2012-01-14 04:10:01DB - what was Chip's full comment?
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

DB, I see Chip got his comment snipped for accusations of deception.  I'm curious, what did he say?

It's immensely ironic that a guy who admits to deleting data from one of Gillett's figures is accusing me of deception in my post on the same paper!

2012-01-14 04:24:42
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.18.68

I kick myself now for not saving it for posterity.

His first sentence said your "alteration" of the Gillett graphic was "deceptive".

His last sentence said you were adjusting the portrayal of the graphic to tell the story you wanted to tell. 

Either way, a clear instance of an accusation of deception.  I was going to delete it, but remembered who Chip was (& Mark had already responded to it by then) so I snipped it instead.

2012-01-14 04:32:00Something I've noted before...
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
216.185.0.2

Deleted posts show up on the "Deleted" link. But "snipped" posts are lost forever? Is there any way of preserving these?

2012-01-14 05:02:36
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

His first sentence said your "alteration" of the Gillett graphic was "deceptive".

His last sentence said you were adjusting the portrayal of the graphic to tell the story you wanted to tell. 

Ho-ly crap.  A better example of psychological projection there never was.  That's just stunning.

2012-01-14 05:24:08
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Sorry, dana.  Either a screenshot or just deleting it would have been best.

I've occasionally preserved screenshots of really offensive comments; I will pursue that policy more vigorously with the serial disinformationists, like Chip.

2012-01-14 05:45:12
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Not a problem Daniel, the only benefit in preserving the comment would be to appreciate the sheer intensity of the irony factor and psychological projection.  It's really quite astounding.

Either Chip is completely divorced from reality, or he has a soul as black as Michaels'.  Undoubtedly the latter, given that Michaels is his boss.  These guys just have no morals whatsoever.

2012-01-14 06:12:08
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

As someone with both a science and a sales background, I can appreciate the craft inherent in Chip's comments full well.  He over-reached himself with his first comment on the thread, then has since nicely recovered.  Plus, his dissembling on the FKM thread gives further testimony to his command of the art.

You can see why he's on the payroll.  Snake oil attack dog.  Smooth, sleek, deadly.  Like a viper.

2012-01-14 07:00:22
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
216.185.0.2

Chip is definitely an expert at his job, as shown in his last couple of comments.

I would recommend "Thank You For Smoking" - book or movie - as a good description of what Chip and Pat do. My brother, when a representative for a major tobacco company, tasked with downplaying second-hand smoke issues, geve me a copy explaining "This is my job. I am this man!"

Their job is to make s### up, to emphasize doubt, to distort data... and they are well aware of it.

2012-01-14 09:23:17
Sphaerica

Bob@Lacatena...
199.19.138.101

Dan, in the future you might want to snip comments by inserting a <span> tag like the following:

(-snip<span style="display: none">Hidden obnoxious comment here</span>-)

2012-01-14 16:38:28Snip technique
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.186.107.58
Or a simpler technique to hide text: <!-- hidden text --> Yes, much better idea to do this than permanently delete text. The irony of projection from some deniers is LOLable sometimes.
2012-01-14 17:16:47
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.107.206

KR - great comparison.  Chip is totally Nick Naylor.

Though at the end, he basically caved and admitted I was right about the future warming projections.  Never went as far as to admit that he had done anything wrong, but his and Michaels' entire argument was that Gillett's warming projection was the same as theirs.  Chip admitted that's only true for the 1851-2010 regression, after putting in a lot of effort trying to claim it held true for 1901-2010 as well.  I didn't expect him to cave on that.

But yes, normally I'd find it offensive if somebody accused me of deception, but in this case it was so ironic and ludicrous that I just had to laugh.