Manic Flail: Epic Fail

NOTE: in conjunction with this essay, may I suggest that readers also visit Climate Audit and read Steve McIntyre’s careful evisceration of the “copygate issue”. – Anthony

Guest post by Thomas Fuller

The double handful of climate hysteria weblogs have tailed off in both output and popularity since the events of Climategate and Copenhagen. The Joe Romms, Michael Tobises, Tim Lamberts, the Desmog Blogs, Deep Climates and William Connellys of the world have been largely reduced to recycling whining points and venting splenetically against the sad fact that the world is turning away from their point of view.


This is an extremely positive happenstance for those of us Lukewarmers who believe that climate change does need to be addressed, as the alarmists continually turn people into skeptics with their outrageous and unscientific claims and their rigid insistence on conformity to the religious truth. It probably doesn’t bother many skeptics, either.

But just when you thought it was safe to go into the water, the useful idiots of climate change have been reinforced by one-shot attacks on specific skeptics.

The mudslinging trio of Mashey, Angliss and Prall have taken the same game plan and used it to orchestrate pseudo-scientific attacks on figures from the anti-hysteria League of Sanity.

Prall managed to corral the late Stephen Schneider into putting his name on a ludicrously poor explication of how skeptics don’t have as many publications as those siding with James Hansen. The paper is, to be charitable, not destined for posterity, being full of the shoddiest work on data collection, analysis and presentation–so bad that Spencer Weart, author of The History of Global Warming, dismissed it as unpublishable on the day it was released.

Angliss went after Andrew Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion, seeking to convince the world not to read the book because he could mathematically prove that the Climategate emails were not a statistically significant percentage of the emails on CRU’s servers. And I’m not making that up. He took his own advice, sadly, not bothering to read Montford’s book or the Climategate emails, and his work shows the lack of scholarship.

And we’ve all read recently about Mashey’s attack on Edward Wegman, accusing him of plagiarism in a 250 page document that is straight out of the movie Conspiracy Theory, with color-coded themes and memes, and an outrageous accusation that Steve McIntyre was recruited, trained and funded by the George Marshall Institute–something I hope Mashey can back up.

It’s very much as if these lone cowboys decided that the hysteria blogs needed some support.

Something like a citizen scientist, as though they wanted to become the new anti-McIntyre, the anti-Montford, the anti-Wegman, by pulling down the false idols.

Sadly, they didn’t do what McIntyre did. They didn’t do what Montford did. They didn’t do what Wegman did.

They didn’t start with the data. Mashey started with his conspiracy theory, detailed in another document titled (and I’m not making this up), “Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony’. He had the theory sewn up, so he didn’t need any data.

Angliss rejected the data, refusing to read the book he criticized or the emails that prompted the book.

Prall got the data all wrong, misspelling names, not counting publications correctly, searching only in English, using Google Scholar instead of an academic database.

But, although they tried to make their work look sciency, it is not and never was intended to be science.

They are malicious attacks on those they oppose, taking up the cudgel for the deflating weblogs they used to comment on, trying to rekindle the flame that Climategate and Copenhagen extinguished.

They failed.

Thomas Fuller  http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller

The double handful of climate hysteria weblogs have tailed off in both output and popularity since the events of Climategate and Copenhagen. The Joe Romms, Michael Tobises, Tim Lamberts, the Desmog Blogs, Deep Climates and William Connellys of the world have been largely reduced to recycling whining points and venting splenetically against the sad fact that the world is turning away from their point of view. 

This is an extremely positive happenstance for those of us Lukewarmers who believe that climate change does need to be addressed, as the mouthfoamers continually turn people into skeptics with their outrageous and unscientific claims and their rigid insistence on Stalinist conformity to the religious truth. It probably doesn’t bother many skeptics, either.
But just when you thought it was safe to go into the water, the useful idiots of climate change have been reinforced by one-shot attacks on specific skeptics.
The mudslinging trio of Mashey, Angliss and Prall have taken the same game plan and used it to orchestrate pseudo-scientific attacks on figures from the anti-hysteria League of Sanity.
Prall managed to corral the late Stephen Schneider into putting his name on a ludicrously poor explication of how skeptics don’t have as many publications as those siding with James Hansen. The paper is, to be charitable, not destined for posterity, being full of the shoddiest work on data collection, analysis and presentation–so bad that Spencer Weart, author of The History of Global Warming, dismissed it as unpublishable on the day it was released.
Angliss went after Anthony Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion, seeking to convince the world not to read the book because he could mathematically prove that the Climategate emails were not a statistically significant percentage of the emails on CRU’s servers. And I’m not making that up. He took his own advice, sadly, not bothering to read Montford’s book or the Climategate emails, and his work shows the lack of scholarship.
And we’ve all read recently about Mashey’s attack on Edward Wegman, accusing him of plagiarism in a 250 page document that is straight out of the movie Conspiracy Theory, with color-coded themes and memes, and an outrageous accusation that Steve McIntyre was recruited, trained and funded by the George Marshall Institute–something I hope Mashey can back up.
It’s very much as if these lone cowboys decided that the hysteria blogs needed some support.
Something like a citizen scientist, as though they wanted to become the new anti-McIntyre, the anti-Montford, the anti-Wegman, by pulling down the false idols.
Sadly, they didn’t do what McIntyre did. They didn’t do what Montford did. They didn’t do what Wegman did.
They didn’t start with the data. Mashey started with his conspiracy theory, detailed in another document titled (and I’m not making this up), “Crescendo to Climategate Cacophony’. He had the theory sewn up, so he didn’t need any data.
Angliss rejected the data, refusing to read the book he critized or the emails that prompted the book.
Prall got the data all wrong, misspelling names, not counting publications correctly, searching only in English, using Google Scholar instead of an academic database.
But, although they tried to make their work look sciency, it is not and never was intended to be science.
They are malicious attacks on those they oppose, taking up the cudgel for the deflating weblogs they used to comment on, trying to rekindle the flame that Climategate and Copenhagen extinguished.
About these ads

68 thoughts on “Manic Flail: Epic Fail

  1. Tom, the only mention of Montford in the post you link to is a quote from Gavin Schmidt, and there are no (zero) mentions of “The Hockey Stick Illusion.” The only mentions of Montford outside the Schmidt quote are in the comments, one of which references the Schmidt quote and two of which take you to task for relying too much on Montford’s book. There aren’t any mentions of HSI in the comments anywhere. And all of this is verifiable with a simple “find text” search in any browser.

    Furthermore, the post that contains the statistical analysis you want is not the one you link to (which is a criticism of you, Mosher, McIntyre, et al), but rather this one, a point I’ve made to you at least twice in the last few days. However, it also fails to mention Montford in either the post or the comments (except for a pingback) and there are no mentions of HSI either, again verifiable with a “find text” in your browser of choice.

