Err, no, LEGO. I didn’t say it was dishonest to quote someone verbatim. Nor was that what you did. I said it was dishonest to use quotes as if you were quoting verbatim when you weren’t, and you weren’t.

Have you lost the plot or are you just being as absurd as you can to get me to go away so you can claim victory and repeat that same naive arguments elsewhere?

And no, Flannery did not say the "dams would never fill again". I’ve just explained that and you ignored it. To make things even worse for yourself, you dishonestly use quotation marks, again, as if you were quoting verbatim.

Not that it matters, but just to demonstrate how confused you are at the moment, it was actually Hasbeen who claimed I was clutching at straws.

<<Plimer said that the geologists have hard evidence to prove that CO2 levels forty times higher than today were extant when the temperature of the Earth was lower than today.>>

Indeed he did.

<<How glaciation periods somehow negate his evidence is something you did not bother to explain.>>

Because that’s not what I said. Go back and read what I actually said.

<<Your next trick, is the old "baffle them with bullshiit" ploy.>>

I’m sorry if you find peer-reviewed papers baffling and don’t appreciate being referred to the actual scientific research instead of some amateur blogger’s website, but if that’s the case, then perhaps you’re not in a position to be forming an opinion on the topic.

<<Mark Steyn has called Mann's "hocky stick" climate graph "a fraud" and he is being sued by Mann in Washington DC for defamation.>>

Mann filed a lawsuit against Steyn for slanderous claims, not for saying the ‘hockey stick’ was a fraud.

<<Next you claim I forgot "ocean atmosphere".>>

I meant the ocean-atmosphere system.

<<The most telling evidence of how desperate you are becoming, is in your own writing style. Suddenly, the super cool AJ with the superior, condescending manner…>>

That’s more indicative of how easy this is becoming, as is the sheer panic in your tone.

'Your next trick, is the old "baffle them with bullshiit" ploy. You submit many pages from a scientific magazine written in diseased English gobbledegook, which quotes temperature data from climate alarmist supremo Robert Mann. Sorry mate, I just don't believe anything that Mann writes. Mark Steyn has called Mann's "hocky stick" climate graph "a fraud" and he is being sued by Mann in Washington DC for defamation. The smart money is on Mark Steyn."

Who's "Robert Mann".

LEGO can't even get the scientists names right - let alone offer evidence to debunk them....

Picky, picky, Poirot.

AJ. You claimed that Flannery never said that the dams would fill again. You insisted that I find the exact quote and hectored me until I did. The whole exercise was a wild goose chase meant to frustrate me. You knew all along that that was exactly what Flannery had meant. You are playing "let's stuff my opponents around" games by saying that the quote was not verbatum, and it is wrong to quote people without quoting them verbatim.

Look AJ, "down the road the dog ran" means exactly the same as "the dog ran down the road". The important point here is what Flannery said and meant, and you know it. But when you are as desperate to hide the truth as you are, any red herring will do to throw the hounds off the scent.

Oh. and it was Hasbeen, was it? That really supports your view that HIGW is a fact.

Mark Steyn in his speech the 10th International Conference on Climate Change explains that if he wins his court case, it will be a victory for science. (It will also be a victory for free speech.) What he claims, is that science is being perverted by ideologues who use the esteem that scientists are held in by the public to push an ideology using scientific terms which trashes the free market, democratic system. He notes that even the left wing press who don't like him are lining up to support him on free speech grounds. The idea people must not criticise a scientist, or a group of scientists, and their "research", because scientists are beyond criticism, is something even the left wing press will not support.

On the other hand, Steyn notes that scientists are lining up to support him. Real scientists are incensed at the way that science has been perverted by a bunch of Marxist, Gaian worshipping greenies, who hide data from sceptics, "homogenise" data not in accordance with the party line, and like Flannery, make predictions that everybody can see are laughably wrong

No, I didn't, LEGO.

<<You claimed that Flannery never said that the dams would fill again.>

Please point me to where I said that.

<<The whole exercise was a wild goose chase meant to frustrate me.>>

I already stated my reasons for requesting the quote and it turned out I was right. Either that or you were deliberately stalling because you knew that you had misquoted Flannery.

You have not yet demonstrated that he even meant what you implied, so you cannot claim this.

