Intellectual dishonesty

[waldo]

Shady, why do you refuse to answer the question posed to you?

why not adjust your signature to also include reference to the statistical significance of the CRU data over periods greater than 15 years in time? Obviously, the concept of data trending and interval period impacts therein, is certainly beyond your minuscule understanding. Shady... it's clear your intellectual dishonesty is only limited to periods of less than 15 years duration... reclaim your lost intellectual honesty Shady... open up your signature to the complete record. The complete data record will set you free Shady!

will Shady do the right thing? Will the Professor redeem himself... work to allay his display of intellectual dishonesty - carry an updated Phil Jones quote in his MLW signature for the next 6 months!!!

Trending had nothing to do with it. I was stating a fact.

fact? Trending had everything to do with it... what do you think the denier cherry-picked time interval (1995-2009) was all about - hey? Oh my... a warming trend but one not statistically significant to the 95% level! Of course, you didn't know the reference aspects of your parroting then... you don't know them any better today, hey Professor? Parrot is as parrot does!

So because you've run across references to it in recent weeks, other people must have too.

lil' buddy... how could you misconstrue? Ya see, the point being, this time around, when Phil Jones is asked to comment on the statistical significance by including available 2010 data, this latest Phil Jones statement gets no/minimal coverage... for some reason the same denialsphere that trumpeted his original statement on into the mainstream media has been mute on giving the statistically significant warming of the CRU dataset any coverage - go figure! For some reason, those same enabling British tabloid "journalists" from the first go-around have gone mute - go figure!

of course, I prompted you on this exact scenario a few times in the past when you were in your British tabloid press parroting glory, didn't I Shady? I could replay those MLW posts for you, if you'd like... you know, the posts where I highlighted the point that simply adding an additional year (1994) to the cherry-picked 1995-2009 interval question, would allow the CRU data to meet the 95% statistically significant warming level... you know, the posts where I taunted you about the scenario of 2010's projected warming being added into that cherry-picked 1995-2009 interval, shifting the interval to include 2010 data (1995-2010). So... it's come to pass... we have the 2010 warming projection come to pass... Phil Jones is asked for an update... and you choose to ignore his update statement this time. How convenient for you - hey Shady? Of course, we're really just talking percentage points here... the CRU data over that initial cherry-picked 1995-2009 data interval did meet the 90% statistically significant level... falling short of the 95% level buy just a couple of percentage points. But that was enough for you/denialsphere and enabling British tabloid journalists to proclaim, "warming has ended"... "there's been no warming"!!! Distort, and/or fabricate, and/or cast doubt... i.e.; the denier playbook.

I would, but I just can't trust Phil Jones anymore. He's changed his tune too many times for my liking.

whaaa! "For your liking"! Interesting... the denier cherry-picked interval question fed to the BBC reporter, was designed to attempt to 'catch' Phil Jones in "a lie"... the data is all public domain, and obviously the trends can be run by anyone, every time a new monthly release of data is issued. So what did Phil Jones do that first time around when asked that question in the February 2010 BBC interview?... he provided the facts... the facts you were more than willing to accept last time - hey? Did I mention the new interval period (1995-2010) warming, as statistically significant, has been independently corroborated… you know… independent corroboration of the statistically significant warming trend of the public domain CRU data (the data, as created by the UK’s National Weather Service (the Met Office))?

what gives, hey Shady? You accept the Phil Jones initial statement and ran with... big time... yet, for some strange reason you seem hesitant to now acknowledge the 95% statistically significant warming of the CRU data and assign a new Phil Jones quote to your MLW signature advising of same... just like you did the first go-around. How long did you parrot that initial quote in your MLW signature - hey Shady? 3 months? Probably closer to 6 months - hey?

of course, you (and Simple) had no difficulty in ignoring all the other global temperature records from NASA, from NOAA, from JMA, etc.; ... ignoring all those other global records that did/do meet the 95% statistically significant warming level (even over that same cherry-picked 1995-2009 interval period). That's right - you ignored them all, just so you could parrot the denier lines that "there's been no warming"... that "warming has ended". Of course you did - that's what parrots do... parrot is as parrot does - hey Professor?

[waldo]

c'mon Professor... do the right thing! Work to allay your display of intellectual dishonesty - carry an updated Phil Jones quote in your MLW signature for the next 6 months!!!

