Gavin explained his frustration stemmed from people asking the same question over and over when it was already answered. He then reveals something new and closes the thread. We carry on here with one unknown guy trying to defend mann.
That’s the PROBLEM.
Mann: 2+2=5
McIntyre No, 2+2=4
Mann; thats bizarre
Mc: 2+2=4, just say it Mike
Mann: it doesnt matter, look over here we say 3+3=6
Mc: 2+2=4
Mann: it doesnt matter, ask gavin
Amac: ya 2+2=4
Mann: it doesnt matter
Mosher: Can anybody besides steve just say that 2+2=4
Dehog: You said Piltdown Mann once.
Mc: 2+2=4
Gavin: it doesnt matter:
Tiljander: 2+2=4
Arthur Smith: I”ll look into it.
Amac; 2+2=4
Gavin: Can we change the subject, we said it doesnt matter.
Mosher: can you say 2+2=4
Lambert: Fuller is full of it.
Bishop: Mike said 2+2=5, but 2+2=4
Tamino: Bishop said 2+2=5
Mc: Bishop was explaining Mann.
Amac: 2+2=4
Kloor: why can’t we reason together?
Gavin: we try, but they wont read our answers.
Amac: 2+2=4
Gavin: There he goes again, please shut him up.
Mc; 2+2=4
RC commenter: Do your own science Mcintyre
Mc: 2+2=4 is not publishable. Mann needs to correct this.
Mann: its all in the SI
Amac: hey mann website now says 2+2=4
Gavin: The exact value of 2+2 is uninteresting. move along
RC commenter: Hey McIntyre said 2+2=5
Mc: no I didnt
RC commenter: oops, my bad, but I’m right in spirit
Gavin: discussion over, lets talk about the black list.
Kloor: all you people who think 2+2=4, can discuss this further.
Scientist: Tiljander’s paper wasn’t perfect, lets pressure test her.
Amac: but 2+2=4
Scientist: Can you give me a reading list?
Gavin: discussion over, lets talk about the black list.
Kloor: all you people who think 2+2=4, can discuss this further.
Scientist: Tiljander’s paper wasn’t perfect, lets pressure test her.
Amac: but 2+2=4
Scientist: Can you give me a reading list?
Bender: read the whole blog.
Amac: in summary 2+2=4
Deltoid Commenter: tw pls tw eqls fr
Lambert: You’ve been disemvoweled
Amac: 2+2=4
Hank Roberts: I can’t find Amac on google scholar
Jim Praul: Good I’ll put him on the list.
Mc: 2+2=4
Gavin: I will not dignify an accusation of fraud with a response.
Mc: 2+2=4
Bart Verheggen: I am unimpressed by McIntyre’s dogwhistle tactics insinuating fraud.
Shell Oil: 2+2 =4
Deep Climate: that proves McIntyre’s Oil connection.
Briffa: I got 2+2=3
Harry: I didnt write that code.
Mann: Keith, hide that decline, here borrow 2 from me.
Jones: Keith, we match Mann now 2+2=5
Obsborn: Somebody email Amman and see what he thinks.
RyanO: good luck with that, Amman never answers mail
Palmer: Perfect, ask him if our mail is confidential.
Amman:
Jones: I think Amman would agree,deny the FOIA
Briffa (CONFIDENTIAL) gene, McItyre says 2+2=4. Can you help.
Wahl: We replicated his work, 2+2=5
Holland: I heard that.
Amac: 2+2=4
Amman: Oh MAN! will this crap ever end?? (http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=887)
RyanO: Hey, how’d you get Amman to answer mail?
YAD061: 2+2=5 (+-6sigma)
Amac:2+2=4
Brian Angliss: Lots of mails you havent read might say 2+2=4
Santer: Amac, you and me in the alley.
Dehog: Christy Believes in God.
Spencer: wrong skeptic, dehog.
God: 2+2=4
Jones: Dear God, delete your mail
Overpeck: Keith we need something more compelling than the Hockey stick
Briffa: 2+2=4.1?
Overpeck: MORE compelling keith
Wigley: McIntyre may have a point on this 2+2=4 thing.
Mann: “Who knows what trickery has been pulled or selective use of data made.”
Eli rabbet: Spencer made a mistake, therefore, 2+2=5
Amac: 2+2=4
Briffa: I got it, Peck, 2+2=5
Mann: I said that first.
Gavin: In a massive waste of time and money Independent researchers have investigated this uninteresting thing.
Moshpit:{slaps forehead}
Amman: http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav
Shell Oil: Hulme we gave you 2 million last month and you want another 2 million?
Hulme: Ya, 5 should be enough. Pachauri, promised us 6, so that makes 12.
Shell oil: Who is your accountant?
Hulme: Wei-Chyung Wang, at Suny
Jones: He keeps great records ask Keenan.
Amac:2+2=4.
Deltoid commenter: can I buy a vowel?
Lambert: buy 2 get 2 free
2+2=5 because you have to account for the forcing due to CO2
Mann: He doesnt need 5, Tim.
Trenbarth: We can’t find the extra 1 and it is a travesty that we can’t!!!
Keith: It’s in compound numbers and it’s for your i’s only.
Phil: You might mean complex numbers? I can’t imagine you’d be wrong, neither could i.
Judith Curry: can you boys please stop this nonsense
Mann: They started it
Mc: did not
Gavin: did too
Amac: did somebody say 2? 2+2=4
97% of mathematicians agree that 2+2=5.
If you take into account the ERROR BARS, then 2+2=5 is perfectly correct. With error bars of +/-42.
2.5 +2.5 = 5 but we suppressed the decimal places. How dare you ask for our detailed data!
Dr. Curry: 2 + 2 is approximately 5 for reasonable values of 2 and 5. Can’t we all just get along?
And 2+2=5, for very large values of 2….
AMac: 2+2 = 1+2+1 = 1+1+1+1 = 2*2 = 2^2 = 4
Gavin: For the sake of completeness, I will simply repeat 2+2=5, for some values of 5, until further notice.....
And so it goes! Thanks to the guys at ClimateAudit engaging a rare moment of fun here
http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/06/mosher-on-gavins-frustration/#comment-238046
No comments:
Post a Comment