|
Post by steve on Oct 6, 2010 13:22:01 GMT
Logical failure. He tells lies, but non-straightforward lies. If he cut a tree down with an axe he would say - I did not saw down that tree, that tree was fine the last time I saw it when I got up this morning, I'm very cross that you would accuse me of cutting it down, after all I've never been caught cutting down a tree before.
I think your misinterpretation of my sentence explains why Monckton is able to confuse you.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2010 16:43:38 GMT
Logical failure. He tells lies, but non-straightforward lies. You explained he was obfuscating and implying stuff instead. I explained that there is no obfuscating in refusing to turn up the power of the microscope to see an inconsequential decline in ice. So instead Monckton used the entire data. The fact the boat is designed in such a way it rolls naturally (a design consideration that allows a boat to slide smoothly through the water) each tiny roll of the boat is not evidence the boat is unstable. You guys are making mountains out of molehills by narrowly looking at very limited high resolution data and making big projections from teensy quite natural variations. Monckton calls you on it and you accuse him of obfuscation. But just the opposite is true. When the real record does not respond as you predicted you claim the heat must have gone to the bottom of the ocean. When asked then why was there a flat period in sea level rise directly corresponding to the measurement of flat or cooling OHC, which would be expected if the ocean stopped warming but would not be expected if the heat was going to bottom of the ocean, you obfuscate or ignore it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 6, 2010 17:07:25 GMT
No he didn't use the entire data. Yes, "refusing to turn up the power of the microscope" is obfuscating if you know that doing so will give a message different to what you convey. I don't know any microscope analogies, but I have a telescope one: "I see no ships"
I have never said that the flat period was nothing to do with the flatter ocean heat content trend, and I don't hold any strong opinions on whether there is an OHC build up in the deep ocean. Land ice melt is another important (and uncertain) variable for sea level.
What Monckton did was look around for convenient data and display it overly favourably. Do you expect to see him display the updated data now that his arrow points the wrong way? You might say he is simply displaying the data in a the most favourable way. I say it is cherry-picking.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2010 17:44:12 GMT
What Monckton did was look around for convenient data and display it overly favourably. Thats a common complaint from people who build mountains out of molehills. The graphs you presented aren't very compelling Steve. I don't see any basis for your accusations in your complaints. Very clearly there is nothing whatsoever that arises to the level of the "hide the decline" effort.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 6, 2010 19:03:07 GMT
Monctkon misled people. People go away thinking arctic ice isn't declining. It is.
|
|