    REPLY: Actually that’s my editing error, not Tom’s. I’ll fix it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. – Anthony

  2. A small correction about the Hockey Stick Illusion. You wrote “Angliss rejected the data, refusing to read the book he criticized or the emails that prompted the book.” But the emails didn’t prompt the book; the (majority of the) book was written before the emails surfaced. Despite the book’s subtitle (“Climategate and the corruption of science”), HSI contains only a brief discussion of the emails added very late in the game.

  3. Having just survived a cardiac problem, the last thing I need is a belly laugh at the expense of the trio – les -savants – idotique, so I’ll snigger in a low, heart friendly manner.

    Well done Tom.

  4. Get better soon Louis.

    Nice work Tom. Those guys remind me of the Spruce Goose, if evidence were pistons.. ;)

  5. After reading all this stuff now for far to long. Steve McIntyre’s being the best of the lot. It is simple and straight forward. Get it before a judge and see if plagiarism can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it should be at the complaints expense if not found guilty however.

  6. Just ignore them, Tom, just ignore them. I’m guessing they’ve gotten more press due to your posts at WUWT than all the other publicity they’ve had combined . . .

  7. Can someone please help Steve McIntyre with his style sheets if possible? I prefer to read off dead trees (bristlecones?) because of my myopia. It’s a bit of a pain to paste into Word. Thanks.

  8. Hmmmm … now let’s see … about 7 hours ago, I had posted the following at CA in Steve McIntyre’s Copygate thread:

    Wow … very well done, Steve. It seems to me that “The Team” isn’t doing very well at all these days; it’s as though you grabbed the puck and left them flailing on the ice as you scored goal after goal into an unguarded net!

    When will they ever learn, eh?! [emphasis added -hro]

    I drop in here for a nightcap, and what do I find as the top post?!

    “Manic Flail: Epic Fail” [emphasis added -hro]

    Plagiarism! Plagiarism!
    /Masheymode off

    But while I’m here and since we’re speaking of flailing … TNR gives Bill McKibben airtime for what might be called a “companion” piece to Mann’s latest whine. It’s yet another sneer ‘n smear ‘n scare article. Dated Oct. 6, it’s interesting to see how he “revisionizes” 350.org’s involvement with 10:10:

    Instead of that kind of debate, though, most of the movement has decided to describe any regulation of carbon as eco-fascism. (Recently, for instance, a British green group released a purportedly tongue-in-cheek video in which environmentalists blow up people who don’t believe in global warming. According to some right-wing websites, the video wasn’t merely a vile political stunt but a preview of impending government policy.)

    http://www.tnr.com/print/article/environment-energy/magazine/78208/gop-global-warming-denial-insanity

    But, on the brighter (righter?!) side … Monday’s Washington Times had an editorial that begins:

    The climate crackup
    Alarmist warnings about the planet are falling flat

    Switching terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” to newly favored “global climatic disruption” was supposed to help revive the environmental left’s plunging poll numbers. It hasn’t worked. Nature has, inconveniently, failed to cooperate, with dire predictions of upcoming catastrophes falling flat. Desperation pervades a propaganda effort that has finally gone too far.

    The radical green movement is all about scaring the public into adopting unpopular policy initiatives, such as hefty taxes on important sources of energy and increased government direction of our lives through regulation. The Chicken Little strategy can work if the possibility of major disruptions such as a devastating Katrina-style hurricane push people into embracing protection from Washington. Unfortunately for the scaremongers, the disruptions just aren’t happening.

    On Thursday, Florida State University researcher Ryan N. Maue updated his index of tropical cyclone activity to reflect the fact that worldwide hurricane activity has reached a 33-year low.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/11/the-climate-crackup/

  9. Tom:
    You neglect to mention the fact the that Wegman report was neither 1) independent nor 2) peer-reviewed, two claims which were prominently paraded in both the Wegman report and the Congressional testimony. The obvious plagiarism (which Steve M. doesn’t deny, by the way) is evidence of poor researching and writing skills, which cast the conclusions of the whole report in some pretty bad light. The main issues:

    “Indepedent”: Wegman and/or Said were fed reams of “material” by Peter Spencer, one of Barton’s staffers. See the 2007 talk by Said which was strangely pulled earlier this year from the GMU website.

    “Peer-Reviewed”: The only people who *actually* “reviewed” the Wegman report were, somewhat ironically, given the analysis of social networks, part of Wegman’s social network. In a 2006 talk at Texas A&M, Dr. Gerald North paraphrases an email from one of the reviewers (Dr. Grace Wahba) thusly: “Hey they used my name and they said I was a referee. He sent it to me about 3 days beforehand and I sent him a bunch of criticisms which they didn‘t take into account.” The reviews of Dr. Noel Cressie were similarly disregarded.

    Do you still “very much respect” the Wegman report Tom?

  10. I agree Tom, this is all Epic Fail. I can’t for the life of me work out the reasoning for why people are so apparently impressed with this latest ‘report’ of Masheys. Where is the content?? It all just has to be a game. Those black helicopters… OMG- you can SEE the STRINGS…

    I think I’ve gone off potatoes.

  11. Brian–gee, I’m sorry if I got it wrong about The Hockey Stick Illusion. Hmm, was there maybe another book about Climategate that you trashed without reading it? Maybe that was the source of my confusion… My sincere apologies.

    Jose: Yes.

  12. As one still with one foot (I hope) in the outside world, I’d just remark that these recent debates are beginning to look very bizarre and very childish. Games of

    ‘he said, she said’

    and

    ‘my dad’s bigger than your dad’

    should stay in the school playground where they belong.

    Mashey’s extraordinary piece of conspiracy and plagiarism nonsense has probably put the seal on any outside observer thinking that all participants (on all sides) are losing their perspective and possibly their sanity. Their response will be Shakespearean ‘A plague on both their houses’

    I strongly suggest that we all take the good advice offered by Eric Andersen above and stop feeding the trolls. Let them wander off to the Planet Bizarre and mutter incoherently to themselves. No need for us to join them there.

    (For the pedants:

    The quote is from Romeo And Juliet Act 3, scene 1, 90–92. Attributed to the character Mercutio as he lay dying. The play was by William Shakespeare, an English playwright of Tudor times, whose exact identity has sometimes been disputed.

    The expression ‘to rearrange deckchairs….’ is in common British usage and nobody claims prior authorship

    No animals were harmed in the preparation of this piece. But I did stroke Benjie, our Dachsund.

    The opinion above is all my own work and AFAIK none of the striking phrases used have been written by me elsewhere.

    Happy now, pedants?)

  13. Now thar Anthony has posted a link to a site for the purchase of the Hockey Stick Illusion, critics of the book, who come to this site, can no longer claim that they did not read it, because they could not find it in their local book shop.

