I quoted the part. You correct me? No, you lectured me, you have not corrected me yet. I have not made statements of error, so you cannot correct me. You can incorrectly assume (or practice omniscience - you choose your poison).
By your definition of "omniscience, anyone who has a debate with you would be considered "omniscient". Yourself included. I've done nothing different than you've done. We've both called each other wrong on the same topics.
Where have I tried to correct you? Ummm, just about every single post of mine on the last couple pages. I don't think I need to quote myself. But, again. You've done the same. If anyone is claiming to be above anyone here, it is you claiming to be above me by bringing personal things into this. Me claiming you are/were wrong about something and then showing/explaining examples of why is no different than you have done.
Your claim that because I said that "the more you post the more there is to correct you on" is being omniscient is totally off. I feel, that everytime you post, there are more things that I have to reply to. Nothing omniscient about that. Notice I did not say that "everything" you post I have to correct you on. But, even if I did say "everything", wouldn't make it omniscient.
In fact, if anyone between the two of us has brought in personal attacks, it has been you. I've left all things personal about this and have strictly stuck with all the topics at hand. You however have said numerous things that have crossed the border from being a debate into a personal swipe.
So don't act all high and mighty and call out others' claim to omniscience when your posts themselves have been not so far from the like.
Again you claim omniscience when none is present (or you assume - again you can choose - I dont make you do anything). How little you know about me, and your purported speciality I do not know, but I do know you do not know how to convert programs to other langauges. The source code for the spaghetti code that was used to manipulate the data is contorted and borderline criminal. And guess what? is not used on all the raw data! (But that is beside this point). Just because YOU cant do it, does not mean it cannot be done.
Clearly you have not shown me any thing that you could correct, but you insist upon correcting me. I have had to correct you on several occassions, but have not been so arrogant to do so without at least linking to a source that proved you wrong. I dont assume (or practice omniscience - again your choice).
You are the perfect example of what it is to be a hypocrite. Earlier you claimed that because I said that I have to correct you that it exudes omniscience where there is none, yet you've done it yourself many times. You are acting no different than me. But, the difference between you and me is that I am not claiming to be different and you are. I am merely debating the topic and you are going for slander. Just as you have said that Ke5trel was, you have. You are just one walking example of hypocrisy.
Another example of hypocrisy? When you said that I was assuming things of you. What have you done? You've assumed that I have never translated code from one language to another. Who is the one bringing personal experiences into this again? You, not me. And again you were wrong about such assumptions. Assumptions that you claimed I am making, when in fact it is you making them. I do know how to convert code into another language. The thing is that anyone familiar with code finds it a waste of a time to do so unless moving to another platform. But, again what does that have to do with the fact that you were wrong about the excel macros (which is what I was referring to)?
Unless you are actually injecting code into the Excel process and hijacking it, then Excel will NOT do what the GISS's program does. And if you are hijacking the process, then you are no longer running Excel and the use of a macro is pointless. Excel is there to simply take the raw data from either the stations or the data that GISTemp comes up with and plot it into graphs or organize it for presentation. Can you get Excel to do what GISS's programs does? Sure, like I said. But, you can also get any program you want to get it to do whatever you want it to do by injecting code into it. That doesn't mean that it is the original program doing it though.
Was the code that Hansen used very unorganized? Yes, you are correct on that. It is very unorganized and doesn't follow many conventions and has very little commenting to help. But, to call it criminal is just obsurd. You can't call anyone criminal for writing code in anyway. It is their code, they can write it however the hell the want. When Hansen and his team wrote that code, they weren't under the scrutiny they were now, so they weren't really expecting for anyone but their own team to need to read their code. It is like having a messy desk. You know where you might place things, but if you ask anyone else to find something they'd have no idea. Does that make them a criminal? No. Hansen was even going to clean up the code for release, but people just wanted the code released as it was. So he released it (with a little bit of huffing on his part however). But, that is hardly criminal. The code does what is expected. Does it take longer to read? Yes, but that doesn't make Hansen a "criminal" as you put it.
You're just another perfect example of hypocrisy and you need to look up the definition of "omniscient".