The Steve Zwick Guide to Defending the Indefensible

Guest post by James Padgett

There have been several “defenses” to the rather damning emails in the latest release from FOIA. Some, having taken the lead from the CRU itself and cherry-picked their own emails to defend – and then not only declaring they’ve refuted the accusations, but that the accusations themselves were cherry-picked and out-of-context.

But that isn’t the case when it comes to this piece by Steve Zwick on

Zwick decided to pick emails from an article written by James Taylor, senior fellow for environmental policy at the Heartland Institute, and then bestow his immense wisdom on us with their correct interpretation and context.

As can be expected, hilarity ensues.

The first snippet Zwick descends upon with great vengeance and furious anger is this one by Phil Jones:

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”

Zwick’s defense, while three-pronged, utterly manages to miss the mark. First he claims that the FOIA laws don’t apply to “private emails” and “early drafts of research papers” Obviously, these are not private emails – they are emails written by publicly-funded researchers, about their work, and during their working hours – nor are they discussing early drafts of research papers. They discuss McIntyre’s desire for their station data and the IPCC reports which are not research papers.

Of course, if this were really a valid defense, then Jones wouldn’t constantly be trying to sneak around such laws. For example, Jones loudly complains that he’d been deleting emails all day in response to an FOI request that didn’t come with a fee. Of course, his friend Tim Osborn, realizing that Jones had incriminated himself, and that the emails would be stored for years in their system, gives him a *wink wink* and *nudge nudge* and suggests that what Phil really meant was that the FOI request merely spurred him into doing a regular cleanup of his email. He further suggest that they use other methods of communication that can’t be traced.

How is that for context Mr. Zwick?

Second, Zwick claims, and put down your drinks, that FOI requests aren’t necessary since the IPCC has “established rules of transparency.”

Oddly enough, the UN’s review of the IPCC itself does not agree with Zwick and stated that they need more transparency.

For the finale in his trifecta of failure, Zwick claims that they must distinguish between “legitimate” requests for information and those by “right-wing activists.” So who will be deciding which requests are legitimate? Are they legitimate if they discover major flaws in the record-keeping (and therefore the ability to reproduce) of one of the major surface station datasets?

Or, more likely, will they be deemed legitimate only if they promote the religion of man-made global warming?

Basically, Zwick believes that FOI laws should not apply to taxpayer-funded scientists. Perhaps he should heed Eisenhower’s words in his farewell address to the nation, that, “we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

For his next trick, Zwick expertly dissects this segment:

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve     discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

Once again referring to Phil Jones, he explains that “hidden,” just like “trick” and “hide the decline,” don’t mean what they would mean in normal English. I won’t bore you with the Clintonian details. He further claims that they don’t want to release the data because, “You end up with some data that you trust and some that you don’t, so you build your analysis on the data that you do trust and “hide” the rest of it in an appendix.”

Let me break this down for you Mr. Zwick – he directly refers to the original station data. That is to say, the data before it is massaged, adjusted and manipulated decades after the records were written down in dusty tomes.  We want to see how they adjust it, what methods they use to alter the actual data, and what their justification is.

If you can’t trust the original data, like you seem to suggest, then why should we trust the numbers that are derived from this untrustworthy source? Garbage in, garbage out.


Next, Zwick, desperately seeking the narrative that these emails are simply taken out of context latches on to this email, which talks about how they need to figure out the “main message” to decide what to leave in and leave out of a summary. In fact, I actually agree that part is probably taken out-of-context, but he, and his source, can’t help themselves but call attention to another segment of the email which I interpret very differently:

“For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change. Moreover, we have to have solid data – not inconclusive information.”

He thinks this is a splendiferous defense and shows that they just want to use “solid data.” I read it differently. It sounds to me, and I believe this has been demonstrated by reality, that the IPCC doesn’t like to include uncertainties in their report – especially certain uncertainties.


Tackling “the cause” of Michael Mann, Zwick claims that it is “just one sentence” and that he doesn’t know what “the cause” is – and that it is irrelevant.