    As sales of the book have risen, in a somewhat Hockey Stick Graph sort of way, recently, it is going to become more difficult to criticise the book, without having read it, and get away with it.

    I look forward to reading a proper criticism of the book, by a global warmist, technical point, by technical point, proving that Montford has his assessment wrong, that he has misread the e mails, his sequence of events is wrong etc. Any scientist who believes in AGW should be able to do this, especially if they are close to the Hockey Team. Thnk of the prestige awaiting you. You would probablybe rewarded with grant funding aswell. How about it Brian?

  14. AlanG says:
    October 12, 2010 at 11:20 pm

    Can someone please help Steve McIntyre with his style sheets if possible? I prefer to read off dead trees (bristlecones?) because of my myopia. It’s a bit of a pain to paste into Word. Thanks.
    ==========

    Alan, when you paste into Word, try using “Paste special” then choose either “Formatted Text (RTF)” or “Unformatted Text” .

    However, if you’re ever in a tree-preserving mood, you can increase the size of the font in (most) web-browsers by holding down the Ctrl key and rolling forward your mouse’s scroller.

  15. Brian is at it again

    “Mosher also said that we know enough context to prove that there was a widespread breakdown in scientific ethics among climate researchers. In addition, Mosher claims that both he and his co-author Tom Fuller feel that the emails revealed nothing that alters the conclusions of climate disruption research to date”

    FALSE AND A LIE. Interested readers can see my exchange with brian in email, below. BEFORE he wrote his piece.

    I think I’ve been pretty clear that the breakdown was local and confined. In fact I pretty sure Tom and wrote that in the book.

    You see brian, folks here have listened to me make very specific charges.

    Jones wrote a mail to mann requesting that mann delete mails.

    What context makes that mail disappear.? Really, what context can you supply that could possibly make the message in that mail vanish.

    Here is what we said about that mail. We said it was related to Holland’s FOIA request.

    Here is what Muir Russell “found”

    “There seems clear incitement to delete emails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made. Two e-mails from Jones to Mann on 2nd February 2005 (1107454306.txt) and 29th May 2008 (in 1212063122.txt) relate to deletion:
    2nd February 2005: ―The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone”.
    29th May 2008: ―Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise”.

    So, to make my point. All I had what the mails to go by. Which you argue is not enough context. I claim the mails show that this request was related to the Holland FOIA request. got it? I claim the mail says what it says and means what it means.

    Muir Russel had the benefit of interviewing Jones and Palmer. he concluded it had NOTHING to do with the Holland FOIA request.

    Lets see: Everyone who has read the mails knows holland had an FOIA in play at the time. An FIOA directed at correspondence.

    Hell, the damn subject of the deletion request tells you that it was related to an FOI request

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

    Mike,

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

    #####

    So, there was enough context to draw all the conclusions that we drew. And Muir russell misses this

    As I wrote to you before you did you hatchet job:

    “To your specific question. For the issues that the mails raise, issues like the evolution of a bunker mentality there was enough context. Jones confirmed my reading in interviews, after the publication of the book. For issues like Jones’ sloppy work, which we documented, there was enough context and Jones confirmed our conclusion. For every issue we raised there was enough context to draw the conclusions we did. To be sure there are some additional bits and pieces were more context would have helped, but not to make the picture any better for them. For example, in mails where Jones discusses that he is going to talk to the IPCC secretariate about FOIA, we don’t know what Jones suggested to him. Context here would be important, but Osborn is dead wrong if he thinks that context around this question will make Jones look better. In every case where there was some question about what was being said, more context would be helpful. But in all those cases more context would just help readers decide between a “bad” case for the scientists and a “worse” case. There isnt any context which can make it better. If there was, they would produce it.

    To put the emails in a full context in every case would require one thing. Somebody with knowledge of the mails sitting down with Jones, Briffa, Osborn and others to ask them
    a few simple questions.”

    Does lacking access to all these mails, limit what we can say? Only in the most trivial way. It does not limit what we can say about the handling of Holland’s FOIA. It did not limit was the ICO said. It does not limit us in saying that Jones did not tell to the truth to parliament when he said it was standard practice not to share data. The mails show us that Jones did share data with Rutherford in 2005. He shared data that he knew was covered by confidentiality agreements. And in the same mail he said that if he was compelled to share this data under FOIA that he would delete it first. Now, could I find more wrong doing if I had access to more mails? Most likely.
    As a defense the appeal to missing context is laughable. Imagine the account who authorizes the issuance of millions of checks over a lifetime of service. Imagine finding one which he writes to himself embezzling a million dollars. can he appeal to the millions of good checks he wrote to divert attention from the bogus one? Nixon spoke many words that were never recorded. Those few that were recorded cost him his job. The husband’s letter to his mistress also comes to mind.

    AND NOW, about your claim that, that I said it was widespread.

    here is your email question to me and my response. PLease correct your web site

    [Brian] 2. From what you wrote below, it appears that you feel that there’s enough context contained within the emails to answer certain limited questions and draw limited conclusions, but not necessarily draw broad conclusions. Is that a fair paraphrase of your responses below, and if not, could you clarify for me?

    [steve]
    The whole premise of our book was to discuss only those issues where we could draw conclusions. For example, we argued that Dr. Mann was instrumental in fostering a bunker mentality amongst his fellow scientists. This is clear from the mails. Jones confirmed part of this conclusion after the fact. What we charged in our book was a case of Noble cause corruption. Not fraud. But a slow and steady erosion of scientific ethics. A corruption of processes and personalities, that is dangerous if left unchecked. To date we see no evidence in the mails that this corruption has seriously impacted the science. As we argue, nothing in the mails changes the fundamental science. But that verdict of not guilty should not be taken as an endorsement of the actions of Jones and others. Throughout the book we were very specific in our charges. We wrote the book because we were unhappy with the sweeping generalizations. On the skeptic side charges of “fraud” were tossed out far too easily. On the CRU defenders side, the response was equally lame. “the mails are not in context, or the science is still right.” For us, the key issue was getting the EXACT charges right. What exactly did they do? The mails, as we argued cannot change the science. They are mails. What they show, is the erosion of scientific ethics and scientific practices. These faults need to be admitted. They need to be addressed and trust needs to be restored.

    The short answer? The mails provide enough context to answer questions about specific incidents of misconduct. Those incidents have been largely ignored because there is no defense for what was done. Instead, they have defended themselves against vague charges.

    I dont think I can be any clearer. NOT widespread. Focused on the team. A few specific incidents .

    Time for you to do a retraction.

  16. Now, if Brian read the book he would see that what he wrote on his blog is false.
    he wrote that I claimed the problem was ‘widespread’. Brian’s lying, he know’s he lying.

