Richard,

You have clearly demonstrated to all how dishonestly many of you on your side of the debate have conducted yourselves.

You were so confident the NAS report said that Mann's conclusions were "unverifable" that when you read it and found it said something completely different you broke into a cold sweat. Not willing to admit your error like any decent person would, you sliced and diced the report until it almost said what you needed.

Here is what you saw when you first read the paragraph you butchered:

"Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the
preceding millennium."

This sentence should have seen you here acknowledging your mistake. Instead, you disceitfully cut this sentence - and many others - in order to pretend the report implied something it did not.

Your demand for an admission of error from me is laughable. Claiming elipses only count if they are in the middle of the quote is absurd. All can see you used them twice - as I correctly noted - and it should surprise no one that the second elipse at the end of your misquote cut some text that completely undermined your argument.

I note with interest that you do not deny you misquoted the report despite ample opportunity. I can only conclude you know you have been dishonest but you're not man enough to admit it.

My last comment on the Great Elipsis Debate 2006. Apologies to all who want to read more important stuff here.

In my post in question, I made two mistakes.

a) I ended the quote with a single ' instead of a ", which I should have.

b) My second elipsis AFTER the quote was a poor grammatical choice, not intended to suggest ommission, which I would have put INSIDE the quote. Nonetheless, I should have just left a full stop.

My apologies to you Skellet for not including elipses to cover the 141 pages of the report I did not include in my quote. As David kindly provided above, the full report can be found at:

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/climate%20dispute/NAS%20full%20report.pdf

However, I am happy to display for all to see here the full paragraph you suggest I sliced, diced and butchered. The section in brackets is the part omitted by the elipsis in my original quote.

[More before]..."Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion [compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming.] Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."...[more after]

Continued...

How could I have been so stupid to swallow all this lefty greenie scientist nonsense. All this time I have empathised with the plight of polar bears facing starvation and drowning, but thanks to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I now know the truth. Their video footage explicitly shows two fat polar bears playing golf in Greenland. They said that things had never been so great and that they were just loving the hot weather. The footage then switched to several more polar bears lounging around a swimming pool. One was even lying back on a banana lounge sipping an iced coffee.

This is the greatest change of mind I have had since seeing a Japanese film showing how well allied pows were treated during the second world war. Up till then I had thought that allied pows were subjected to the most abominable and despicable treatment for which most of their persecutors went unpunished. But all the while they were being pampered and playing golf.

Thank goodness for global warming sceptics.

So Prof Carter is a Swedish media expert? Yes, it’s hard to feel informed about the world without reading Svenska Dagbladet and Göteborgs-Posten as soon as they hit the news-stands.

Quite a boring and pointless article... At about the half-way point, I stopped reading it.

On the other hand, "An Inconvenient Truth" is a great movie. It is informative and touching. I imagine lots of people are now walking out of cinema’s with the idea that conservation is necessary and we can work for a prosperous future.

If there is one movie to see this century it is "An Inconvenient Truth".

Look and learn, global warming is not consistent with what's happening in the Atlantic this year.

Early May showed that heat in the Atlantic was worse this year than the disasterous 2005 season. A worse bout of US hurricanes was predicted for this year
May-11-05
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005131atsst.png

May-11-06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006131atsst.png

By mid July the situation had reversed with 50% less heat in the Atlantic than last year. This indicated an ABRUPT Atlantic cooling.
Jul-19-06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005200atsst.png

Jul-19-05
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005200atsst.png

Currently, the Atlantic is still cooler than the disasterous 2005 season despite all the 2005 hurricanes rapidly shifting heat out of the area.
Oct-17-05
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2005290atsst.png

Oct-17-06
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/dataphod1/work/HHP/NEW/2006290atsst.png

Comment:
Now global warming is inconsistent with such rapid changes from year to year and month to month in Atlantic heat levels when the whole planet is supposed to be getting warmer. What is worse, the US had a bumper 2006 year for economic activity which means significantly MORE CO2 was being emitted across the Atlantic this year. That ought to have heated the ocean surface even more. IT DIDN'T. Most of this season it was 50% less than 2005.

Continued,

People must ask why Atlantic heat levels behaved this way. Coastal waters were being systematically cleaned of pollution and this was clearly visible in Sea Height Anomaly maps after early July.
As added proof, Manatees were swimming the Hudson river, fish stocks were rebounding along the US east coast and the US was suffering E-Coli outbreaks consistent with a holding back of sewage wastes.

The final proof of this will come next year 2007 when there will not be any US landfall hurricanes once again. Now the US knows how to stop hurricanes and reduce Atlantic sea surface heat levels by holding back its wastewaters, you have to understand that they will continue to do so because the stakes are $100 billion per season high. The only reasons this is still an open secret in the US is that they need more than one season's results for confirmation and probably also because this effective 'climate control' gives the US a significant economic advantage over the rest of the world.

Look at CURRENT data from around the world before assuming global warming theory is valid. Keep watching the US SST and SHA maps during their hurricane season 2007 and for goodness sake lobby NSW state and federal governments to clean up the bloody mess of the NSW coast that is causing the worst drought in our history. And based on this year's US data, a 50% turnaround in hostile climate (drought) can be achieved in as little as 1-2 months