reply to post by Nathan-D
Baseless accusations huh?
You know, I'm not going to waste much more energy - because I think you are clearly in severe severe denial and only hearing what you want to hear,
so really - what's the point?
But let's just do a recap of what's gone down in this conversation so far and how many times you've been wrong - i.e. how many times you've
been the one "tricked by the spin". I'm not going to re-link any of this stuff because it's all there in the original posts and I'm sick of doing
your homework for you when you obviously have no interest in the cold hard facts anyways.
Go back and read each post - virtually every point you've tried to make has been PROVEN, not "spun", to be a well-known myth or distortion of the
truth. I left you detailed links all over the place explaining this. And it wasn't all just through skeptical science either. There were numerous
links directly to papers, reports, data sets (from the source, not via some denier blog like you linked), news articles, sourcewatch info, legal
documents, etc. You've basically rebutted each of these revelations with nothing but offhanded dismissal and unfounded conjecture - so please, cry me
a river about how much I'm
the one who's apparently being brainwashed...
But yeah, to recap:
- You tried to claim the CRU destroyed all their raw data. I showed you this was completely untrue, just a false news report propagated by right-wing
media. I also explained to you the detailed, in-context truth behind the whole "hide the decline" controversy, something of which you were
apparently unaware since you thought it was pretty "self-explanatory".
- You tried to claim UAH and RSS data shows a downward trend over the last ten years. I showed you how frivolous and completely wrong this assertion
is simply by linking to the actual data. So then you tried to backpedal out of this rather embarassing corner by claiming it's true if you look from
2001-2009 - which is still not even the case
, but regardless - this practice is called cherry picking, aka SPIN
- You then brought up the well-publicized apparent issues with surface temperature stations, propagated by Anthony Watts and his surfacestations.org
cult. Myself and nataylor both showed you how although his accusations might appear legit on a qualitative level, a simple quantitave analysis has
proven there is no distinct corruption in the data. Furthermore a recent detailed study has in fact now revealed that if anything, there is a slight
cooling bias. Even further furthermore - mbkennel was also kind enough to leave you a link showing how much surface records completely correlate with
your beloved UAH and RSS data anyway. But despite all these fatal blows to his theory, Anthony Watts is still touring around the world pushing his
defunct propaganda on people who don't know any better. I also gave you an explicit direct link between Watts and the Heartland Institute - an
organization well-known for its notorious history of trying to downplay the health hazards of smoking, not to mention denying AGW.
- But then you really out-did yourself when you posted links to junkscience.com. This goes way beyond some weak "attack the character" excuse.
Because the fact that you are going to a place like that to gather any information on environmental issues speaks VOLUMES about how much you are the
one being manipulated. And baseless accusations my ### - I already showed you direct links on how
the whole "junk science" movement
is connected to
lying, manipulative corporate agendas and public spin.
And by direct I mean direct
: court-ordered disclosure documents outlining these connections and their motives. I also linked you to a report
that detailed extensively all the dirty relationships between ExxonMobil, The American Petroleum Institute, various front organizations and virtually
every one of your skeptical global warming scientists: Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, Pat Michaels - they're all in there. I gave you these links, which
provide not only direct evidence through official documents, but also source links to HUNDREDS of external documents as well. So how can you seriously
sit there with a straight face and tell me I have no actual evidence??? Just because you decided to stick your head in the dirt and ignore all this
crucial information doesn't mean it's not there.
- So let's see, what else: then you also keep trying to pass off distrorted conjecture as important facts. For example the whole "solar activity was
only reduced 4% so it's irrelevant" thing. Instead of just automatically swallowing this nonsense like you apparently did - I went and used my
to do the math myself
. And presto - it turned out the numbers completely agree and are in fact completely relevant.
So how do you want to play that one off as me just being "tricked by the spin"?