    He wrote this on the heels of doing an interview with me where I argued a very narrow case. Specific men. specific problems. And still he lies. weird. He writes a mail saying ” if I read you correctly you are saying that you can only make a limited case”
    They I tell him, yes. Specific cases against specific guys. But Brian cant make hash out of that, so he lies.

    Anyways, if he read the intro to the book he would find this:

    “We have taken sides in this analysis. Our critics will say that we took sides before we started, and although we are confident we have approached this objectively, there may be a little truth to that.

    But—and it’s a big but—although we are harsh in our criticism of the actions of this group of climate scientists and paleoclimatologists known as The Team, readers need to understand two things:

    1. Our criticism does not extend to criticism of the theory of global warming. Both your authors believe global warming exists, is a problem and needs to be addressed. We just don’t think it poses a catastrophic threat to civilization. We explain in detail below.

    2. Our criticism should not be construed as criticism of the majority of scientists
    investigating our climate, its effects and possible changes to it in the future. We have
    communicated with a large number of climate scientists, and they are not at all like The Team in either attitude or behavior.

    We are tough on the scientists we call The Team, and we think deservedly so. But we want to stress from the outset that we do not for one minute believe there is any evidence of a long-term conspiracy to defraud the public about global warming, by The Team or anyone else. What we find evidence of on a much smaller scale is a small group of scientists too close to each other, protecting themselves and their careers, and unintentionally having a dramatic, if unintended, effect on a global debate.

  17. You’ve very much got to the nub of the issue:

    *Global warmers start with their opinions, they then look for the “facts” to support that opinion and then dress up those loose facts to look like science.
    *Sceptics start with the facts, they then apply their knowledge of science to assess those facts and they come to their opinions based on those conclusions.

  18. Steven Mosher says:
    October 13, 2010 at 12:22 am
    Brian is at it again
    “Mosher also said that we know enough context to prove that there was a widespread breakdown in scientific ethics among climate researchers. In addition, Mosher claims that both he and his co-author Tom Fuller feel that the emails revealed nothing that alters the conclusions of climate disruption research to date”

    Climate disruption research to date? What climate disruption research? The alarmists only made up this new name for the hoax a few weeks ago. There simply hasn’t been time for anyone to incorporate the new spin into a peer reviewed paper. I for one am still getting up to speed on the information that we have always been at war with Oceania…Who is this Brian character? Winston Smith under an assumed name?

  19. “Konrad says:
    October 13, 2010 at 1:55 am

    Who is this Brian character? Winston Smith under an assumed name?”

    He’s not Winston Smith (The Messiah), he’s a very naughty boy!

  20. “Angliss rejected the data, refusing to read the book he criticized or the emails that prompted the book.”

    Fuller obviously haven’t read the book either.
    It was a mistake by Montford’s publisher to include the word “climategate” in the subtitle. The book is much more important than a book about climategate. It was written before climategate happened.

    Now that Anthony have a link to The Hockey Stick Illusion, perhaps he have read it?

  21. 1. Steven Mosher says:
    October 13, 2010 at 12:35 am
    “We are tough on the scientists we call The Team, and we think deservedly so. But we want to stress from the outset that we do not for one minute believe there is any evidence of a long-term conspiracy to defraud the public about global warming, by The Team or anyone else. What we find evidence of on a much smaller scale is a small group of scientists too close to each other, protecting themselves and their careers, and unintentionally having a dramatic, if unintended, effect on a global debate”
    In light of this comment Mr. Mosher I would be interested in your opinion on the Climategate email from Mann 31/10/03 –

    “Thanks very much Tim,
    I was hoping that the revisions would ally concerns people had.
    I’ll look forward to your comments on this latest draft. I agree w/ Malcolm on the need to be careful w/ the wording in the first paragraph. The first paragraph is a bit of relic of a much earlier draft, and maybe we need to rethink it a bit. Takinig the high road is probably very important here. If *others* want to say that their actions represent scientific fraud, intellectual dishonesty, etc. (as I think we all suspect they do), lets let *them* make these charges for us!
    Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first par. particular. I took the liberty of forwarding the previous draft to a handfull of our closet colleagues, just so they would have a sense of approximately what we’ll be releasing later today–i.e., a heads up as to
    how MM achieved their result… look forward to us finalizing something a bit later–I still think we need to get this out
    ASAP…
    mike”

  22. Jo Nova is attracting a lot of flack these days as well. Could it be that having failed the science and now failing the PR the warmers are reduced to attacking the sceptical one by one? Nature is doing a great job on our behalf by the way. On the East Coast of Aus we are having a lovely spring. No heat waves so far when the past few years we were having 40C days in late August. The poor old BoM must we working overtime to make 2010 the hottest ever.

  23. Thomas Fuller,

    The Wegman Report shows many examples of plagiarism that Mashey has clearly highlighted. As a writer, I am very surprised that you are defending Wegman. To those of us in the academic community, plagiarism represents laziness, incompetence, and dishonesty. It appears that you do not respect that viewpoint.

    Any document that has been plagiarized cannot be taken seriously nor any person who defends such document.

  24. “Lawrie Ayres says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:07 am ”

    It is still spring (Only just), but cool indeed on the East cost of Aus. I am told by “natives” that the October/November switch is when one feels an Aussie summer is on its way. So far, east cost of Aus, quite cool, still humid tho.

  25. “This is an extremely positive happenstance for those of us Lukewarmers who believe that climate change does need to be addressed………………

    But just when you thought it was safe to go into the water, the useful idiots of climate change have been reinforced by one-shot attacks on specific skeptics.”
    ========================================================

    Tom, at this point, regardless of how you consider yourself, it will be deemed that you are firmly in the skeptic camp.

    BTW, nice post.

  26. Dear Mr. Fuller –

    The more I read the more I am growing to like you, sir.

    As we say in Ireland, “You are a gentleman and a scholar and a fine judge of vintage CO2″.

    Sincerely, etc…

  27. Mr. Fuller, your statement above;
    “This is an extremely positive happenstance for those of us Lukewarmers who believe that climate change does need to be addressed, as the alarmists continually turn people into skeptics with their outrageous and unscientific claims and their rigid insistence on conformity to the religious truth. It probably doesn’t bother many skeptics, either.”

    Do I take that to mean that both alarmists & sceptics detract from The One True Cause? The use of “us Lukewarmers”; is there a secret handshake or something? The statement “It probably doesn’t bother many skeptics, either.” Why; because they are to be considered as closed minded, as lost souls?
    I can only come to the conclusion that you are a True Believer, self appointed or otherwise, in the position of priest. You reject the position of both the zealot & the agnostic and work as missionary at WUWT for the greater kingdom that is yet to be realised here on Earth and which the meek shall inherit.
    I could, of course, have misinterpreted your words & if so, apologise: I too don’t like my personal understanding of a subject to place me in a category which can be lampooned and marginalised.

