens of tht total of 252 in the whole data set.

3: There was a larger data set of 34 trees from the same area of the Yamal peninsula in Siberia which did not show any dramatic recent warming, but warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages, in contrast to the sample of 12 specimens which Mann selected to produce the fraudulent hockey stick.

Do you know why Mann selected the 12 specimens without signs of MWP and had purposefully left out specimens which showed the MWP???

For those of you interested in facts, and who may not have actually read some of the early reports and papers on climate science, let’s take a trip down memory lane.

The famous “Hockey Stick” graph was first shown in IPCC 3 (2001), here:

www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/069…

(I have removed the hyperlinks to avoid this post being forced into moderation)

As you can see the words underneath Figure 2.20 (the Hockey Stick!!!) state:

”Millennial Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstruction (blue) and instrumental data (red) from AD 1000 to 1999, adapted from Mann et al. (1999)….”

Underneath the second graph (Figure 2.21) it states:

”Comparison of warm-season (Jones et al., 1998) and annual mean (Mann et al., 1998, 1999) multi-proxy-based and warm season tree-ring-based (Briffa, 2000) millennial Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions….”

To check that information, we need to go to - AND READ - the relevant papers, here:

Mann et al 1998: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

Mann et al 1999: www.ltrr.arizona.edu/webhome/aprilc/data/my%20stuff/MBH1999.pdf

Briffa 2000: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000566

Jones et al 1998: www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/papers/Jonesetal-1998.pdf

What we do now is to go away and read them. This is what sets us apart from deniers, who never actually read any science (because they are ignorant and know nothing about science), but instead they just mindlessly parrot things that they have read in the denier echo-chamber.

So – once we have read all those papers, let’s check to see if the accusations levelled by kai at post #30 are accurate. Indeed, we can check to see if there are any facts in his post at all.

And that would be…………… no. But then, did anyone expect anything different from a demonstrated liar?

Freddykaitroll, I strongly recommend you do what mandas suggests: read the actual papers.

It's quite interesting to see you attacking the hockeystick by referring to Briffa's criticism of Mann *and* by referring to the criticisms of McIntyre about Yamal.
A small hint for you: neither MBH98 nor 99 used data from Yamal.

This is already the second time you spread falsehoods about MBH98 and 99 (last time, and still unacknowledged, you suggested the reconstruction went back to the RWP).

I think you are mistaking us for the usual gullible people that surround you. We, however, are actual skeptics in the scientific sense. We do not just take your word for it. And now that we have found you spreading lies on multiple occasions about the hockeystick (when was the RWP again, freddykaitroll?), there soon comes a point where we just have to assume that whatever you say will be a lie.

MandasMarcoTroll, I wait for all your alarmist feedback and will then demolish all your false assertions and statements.

One hint for you MandasMarcoTroll for your preparation what I am going to teach you: I recommend to you to read the mail exchange between Briffa, Jones and Mann on the topic in the climate gate e-mails.

Your argumentation path is unfortunately always strictly partizan and unobjective when it comes to destroying your faked climate arguments which should convince the public that you were right with your alarmism. But we all know, you are not right. You simply do not like to hear what does not fit with your virtual climate warming world. This is the real problem in any discussion with you. You as warm world believers are not able to look at the facts from both sides, from your and also from the opposite.

Freddykaitroll, what will you do when you find out that Yamal was not used in MBH98 or 99? Will you:
a) apologise to all for making false claims?
b) ignore this inconvenient fact and come with yet another false claim?

My money is on b).

<blockquotewow, since you don’t appear to know who Keith Briffa is

Since you didn't appear to know what he said, I gave a link that shows his work:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPCC_2001_TAR_Figure_2.21.png

However, you didn't know his work was in the IPCC, did you?

Apparently it is you who don't know who he is.

1: The data for the hockey stick construction came primarily from investigations of Yamal peninsula

Nothing there about Mann, who Keith is, or what the hell you're wibbling on about.

2: The Yamal tree sample data from which the hockey stick was constructed came from only 12 specimens of tht total of 252 in the whole data set.

So what? The MBH paper included far more than Yamal data.

Again, your assertions have absolutely no point to them. Signifying nothing.

Do you know why Mann selected the 12 specimens without signs of MWP

Uh, you have to prove he selected the 12 specimens without signs of MWP.

