You just get funnier, Jeff! Now you appeal to standards of honest debate in yet another post where you resort to silly insults! Are you a self-satirist?

Cut out the stream of ad homs which you have adopted since I questioned, on another thread, something you’d written. You can react to being questioned without behaving in this way, Jeff.

Incidentally, here’s another example of something you shouldn’t do if you want to be considered an honest debater -

If you understand sorting by correlation yet can’t see the problems with sorting by correlation you are in denial…

Spot the straw man there, Jeff? Where have I ever said that I can’t see such problems, hmm?

If you want to engage in honest debate then you’ll need to cut out attributing views and attitudes to other people which they do not hold and learn to play the ball not the man. When you’ve got the hang of it I’ll be happy to engage in any debate that you want.

Often wrong,

Grow up. Jeff. When you’ve chosen to stop behaving like a child then I’ll respond to any points you have to make. Until then, enjoy your playground.

understand the charge of cherry picking to be that of picking for results (that is, picking for a signal that suits a preconceived hypothesis rather than picking for a clear signal of any kind). Perhaps your understanding of the term is different.

That is exactly what climatology does. Your comment about thermometers vs barometers is a perfect example. If you understand sorting by correlation yet can’t see the problems with sorting by correlation you are in denial and will be impossible to convince.

I said surprise me, why is this not a surprise?

That is great paper, and a worthwhile read.

Demetris Koutsoyiannis in a billiant paper has brought science back to the table.

A random walk on water

According to the traditional notion of randomness and uncertainty, natural phenomena are separated into two mutually exclusive components, random (or stochastic) and deterministic. Within this dichotomous logic, the deterministic part supposedly
represents cause-effect relationships and, thus, is physics and science (the “good”), whereas randomness has little relationship with science and no relationship with understanding (the “evil”). We argue that such views should be reconsidered by admitting that uncertainty is an intrinsic property of nature, that causality implies dependence of natural processes in time, thus suggesting predictability, but even the tiniest uncertainty (e.g., in initial conditions) may result in unpredictability after a certain time horizon. On these premises it is possible to shape a consistent stochastic representation of natural processes, in which predictability (suggested by deterministic laws) and unpredictability (randomness) coexist and are not separable or additive components. Deciding which of the two dominates is simply a matter of specifying the 15 time horizon of the prediction. Long horizons of prediction are inevitably associated
with high uncertainty, whose quantification relies on understanding the long-term stochastic properties of the processes

http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-s.....-2009.html

I tend to associate myself with your remarks. The arguments about who is lying and who is telling the truth, lies of ommission and commission, lack of integrity, hyperbole etc etc all of these discussions about who to trust, who not to. These all fade into the background when you focus on the simple factual questions.
Questions a non scientist can answer.

1. Is the data AS USED available to me.
2. Is the code AS USED available to me.

If not, then END OF DISCUSSION. As a reader I have a rational obligation to suspend judgement. Hadley says it’s warming.
I asked for the data. they said no. I asked for the code. they said no. In my world I have every right to say “I don’t know if its warming or cooling, because hadley hasnt met the very basic requirements of a GRADE SCHOOL SCIENCE DISPLAY. Period.
end of discussion. There is no issue of trust. there is no issue of instrument calibration. there is no statistical issue. there is no issue of bias. there is no personality. there is no appeal to other evidence. They fail. I don’t even have to read the papers. don’t have to read the CVs. None of that. F. next.

I was assuming one was more or less a quote and that the other was more or less a paraphrase. In which case they, as approximations, could both be accurate enough to be considered reliable. But you’re right: full disclosure would be better.

This practice is never followed at RC (ie here’s the data, here’s the code, here’s the conclusion) – you only get “we did a study, here’s the conclusion, trust us, we’re scientists.” When that’s the case, I need to use other behaviors exhibited in order to decide whether or not the “trust us” has value. Beyond the moderating practices, the situations around the Harry station, Steig corrigendum, upside down Tiljander, etc all require the reader to believe a fantastic set of circumstances in order to believe that they were not behaving dishonestly. JMO, YMMV – cheers.

Bender, I don’t make much of it, but it suggests the possibility that he’s ‘quoting from memory’ or possibly summing up his impression. Without the email correspondence itself one can’t know.

TerryMN (Comment#23581)
Simon –
Given that the folks at RC have been shown to delete and edit posts that they reply to – why do you put any trust in what they say?

I think I’ve said enough times on threads here that I don’t like their mod policy. I’ll put any trust in what they say by the same standards as I’ll put any trust in what Steve McIntyre says, for example – a robust, evidenced case should be respected whoever makes it. As for attitudes, snark, questioning of motives, manipulation of agendas – I don’t think much of that stufff, wherever it shows up (including in any posts of mine!). I don’t think we should simply decide who to trust in all of this, since the person whose judgement you trust might turn out to be wrong. One thing seems clear to me – AGW analysis won’t turn out to be wrong because of RC’s approach to discussion threads.

You wrote: “I don’t think Roger’s criticism rise to calling Gavin a liar or a thief.”

He did accuse Gavin of stealing anhd plagiarism, which is the academic analogue to being a liar or a thief. The impression Roger left was not very far off from how Gavin interprets it in his in-line reply if you ask me.

Btw, bender, did you notice that Deming gave two different versions of supposed quotations from the email he refers to in his testimony? Viz

One thing that the police and others look for in detecting prevarication is an excessive consistency. The liar has concocted and memorized his story. If asked repeatedly, he will reply with the same answer verbatim. The truth teller’s story will vary. The liar does not want to be caught in a contradiction. The truth teller is using his imperfect memory to recall incidents that may be long in the past. Details will vary.

Similarly poor liars will reply slowly and with a fixed stare. They think that making eye contact increases their credibility. It does not. So lots of things that people think indicate lying do not.

“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

and:

It had to be “gotten rid of.”

How reliable do you think the testimony of a witness is who supposedly ‘quotes’ in such a conflicting manner? They can’t both be accurate!

Not to mention the rest of his unsubstantiated assertions. I found this particularly amusing:

the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

Give me a break!

http://epw.senate.gov/public/i.....3a85e8a07e