Let me enlighten you again Mr. Zwick, it was not merely one sentence, it was part of a pattern that you can see here, here, and, of course, here. There are, of course, other examples of such language from different climate scientists.

And since you don’t know what “the cause” is then allow me to illuminate you. The “cause” is why they try to get people fired for disputing their work, the “cause” is why they try to discredit journals that publish info they disagree with, and the “cause” is why they do everything they can to control the message of man-made global warming.

In short, the cause isn’t a cause at all – it is a symptom. A symptom of an unscientific and juvenile mindset.


After demonstrating his keen analytical mind, Zwick decides he can play with the big dogs and tackles this infamous statement by Michael Mann:

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.”

Of course, he only posted the first sentence, as the rest shows both Mann’s paranoia about Big Oil and his interest in sending a compliant journo-thug  after another one of his perceived opponents. In any case, what is Mr. Zwick’s fine excuse for this behavior?

Get this – he is simply fighting back due to the “hacked emails.”

Hello? McFly? That email was written back in 2007 – over 2 years before the first Climategate. Was Michael Mann utilizing his prodigious powers of precognition (his computer-generated powers of retrocognition could use some tuning) to predict that some of his emails would be leaked onto the internet in the future?

Taking this new information into account, and assuming these emails are actually hacked, an argument you make numerous overt and covert references to without any evidence, that would mean that it was the skeptics who were “fighting back” if they hacked to get the CRU emails – fighting back against worthless thugs who’d stoop to digging up muckrakers to discredit people who have discredited you.


Okay, I’m done with you. I’ve dissected nearly three full pages of your propaganda and found it to be utterly lacking.

For a side that is so desperate for context, you are awfully intent on ignoring the context that doesn’t fit your narrative – namely the context behind their quests to fire editors, deny publication, and hide the problems with their data and conclusions. In the style of the artist formerly known as, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince, their context can be simply be described as:


James Padgett

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
richard verney
November 29, 2011 3:41 am

Good comment on what was a very poor article. It is unfortunate that your comment won’t see the light of day on MSM.

November 29, 2011 3:58 am

I read that article too and could hardly believe what I was reading. But a quick scan of Mr. Zwik’s profile reveals all. He was a futures trader before he received a “calling” to become an eco-journalist. One wonders what commodity he was trading. Could it be carbon?

November 29, 2011 4:00 am

There would be so much more to say. But the sheer volume and insanity of all this is exhausting.

November 29, 2011 4:14 am

Funny been watching to many reruns of Law and Order but when reading your post bouncing around in my head was.
Un-truth, Adjustments and the American way.
Although the one in my head now for the UK is Great Muppets, yer it seems strange but this whole country is run by a bunch of Muppets that are all going on strike tomorrow. try :-
Sorry my comment seems to of gone off on a tangent, just one of those days. Good, funny article made better by the 3 stooges photo.

Alec J
November 29, 2011 4:21 am

Slightly OT, but the Grauniad news item referenced above seems to accept that the emails were leaked rather than hacked.
“The leaked climate science emails – and what they mean
Following the publication this week of 5,000 hacked climate emails, we look at what was happening in those exchanges”
Still as confused as ever, and a lot of cherry picking going on in the text.
Alec J

Leo Norekens
November 29, 2011 4:45 am

“The Cause”.
Something like “la Cosa Nostra” ?

chuck nolan
November 29, 2011 4:49 am

I’m trying to understand “the cause”.
What is it and how does it affect me, my job and my country.
Is the cause to prove CAGW, to get governments to believe in CAGW or to ensure the UN is in charge of all money on earth? I don’t know. I can find no logical reason for their methods.
I know it’s not to save the poor and dying of the world.
A fairly enforced “rule of law” and “cheap energy” will lift EVERYONE out of a poverty.
The UNIPCC and “the team” actually perpetuate starvation and filth.
The UN needs poverty just as “the team” needs cover to hide their failed science.
The UN is a failure and “the team” is untrustworthy.
We need to stop them from being in charge.