Because he didn't select them for that reason.

and had purposefully left out

You have to prove purposely.

specimens which showed the MWP???

Since the MWP wasn't global, "the MWP" was not seen by the great majority of trees. Trees being a global phenomena.

I wait for all your alarmist feedback

You've already had it.

But you don't know what the word means, do you.

and will then demolish all your false assertions and statements.

You haven't managed to find any false assertions.

I recommend to you to read the mail exchange between Briffa, Jones and Mann on the topic in the climate gate e-mails.

Did. Nothing there of note. Proofs in science isn't done in email.

Do you have ANY clue what science is? No, you don't.

Your argumentation path is unfortunately always strictly partizan and unobjective when it comes to destroying your faked climate arguments.

But we all know, you are not right. You simply do not like to hear what does not fit with your denialist world. This is the real problem in any discussion with you. You as conspiracy theorists are not able to look at the facts from both sides, from your and also from the opposite.

Wow, you should have read my comments first. MBH98 and 99 do not contain data from Yamal (the Northern Urals data in the former is not the same as the Yamal data from Hantemirov which was used for the Briffa 2000 reconstruction and about which McIntyre complained so much).

Wow, you should have read my comments first. MBH98 and 99 do not contain data from Yamal

Well, my mistake: I took kai as at least competent enough to report a correct lie.

Apparently even that level of accuracy is not possible to the idiot boy.

It matters little, though, since MBH used lots of proxies. There's no proof of deliberate weeding out. No proof of the missing trees would show a global MWP. Nothing at all, really.

As usual for the dumbest underpant-stain idiot boy troll for this thread.

Wow - just a suggestion for you.

I know you love to play the abuse game with people like kai - and I admit that I don't mind it a bit myself on occasion. But how about you at least do it from a position of knowledge. I posted all the information on the 'Hockey Stick' issue. I gave you and everyone the evidence to beat him over the head. As Marco has suggested, all you had to do was read the papers I provided.

Deniers are despicable and deluded fools who deserve every criticism that we level against them. But it does not serve the debate to be exactly like them and to argue from a position of ignorance.

I will at least give you credit for having enough integrity to admit your mistake, which is something trolling deniers never do.

MandasWowMarcoTroll

can you explain to me what this means:

"I know you love to play the abuse game with people like kai" ???????????

Is playing "the abuse game" something ususal among climate realism deniers like you, MandasWowMarcoTroll???

So are you admitting that you play games and are not serious in what you are saying?

Yup, option b) it was...

But how about you at least do it from a position of knowledge

Yeah, right, your a half-wit trying to tell me to work from a position of knowledge???

It is to laugh.

. I posted all the information on the ‘Hockey Stick’ issue.

Really, and you think that your post should have been read in answer to kai because you're the center of the world and everyone MUST PAY ATTENTION TO YOU?

Right.

Narcissism. Check it out. You have it.

I assumed that kai had at least been told a lie by someone who at least could get what tree records were in there when talking about MBH having 12 Yamal trees in there.

Why the fuck would I read your posts when it's frequently useless drivel used to make you "better" than the "other two sides".

Problem with idiots like you, is that just because you're different in outlook between two others, you think YOU are the moderate one. This allows you to pretend to be BETTER than either and make both others worse.

All you do is make yourself out to be hugely pompous and a pratt.

So are you admitting that you play games and are not serious in what you are saying?

So since you haven't given information that there were ANY Yamal trees in the MBH study, are you admitting that you make it all up 1200%?

And given that NOTHING you've provided has shown what Kevin thinks of Mann's work, your opener also seems to have been completely empty. Or are you admitting that you don't know what Kevin thinks of Mann's work and wanted to ask?

"you're"

bloody fumbling fingers.

Wow, let me just say that mandas was correct in calling you out. Plenty of morons on "the other side", no need for one who thinks he is on "ours".

You're as entitled to that opinion as kai is to his.

Wow, you mix up everything: I was talking about Keith Briffa and not "Kevin". Is the discussion too demanding for your intellect? BTW, I hate your support in front of other climate realism deniers like MandasTroll and MarcoTroll. Resolve your problems with your climate church fellows first and then I give you a few lessons on what you are missing.

No, kai, you get everything wrong.

You didn't provide anything from Keith Briffa either.

Is the claim you made too hard for you to substantiate? Yes.

