Yeah, it was a pretty good movie.

Could be, or maybe my fingers don't work as well for precision pointing than others. Whatever it is, I really like the stylus for precision.

Oh, what's that? You responded with an ad hominem attack and argument by authority instead of addressing the argument? This from somebody who references a site by a professional cartoonist and "web programmer"?

You haven't addressed why Mann's plot was being shown when Jones was talking about what he did with his plot. It doesn't take a climate scientist to figure it out. Maybe if you got off your ass and did some research outside of "Skeptical Science" you could understand the subterfuge employed by "Skeptical Science".

I don't arbitrarily chop off data that doesn't "fit" my hockey stick and then claim the last 1,000 years doesn't match my hockey stick high, either. I also don't splice in real temps to three separate proxy graphs, giving the illusion of certainty when there is none. And there are professional scientists who have come out against this bullshit, though anybody with a basic science education can see the inherent problem.

Of course, if you're so entrenched in your position, you won't see it because you won't even look or think critically.

You mean you read some blurbs on "Skeptical Science" or from Mann or Jones giving press interviews. How about instead you cite the science that says it is ok to chop off data without a valid explanation for what is causing the "divergence problem".

Funny, I just told you what was wrong with it (Jones' graph in particular is what we're talking about, in case you still haven't figured that out), and even told you a report admonished Jones for his graph, but this is what you come back with?

No further comments on deleting email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Do you admit that was a very wrong thing to do, both ethically and legally?

No further comments about showing your data and work, friend or "enemy"? Do you agree that's what a good scientist should do?

No citation about "incomplete work"? Do you admit you have none? Do you acknowledge what Jones said, "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years."?

Do you acknowledge that this is a farce: "the committee accepted that Jones had released all the data that he could"? Do you acknowledge one report directly contradicts this statement?

Do you acknowledge that Phil Jones isn't the "scapegoat" you made him out to be, and that his own actions put him in the spotlight?

Do you acknowledge your original statement, "What they found were scientists venting with each other about people like you who misrepresent anything that was said for political gain." is completely inadequate, and completely glosses over serious ethical lapses?

Maybe you look stupid for wearing a watch. Or maybe it's just personal taste and isn't worth the insults?

No, that's a definition of some kind of democracy. What the Libertarian Party wants is listed right in the title of it's homepage: "Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government".

You can't seriously argue that when you can't even legally smoke pot Libertarians have what they are "really" asking for.

For a single video or altogether? I'm looking at the user page of one right now that has ~150 million views total, across all videos. That's not Nintendo only, but it shows "Let's Play" videos can generate a lot of views.

I've looked at the context before, and while not nearly as bad as the reinterpreted "oh my God global warming is a hoax", what was done was rotten science, and the deeper I dug the more rot I saw.

It was more than that. Real temps were also spliced in to three separate proxy graphs. What's really amusing about the "Skeptical Science" article is this little bit:

"There is nothing secret about "Mike's trick". Both the instrumental and reconstructed temperature are clearly labelled. Claiming this is some sort of secret "trick" or confusing it with "hide the decline" displays either ignorance or a willingness to mislead."

Yes, Mann's plot, which they then so "helpfully" show, is clearly labeled. However, that's not the plot Jones created when he applied the "trick", and it is not clearly labeled, and the instrumental record has been spliced in. Why the subterfuge in "Skeptical Science"?

"Skeptical Science" is about legit as "Ministry of Truth", as the site is anything but skeptical and goes out of its way to put the most positive spin on AGW climate science. This makes for some interesting reading: http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

There was never a definitive reason given for this "divergence problem", so by chopping out data that doesn't match recent warming but leaving it in for earlier reconstructions, you are cherry-picking and applying confirmation bias, and its the kind of thing that will lead to graphs that show recent warming as being unprecedented for the last 1000 years.

I'm sorry, but how does this answer the question about an explicit request to delete email regarding the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? Oh, it doesn't, you're just parroting the usual lame excuses without even thinking about it.

You're talking about work paid for with public money, done for a process that is supposed to guide world leaders, and you think it's ok to delete the email because you are being "harassed" by skeptics that want transparency? If this came out from a corporate exec or despised politician, would you be here making these lame excuses?

Instead of making flimsy analogies, let's talk about reality. If I'm a scientist and unwilling to defend my work publicly and transparently, then I'm a bad scientist. You don't divide science between friends and enemies. Release the data, show your work, and defend it (and even more importantly, admit mistakes!).

I've never seen the claim of "incomplete" work. Do you have a citation?

"Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? - our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it !"

His documented history speaks for itself. He just happened to be the worst offender at mixing politics with science, though hardly the only one.

Phil Jones was actually admonished in one report regarding the WMO "hide the decline" graph (passing it off as a labeling/description issue), and also admonished for not releasing data, but yes, it was generally whitewashed. I'll believe what I can independently verify for myself over whitewash committee reports.

Please. Anybody that's looked seriously at the "hide the decline" issue and doesn't see scientific misconduct for political reasons is completely biased. I actually used to be a "warmist", not a "denier", until Climategate. Not that I was really a "warmist", as I knew trying to model the temperature of the Earth at best was always going to be somewhat uncertain, but I at least gave the scientists the benefit of the doubt.

And if "hide the decline" isn't enough for you, then there was the explicit email requesting others to erase email to avoid freedom of information acts. That's a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Where was the prosecution?

Or how about, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Or how about this, "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it."

Do you know what the common thread is among all that? Phil Jones. That they couldn't at least fire that clown shows just how much they circled the wagons.

That's called a whitewash, as tends to happen in political fields.

When it comes to climate science, you get grants for predicting disasters or otherwise confirming global warming. The field is completely political. You only need look at Climategate for confirmation.

My exerience with a recent Nook made me wish I had a stylus for something as simple as closing tabs on a web browser. The amount of failure involved using my fingers on that device was just completely frustrating. I really don't understand why people hate the stylus so much. I really liked using the stylus on the Nintendo DS, for example.

I doubt Microsoft makes more from Android then Windows. Since the agreements have all been confidential, you don't know, either. As for the patents, they've been listed before. Yes, they're pretty shitty, but that's par for the course and doesn't mean they'll lose in court.

They also bought them because they were greedy, when even a little bit of common sense would tell them that they couldn't afford the house.

They paid what they were willing to pay a month. If the money became too much (perhaps due to an adjustable rate mortgage), they just bailed. And as housing prices skyrocketed, people who were prudent decided to wait to buy a house, while people who decided they wanted a McMansion, too, jumped in. Greed, greed, greed, all around.

Personal responsibility has to count for something. You can't just give people a free pass to act like a greedy moron and then foot the bill.

Which is completely self-serving and asinine, par for the course when it comes to bone-headed statements by Google execs and privacy.

A relative of mine in the US currently has a 3-week wait just to get a physical from her primary care physician to get a knee operated on. I don't know if that's unusual, but that's my anecdote.

That should read, "When it comes to Bill Gates..."