Post by marchesarosa on Sept 22, 2010 8:46:20 GMT 1
The “debate” between ClimateAudit and realclimate over Michael Mann’s “Hockystick” data.
Mann: 2+2=5
McIntyre: No, 2+2=4
Mann: thats bizarre
Mc: 2+2=4, just say it Mike
Mann: it doesnt matter, look over here we say 3+3=6
Mc: 2+2=4
Mann: it doesnt matter, ask gavin
Amac: ya 2+2=4
Mann: it doesnt matter
Mosher: Can anybody besides steve just say that 2+2=4
Dehog: You said Piltdown Mann once.
Mc: 2+2=4
Gavin: it doesnt matter:
Tiljander: 2+2=4
Arthur Smith: I”ll look into it.
Amac; 2+2=4
Gavin: Can we change the subject, we said it doesnt matter.
Mosher: can you say 2+2=4
Lambert: Fuller is full of it.
Bishop: Mike said 2+2=5, but 2+2=4
Tamino: Bishop said 2+2=5
Mc: Bishop was explaining Mann.
Amac: 2+2=4
Kloor: why can’t we reason together?
Gavin: we try, but they wont read our answers.
Amac: 2+2=4
Gavin: There he goes again, please shut him up.
Mc; 2+2=4
RC commenter: Do your own science Mcintyre.
Mc: 2+2=5 is not publishable. Mann needs to correct this.
Mann: its all in the SI
Amac: hey, the Mann website now says 2+2=4
Gavin: The exact value of 2+2 is uninteresting. move along.
RC commenter: Hey, McIntyre said 2+2=5
Mc: no I didn't.
RC commenter: oops, my bad, but I’m right in spiri.t
Gavin: discussion over, lets talk about the black list.
Kloor: all you people who think 2+2=4, can discuss this further.
Scientist: Tiljander’s paper wasn’t perfect, lets pressure test her.
Amac: but 2+2=4
Scientist: Can you give me a reading list?
Another (real) scientist: Did anybody perform the odd-even rule in sum verification?
Gavin: discussion over, lets talk about the black list.
Kloor: All you people who think 2+2=4, can discuss this further.
Amac: but 2+2=4
Scientist: Can you give me a reading list?
Bender: Read the whole blog.
Amac: In summary 2+2=4
Deltoid Commenter: tw pls tw eqls fr
Lambert: You’ve been disemvoweled
Amac: 2+2=4
Hank Roberts: I can’t find Amac on google scholar
Jim Praul: Good I’ll put him on the list.
Mc: 2+2=4
Gavin: I will not dignify an accusation of fraud with a response.
Mc: 2+2=4
Bart Verheggen: I am unimpressed by McIntyre’s dogwhistle tactics insinuating fraud.
Shell Oil: 2+2 =4
Deep Climate: that proves McIntyre’s Oil connection.
Briffa: I got 2+2=3
Harry: I didn't write that code.
Mann: Keith, hide that decline, here borrow 2 from me.
Jones: Keith, we match Mann now 2+2=5
Obsborn: Somebody email Amman and see what he thinks.
RyanO: good luck with that, Amman never answers mail
Palmer: Perfect, ask him if our mail is confidential.
Amman:
Jones: I think Amman would agree, deny the FOIA
Briffa (CONFIDENTIAL) Gene, McItyre says 2+2=4. Can you help?
Wahl: We replicated his work, 2+2=5
Holland: I heard that.
Amac: 2+2=4
Amman: Oh MAN! will this crap ever end?? (http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=887)
RyanO: Hey, how’d you get Amman to answer mail?
YAD061: 2+2=5 (+/-6sigma)
Amac:2+2=4
Brian Angliss: Lots of mails you haven't read might say 2+2=4
Santer: Amac, you and me in the alley.
Dehog: Christy Believes in God.
Spencer: wrong skeptic, Dehog.
God: 2+2=4
Jones: Dear God, delete your mail
Overpeck: Keith we need something more compelling than the Hockey stick.
Briffa: 2+2=4.1?
Overpeck: MORE compelling, Keith!
Briffa: I’ve only got 3 trees. I can get 1+2=4 with another core.
Wigley: McIntyre may have a point on this 2+2=4 thing.
Mann: “Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made.”
Eli Rabbet: Spencer made a mistake, therefore, 2+2=5
Amac: 2+2=4
Briffa: I got it, Peck, 2+2=5
Mann: I said that first.
Gavin: In a massive waste of time and money Independent researchers have investigated this uninteresting thing.
Moshpit:{slaps forehead}
Amman: www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav
Shell Oil: Hulme we gave you 2 million last month and you want another 2 million?
Hulme: Ya, 5 should be enough. Pachauri, promised us 6, so that makes 12.
Shell oil: Who is your accountant?
Hulme: Wei-Chyung Wang, at Suny
Jones: He keeps great records ask Keenan.
Amac:2+2=4.
Deltoid commenter: can I buy a vowel?
Lambert: Buy 2 get 2 free
RC: 2+2=5 because you have to account for the forcing due to CO2
Mann: He doesn’t need 5, Tim.
Trenberth: We can’t find the extra 1 and it is a travesty that we can’t!!!
Keith: It’s in compound numbers and it’s for your i’s only.
Phil: You might mean complex numbers? I can’t imagine you’d be wrong, neither could I.
Judith Curry: Can you boys please stop this nonsense.
Mann: They started it.
Mc: Did not
Gavin: Did too
Amac: Did somebody say 2? 2+2=4
Consensus: 97% of mathematicians agree that 2+2=5.
RC: If you take into account the ERROR BARS, then 2+2=5 is perfectly correct. With error bars of +/-42.
Mann: 2.5 +2.5 = 5 but we suppressed the decimal places. How dare you ask for our detailed data!
Dr Judith Curry: 2 + 2 is approximately 5 for reasonable values of 2 and 5. Can’t we all just get along?
Mann: And 2+2=5, for very large values of 2….
AMac: 2+2 = 1+2+1 = 1+1+1+1 = 2*2 = 2^2 = 4
Gavin: For the sake of completeness, I will simply repeat 2+2=5, for some values of 5, until further notice.....
And so it goes! Thanks to the guys at ClimateAudit engaging a rare moment of fun here
climateaudit.org/2010/08/06/mosher-on-gavins-frustration/#comment-238046