<<You are playing ... games by saying that ... it is wrong to quote people without quoting them verbatim.>>

Nope, never said that either. Please point to where you think I did.

<<..."down the road the dog ran" means exactly the same as "the dog ran down the road".>>

Correct, but you didn't just shuffle the same words around. You used completely different wording to read more into what was said than actually was.

<<Oh. and it was Hasbeen, was it? That really supports your view that HIGW is a fact.>>

Not at all. I explained why I mentioned that and even went out of my way begin with, "Not that it matters". That's how predictable you are.

I know what Steyn claims. I even watched the video you linked to (which was merely science-by-ridicule). I support Steyn's right to free speech too, but that does not entitle him to slander others, and if he does, then they have the right to respond legally. Steyn's claims regarding the 'hockey stick' are also based on cherry-picked data and misleading/doctored charts (one of which can be found in the Jo Nova link that ConservativeHippie supplied - see if you can spot the problem).

As for homogenisation, you still haven’t explained how it is not necessary or constitutes “fudging”. Nor have you provided any evidence for fudging, or explained why the fudging is not made apparent through discrepancies with non-homogenised data.

Did you see what I did there? You're becoming so repetitive now, and have left so much unanswered, that I can just copy-and-paste from an old response.

Sorry, LEGO. I misread this bit...

<<You claimed that Flannery never said that the dams would fill again.>>

I over-looked the first "never" because it should have been:

"You claimed that Flannery never said that the dams would NEVER fill again."

And indeed I did.

But since I'm wasting another post, I just thought I'd point out that it's occurred to me that I may have been giving you too much credit in assuming that you knew what Plimer was referring to, and when he "publically stated" it, in my last short and sharp reply regarding your confusion there. What Plimer was talking about was a glacial period in the late Ordovician period, and it was "publically stated" in his book, Heaven and Earth.

I should also point out that it does your cause no service to continuously appeal to free speech. Creationists pull the same desperate line, just as you do when you fallaciously appeal to Watson's authority after he was reprimanded for making offensive and demonstrably false claims regarding race. Similar to what I said regarding Flannery can be said for Mann - the science does not stand or fall on the actions of one person.

There are hundreds of qualified scientists. If you have to pick on the utterances or actions of two, and deduce from that what the science must say because peer-reviewed literature baffles you then you're unlikely to ever arrive at the right conclusion.

I'm not an expert myself and I'll admit that those papers were a difficult read for me too. But some of the terminology was easy enough to understand through its usage (e.g. "forcing") and the rest can be googled. If you want to understand this stuff, then they're what you need to read, and when you do, you will see as often as I do that the rubbish from people like Anthony Watts, Jo Nova and Bob Carter is wrong. Even when they bother to cite their sources, their don't usually say what they claim they say. I could give you a few examples.

I know that you social regressives have a problem with free speech, but that is your vice and not mine. Social regressives of yesterday, always claimed to be committed to every kind of freedom, but history showed that the commitment ended suddenly the moment they got into power themselves.

The whole climate alarmist case is promoted by a coven of left wing academics and the young scientists that they managed to convert to the green religion. It was no accident that the Aum cult in Japan targeted socially inept university geeks for the Aum's own apocalyptic vision of the future. Climate alarmists relied too much upon public ignorance of their work, and on the esteem that science has with the public, to pull the wool over the public's eyes. They relied on the propaganda manufacturers in the left wing press to propagate their propaganda, and they knew that lefties like yourself would unquestionably support them to display their brahmin caste credentials.

But the whole thing is coming unravelled because the scientists are standing up.

A perfect example of just how desperate the alarmists are to hide the truth, is not the "homogenised" data, the leaked emails, the lawsuits to shut up critics, or even the laughably inaccurate predictions of the climate alarmists. It is your own Do Whatever It Takes To Save The World tactics that are the perfect example. Flannery said the dams would never fill again, and instead of simply conceding the point so that we could move on, you saw an opportunity to obfuscate.

You beat around the bush demanding that I prove he said it, when you already knew he did. Next comes feigned moral outrage that I did not quote his words verbatum, even though the precis of his words did not change his meaning one whit. Then comes your mind boggling claim that "the dams will not fill again" does not mean that "the dams will not fill again."

Now you know why I stopped being a trendy lefty myself. I could no longer do what you are doing to promote a utopian ideology.