November 29, 2011 5:17 am

This author just doesn’t get it — there is a right side and a wrong side, and they are on the right side, while he is obviously on the wrong side. That is their context, it is very simple. (I thought Jonathan Swift and George Orwell made this plain long ago). It is settled science, you see.

November 29, 2011 5:20 am


November 29, 2011 5:20 am

I doubt the ‘out of context’ excuse is going to last long. Diligent people are starting to put quite comprehensive email trails together which provide oodles of context.
The clock ticks…

Nick Shaw
November 29, 2011 5:29 am

Nice takedown, James. Nice indeed.
I’m surprised Mann didn’t collaborate with Zwick to write his piece. You know, seeing as Mann would know your response before hand. What with his precognitive powers and all.

November 29, 2011 5:35 am

Hey now !!
No need to insult the Stooges by comparing them to those other guys !!!

D. Patterson
November 29, 2011 5:54 am

Forbes and its advertisers seem to fail a critical thinking test when they act as though they believe that they can shamelessly pee all over us with these attempted deceptions and then convince us that it is just rain that is troubling us. It may startle and surprise some of them, but there are many of us out here in the real world who refuse to buy goods and services from people who have no respect for our ability and right to recognize and make objections to lies and fraud by propagandizing apologists like Zwick. Of course, that is when Forbes and its accomplices resort to supporting Congressmen who abrogate the Constitution by illegally and immorally using the Commerce clause to compel people to buy fraudulent goods and services.

Theo Goodwin
November 29, 2011 5:58 am

This is a superb example of analysis and argument. Bravo! Your writing style is just perfect. You let out just enough rope before you snap it forcefully.
The photo of The Three Stooges at the top provides the right focus for a discussion of Zwick’s thinking. As much as I am energized by the heroic efforts of many to reveal the charlatans behind CAGW, there are many times that I feel heavy as a stone because of the dumbness of those who would defend CAGW.

Theo Goodwin
November 29, 2011 6:05 am

tallbloke says:
November 29, 2011 at 5:20 am
Yes, the “out of context” meme will be dead really soon. That is because Climategate 2 provides huge additional context for important threads in Climategate 1. In addition, the “hacked” meme must die just as soon because the fact that the emails in 1 and 2 fit together so very well indicates strongly that the files were created by a participant in the email exchanges.

November 29, 2011 6:21 am

“I write about the economic value of nature’s services. ” – Gosh I would have never figured that out if you hadn’t mentioned it.

November 29, 2011 6:35 am

>>Leo Norekens says: November 29, 2011 at 4:45 am
>>“The Cause”.
>>Something like “la Cosa Nostra” ? 😉
No, no, more like Opus Dei.
Remember, these people have ‘seen the light’, and are far holier than mere mortals, like you or I.

November 29, 2011 6:37 am

Their excuses are at the level of a teenager.
They have been rewarded with position, money and awards for the work they are now attempting to hide. Their organizations had to be negligent or involved for the problems to continue for so long. The influence they have used to oppose those who do not agree indicates involvement more than negligence.

November 29, 2011 6:50 am

@MatthewW – Agreed! The 3 Stooges made us laugh. These clowns make us cry. For the butchering of science.

Pete H
November 29, 2011 7:01 am

LOL, why waste a whole post on a nut job who has more posts of his own comments in a section than he has posters (and that includes sceptics!)
Truth be known, the leak is miniscule to what is being held back and a non entity like Zwick should stand back and understand that he is going to look such a …… should the person releasing the stuff let us into the real dirt. Make one wonder why a certain U.S. politician wants the CIA/FBI (?) to aid the UK plods to name who is responsible. They live in dangerous times but heck….Durban is falling on its ass! 🙂