  28. Scott Mandia,

    You can’t be serious. If you are going to regurgitate other people’s talking points, shouldn’t you cite them? Give us a break.

  29. jose says:
    October 13, 2010 at 12:00 am

    “… The obvious plagiarism (which Steve M. doesn’t deny, by the way) is evidence of poor researching and writing skills, ….”

    Uhmm, I suppose you can come away from Steve M’s statements with only he “doesn’t deny”, but I think you missed the entire point of Steve Mc’s position.

  30. I posted this at Dr Mashey’s site DeploringClimate:-

    Well all I can say is your work maintains the standard of the Teams work and should be consigned to a cylindrical object with a lid.
    Climate gate revealed all we knew about junkett science and it is now clear that we are winning and you are whining.
    Dr Mashey its over, we won you lost, so I suggest you and your people seek help and obtain advice in respect of your superman complexes. The planet does not need saving it is the poor souls who have swallowed the alarmist nonsense who need saving and we need to save ourselves from the freeloaders on the green gravy train.
    Your mates at UNRealclimate are well unreal ie fakes.

  31. Alright then, what’s the defining point where you go from luke warmer to sceptic?

    Disbelief in CAGW?
    Disbelief in AGW?
    Disbelief in GHG?
    Disbelief in the degree to which CO2 impacts GW?
    Disbelief in IPCC?
    Disbelief in acronyms?

    I believe there is some AGW, and that CO2 has some (minor) effect; so am I a skeptic, lukewarmer or out of the paradigm totally?

  32. Okay, so those mentioned in Tom’s article formed their own conclusions then made the data fit those conclusions or did shoddy research for information already available, and that surprises us how?

  33. Not surprising that the supporters of the AGW by CO2 consensus are of late putting up an accelerating aggressive series of counter attacks on the independent (a.k.a. skeptic) scientists. Question: Is it because they know they have little chance now of prevailig by using their tired old processes of the MSM and their less-than-open science venue? I think they know they have lost seriously fatal momentum and support.

    The leadership of the AGW by CO2 consensus are in retreat with the fool soldiers fighting a rear guard guerrilla action. What we see with the attack on Wegman is the foot soldier guerrilla action. It is not an organized counter offensive planned by the leadership.

    The best strategy for the independent scientists and intellects is to already be where the AGW leadership is retreating to and be prepared for a stand. Exchanges with these guerrilla foot soldiers is OK, however, watch the leaders very carefully for signs of an organized AGW by CO2 counter offensive.

    My Observation: The AGW by CO2 leadership have only one place to retreat to, the IPCC. We should focus all our energy on what the IPCC is doing wrt to IAC report and with the AR5. That is where I am going start focusing . . . .

    John

  34. Stan>

    ‘Prof’ Mandia is a high-school teacher from Buffalo. Evidently he’s been learning about trolling from his students.

  35. Ah, we’re getting back to name calling, eh? Warmers, lukewarmers, denialists, skeptics, etc. etc.

    Since when is it acceptable for science to be subjective? I defer to Hal Lewis:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/

    Call me a REALIST! (or a scientist). I want real information–the TRUTH! Don’t give my hype, jive, spin or scuff. Just the facts, please (and if I have to say “real facts” I’m going to do it, even though that is obviously (or should obviously be) redundant!)

    Now I challenge anybody to call a Realist a close-minded person. Doing so would be a blatant lie.

  36. If one equates the AGW show to a big rodeo I can see some nice analogies. Mann was the star bull rider who was found to be cheating. Now you have the rodeo clowns Mashey, Angliss and Prall (with additional help from Scott Mandia and Jose) frantically waving their arms and trying to get the bull (the public) to look the other way and ignore the facts. It’s really, really funny when you see it from this perspective.

    What these clowns need to do is look up in the stands. They’re empty guys. Your feeble attempts to cover up the fraud is useless. Take a hint and go hide somewhere before you become part of the scraps left when the bull discovers the cheating was intentional and decides to gore everyone connected.

  37. Tom, if you’re so upset that I maligned your book unfairly, then why did you make the same error three different times since Friday?

    Steven – you make a number of claims that I’ve answered previously, but I’ll address them here again shortly.

  38. Scott Mandia says:
    October 13, 2010 at 4:02 am

    As a writer, I am very surprised that you are defending Wegman. To those of us in the academic community, plagiarism represents laziness, incompetence, and dishonesty.

    Tut tut, Scott, but shouldn’t Mann’s methods not be self-fulfilling in respect to creating his beloved Hockey Sticks [even from statistical noise] and at least be able to recreate his study’s own calibration period in trying to [wrongly] “teleconnect” with Global Mean Temperature [by way of no known physical principles] using the tree ring borings [from the manifestly inappropriate deformed wild stripbark bristlecones] which Mann did not even obtain himself or bother to update, etc.?

    That is, Scott, when will your finely tuned academic sensibilities notice and react to the fact that ipcc Climate Science in toto is not real science, but instead only a massive Propaganda Op? Or is its “creative writing” right up your alley as being the kind of thing you rever as the epitome of the Academic Community’s Thinking and thus the key to an ~”audaciously distorted reality’s higher truths”?

  39. simpleseekeraftertruth says:
    October 13, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Djozar says:
    October 13, 2010 at 6:56 am

    RockyRoad says:
    October 13, 2010 at 7:52 am

    ———————

    simpleseekeraftertruth & Djozar & RockyRoad,

    I have foresworn the use of the “L——-ers” word, I use middle-of-the-roaders instead.

    They stand in the middle of the road on AGW by CO2. Big juggernauts fly by on both sides of them headed either for ideological environmentalism (with associated unelected world gov’t) or headed toward a complete reformation/renaissance in climate science.

    Does that bring up a mental image of deer in the headlights? Chuckle, chuckle.

    They have positioned themselves to be irrelevant to the major issues at hand. It is their convenient position to maneuver easily to issues of the moment.

    John

  40. From this month’s Atlantic

    Published research is most often wrong

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269

    There are many interesting aspects to this paper. Here is one selection from the article that summarizes some of the research findings. Peer review as a way to exclude opposing views. Published research is biased to favour the views that the researcher and the community desire.

    The link to the controversies in climate science is clear.

    From the article

    He chose to publish one paper, fittingly, in the online journal PLoS Medicine, which is committed to running any methodologically sound article without regard to how “interesting” the results may be. In the paper, Ioannidis laid out a detailed mathematical proof that, assuming modest levels of researcher bias, typically imperfect research techniques, and the well-known tendency to focus on exciting rather than highly plausible theories, researchers will come up with wrong findings most of the time. Simply put, if you’re attracted to ideas that have a good chance of being wrong, and if you’re motivated to prove them right, and if you have a little wiggle room in how you assemble the evidence, you’ll probably succeed in proving wrong theories right. His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views. “You can question some of the details of John’s calculations, but it’s hard to argue that the essential ideas aren’t absolutely correct,” says Doug Altman, an Oxford University researcher who directs the Centre for Statistics in Medicine.