Shady - did Waldo provide a link to this Jones' update? I can't seem to find anything on it.........and if it's convincing, I'm surprised it wasn't splashed all over the MSM.

Simple... I'm aghast! You're surprised! Well, of course, that first go-around, there were a brazillion denier blogs beating the drum over that initial Phil Jones statement... you had tabloid/fake enabling "journalists" pushing it on up into the mainstream. This time around with the same question/update statement from Phil Jones? Not so much, hey? But it's out there - you just need to get away from your usual denier sources... oh wait... here's a reference for ya - this is a great article, as it hits a lot of the key points around tabloid journalism, keying on one of your and Shady's key go-to sources from the past, the British tabloid journalist (David Rose). Also highlighted in the article is a direct reference to the recently created "Climate Science Rapid Response Team"... you know, the denier's worst nightmare come to pass - where scientists have had enough and decided to come together and offer an outlet/service for media & government officials to directly ask working scientists for information/commentary:

The key statement here is 'not statistically significant'. It wasn't for these years at the 95% level, but it would have been at the 90% level. If you add the value of 0.52 in for 2010 and look at 1995 to 2010 then the warming is statistically significant at the 95% level." [What this means is that the warming trend for the past few years previously met a lower test of statistical significance. With addition of the results so far for 2010, it now meets the higher test

so... Simple... does this mean you'll retract your last parroting, from a few days ago, of that Phil Jones initial statement? Does this mean we won't have you beaking off anymore about "statistically insignificant warming"?

equally, as you've been asked in the past, as you've ignored in the past... why did you/why would you, choose to ignore all the other global temperature records - the one's that did/do show statistically significant warming to the 95% level (even for the cherry-picked 1995-2009 time period), in favour of your want/desire to key on the initial Phil Jones statement concerning CRU data trending over a purposely crafted/cherry-picked time period? You know... the CRU data that historically shows the least warming of all global temperature records (as it doesn't include data from the Arctic - where the earth's greatest warming has occurred in the relatively recent period of warming). Oh, wait... that's right... see denier playbook - see, distort, and/or fabricate, and/or cast doubt! Hey, Simple?

[Shady]

I suppose you're referring to this statement:

Phil Jones replies: "The key statement here is 'not statistically significant'. It wasn't for these years at the 95% level, but it would have been at the 90% level. If you add the value of 0.52 in for 2010 and look at 1995 to 2010 then the warming is statistically significant at the 95% level." [What this means is that the warming trend for the past few years previously met a lower test of statistical significance. With addition of the results so far for 2010, it now means the higher test.]

Jones again admits that it wasn't statistically signficant before. So once again, I'm completely right. Then he says that if you add in 0.52, you get to the statistically significant level. Yes, I suppose if you add in a number that doesn't yet take into account the record cold temperatures felt all around the world right now, you can meet that threshold.

Seriously, is this guy really a scientist?

[waldo]

Jones again admits that it wasn't statistically signficant before. So once again, I'm completely right. Then he says that if you add in 0.52, you get to the statistically significant level. Yes, I suppose if you add in a number that doesn't yet take into account the record cold temperatures felt all around the world right now, you can meet that threshold.

Seriously, is this guy really a scientist?

:lol: bloody hell!

how could I have missed that, hey Professor? That's right... it's not called Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming... it's really all about Anthropogenic LOCAL REGIONALIZED NORTHERN LATITUDE WINTER WEATHER Warming!!! Oh my, Professor - let's bookmark this one and label it another Shadyclassic!

but really, c'mon... do the right thing... work to allay your display of intellectual dishonesty - carry an updated Phil Jones quote in your MLW signature for the next 6 months!!!

[Shady]

:lol: bloody hell!

how could I have missed that, hey Professor? That's right... it's not called Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming... it's really all about Anthropogenic LOCAL REGIONALIZED NORTHERN LATITUDE WINTER WEATHER Warming!!! Oh my, Professor - let's bookmark this one and label it another Shadyclassic!

Not just northern latitude winter weather. But yes, these particular record low temps will effect the average global temperature, which alarmists rely on. I know that you'd like to not have to include winter temps in your alarmist statistics. I'm sure including only spring and summer temps as the global temperature for the year better fits your narrative. Isn't it damn annoying when cold temperatures get in the way?

but really, c'mon... do the right thing... work to allay your display of intellectual dishonesty - carry an updated Phil Jones quote in your MLW signature for the next 6 months!!!

