How about for "years", we substitute "right now"?

http://www.yourappshop.com/

for instance.

We all know Apple bans Flash because it would allow third party apps that don't have to forfeit 30% of revenue to Apple. Plain and simple. All other explanations are just someone's absurd mental gymnastics to justify Apple's stupid and shortsighted iPhone OS policies.

And how do you reconcile this opinion with all the effort that Apple has put into making it possible for offline HTML5 apps to act indistinguishably from native code apps ... and, indeed, for the first year after the iPhone's unveiling, it being Apple's official line that HTML5 apps would be the *only* third party development route available?

You mean, an overpriced blowjob?

Hmmm ... I suppose that's not too far off the mark, actually.

But fortunately, I can still retreat to ad hominem.

Nicely put. I'll have to remember that one.

You keep re-iterating it. I fail to see it written in law.

You had your head in the sand the last eight years and missed the fuss over the whole White House email thing? Anyone receiving federal funds, as Dr. Mann does, is subject to FOIA laws no less than the President.

I'm not sure if you're aware of what HARRY_READ_ME.txt is

I am indeed. It's something that is of no relevance to what I was saying, since not a single one of my quotes is from that document. The one I repeated is from "mxdgrid2ascii.pro".

So, we've now established that you can't even match a quote to its source, when prompted twice; you go blathering off about some completely different document than what was actually being discussed. Whoo-hoo. There's certainly one of us here lacking in cognitive capacity, indeed.

Perhaps you know what he meant by "facilitate calibration." If so, you're welcome to explain it, but I'm gonna bet that you don't have the first idea.

What did you bet? Because I win it. What he meant is delineated in "maps12.pro":

"these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

In fact, I'll bet you don't even know what he meant by artificially removed. Which process did he use? Did he drop all the data, did he introduce a temporary constraint, did he selectively drop data?

I'll take 'None of the Above', either because you're intentionally dissembling or you're too stupid to follow links. And given how you can't even figure out what document a quote is from, as shown above, I'll take it that the you are stupid option is correct. As here is the adjustment:

;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj

The sheer inadequacy of not being able to figure that out on your own pretty much proves the worthlessness of your alleged opinion.

I'll bet you don't know the answers to these questions. And I further bet that you don't care. Because that isn't how you form your opinions, is it? You don't actually dig until you understand the topic -- hell, you obviously don't even have the first idea of what HARRY_READ_ME.txt actually is,

Yes I do; it's something that I didn't quote, has no relevance, and you're either too incoherent to be worth bothering to read because you can't keep your head straight long enough to actually read my very short post; or you're a flat out liar hoping to deceive other people reading this in between your post and when I get back to call you on your lies. Either way, there's certainly no point wasting any further time on whatever flat out lies you post in alleged rebuttal to these facts.

"why it was not only wrong but intentionally wrong."

Duuuuude ... You can't even read five paragraphs down? OK, let me repeat it.

"post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be, which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is""

Can you understand the English language? There is a clear statement of why it is wrong, then a comma, then a clear statement of why it is intentionally wrong.

Unless you can point out, under which law such an action is legal, my point still stands.

Be glad to!

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980023_en_1

Both 43B (1) (a) and (b) are applicable.

I can only reiterate my wish for actual facts,

Here you go.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=891&filename=1212063122.txt

The fact of conspiracy is evidenced. The fact of commission is currently being researched.

Which requirements of the FOIA have they supposedly been trying to circumvent?

The emails referenced in the above link are subject to FOIA requests. Deleting them is a felony.

Even if it were a crime, you seem to claim that the persons in questions are the perpetrators

Given the title of the leaked file, it is quite reasonable to conclude that the whistleblower was tasked with complying with an FOIA request, and when that request was denied leaked the information compiled to comply with it anyways. And quite rightly so, both as a matter of honour and a matter of law.

Here's what proof of misrepresentation looks like ... statement something like "to make it look like is true even though we have no indication it might be."

That sounds like reasonable proof, yes. So you would be meaning, proof like

"shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures"?

Or maybe proof like

"Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline that affects tree-ring density records)"?

How about this apparently completely incontrevertible proof?

"NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be, which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful than it actually is"

All quotes from source code.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/

come on, when do the French *ever* agree with anyone else?

Yes, the French do disagree, don't they? For instance, here is research by the French which disagrees with that data, directly contrary to your assertion.

"A French scientist's temperature data show results different from the official climate science. Why was he stonewalled? Climate Research Unit emails detail efforts to deny access to global temperature data..."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx#ixzz0YZ7p3beK

it agrees with research by the ... Candians[sic]

OK, on that particular point -- as you could guess from that link above to Canada's National Post! -- I consider myself on quite firm ground indeed. Please provide citations to the Candians[sic] research papers you believe agree. I follow the research production of all major Canadian universities, and I'm aware of a couple papers that support solar-linked climate theories, and I am aware of dozens of papers in geology and archaeology which quite directly contradict the accepted AGW narrative by demonstrating that the Medieval Warm period in northern Canada was several degrees warmer than today.

But I am not aware of a single Canadian-authored paper that would make your statement above truthful. If there is just one, please cite.

Despite the illegal and unethical breach of their private communication,

Actually, it was neither. In fact, *not* revealing it would be a crime!

There is quite clear evidence in the email dump of widespread conspiracy and of several actual commissions of fact to evade the requirements of the FOIA. As that is a felonious activity, to conceal your knowledge of it is the crime of misprision.

3. They admitted to manipulating data to 'hide the decline' or 'get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.' I don't have a problem with 'trick' being used. No big deal, but 'hide the decline'? Not good.

Look closer. They actually *replaced* the inconveniently truthful proxy data with instrument measurements to get the fitting they wanted. That's not a 'trick'. That's plain fraud.

For everyone's information: data was not manipulated

Oh, for crying out loud. Not only was it manipulated, they threw out both the raw data and any audit trail.

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based ... Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

I hope you're at least getting a paycheque for throwing out nonsense so easily proved wrong.

Well, actually, I've written the "Feed the World" app. Of course there's an app for that!

(It's an iPhone interface to http://www.thehungersite.com/ -- 'TouchToGive' from the Greater Good network, on the store within a couple weeks no doubt -- or listed on TFA's site. Place your bets which now!)

Having read that story, I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number

Here you go. Found in comments in the Mann code:

"shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

That's not just evidence, that's actual proof.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065

Having read that story, I saw no evidence that they lied or changed number.

Here you go. Found in comments in the Mann code:

"shouldn't usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures."

Yep, that's lying.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065