He is a man, though, not a parrot spouting machine language.
=============

EM, thinly veneered by sciencey sounds, the fundamentalist heart of the climate consensus true believer shines through.

Kim. I have never heard any bird mimicking machine language, but I have heard a mynah bird copy a chainsaw. A wonder and a sadness coincident.

Try this

May explain these days why I regard CA as representing a low ROI in terms of precious time. Gerald North perhaps said it best:

McIntyre to me, I think he is probably a well meaning guy. He’s not dumb, he’s very smart. But he can be very irritating. This guy can just wear you out. He has started it with me but I just don’t bite. But there are some guys, Ben Santer comes to mind, who if they are questioned will take a lot of time to answer. He’s sincere and he just can’t leave these things along. If you get yourself in a back-and-forth with these guys it can be never ending, and basically they shut you down with requests. They want everything, all your computer programs. Then they send you back a comment saying, “I don’t understand this, can you explain it to me.” It’s never ending. And the first thing you know you’re spending all your time dealing with these guys.”

Besides, I kinda burned my boats.

Speaking of precious time, bye for now.

Hah, hah, he can blow up their phony studies whether they co-operate with him or not. Gad, that must be irksome.
=================

Yeah, the landscape is just littered with the hundreds of studies 'blown up' by McIntyre.

Not.

Heh, ACK, 'machine language' was clumsy and inapt. 'Parrot spouting cranked cant' is perhaps better.
=============

Phil admits there are hundreds of phony studies.
=================

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

"Steve has an amnesia. I had sent him these data at February 2, 2004 on his demand."

BlogScience.

Ah, Phil, you should go off and continue shaping tomorrow's world with your make believe science. Just don't be too chagrined when it falls apart in your hands.
====================

Radical Rodent

A special snowflake on a blog like this demands special attention, every question answered and a reply to every comment.

On Unthreaded Pcar snowflaked ACK, who naturally complained. ACK then snowflaked Phil Clarke in this discusion. Hence the hypocrisy.

Heh, in tomorrow's world, Ben Santer is famous for beating up the truth in a dark alley in Madrid in 1996. And North for going south.
========

ACK

I am neither your friend or your enemy. I am a debating opponent with a different world view.

I treat others on a blog as if playing Prisoner's Dilemma.

One of the best strategies when playing repeated games of Prisoners Dilemma is called tit-for-tat. One begins politely and then follows ones opponent's lead.

Thus when you chat or debate the science politely I treat you with proper respect. When you behave like an arsehole, I treat you accordingly.

Measure for measure.

EM. If "snowflaking" is demanding every question to be answered and a reply demanded for every comment, then I deny the charge milord. Many has been the time that Phil has not answered my questions or comments, and I have let it pass. Otherwise tedium sets in.

However I will ask you again a question that you have studiously ignored, so anxious are you to brand me hypocrite. Why are you butting in when Phil has shown so well that he can handle himself against all comers here? Is my speculation that you aspire to be Phil's second shortstop accurate?

EM. When have I ever treated you like an arsehole?
In this newest instance, you jumped into the attack unprovoked.
I nearly snorted into my coffee when you wrote about treating me politely when discussing scientific matters. I still recall you trying to influence Paul Dennis against me when we were discussing gains or losses on the Greenland Icesheet. Hypocrisy thy name is.....

EM admits to playing games with us. Any comments?

ACK

O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An’ foolish notion:

Robert Burns

Now EM pretends to just be a nice guy in a tough 'hood. PC, since the guys you quote irt to SM are at least as motivated as you, you may not be accomplishing what you wish in quoting them so extensively.

Quoting Burns out of context doesn't hack it.
I recognize what you are trying to say and to avoid it I commonly review what I and others here have written. After a gap of several months what you have written commonly seems as if it were written by a stranger. You can then learn about yourself.

Phil Clarke prefers the logic and integrity of Lewandowsky over McIntyre, and expects people to be impressed.

EM claims the moral high ground, by demonstrating his depth of knowledge about psychology and other mind games that no one else cares about.

The Guardian has given up on science and has to resort to the 97% Consensus.

There was no public outcry about the demise of DECC.

There is nothing new in Climate Science, to reverse the loss of faith being demonstrated by Governments, Civil Servants, Business Leaders, Industry, and Taxpayers.

There is no hiding from the evidence that the Climate, and Weather continue to decline to do anything to cause alarm.

RR. My thought was that for golfCharlie everything is well and/or wrong with the world of climate. The latest post is memorable for the lack within it of any mention of Mann or his stick.

ACK, sorry, I forgot to mention the completely faked up nature of climate science, even though the climate lacks the sensitivity that climate scientists depend on for their salaries.

The Climate declines political sensitivity, despite the variable pressure. The UK is now under low pressure conditions, but is currently shielded from US and EU high pressure zones. The US could suffer a major storm before the year is out, whilst the EU is looking at a period of increased instability, with further big blows to come.

The consensus forecast for Climate Science is not good. They need some genuine climate science, as the Real Climate output, proves to be the stuff of legend.

As if on cue,

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/

"Hansen was the first to apply Bode’s analysis towards quantifying climate system feedback in his 1984 paper. Schlesinger quickly followed with a paper to ‘correct’ some of Hansen’s errors but actually made it worse. This faulty analysis has been canonized by the IPCC since AR1 and the few related papers that followed simply restate Schlesinger’s analysis using different variable names."

.... and scroll down to discover Roy Spencer and Nick Stokes explaining how and why the analysis is BS.