Alix James
November 29, 2011 7:04 am

Yes, the Stooge analogy isn’t a great one: Howard, Fine and Howard were smart guys pretending to be stupid…here we have “smart” guys acting stupid(ly).
Just thinking: ever get the idea that Hotmail and Yahoo accounts were set up in the wake of Cimategate I and the internets are burning up between the various members of the Team these days? Didn’t Palin get in trouble for this? Or am I giving the Team too much credit for techno-savy?
BTW, I think the reason they are cherry-picking their responses is because they know not all the emails are out yet, and they wouldn’t want to open themselves up to, well, I guess perjury is too strong a word, but hypocrisy doesn’t really work…

November 29, 2011 7:13 am

Thank you for posting the photo of the MBH98 publication ceremony!
Nice to see that their usage of the media has become so much more sophisticated in recent years…especially with the addition of an accordion section.

Dave Springer
November 29, 2011 7:33 am

“The first snippet Zwick descends upon with great vengeance and furious anger is this one by Phil Jones:”
I recognized that without the link. The wife and I quote PF to each other all the time.
Say ‘what’ again.
English mother[snip]er do you speak it?
These ClimateGate II emails are a miracle. We just witnessed a miracle, and I want you to [snip]ing acknowledge it!
I suddenly find myself with a hunger for a Royale with Cheese.

Julian Flood
November 29, 2011 7:52 am

Alec J November 29, 2011 at 4:21 am wrote
Slightly OT, but the Grauniad news item referenced above seems to accept that the emails were leaked rather than hacked.
Prof. Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at UEA, and the Founding Director (2000-2007) of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, was on the Beeb a couple of weeks ago and described the event as a leak rather than a hack. It may, of course, have been an inadvertent slip, but with his contacts he should know what was going on. I’m not a betting man, but I’d venture a swift half of IPA* that Prof Hulme was correct.
*Imperial Pale Ale, a type of beer.

Jay Curtis
November 29, 2011 8:26 am

>>I’m trying to understand “the cause”.
>>What is it and how does it affect me, my job and my country.
These guys are lefties whose purpose is the institution of international socialism and control of the great unwashed and intellectually inferior “masses.” by controlling energy. They will accomplish this together with the United Nations and IPCC, through the implementation of energy credits and taxes and the transfer of wealth payments (“reparations”) from supposed wealthy western societies to third world countries. Their argument is that reparations are owed to the disenfranchised in the world because they have been exploited, and that the Earth has been damaged by excess carbon production.
These guys are not scientists; they are paid political hacks. They are not interested in scientific truth; they are only interested in the political and social truth they subscribe to. This is nothing new. It is an old story that has been played out time and time again at various places in the world whenever one group of people have been able to capture the imagination of another group of people by using the propaganda strategy of the “BIG LIE.”
This should have been abundantly clear following release of the first group of emails, but, like many others here, I have wanted to give the principal characters the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to believe that they were sincere but misguided and, as scientists, maybe just not that bright or professional. That’s just no longer possible for me. They are charlatans and flim flam artists. I don’t know how anyone can read the emails and come to a different conclusion.

November 29, 2011 8:41 am

tallbloke says:
November 29, 2011 at 5:20 am
I doubt the ‘out of context’ excuse is going to last long. Diligent people are starting to put quite comprehensive email trails together which provide oodles of context.
The clock ticks…
Would you be referring to the ‘army of ones’?
Independant minds marching for the truth is a powerful force.

Greg Holmes
November 29, 2011 8:44 am

Brilliant, many thanks for this.

November 29, 2011 8:45 am

Well done! A very well constructed and readable demolition of some fatuous writing. As for ‘the cause’, it may well be similar to this grandiose, grandstanding piece of self-serving heroics by the IPCC’s Pachauri:
I am not going to rest easy until I have articulated in every possible forum the need to bring about major structural changes in economic growth and development. That’s the real issue. Climate change is just a part of it.
(for this quote, and for many, many reasons to look at Pachauri and his organisation with a jaundiced eye, see Donna Laframboise’s recently published book/ebook ‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert’).
I do believe it was Alinsky who counselled ‘the issue is not the issue’ (h/t Christopher Horner, at the EIKE conference) lest his disciples got too distracted by the content of whatever vehicle they had happened to commandeer in pursuit of their ’cause’. The vehicle of choice has been CAGW for some time, and it is clearly out of control – so while discussing ‘the cause’ might be important, we also have to counter ‘the issue’ first before it does even more damage to society.