Why?

Because you're a moron.

Wow

"Yeah, right, your a half-wit trying to tell me to work from a position of knowledge???

"You're", not "your"

If you are going to accuse someone of being a half-wit, at least try to us the correct words. And I think a good definition of a half wit is someone who, despite being given the correct information, still refuses to learn.

Narcissistic? Moi? I have never denied it.

"Pretend" to be better than you and kai? I don't have to pretend. You both keep proving it.

"If you are going to accuse someone of being a half-wit, at least try to us the correct words. "

If you're going to complain about the wrong words, at least check that a typo isn't an adequate explanation, else this indicates your desire to see it in place/

"“Pretend” to be better than you and kai? I don’t have to pretend"

But you do.

Here's you:

http://xkcd.com/774/

You're standing at a spot and seeing two others not in that spot and ASSUMING yourself to be the "moderate" therefore "better".

You aren't.

I guess that's the difference between you and me Wow.

I read what is on the thread before commenting. You apparently, do not.

I check the sources before commenting. You assume that a tolling denier is telling you the truth and you react without the knowledge to respond properly.

I make my case based on science and evidence. The sum total of your contribution is to abuse people, and to get into a pointless argument with a troll.

You get called on a mistake, and your response is to abuse the person who provided you with the correct information.

As far as you and kai is concerned, I don't have to assume that I am better than either of you. You make the case very well all by yourselves. In future, I suggest you stick to your childish games with kai - at least you two are evenly matched.

Yes, the difference between you and me is that you think your position is "moderate" and "better" and cannot be shaken from that faith.

I do not make any such self-flattering assumptions.

You only want to be superior.

I'd prefer to be correct.

"...You only want to be superior....I’d prefer to be correct....

Looks like you are a 2 time loser then Wow.

Yup, see what I mean, mandy?

You don't even seem to understand the smallest words either.

You want to be superior.

I'd *prefer* to be correct.

If I'm not, that isn't a "lose", I just didn't get my preference.

You know for someone who opined " I suggest you stick to your childish games with kai – at least you two are evenly matched." you certainly seem to have Kai's M.O. down pat and ready to hand at the slightest provocation.

Don't you.

I guess, like I'd said before, you're not very smart, are you.

Oh, and are you saying, since that is a "2 times loser" that you akcnowledge you also failed to be better than either kai or myself?

Because the arithmetic there doesn't work out otherwise.

"...I guess, like I’d said before, you’re not very smart, are you...."

Poor punctiation Wow - requires a question mark.

WowMandasMarcoTroll

look here this climategate 2.0 email:

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
From: Keiller, Donald
Sent: 02 October 2009 10:34
To: ‘ k.briffa@xxxx
Cc: ‘ p.jones@xxxx
Subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology

Dear Professor Briffa,

my apologies for contacting you directly,
particularly since I hear that you are unwell.
However the recent release of tree ring data by CRU has prompted much discussion and indeed disquiet about the methodology and conclusions of a number of key papers by you and co-workers.

As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).
As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;

1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed

2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies

3) The concept of “teleconnection” by which certain trees respond to the “Global Temperature Field”, rather than local climate

4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature in a linear manner.

Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.

As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do not agree with the accepted science.

There is a saying that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”.
Given the scientific, political and economic importance of these papers, further detailed explanation is urgently required.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Don Keiller
"""""""""""""""""""""""

Are you warmist trolls intelligent enough to value what this means for your beloved hockey stick?

"look here this climategate 2.0 email:"

Booooring!

Look you may get your jollies looking twitching curtains and gossiping, but there's fuck all science in it and absolutely nothing of interest to any normal human being

But even for you idiots, that's a pretty lame post.

Oh, look someone said they don't think the science is right.

Wow. That proves it.

There are idiots outside scienceblog posters. Seems like this one hasn't considered that calibration is done with thermometer readings and other proxies. A limited intellect.

"Poor punctiation Wow – requires a question mark."

It wasn't a question. It was a statement.

But you're not very smart, are you.

"...But you’re not very smart, are you...."

Missed the question mark again! More poor punctuation wow - you dont learn, do you?