  41. @ Latimer Elder; your comments have the ring of truth. The group accusing Wegman of plagiarism make as much sense and seem to have attained a similar level of intellectual capacity as the fourteen-year-old bullies it was once my job to divert toward more useful activities as they taunted the much brighter kids in high-school yards. Mr Mandia’s statement is a classic playground bullies’s taunt and is utterly without wit or merit.

  42. Brian,

    You claim I said the corruption was wide spread among climate scientists.

    I most certainly did not. You went looking for a story. The story was that the mails where being taken out of context and that people like me were making unsubstantiated charges.

    I clearly laid out in my mail to you and the book the charges we made were limited to the team and limited in number. Not widespread. That didnt fit your story line so you lied. Plain and simple.

    Here are the people and charges. Not widespread.

    1. Mann fostered a bunker mentality. That’s evident in the mails and confirmed by Jones.

    2. That bunker mentality was instrumental in Jones changing his policy of data sharing.

    3. Jones asked mann to delete mails related to AR4. This was related to Hollands FOIA request.

    4. Briffa and Wahl had correspondence [sought by holland] outside the process of the AR4.

    5. As a result, the treatment of Steve McIntyre’s paper was not fair and objective since the comments Wahl supplied Briffa happened after the last review period.

    That’s about it. With every other mail and every other incident we didnt draw any wild conclusions. we pointed to various interpretations.

    I made two mistakes, both of which I corrected. One mistake regarding a briffa chart, the other a Jones mail, where it turned out he was joking.

  43. Scott Mandia says:
    October 13, 2010 at 4:02 am (Edit)
    Thomas Fuller,

    The Wegman Report shows many examples of plagiarism that Mashey has clearly highlighted. As a writer, I am very surprised that you are defending Wegman. To those of us in the academic community, plagiarism represents laziness, incompetence, and dishonesty. It appears that you do not respect that viewpoint.

    Any document that has been plagiarized cannot be taken seriously nor any person who defends such document.

    Scott: then see the examples of Bradley copying and several others. over at CA

  44. Anthony,

    To my subjective eye, it looks like WUWT is getting increasing numbers from the middle-of-the-roader blogs of late. Also, ditto more visits from the more purist AGW by CO2 supporter blogs of late. Are they failing to attract commenters in their native venues?

    If so, then congratulations to you Anthony.

    I haven’t thanked you in a while for this wonderful place. Thanks.

    John

  45. Steven, I’ve put excerpts of what you said in italics.

    I think I’ve been pretty clear that the breakdown was local and confined as opposed to “widespread” as I wrote.

    In our email exchange, you said that the berakdown applied to Jones, Briffa, Osborn, Overpeck, Wahl, Ammonn, and Mann. Given that I don’t know exactly who you identify as being part of “The Team” and who you do not, this seems reasonably “widespread” to me. However, you also claimed that “[n]one of the investigations has looked at the substantive issues in play” and “the investigations investigated only those thing that they knew were not a problem,” statements that implicate any scientist involved in the investigations who support the above-mentioned scientists. At the time, the three investigations that had been completed were the PSU inquiry, the HoC investigation, and the Oxburgh review. Between those three, we would need to add the PSU inquiry panelists, Gerald North, Donald Kennedy, Nicolas Barnes, David Jones, Peter Sinclair, Peter Cox, Hans von Storch, Myles R Allen, and the entire membership of the Oxburgh inquiry to the list of people implicated in ethical issues. And for good measure, let’s add in the climate scientists I interviewed that contradicted your accounting of what happened, like Tom Wigley, Martin Vermeer, Gavin Schmidt, and Mike Hulme. This appears to meet the definition of “widespread” as I understand it.

    If we added the additional names from the PSU investigation and the ICCER who disagreed publicly with your interpretation of events, the list of names would implicate an even larger, and thus more “widespread,” group.

    So, to make my point. All I had what the mails to go by. Which you argue is not enough context.

    Let’s not misrepresent what my post says. My post says that, under most circumstances, emails fail to have the necessary context to understand what really happened. Remember that I agreed with you that the FOI issue was serious, and that the emails very likely contained enough context for this one issue. I specifically said so in the post. However, you went beyond that in our email exchange, as I also showed in the post. You claimed that Overpeck informed Briffa of the IPCC rules and that Briffa broke the rules – I asked Overpeck, and he said you got that wrong, a fact that was independently confirmed in the ICCER final report.

    They I tell him, yes. Specific cases against specific guys. But Brian cant make hash out of that, so he lies.

    Quite the contrary, actually. I make the case that you are simultaneously claiming specific cases against specific scientists, but also that you’re implying that the problems are widespread, for the reasons mentioned above. I’m arguing that you are being inconsistent and self-contradictory, and I point out multiple examples of self-contradiction in the post as well as in my detailed criticism (the original post that Anthony corrected – see the link to S&R at “Mashey Potatoes Part 1″) of your comments. There is a difference.

    Ultimately I’m not criticizing your book, I’m criticizing the arguments you (and others) presented in our email exchange regarding sufficient context. I’m criticizing the fact that you didn’t even bother to contact Overpeck and ask him to explain the email you misinterpreted. I’m criticizing the fact that, near as I could tell from asking the principles involved, you didn’t contact ANY of the scientists you criticized in order to get their side of the story. I’m criticizing you for failing to do your journalistic due diligence.

    If I were criticizing “Climategate – the CRUtape Letters,” I would have specifically said so. If you read the various debunkings I’ve written at S&R, you’ll find that I’m not exactly shy or coy about debunking bad arguments or poorly written papers. That said, I must admit that I’m curious about how well the book stands up now that the CRU investigations have gone 0-5 against you.

  46. I think I’ve finally figured out why alarmists are they way they are! This thread illustrates their problem quite well! First, I’d like to congratulate Anthony for being able to carry on two separate issues in a single thread. Perfect!

    The problem alarmists obviously have is that they can’t contextualize nor do they possess proper reading comprehension skills.

    The reading comprehension skill deficiency is illuminated by Steve Mosher’s post.

    Steve Mosher writes, “I dont think I can be any clearer. NOT widespread. Focused on the team. A few specific incidents .”

    Brian writes, “Mosher also said that we know enough context to prove that there was a widespread breakdown in scientific ethics among climate researchers.”

    Holy Moly!!! And the alarmist camp is worried about improper attribution!?!?!?! How about a willful public mischaracterization of statements?

