Edit: This post was written based upon a stupid mistake I made. I read one person’s comment as another’s, and that caused me to misinterpret an exchange. I clearly should have done more to check my understanding before writing this post. I apologize for the mistake, and thank the user tlitb1 for catching it so promptly.
I’ll leave the mistaken post up “below the fold” for posterity’s sake:
As readers know, I recently uploaded two versions of the same post. The first post, named It Couldn’t Be Clearer, was incredibly sarcastic. It got republished at Watts Up With That?, where a number of people complained about its sarcasm. In response, I uploaded a non-sarcastic version of it, named Cook et al Lie Their Faces Off.
The basic point of both posts was Cook et al found a “consensus” on global warming primarily by counting papers which simply acknowledged the existence of the greenhouse effect. This is an uninformative finding, one they’ve recently misrepresented by claiming they:
classified abstracts of climate science papers based on the level of endorsement that most of the recent global warming is man-made (AGW, Categories 1–3)
Both posts show Cook et al clearly know that description of their work is false. The only difference is the second version doesn’t use any sarcasm. Somehow, blogger And Then There’s Physics (Anders) saw a link to the second (non-sarcastic) post and concluded:
M2 seemed to realise that it was sarcastic but still responded as if it were serious. I’m slightly confused by that too.
I completely rewrote a post to remove all sarcasm from it, and Anders somehow interpreted the result as being sarcastic. Isn’t it ironic?