There is no updated Phil Jones quote.

[waldo]

:lol: bloody hell!

how could I have missed that, hey Professor? That's right... it's not called Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming... it's really all about Anthropogenic LOCAL REGIONALIZED NORTHERN LATITUDE WINTER WEATHER Warming!!! Oh my, Professor - let's bookmark this one and label it another Shadyclassic!

Not just northern latitude winter weather. But yes, these particular record low temps will effect the average global temperature, which alarmists rely on. I know that you'd like to not have to include winter temps in your alarmist statistics. I'm sure including only spring and summer temps as the global temperature for the year better fits your narrative. Isn't it damn annoying when cold temperatures get in the way?

it just keeps getting better... hey Professor... in your world, when it's winter in the Northern hemisphere, what season is it in the Southern Hemisphere? As for your reference to a narrative... I'm quite relishing the one playing our in these recent posts here - the one showing you haven't even the most basic understandings. Oh noooos, Shady - duck!

- NASA says 2010 produced the warmest November in spite of a European cold spell and a strong La Nina... warmest January-November in the GISS analysis, which covers 131 years... there is a good chance that 2010 as a whole will be the warmest year in the GISS analysis.

Even if the December global temperature anomaly is unusually cool, 2010 will at least be in a statistical tie with 2005 for the warmest year

.

but really, c'mon... do the right thing... work to allay your display of intellectual dishonesty - carry an updated Phil Jones quote in your MLW signature for the next 6 months!!!

There is no updated Phil Jones quote.

there is certainly no better place for you to say such a thing than your own dedicated intellectual dishonesty thread - hey? C'mon... do the right thing, Professor.

[dre]

If I understand properly, you agree that recent warming is "likely unprecedented".

You mean that it is likely but not certain.

As I say, the next buzz word will be "uncertainty". We have gone from "global warming" to "climate change". Welcome to the new description: "uncertainty".

Politicians cant always wait for the kind of evidence that would convince every single person on earth of "certainty". Thats just not how life works. People insure themselves against events that are not certain will happen ALL THE TIME.

Remember in the lead up to war with Iraq, when the war conspirators were asked about "proof" they said "proof would be a mushroom cloud!!!", meaning that the potential consequences were so great that the burden of proof for action was lower.

Seems like people decide which policies need to be supportered by asbsolute proof and which ones dont based on their level of ideologically driven affection for the particular policy being discussed.

[waldo]

rather than further sully the Assange thread, this offers a more targeted vehicle to capture one of the more egregious examples of purposeful, repeated and ongoing lying. Repeated requests to acknowledge the lie, to retract the lie, remain outstanding, remain unresolved.

let's see just how far you're prepared to take your intellectual dishonesty... your lies... and your weasel moves.

Quote where I, as you stated, "

claimed Mr. Assange's innocence in relation to the Swedish "problem" as fact

"

.........You on the other hand claimed Mr Assange’s innocence in relation to the Swedish “problem” as fact……

substantiate your statement that I, "claimed Mr. Assange's innocence in relation to the Swedish "problem" as fact"... or... acknowledge your lie... retract your lie.

[Guest Derek L]

rather than further sully the Assange thread, this offers a more targeted vehicle to capture one of the more egregious examples of purposeful, repeated and ongoing lying. Repeated requests to acknowledge the lie, to retract the lie, remain outstanding, remain unresolved.

substantiate your statement that I, "claimed Mr. Assange's innocence in relation to the Swedish "problem" as fact"... or... acknowledge your lie... retract your lie.

I hope you're not coming unglued Waldo.

[TheNewTeddy]

Some people use lies to prove their point, and knowingly lie to prove their point.

[bleeding heart]

Some people use lies to prove their point, and knowingly lie to prove their point.

Sure. And there's usually no way to know either way, particularly on anonymous internet forums.

(Now and then they'll catch themselves out...but more not than often.)

As a rule, and for the sake of civil debate, I assume people are telling the truth, unless and until it becomes painfully obvious that they are not. By the same token, I take it as a given that I am "believing" people's lies from time to time.