    Steve Mosher, because yours is from a commercial enterprise, I believe you can show intent to do harm. But I’m not a lawyer.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Now, let’s look at the Wegman report. The Wegman report isn’t a commercial enterprise. In other words, the author’s aren’t seeking monetary gain from this piece of writing. Neither are they mischaracterizing Bradley’s writings, so, there is clearly no intent to harm. Context!!

    Ok, so that’s not enough for some of our more fervent people that wish the rules be explicitly followed. So, what, specifically, has Wegman done that was so wrong?

    Just so we can play along at home, if you don’t have a copy of the report, you can go here to make sure what is being stated is truthful and properly contextualized and characterized. http://archives.energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

    Recall, Wegman was asked to do a report for the Committee on Energy and Commerce regarding MBH98, MBH99, MM03, MM05a, MM05b as well as the related implications in the assessment. These are politicians who are asking for clarity on import climate papers. Obviously, these politicians will need some background on most of the information that would be presented by Wegman. In a section of Wegman’s report, labeled background the authors write, “A cross section of a temperate forest tree shows variation of lighter and darker bands that are usually continuous around the circumference of the tree. These
    bands are the so-called tree rings and are due to seasonal effects. Each tree ring is
    composed of large thin-walled cells called early wood and smaller more densely packed thick walled cells called late wood. The average width of a tree ring is a function of many variables including the tree species, tree age, stored carbohydrates in the tree, nutrients in the soil, and climatic factors including sunlight, precipitation, temperature, wind speed, humidity, and even carbon dioxide availability in the atmosphere. Obviously there are many confounding factors so the problem is to extract the temperature signal and to distinguish the temperature signal from the noise caused by the many confounding factors.

    For anyone to have even the most base of understanding of dendrochronology, this information is necessary, even if I’m pretty sure our politicians lack the capacity of understanding the entry. I think most of us will agree this passage, while not important to the findings in the report, should have been included in the report. Now, I don’t have a copy of Bradley’s textbook, from which he claims plagiarism, but from all accounts, it seems the Wegman’s entry and Bradley’s very closely resemble each other, that is stipulated.

    Here’s where the fun starts, first, let’s define plagiarism. A quick stop at dictionary.com shows us, plagiarism as “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.” to make sure this is the generally accepted definition, scroll down the page and one will see the Encyclopedia Britannica definition as “plagiarism—-the act of taking the writings of another person and passing them off as one’s own. The fraudulence is closely related to forgery and piracy-practices generally in violation of copyright laws. ”

    Now, we should note, in both definitions, one has to represent the swiped thoughts as their own. and the representation of them as one’s own original work. and and passing them off as one’s own.

    Next, to establish if Wegman’s report rises to the level of plagiarism, it must be determined if Wegman was trying to pass that background information as his own. We should, at this point, simply close the book, look at the complainants, and start pointing and laughing at them. For people that aren’t aware, Ed Wegman is a statistician. He plays with numbers. To my knowledge, he’s never tried to pass himself off as a dendrochronologist nor a climatologist. Still, I’m aware this won’t suffice for some people as proof Wegman did not plagiarize Bradley. So, let’s look at intent, because sometimes stuff happens, maybe Wegman intended to slight Bradley and take credit for the mentioned passage.

    As McIntyre notes at CA(see link at top of thread), in the background section, the Wegman report mentions Bradley 6 times. OK, we see, obviously, Wegman’s didn’t pass off the background entry as his work, further, we see frequent mention of Bradley in the background section. More, Wegman specifically references Bradley’s textbook from which Bradley is making the plagiarism accusation. Again, it is point and laugh time. Copied from the Bibliography section of the Wegman paper——

    Bradley, R. S. (1999) Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quarternary, 2nd Edition, San Diego: Academic Press.
    Bradley, R. S. and Eddy, J. A. (1991) “Records of past global changes,” in Global
    Changes of the Past (R. S. Bradley, ed.) Boulder: University Corporation for
    Atmospheric Research, 5-9. Bradley, R. S. and Jones, P. D. (1993) “‘Little Ice Age’ summer temperature variations: Their nature and relevance to recent global warming trends,” Holocene, 3, 367-376
    Bradley, Raymond S., Hughes, M. K., and Diaz, H. F. (2003) “Climate change: Climate in medieval time,” Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1090372, 404-405.
    Bradley, R. S., Briffa, K. R., Cole, J. E., Hughes, M. K., and Osborn, T. J. (2003)
    “The climate of the last millennium,” in Paleoclimate, Global Change and the Future
    (Eds. K. D. Alverson, R. S. Bradley and Thomas F. Pedersen), 105-141, New York:
    Springer-Verlag

    Clearly, plainly, obviously, Wegman didn’t try to pass off the entry as his own work. Clearly, plainly, obviously, neither did he fail cite Bradley in some attempt to slight Bradley. Should there be an little number by the words and a corresponding footnote? Probably, so what? Remember, while this paper was done by academics, this was a report for Congress. This was not an academic piece of work to be graded by some English professor nor was it a commercial enterprise.

    Now for the real fun! Even though it is clear Wegman has not plagiarized Bradley. What happens if Bradley is forced to play by the same standards he wishes to impose on Wegman?

    We were encouraged to read an entry at CA. And I did. Here’s what I found,

    Steve McIntyre writes, Some language in Bradley 1999 was lifted almost directly from predecessor language, such as the following language from Lamarche 1975 (New Scientist), which is almost identical to corresponding language in Bradley 1999:

    “The earlywood is made up of large, thin-walled tracheid cells and the latewood, of smaller, thicker-walled cells.”

    (For more examples of the same use in other literature, please go to http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/12/copygate/ )

    Ouch!!! You mean Bradley participates in the same practices he’s accusing Wegman? Yes, so too does much of the climate alarmist world. And everybody else for that matter.

    What we’ve seen here, isn’t plagiarism, nor is the offender Wegman. What we see here is a blatant, intentional misrepresentation of people’s works, specifically intended to defame the authors of the works, or it could be, as I asserted earlier, alarmists have very poor reading comprehension skills and they can’t contextualize very well. But, it is an either/or situation. They have demonstrated it can’t be neither.

  47. dl says:
    October 13, 2010 at 8:43 am
    From this month’s Atlantic

    Published research is most often wrong

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269

    Yes, this also highlights one of the very important but totally unscientific tenets of Climate Science, that peer review by a few peers resulting in the publication of a paper thereby warrants that the paper’s conclusions are the “given truth”.

    No, in being “the farthest thing from the truth” in the case of what real peer review does and claims, this Climate Science tenet is a grotesque lie. The real peer review starts, or at worst necessarily continues, after the paper is published, at least where the “materials and methods” which actually comprise the foundations of the paper’s “science” can be obtained by any interested party. But if they are not pretty easily accessable, the value of the paper is correspondingly reduced, even to zero, a fact which has once again been proven in the case of key Climate Science once the “materials and methods” have been painstakingly wrested from the grips of Climate Science!