November 29, 2011 8:49 am

Hip Hip Hooray for us [SNIP: Sorry, not even in jest. -REP]!! (we do care) We don’t care if the earth is warming because of CO2 or not. We all recognize a potemkln village built with horse manure for cement when we see one. It’s Karma has it’s own….well….’pastoire’. The cause has a Karma all it’s own.
“……like Balderick’s trousers!!!!” as bladder would say!!
About IPA’s: We in the states know what IPA is. No need to spell it out–we are innundated with craft-beers (so called) with every flavour and addative known to man (you can’t get a pint of bitter for nothing–oddly!. The days of fractionally different blanket of Lager pee-water ONLY are over. . The beer market here in good ol’ is beginning to wake up. Next: Coffee, Bread and Pastries are all trying to catchup with European norms.

Alan the Brit
November 29, 2011 8:55 am

Second, Zwick claims, and put down your drinks, that FOI requests aren’t necessary since the IPCC has “established rules of transparency.”
Who do I sue? I guffawed so loudly I splutterd my tea all over the laptop, it made the dog jump, he leapt to his paws & snapped & barked, shocking me into falling off my stool! It must be the way you tell them Mr Watts! 🙂

Interstellar Bill
November 29, 2011 8:55 am

And here I was thinking, all these decades, that Forbes is a capitalist magazine.
All their previous global-warming articles were skeptical,
so I can’t fathom how they fell down so hard, publishing this crud.

November 29, 2011 9:19 am

What they are trying to do is license every activity and then tax the acitivity. Particularly production. You then have to ask them, by way of payment, for permission to perform that activity. Want to fly from Heathrow to DC. Buy a carbon credit first (permission granted if you pay up). (Which country has personal carbon footprint cards? Holland??). Want to ride the tube-train–swipe a card. Want to manufacture an industrial product? Are you mad.
You are buying the right to live according to the whim of his highness, the Numpty of Nashville and the like. Your chances will increase if you know anything about Gulfstream Vs.

November 29, 2011 9:23 am

Hip Hip Hooray for us [SNIP: Sorry, not even in jest. -REP] [SNIP: You know what I meant. -REP]!! ……….
Ooppps. Sorry about that.

Nick in Vancouver
November 29, 2011 9:41 am

Chuck Nolan read James Delingpoles’ “Watermelons”, it is available on amazon. It details the Club of Rome and our own (Canadian) Maurice Strong. It puts the AGW scam in context and who is driving the agenda. Phil, Mike, Kev and the rest of the team are fighting for a “cause”, the cause is regulatory control of everything, bottom-up, to circumvent national sovereignty. The UKs parliament has been made irrelevant by the EU and the carbon trading scam will wrest economic control of the US from congress. Taxation will no longer be decided by representatives of the people who pay the taxes. The US republic was built on this principle and the US people are sleep-walking into this nightmare. Think of one facet of life that does not involve “carbon”. Fait accompli.

November 29, 2011 10:30 am

*Imperial Pale Ale, a type of beer.
India Pale Ale, originally exported from the UK to the personel in the sub-continent. Legend has it that a 19th century ship load had damaged barrels and was sold off, and became an instant hit at home as well.

Richard G
November 29, 2011 10:45 am

Johnnythelowery says:
November 29, 2011 at 9:19 am
Nothing new under the sun…
“If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
If you don’t want to pay some more
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman”
-George Harrison

Richard M
November 29, 2011 11:03 am

So little time before Durbin and so much to deny … poor babies.

