[Jerry Peters]

In rec.audio.tech MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Jerry Peters wrote:

In rec.audio.tech flipper wrote:
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:05:29 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:06:18 -0600, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
flipper wrote:

I'm not addressing that point.

How typical of AGW worshippers to 'not address the point'.

How typical of deniers to play meaningless word games.

'Addressing the point' is not a word game but what you just tried to
do is.

Yes, it was a simple substitution. However, there are terms for holding
someone responsible for arguments not made.

As I said earlier, you do not get to decide what *my* points are.

Stephen

But if he doesn't, he can't control the discussion. I notice he still
hasn't explained the "hide the decline", except of course with some
rampant speculation on the cause of the observed divergence.

Are you talking about me while replying to me? That's odd. I'm glad you
think I can control the discussion but not glad you're applying a
different standard to me than to Flipper.

I don't have to explain "hide the decline." Jones doesn't even remember
what he meant by it. However, one might speculate the 'decline' is in
the accuracy of the tree-ring data since 1960. The 'trick' is to add in
actual measured temperatures, assuming you're talking about Michael
Mann. I know you have no objection to using measured temperatures when
available.

Stephen

Yes I was commenting on your reply.

As to "hide the decline", the *proper* way would have been to document
what he was doing by, for example, changing to a different type or
color graph line and then noting in the key what that meant.

Jerry