Global warming?

[Blib27]

Originally Posted by tw

Your soundbyte intentionally distorted what he really said. It is called 'brainwashing by soundbyte'.

Since that source so intentionally harmed an honest discussion, then we should have the name of that scumbag. So that the enemies of moderates can be cited repeatedly as disciples of Limbaugh and Hitler. Who do we go after for intentionally perverting a logical discussion? Who intentionally misquoted Phil Jones? And what is their political agenda and party affiliation? Your soundbyte was obviously provided by someone with the integrity of a rapist or pedophile. An honest quote would have included what Phil Jones really said.

Blimey TW. The more I read those words the more I wonder what on earth is going on? The quote was a direct and FULL one from a Q&A session conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February of last year.

Are you really willing to say that the BBC are scumbags, paedophiles or rapists?

Here's a link to the article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

If you do not, I shall report you.

He disagrees with your contention. You are wrong. Either you debate with me sensibly or you continue to rant.

What is it to be TW?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Blib27

The quote was a direct and FULL one from a Q&A session conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation in February of last year.

What you quoted intentionally distorts and misrepresents what that BBC interview reported.

Phil Jones said:

Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods,

Curiously, Phil Jones says UT's claims from his only source are statistically insignificant. Jones then provides data that is statistically significant.

Why did you ignore the relevant sentences? Why did you even ignore this:

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Jones even provided numbers. Why did you ignore his major point to claim something contrary to what he said? BBC did not misrepresent what he said. Only you did that.

Another fact that he stated, that was so relevant, and that you ignored.

I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

Did you not understand the BBC interview? Or not read all details and numbers? Why did you ignore his many important points and numbers while completely misrepresenting one paragraph? You perverted what the BBC reported by misquoting one paragraph and by ignoring relevant numbers.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Blib27

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

no matter ...

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

He disagrees with your contention. You are wrong. Either you debate with me sensibly or you continue to rant.

What is it to be TW?

I'm feeling ya dude - Déjà vu

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by Blib27

I have provided evidence in full to demonstrate that your hysterical attack has no foundation in truth whatsoever.

Now, I want you to apologise to me personally for suggesting that I misquoted Prof Jones.

If you do not, I shall report you.

Evidence in full?

Quote mining may not cause global warming, but I dont believe it is a reportable offense.