November 29, 2011 11:13 am

Olen says:
November 29, 2011 at 6:37 am
Their excuses are at the level of a teenager. ‘ ]
Hey now! 🙂
Some of us aren’t lazy 😉
Mr Zwick – You’ve been schooled!

Gerry, England
November 29, 2011 11:14 am

We must always remember that anything is permitted in the cause of Marxism and those of us who believe in life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness just don’t see the bigger picture.

Justa Joe
November 29, 2011 11:15 am

This Steve Zwick character was a very vocal proponent and cheerleader for the erstwhile Chicago Climate Exchange, which is one of the many lamentable climate scams that has came and went enriching the scammers on the inside and ripping off the public. I’m not sure to what extent Zwick was an actual player in the CCX.
Zwick is a champion of “Paying for nature’s services,” (PES or better yet PEST) but what he really seems to mean is “Paying me and my friends for nature’s services.”
Of course, Zwick has a vested interest in defending the indefensible. Stevie Zwick gets paid to do the wild thang.

November 29, 2011 12:34 pm

A would-be defender named Zwick…
I give up. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. His “defense” (ho, ho) is the most desperate, pathetic attempt I’ve seen all year. Whoever paid for it should request a refund.

More Soylent Green!
November 29, 2011 12:58 pm

I believe this has barely made a splash in the MSM, at least so far. If word doesn’t get out, nothing changes.
I award myself the Captain Obvious award. Obviously, this is an award for stating the obvious.

Gail Combs
November 29, 2011 1:57 pm

The DOE please Hide the data bothers me, so I decided to take a quick look at who was Energy Secretary. I used Wiki for a quick and dirty look:
1993 – Hazel Reid O’Leary ~ Black Lawyer with Community Services background. “In 1997 Johnny Chung, a Democratic political donor, claimed that O’Leary met with Chinese oil officials after he gave $25,000 to O’Leary’s favorite charity”
1997 – Federico Fabian Peña ~ lawyer, oversaw the largest privatizations in the history of the U.S Government. left to joined investment firm Vestar Capital Partners.
This guy is the real goods
William Blaine “Bill” Richardson III
Daddy was a Citibank executive.
ranking House Democrat in favor of NAFTA’s passage in 1993
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations between 1997 and 1998
Clinton’s Secretary of Energy on July 31, 1998 to January 20, 2001.

“….scandal ended Richardson’s hope of being named as Al Gore’s running mate for the 2000 presidential election….Richardson also joined Kissinger McLarty Associates, a “strategic advisory firm” headed by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former Clinton White House chief of staff Mack McLarty, as Senior Managing Director.[23] From February 2001 to June 2002, he served on the board of directors of Peregrine Systems, Inc. He also served on the corporate boards of several energy companies, including Valero Energy Corporation and Diamond Offshore Drilling….Richardson faced “possible legal issues” while a federal grand jury investigates for possible pay to play violations in the awarding of a lucrative state contract to a company that gave campaign contributions to Richardson’s political action committee, Moving America Forward.[38][39][40] The company in question, CDR, was alleged to have funneled more than $100,000 in donations to Richardson’s PAC in exchange for state construction projects….
In its April 2010 report, ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Richardson one of 11 worst governors in the United States because of various ethics issues throughout Richardson’s term as governor.”
2001 – 2005 Edmund Spencer Abraham ~ Lawyer
Abraham authored the “H1B Visa in Global and National Commerce Act” (This is where our high tech jobs get handed to lower paid imported workers)
“Abraham opened The Abraham Group, a Washington DC based international strategic consulting firm. In 2006 Abraham was appointed Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of AREVA Inc., the American arm of the French nuclear company Areva, which is planning to build EPR nuclear power plants in the United States…”
Hopefully that will give a little background as to what was going on in the DOE.
How come it is always a bunch of lawyers running things? And crooked lawyers at that.

