Dumbfounding

What would you do if someone claimed deceptive graphs were published in a paper when the graphs didn’t even appear in that paper? What would you do if when that person was directed to the paper and told the paper doesn’t include those graphs, they still insisted the paper published those deceptive graphs?

This actually happened just a short while ago. andthentheresphysics, formerly known as wottsupwiththat, adamantly defended his claim this paper presented 10 hockey sticks “chosen to be most hockey-stick like.” That paper has three figures. You can see all three in this image:

MM05_Figures

There are only six graphs. Anyone who glances at the five page paper would know this. All they’d have to do is open the paper and look for ten graphs. When they found only six, they’d know there definitely weren’t 10 hockey sticks presented within the paper.

I gave andthentheresphysics a link to the paper. I gave him it while telling him there weren’t 10 hockey sticks within the paper. Somehow, despite having been provided the link and needing only to scroll through five pages to see I was right, he managed to double down on his position. Rather than click on a link to the source he was discussing, he went to an entirely different source. He choose to ignore the primary source which required no thought or effort to examine and promoted some entirely different source instead.

It is dumbfounding. It is insane. How are you supposed to respond when someone fabricates things so blatantly then refuses to even look at the source they’re discussing?

I don’t know. What I do know is it’s hilarious. Anyone who ever talks to or reads andthentheresphysics should see it.


February 5th update: I was given a… strange misunderstanding of this post today:

The numbers in that tweet refer to the number of hockey sticks “chosen to be most hockey-stick like.” The truth is there were none. The claim was entirely made up. This post points out there were only six graphs to show there couldn’t have been 10 deceptive chosen hockey sticks. I don’t know how that morphed in that reader’s mind to mean there were six deceptively chosen hockey sticks, especially not when three of the graphs clearly aren’t hockey sticks.

Still, to clarify, there were no deceptively chosen hockey sticks in that paper. The figure andtheresphysics had in mind was present in an entirely different document written by entirely different people. This post isn’t intended to delve into all the details of this. It’s just to show that, after being told he misrepresented the source multiple times, he refused to even look at it – he’d have immediately seen his claim was wrong.

Advertisements

5 comments

  1. This is amusing. andthentheresphysics made a post about the exchange he had here. It seems whiny to me, and I don’t agree with his characterization of the exchange, but the best part is this:

    What I was pondering was why, given that during this particular exchange I had said something that was not technically correct, I didn’t simply openly acknowledge that and try to move on?

    This amuses me because he avoided referring to the exchange, meaning his readers can’t check for himself. That means he just acknowledged he said something “that was not technically correct” without having ever said what it was. One could be inclined to interpret that as acknowledging what this post says – his claims about McIntyre and McKitrick’s paper were a total fabrication. I doubt that’s what he intended, but when you don’t give anything of an antecedent, you can’t complain if people interpret your remark in a way that favors them.

    As such, until andthentheresphysics bothers to comment on his blatant fabrication, I’m going to take his remarks as indicating he feels one can simply make things up about a paper. The next time someone challenges you for having done it, tell them, “Well, yes, what I said was not technically correct…”

  2. Oh, there’s another amusing note. From what he said in his post, it appears I am now banned from his site. I left a comment about that:

    I’m confused. Am I seriously banned because you flat-out made things up about a source to attack it then refused to even look at that source?

    You say what you said “was not technically correct,” but that’s a massive understatement. What you said was completely untrue. You completely fabricated a claim about the McIntyre and McKitrick paper!

    (It got deleted.)

  3. Good work Izuru. I admire your tenacity when confronted with true-believer obtuseness. I’m a lot more impatient dealing with friends who base their beliefs on a couple of one line quotes from msnbc or similar sources.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s