  48. “whining points” bids fair to become a classic meme, I think.
    For quotable commentary, Mr. Fuller, this was a wonderful article and will enrich the water cooler conversation immensely. :)

  49. Tom – I would much appreciate a post from you at some time describing what you consider a “luke warmist” to be, and how you think, ideally, the “luke warmist” position should operate, scientifically, politically and with its PR. I am not being flippant – I genuinely struggle to understand “luke warmism” as a coherent concept (rather than as just something that falls between two stools).

    All the best.

  50. Djozar says: October 13, 2010 at 6:56 am
    Alright then, what’s the defining point where you go from luke warmer to sceptic?
    I believe there is some AGW, and that CO2 has some (minor) effect; so am I a skeptic, lukewarmer or out of the paradigm totally?

    You are capable of unemotionally processing empirical data input and logically reasoning where that data leads you.

  51. Jose: I believe that Dr Wegman’s report was submitted to a Congressional committee as part of his sworn testimony before that committee. I suggest that the standard for perjury produces better and more reliable information than peer review. The Climategate disclosures most certainly illustrate my point.

  52. James Sexton says:
    October 13, 2010 at 10:11 am

    “What we’ve seen here, isn’t plagiarism, nor is the offender Wegman. What we see here is a blatant, intentional misrepresentation of people’s works, specifically intended to defame the authors of the works, or it could be, as I asserted earlier, alarmists have very poor reading comprehension skills and they can’t contextualize very well. But, it is an either/or situation. They have demonstrated it can’t be neither. [emphasis added -hro]

    But, it is an either and/or situation. They have demonstrated that it can’t be neither. They have also demonstrated that it could be both.

    There, fixed it :-)

  53. hro001 says:
    October 13, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    James Sexton says:
    October 13, 2010 at 10:11 am

    But, it is an either and/or situation. They have demonstrated that it can’t be neither. They have also demonstrated that it could be both.

    There, fixed it :-)

    Much appreciated! Thanks!

  54. Angliss: “Mosher also said that we know enough context to prove that there was a widespread breakdown in scientific ethics among climate researchers. In addition, Mosher claims that both he and his co-author Tom Fuller feel that the emails revealed nothing that alters the conclusions of climate disruption research to date”

    Mosher (October 2010) FALSE AND A LIE. Interested readers can see my exchange with brian in email, below. BEFORE he wrote his piece. I think I’ve been pretty clear that the breakdown was local and confined.

    Mosher (January 2010) “There is no simple take away. Except this: the Climate scientists corrupted the IPCC process, the science journal process, the statistical process, and the FOIA process to silence one man– Stephan McIntyre ”

    Let me see if I have this straight – the IPCC, statistics itself, the journal/peer review process, and the principal of FOI have all been hopelessly corrupted. But this is merely a little local difficulty.

    Steve Mosher has over-reached, in his desire to please the over-conspiratorial tinfoil hats at the Big Government blog, he has engaged in rhetoric wholly at odds with his newfound ‘local and confined’ schtick. Good thing the internet is wiped clean at the end of every month, otherwise these thing might hang around to embarrass one.

    REPLY: Spoken like a true (certified) 10:10 supporter.

  55. REPLY: Spoken like a true (certified) 10:10 supporter.

    Thanks. I shall be submitting this to the Oxford English Dictionary as perhaps the best ever example of a completely irrelevant and ad hominem response. Textbook stuff.

    REPLY: Great! Always good to see the work of 10:10 eco child snuffers and their supporters get the exposure they deserve.

  56. It was a joke Mr Watts! It missed the target, it was in poor taste, it was never aired, it has been withdrawn, an apology has been issued. But it was no more a snuff movie than are Monty Python or South Park.

    But this little film has certainly made its mark here. How many posts now? Six, seven? The ad hominem attack on Franny was a motivator for me to go sign up, how many others? Isn’t there some dictum about bad publicity?

    TTFN.

    REPLY: You call it a joke, many others see it as a window to the mindset of the people. It was mega fail, and far beyond simple poor taste. So when confronted with such things at their best “in poor taste” , you run to embrace it? How idiotic. – Anthony

  57. Phil Clarke says:
    October 13, 2010 at 3:07 pm
    “There is no simple take away. Except this: the Climate scientists corrupted the IPCC process, the science journal process, the statistical process, and the FOIA process to silence one man– Stephan McIntyre ”

    “Let me see if I have this straight ……

    Steve Mosher has over-reached, in his desire to please the over-conspiratorial tinfoil hats at the Big Government blog, he has engaged in rhetoric wholly at odds with his newfound ‘local and confined’ schtick.”

    =======================================================

    So, let me see if I have this straight——- Steve Mosher quotes Steve McIntyre and you take that as an expression of Steve Mosher’s thoughts?

    You know, I’ve found several writers to be vague and unclear about their thoughts. When I can, I ask for clarity. When explicit clarity is provided, I no longer rely on inferences. This is a time honored practice. Perhaps you can employ this and if it works, introduce the radical concept to your friends? Personally, I think Mosh is wrong in his position, but its his position.

    Also, Phil, you’ve been here long enough to know Mosh has rigorously defended some aspects of the CAGW crowd/practices. So, his statements that he’s not indicting the entire climate science group is totally within character, word, and act. Go here for just one example. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/gisstimating-1998/

    Phil, when will the alarmist crowd begin to understand that character assassination isn’t working for them? At first, it served the skeptic crowd quite well, but now it only shows the lack of intellectual argument from alarmist camp. We’re past that, you should tell your friends, if they start playing nice, we’ll enter a dialogue with them and maybe let them keep their science credentials. Or they can continue to show themselves for what they are, but at this point, I’m actually gathering pity for poor dumb twits. It must suck to have their whole belief system vaporize in front of them and because of them.

  58. Bradley and the others on the Hockey Stick Team are academics with many students. They have experiance of plagiarism, and will quickly recognise in their student’s work. Why then, in an important, and critical, report on the Hockey Stick has it taken 4 years for anyone to notice the plagiarism? Either these learned academics do not read around the subject and/or the allegations are tenuous at best.

  59. While the distinction of “Luckwarmer” is being brought up and the defining characteristic of belonging in the “Middle Of The Road” (MOTR) on the climate issue, I want to mention that statistics provide evidence that many MOTRs end up as “Roadkill”because when they jump to one side of the issue to avoid what is coming from that direction they tend to land right in the path of something worse coming from the other direction.
    The term is “Realist”!

  60. Well, hey, if Pachy is going to be the one implementing the recommendations, then all should be fine. Who better to guard the hen house than the fox?

Comments are closed.