November 29, 2011 2:17 pm

“Gail Combs says:
November 29, 2011 at 1:57 pm
How come it is always a bunch of lawyers running things? And crooked lawyers at that.”
Because they make the process of running for office so difficult that only a lawyer could navigate their regulations and forms. Often they hide such attempts at preventing political competition under sweet-sounding things like “campaign finance reform.”
Look at Obama’s first election, he kicked every other democrat off the ballot so he could get elected unopposed – all through the power of lawyering.
The result is lawyers running for office or people who can afford lawyers.
As for why they are crooked, it was either Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu who said that those who are most fit to rule are the ones least likely to seek it.

November 29, 2011 6:33 pm

Second, Zwick claims, and put down your drinks, that FOI requests aren’t necessary since the IPCC has “established rules of transparency.”
Who do I sue? I guffawed so loudly I splutterd my tea all over the laptop, it made the dog jump, he leapt to his paws & snapped & barked, shocking me into falling off my stool! It must be the way —-you tell them Mr Watts! 🙂
Ha ! But true expenses incurred because of this fraud might be actionable–SUch as having to fly to Cancun every 3 weeks in a flexjet for Mental Therapy (receipts available) because pf the mental pressure of being classed a “De_______”!!! Any Attorneys around?? Is there sovereign immunity for Scientist’s work?? Even in the case of malfeasance and the profiting from it when it was relied upon to be true??

November 30, 2011 2:51 am

put down your drinks, that FOI requests aren’t necessary since the IPCC has “established rules of transparency.”

And the first unwritten IPCC “rule” is that all IPCC “rules” (particularly those in which “transparency” are mentioned) are made to be broken by our designated rule-breakers.
Honestly, Ziwick’s skills in linguistic gymnastics would make him an excellent candidate for the “Rapid Response” Team … you know, those dedicated souls who like to run around writing “reviews” of books they clearly haven’t read. Zwick and Gleick would make a great team, wouldn’t they?!
But kidding aside, if these “noble” climate scientists cannot be trusted to say what they mean and mean what they say in a simple E-mail, why on Gaia’s green earth should we believe anything they might write that ends up in a “gold standard” document such as an IPCC report?!

Rational Debate
November 30, 2011 3:00 am

About IPA’s:

About IPA’s: We in the states know what IPA is. No need to spell it out….

Actually, some of us don’t, so I thank the author for spelling it out. I’m a sacrilegious Texan – I don’t drink beer, and so wouldn’t have caught the meaning. Frankly, I very much appreciate anyone who follows convention and spells out acronyms the first time used in their text! All too often an acronym well known in one discipline (or region) isn’t at all common or known outside those specific groups. To ensure folks know what you’re talking about, spell it out the first time.

Alan the Brit
November 30, 2011 3:46 am

From what I recall, India Pale Ale was a slightly weaker ale, much lighter in colour, as opposed to the heavy dark ales traditionally drunk in Britain, (when it’s cold wet & miserable over here there’s little better to do than go to the pub!) which was shipped out to India for British troops to drink as it was more palitable in the Indian heat! I dare say Wikipedia says something completely different. 🙂

November 30, 2011 7:30 am

If Steve Zwick were to write on a bank robbery, he would begin by pointing out that thousands of banks were not robbed today and; therefore, there is no need to report on this one. He would then excoriate the police because their investigation created the need for paperwork and caused a ruckus.

November 30, 2011 9:12 am

Texan M8: IPA IMHO IS #1
Love that Texan Brisket!

Rational Debate
November 30, 2011 11:35 am

re post by: Johnnythelowery says: November 30, 2011 at 9:12 am

Texan M8: IPA IMHO IS #1 Love that Texan Brisket!

Everything is bigger and better in Texas!! 😀

December 7, 2011 11:18 am

I stumbled upon Steve’s article and was floored by his ham-handed propaganda tactics (being the new pied piper of agitprop analysis, I tend to smell it quickly).
So, I linked your response into my piece deconstructing Steve’s rather weak attempts to defame skeptics. Let’s see if the other Steve (Forbes) recognizes that someone is assaulting his magazine’s brand.

%d bloggers like this: