I find it incredible that you cannot accept that the NAS has corrected Mann s statement based on available evidence. Spencer focuses on that point since it s the sensationalist claim that made Mann famous and often quoted, and you piss and moan that he doesn t pay due homage to what Mann got right (we re warmer than since the last ice age  really big news).

You should find it incredible because it’s not true.

Let’s review.

I wrote: “Nonetheless, the NAS report says Mann s OVERALL conclusions (where have I heard that before) are supported by other research.”

To which you responded: “And contradicted by others.”

I can’t find any place in Spencer’s article where he claims that the NAS cited research that contradicts Mann’s findings. (Note: there is an important difference between “contradicts” and “is not sufficient”.)

Similarly, I can’t find any phrase in the NAS report that contradicts Mann’s findings.

Despite your insistence that I’m carrying the banner for Mann, I’m not. I’m discussing Spencer’s phony article and his misleading and incomplete presentation of the NAS effort.

You were making a logical fallacy called Ad hominem circumstantial

You were making a logical fallacy called making stuff up. You have no idea whether Mr. Gore has accepted so much as a Cherry Slurpee for his efforts. However, that didn’t stop you from suggesting it.

I pointed out that the paragraph you cited doesn t support your position.

And you’re wrong. I find it incredible that you cannot accept that the NAS has corrected Mann’s statement based on available evidence. Spencer focuses on that point since it’s the sensationalist claim that made Mann famous and often quoted, and you piss and moan that he doesn’t pay due homage to what Mann got right (we’re warmer than since the last ice age — really big news).

Accepting money to mislead people isn t honest.

Now you are maligning Gore’s motives, unless you blindly accept everything Gore is saying is 100% correct. As far as Spencer goes, his statements were true and he even mentioned that the NAS found Mann’s most incredible statement to be plausible (they would’ve used “likely” if the statistics placed the certainty above 67% and “very likely” above 90%). If you’re going to argue that not giving enough time to every single aspect of a scientific briefing is “misleading” then you’ve put a great many articles into a tough spot.

You responded directly by asserting (without evidence) that Al Gore was also taking money for his efforts. If you weren t implying that the money was the impetus for Mr. Gore s actions, perhaps you could clarify what you meant.

You were making a logical fallacy called Ad hominem circumstantial and I was using Gore as an example of why it is a poor argument. Just because Gore is in a position to make money from his endeavors does not argue against the validity of his statements.

Advice from the blog’s only poster to publish his street address in a fit of anger to challenge JK to personally visit Frank in New York and “MAKE” him move to Oz.

Article? What article?

Haw. You missed the party, Frank.

And keep ignoring the NAS s other conclusions that reigned in Mann s unsupported statements.

I shall.

Because while you are discussing Mann’s findings, I am contemplating Spencer’s ridiculous presentation of the NAS report.

That paragraph does not say that any research or any reconstruction of climate patterns contradict Mann.

I see. If they support Mann, then they’re acceptable. If they don’t support Mann, then they are meaningless. Typical liberal response. Thanks.

I see. If they support Mann, then they re acceptable. If they don t support Mann, then they are meaningless. Typical liberal response. Thanks.

I guess we must be out of things to talk about because now you’re making stuff up.

You made the claim that the NAS report said that some research contradicts Mann. I pointed out that the paragraph you cited doesn’t support your position.

So somehow, if I point out that you’ve made an error, that means I’m ignoring the facts?

Say goodnight, Gracie.

Meanwhile, I’m reeling at the idea that this “non-debate” is one of the longest threads in Krypton Central’s history.

I feel like the liberals are cult members trying to break down the skeptics.

the NAS statements do nothing but support current global warming and that man plays a role.

And keep ignoring the NAS’s other conclusions that reigned in Mann’s unsupported statements. Nothing new there…ignore whatever doesn’t fit into your worldview.

Thanks for ignoring this statement from me (typical liberal action):

the NAS statements do nothing but support current global warming and that man plays a role.

Spencer ignored that point too. Does that make him a liberal?

I said nothing about Gore s motives. Once again you demonstrate that you associate making money with alterior motivations.

Sure you did.

I said Spencer wrote a spin job for a big-money benefactor. I was most certainly questioning his motives.

You responded directly by asserting (without evidence) that Al Gore was also taking money for his efforts. If you weren’t implying that the money was the impetus for Mr. Gore’s actions, perhaps you could clarify what you meant.

And I have nothing against making money as long as it is made honestly. Accepting money to mislead people isn’t honest.

Even when a scientist s findings are qualified by an important group of his peers,

Hunh? What scientist and what findings are you referring to now?

Unlike Mr. Spencer.

Nonetheless, the NAS report says Mann s OVERALL conclusions (where have I heard that before) are supported by other research.

And contradicted by others. Talk about selective reading!

You showed it just upthread. Why shy away now?

Um…you answered your own question. How many times do I have to post the same information? What part of the NAS assertion that Mann overstated his conclusions because he doesn’t have the data do you not understand?

“And contradicted by others.”

Now it’s your turn. Where does the NAS report say that any research contradicts Mann’s findings?

Even Spencer didn’t try to make that claim.

More from the NAS:

Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.

Wow! The NAS (you know, the guys and gals who dumped all over Mann’s findings? Haw!) say that there’s even more evidence of warming and it’s even better than Mann’s evidence and it shows that the warming is caused by humans.

I guess I missed that part of Spencer’s article.