Richard,

I accept your apology for your failed attempt to trivilise this thread when it became obvious you were not able to deal effectively with the substance of the arguments.

I wonder, however, whether those few honest skeptics who you have embarrassed with your antics will be as forgiving. You've certainly made the skeptic position that much harder to defend.

...Continued from above:

The quote is representative of my reading of the report. Briefly, if the Academy finds little confidence in the conclusion that there weren't warmer years or decades than those mentioned in the last millennium, then the Hockey Stick, as it pertains to that millennium, remains unverified -. The onus of proof is on those who subscribe to it, and the report does not grant that proof.

There is high confidence in the Little Ice Age cooling and late 20th century warming, the part I omitted, primarily because, as mentioned by Cathy, this is hardly news to anybody, though it was widely reported as such in the media, and is a distraction from the topic at hand.

Even IF my second ellipsis, which was intended as nothing more than a pause, were included in the quote, it could only be considered as more honest to indicate that there is more after the quote, something you didn’t do. This is not common practice as it is understood by most people that a quote is an extract from a larger text. It IS critical, however, to place ellipses where words have been omitted within a quote.

...continued from above:

For someone so keen to impute dishonesty and deceit in everything NOT on the page (He used an ellipsis, he must be hiding something), I could ask why YOU chose to end your quote where you did? For those interested, the sentence in the report immediately following it begins: "Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented…” (Yes, there is more.)

The point is, unlike you, I read your quote in good faith as representative of your view. It was that which I wished to challenge. Your subsequent focus on my erroneously described “constant use of ellipses” is little more than an exercise in obfuscation. I agree you took the debate off on a trivial tangent, and I regret being sucked in. I did not apologize for this, however, so I don’t know which God gave you the right to think you could forgive me. As for the false assumptions, insults and accusations, they say more about you than me.

“Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.” – Eleanor Rossevelt

I stand by my view that the report does not verify the Hockey Stick. I stand by my use of one ellipsis for the reasons mentioned above, and I reject your accusation that I diced and butchered as groundless hyperbole. I don’t think it’s technically possible to dice with one cut.

I have no further desire to argue with an ellipticon (don’t look it up, I just coined it myself). So I’m pulling stumps on this one. I can hear the collective online sigh of relief.

All the best.

Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet leader, was often laughing when he talked about a specific group of academics and intellectuals abroad who were always most willing to assist in putting a spin on, or otherwise explain away the harsh realities of Soviet dictatorship. He called them ‘useful idiots’.

Today we have another kind of ‘useful idiots’. Individuals who are in various ways subsidised or in some other way are benefiting from a little extra job in expressing extremist views and spins which can than allow leading politician the possibility of later claiming a ‘middle ground’ a bit to the right of Mr Ghengis Khan and his oilfields.

Keith Windschuttle and Bob Carter here belongs to John Howard’s own little army of ‘useful idiots’ (we could add a few more names, the monopoly press in Australia is full of them). None of them are experts in the field they have taken on, but that matters to no one. It is all very well organised. An extra little army of so-called ‘ordinary’ people are always lined up and ready to follow up on the latest little ‘gold nugget’ article from the hands of our spin-maker genius – adding a few words of heartfelt gratitude; ‘Finally Dr Carter (or whoever) told us the truth – Hallelujah - praise the Lord- another scientist supporting intelligent design – or the latest fanciful left wing fabrication - and let’s pump out some more co2 - its all good for the lungs (and our pockets)!’

Neither does not matter to Carter that nobody in Sweden recognises his nonsense-spin or that half the worlds Nobel price winners and virtually all real experts in climatic sciences says the exact opposite. Why does it not matter for Carter? The answer is very simple; this is not and never was - a question of truth, science and integrity - this is entirely a question of denying and set in motion some useful public spins for the benefit of his generous friends.

Kaep

That sounds like an awfully big secret for the United States to keep. Surely there would be leaks for an experiment with such profound implications?

Richard,

Though I am loathe to kick a man when he is down, you continue to make misrepresentations and I am obliged to correct the record.

First, you did apologise, you said: "Apologies to all who want to read more important stuff here." As someone interested in more important stuff, I generously accepted your apology for trivilising this thread, when, rather than defend your misrepresentation of the NAS report, you chose to focus on my entirely accurate use of the word 'constant'.

Second, you made three cuts to the paragraph, not one. It is burdensome to have to constantly correct your "mistakes", but if they are left uncorrected then I am allowing you to get away with misrepresenting the record.

Third, that you made strategic cuts to the paragraph you quoted in order to misrepresent the NAS report is obvious to all. You admit as much when you say, "The quote is representative of my reading of the report". Of course it is! You butchered the paragraph until it - almost - met with your prejudices. Little wonder you originally chose to focus on my wording and not on defending your conduct. You only changed tact when I called you on your misrepresentation. Nothing more need be said on this score.

Forth, your suggestion that I began this spiral into abyss is amusing, but alas - for you - wrong. I have no need to change the subject. I am clearly standing on solid ground. You, on the other hand, well, that's a different story.

Finally, the NAS report is clear: It does not say the "Hockey Stick" is "unverifable" or "unverified"; it does not say the "Hockey Stick" has been "discredited". On the contrary, it says Mann's conclusions have been supported by more recent evidence.

Ultimately, that is the point. On the whole, the evidence continues to support Mann's position. If you have evidence that says otherwise, by all means, bring it on. I for one would like to believe humanity's ways are not affecting our climate.