Yup, once again freddykaitroll continues on the option b) route. Having been shown an idiot for claiming MBH98/99 included Yamal, and being unable to prove that Mann, Briffa and Jones discussed the Yamal issues, he resorts to an Appeal to Authority. Sadly for him, Don Keiller is a complete nobody and his assurance that points 3 and 4 "do not agree with accepted science" suggests he's never ever opened even a basic textbook on dendrochronology or climate science.

MarcoTrollTrullyBoo, instead of being childishly offensive (because you are unable to reveice well-based criticism of one of your basic misbeliefs) you should try to understand what I am constanly try to teach you warming trolls. Every "important" "proof" of your AGW speculation is dubious, to put it politely, or even manipulated, to put it realistically. Even when peers within your church are expressing doubts ans criticism and you only behave as primitive watchdog: no sign of balancing your partizan positions and trials to be objective. You always to continue to maintain, that YOU ARE RIGHT, when you only speculate and don't accept any criticism of your world view. You don't behave as a scientist, most probably you are not even one, but have always your mouth wide open and repeat the psalms of your bible like indian monks do with their holy wisdoms of nirwana.

"instead of being childishly offensive"

You;re going to try something cogent?

"Every “important” “proof” of your AGW speculation is dubious, to put it politely, or even manipulated, to put it realistically."

Apparently not.

"More poor punctuation wow "

Since it was a statement again, it doesn't need a question mark. the clue is in the name.

You're even dumber than i was afraid of, mandy.

wow. short lesson to you as somebody with low level school education: "are you" is a question. learn it! I hate to admit that mandas is right.

No, "Are you?" is a question.

"You're dumb, aren't you" is a statement.

E.g. this conversation.

freddykaitroll: I am hurt by your slurs and slanders against me!
Everyone else: Are you.

We aren't asking. We're sarcastic.

Freddykaitroll, I am fully willing to learn. However, being a scientist, I actually check what people claim. And thus I found you to falsely claim GISTEMP did something deceptive, found out you did not even know how GISTEMP works, found out that you falsely claimed Mike Mann did anything with Yamal, and it just keeps on going with misrepresentations and falsehoods from your side!

You are, of course, free to keep holding on to your delusions, but don't expect us to "learn" anything from your behaviour. I value my skeptic mind, being an actual working scientist with many times more publications than the Don Keiller, whose opinion you seem to value so much that you decided to quote the whole e-mail. I don't want to become like you.

wow, "You’re dumb, aren’t you” is a statement", hahahah, you should nor think that decadent, primitive aristocracy-decadent, snobbish lower-class English is by any measure a standard for normal talking among adults. You don't even know what a question is and misinterpret that your degenerated british sarcasm makes impression on anybody. Why are you so wicked? Is this really only due your frustation that you are so ignorant with weather, climate and biology.

“You’re dumb, aren’t you” is a statement”

Indeed it is.

Wow, listen:

"You’re dumb" is a statement, yes

however

"aren’t you” is a ridiculous question.

Why are you so stubbornly wrong?

"“aren’t you” is a ridiculous question."

Which is irrelevant since it isn't a question.

"...You’re even dumber than i was afraid of, mandy...."

'I' should be capitalised.

Yes, I guess that's all you've got, isn't it mandy.

I mean, if a proper name isn't capitalised...

"...Yes, I guess that’s all you’ve got, isn’t it mandy...."

Should have a question mark at the end.

But to answer your question (poorly punctuated as it may be): No - I direct your attention to post #52.

"Should have a question mark at the end."

You're rather hard of thinking, aren't you.

Wow, what are you doing there?

Freddy/Kai has never explained anything - he just claims how smart he is and how dumb the others are.

Jonas over at his jail thread on Deltoid does the same thing.

Indeed his is far more evolved since he prattles on about "I has proved it all for you, but you is all too stupid to see it and that shows i is more smarter than you alls!".

Joan, however, has several thousand posts to pretend he's posted his evidence on. kai doesn't.

Wow, thank you for your support. I thankfully acknowledge your statement of huge intellectual superiority over climate alarmist followers like JV and others, who are unwilling or unable to "global climate" realism, i.e. to take note for instance that global temperatures are stable now since more than a decade, extremely cold temperature in Antarctica, lowering water vapour levels in the stratosphere, methodological insufficiencies to determine global sea levels etc. etc. etc. etc., facts which fanatic climate realism deniers like JV are never able to understand - and even less - to accept.

yup yet more proof of insanity from kaitroll.