That’s hand-waving, mhaze:

//I’m not dismissing figures that don’t suit. What figures have I dismissed?... if more honest figures were available they'd tell an even worse story.//

Yes you are.

You call China’s figures propaganda when they show clean-energy progress — yet cite the same figures as proof renewables “don’t work.” That’s selective trust. Either they’re credible enough to use, or they’re not. You can’t both brand them propaganda and build your case on them.

//The figures we have before us tell a sad story… and if more honest figures were available they'd tell an even worse story.//

That’s an assumption dressed up as conclusion. Data should constrain analysis, not act as a springboard for “probably worse” storytelling. If you can only make your point by imagining figures that don’t exist, that’s not analysis — that’s speculation.

//Making educated guesses about incomplete data is what analysis is ALL about.//

No. Analysis weighs evidence against uncertainty. It doesn’t license you to assume the unknown automatically favours your position. An “educated guess” acknowledges limits; you’re treating limits as confirmation. That’s not analysis, it’s bias.

//If all the data is known and undisputed then there isn't analysis, just narrative.//

Wrong again.

Narrative is when you slot facts into a story without testing alternatives. Analysis is when you interrogate data, test competing explanations, and acknowledge uncertainty.

If “analysis” for you means always guessing in the direction of your own claims, that explains a lot.

It seems you also struggle with history, mhaze.

//The West, the inheritor of Athenian and Roman notions of the individual and individual freedom verses the East's adherence to the sole ruler.//

History doesn’t fit that cartoon.

Athens had slavery and no rights for women, Rome spent centuries as an empire under strongmen, and “the West” itself produced absolute monarchs and fascism. Meanwhile, “the East” includes traditions of pluralism and decentralisation - from Indian republics to Confucian checks on emperors.

Flattening 2,000 years of complexity into “West = liberty, East = tyranny” isn’t history, it’s a caricature.

//Edenhofer: “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…”//

That’s one of the most cherry-picked lines in the denial playbook.

In context he was pointing out that all international agreements have distributional consequences - who pays, who benefits - not that climate policy is secretly communism.

//Espinosa: “Free-market capitalism must die…”//

Again, stripped of context. She was criticising a deregulated model that ignores climate costs, not calling for the abolition of markets altogether.

If your “evidence” relies on cartoons of history and quotes stripped of context, then it too explains a lot.

"Yes you are."

Oh well, if you say so! Just reciting your erroneous misunderstanding over and over doesn't improve it.

As to the broad ribbon of history, it seems JD is no better versed than he is as regards statistics. Perhaps one day we'll find something he does understand.

I don’t just say so, mhaze.

//Oh well, if you say so!//

I show so.

//Just reciting your erroneous misunderstanding over and over doesn't improve it.//

Of course not, that’s why I gave specific examples of you dismissing data as propaganda when it hurts your case, then leaning on the same data when you think it helps. That is selective trust. Simply waving it away with “erroneous misunderstanding” doesn’t make the contradiction vanish, it just shows you don’t want to touch it.

//As to the broad ribbon of history, it seems JD is no better versed than he is as regards statistics. Perhaps one day we'll find something he does understand.//

This is the clearest tell yet.

Not a single correction of what I wrote about Athens, Rome, monarchy, pluralism, or Confucian constraints. Not a single counter-source. Just a sneer. You’re hoping that by putting me down you can avoid addressing the fact that your “West = liberty, East = tyranny” narrative was a cartoon version of history.

This is a pattern:

- When your use of statistics is challenged, you fall back on “if we had more honest figures they’d prove me right.”

- When your selective quoting is exposed, you move on without acknowledgement.

- When your history gets corrected, you retreat into mockery.

It’s pure evasion. You dismiss what you can’t rebut, imagine data that doesn’t exist, and try to cover the gaps with insult.

If the strongest move left in your playbook is hoping people remember the tone of your sneer rather than the emptiness of your argument, then you’ve already conceded the point.

"I gave specific examples of you dismissing data "

What data did I dismiss that was detrimental to my case? Just asserting I dismissed it doesn't make it so.

"Not a single counter-source. "

Counter source? You didn't provide a single source.

"“if we had more honest figures they’d prove me right.”"

Still don't get, poor JD. If we had honest figures that make my point even stronger, although even the less accurate figures already prove my point. Not a difficult point I'd suggest, although, it seems, too difficult for JD.

The strategic detachment is a new approach, mhaze.

Let's see if it gets you the win you've been chasing for so long now...

//What data did I dismiss that was detrimental to my case?//

The Chinese energy stats.

When they show coal burning, you treat them as gospel. When they show clean-energy expansion, you dismiss them as propaganda. That’s not me asserting, that’s you switching trust depending on whether the numbers help or hurt. That’s textbook selective dismissal.

//Counter source? You didn't provide a single source.//

I corrected your cartoon history with facts: Athens had slavery, Rome had emperors, “the West” had monarchs and fascists, “the East” had pluralist traditions and checks on rulers. That’s history, not an opinion. You can call it “no source” if you like, but unless you’re claiming Athens didn’t have slaves or Rome wasn’t ruled by emperors, then you’re not disputing - you’re evading.

//…although even the less accurate figures already prove my point.//

They don’t.

They show that China is rapidly expanding renewables alongside coal, which undercuts your “renewables fable” narrative.

That’s why you’ve had to set it up so that the coal numbers are always “real” and renewables are always “propaganda.” And if renewables look big, you just assume the “honest” figures would show even more coal.

If your position can never be wrong by definition, then it can never be right by evidence either.

It’s a shell game and a bad faith manoeuvre.