Hmm?

are you a tropical parrot??

at least Bugs can paraphrase his propaganda messages.

One or two of my posts have been eaten, unfortunately. Darn hackers.

However, isn’t the divergence problem a well-known issue? Don’t you agree that it would be counterproductive to include a part of a series when that part is known to not accord with the facts? Why would references to articles explaining this not be reasonable?

Who is Jean S and where did they discuss this issue?

Irony IS devilish! Your meaning is in opposition to what you’re actually saying. Not good to place the genuine and the ironic tone next to each other. I also strongly object to announcing sarcasm via the “/sarc on” “/sarc off” convention.

Someone once remarked….. It’s funny, occasionally you run into someone who completely misses the irony and gets indignant about some ironic “modest proposal.” On the other hand you never see people make the opposite mistake and say, “gee, maybe Swift’s modest proposal would be a good idea”

“I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. ”

Later on in the comments section he repeats this

“I was too trusting of some of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more closely.

“It is exactly for those reasons that Phil Jones should resign. There’s a word for his lack of openness and control of the data: unscientific.”

The article as a whole is drivel. It happens to contain comic relief, and I focused on that. This is a blog– we have now discussed much of the rest ofthe drivel. But, as I said, if you wish the article fisked, that can be done.

I was referring to the entirely irrelevant focus on whether or not the word “hate” was used x or y times. May as well debate the number angels on the point of a pin.

I read the Monbiot thing as having two parts. The top part he was being genuine in admitting the data needed to be re-analysed. The bottom he was saying that it’s silly to think there was anything more sinister than the age old human vices (e.g. pride, sloth, wrath) at work.

I mostly read it this way too… I’m just always a big puzzled when broad irony is suddenly introduced. Irony is hard to do, and it sometimes turns out the writer muffed it, meant the whole thing to be ironic, and people takes parts or serious.

That said: Unless Mombiot comes forward and reveals he never meant the top part…. then we are reading right.

When Gavin says “the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.”., he is either using the term “along with” in a non-standard, misleading way, or he does not understand what Phil did. Jean S. discussed what Phil did, and the code is available. What Phil did was misleading and not acceptable even if other climate scientists have resorted to the same misleading trick.

Thats an interesting email. Ed seems to be doing good science in it knowing darn well that it would tear up the whole field. Does anyone know if they ever completed this work?

http://www.eastangliaemails.co.....090220.txt

If this isn’t cooking the books, then I don’t know what is. Since when does scientific data have to “look good” and scientists need to “be happy with the version we release”? Also, what the hell is a “IDL thingummajig”? Some magic toaster used to make climate change guano?

Just report the facts, that’s all we ask.

“the ‘hide the decline’ phrase, what do people here object to/reject in Gavin’s explanation for the phrase on realclimate?”

1) Graphs are power visual tools. Removing information from a graph and replacing information with a dry footnote referencing other literature completely changes the impression that a reader will take away. An honest scientist would have left the post 1960 data in and added the footnote explaining why the decline can be ignored.

2) Mann has been quoted as saying no scientist would ever splice temperature measurements onto the end of proxy series yet we now have evidence that he not only does that in leading journals but other scientists copy his ‘trick’.

IOW, Gavin’s explanations do nothing to address the fact that created graphs with the intent to deceive.