If It’s Worse in Context, Why not Print It?

Specifically, please cite an instance of selective quoting from Climategate: The CRUTape Letters, Jan. 2010.

Here’s a quote on page 9:

But that explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s series, which has similar seasonality and latitudinal emphasis to Phil’s series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. […] So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case.

Here’s the complete excerpt:

Read More

(Source: ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com)

Gee, let’s try to avoid drifting into a Climategate discussion, too. I’ll limit my response to the 141 words you just spent on the topic. First, they tried to get a journal editor fired for the sin of daring to publish papers that were full of intentional and unintentional errors. Second, everybody agrees that the “decline” caption was inadequate. Third, it did become way too personal for them…though I don’t know if I wouldn’t react the same way if I had discovered that our entire civilization was in danger and others were using dirty tricks to convince people that it wasn’t. My biggest complaint was their unwillingness to share data. Meanwhile, though, we have the PCMDI archive, where every model run from the IPCC is publicly available to download and analyze. So don’t tar and feather the entire discipline.

John Nielsen-Gammon, trying to keep the conversation going.

Look at the attached. There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995. Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998? (Incidentally, the red fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)

Dick, wishing his best (no, not his BEST) to Willard Tony.

It’s hard not to transpose the conclusions of the Penn State Climategate “investigation” into Penn State’s attitude towards misconduct charges in their profitable football program.

Steve, not having a hard time dogwhistling some relationships between climate science and a rape case.

Bob Diamond: I felt ‘physically ill’ when I saw Libor emails (by Channel4News)

Barclays acknowledged that its traders had asked colleagues in charge of the Libor process to tailor the bank’s submissions to benefit their trading positions as far back as 2005.

According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, public and private organizations in the United States, on average, lose about seven percent of their annual revenues to fraud.

The ACFE quoting, among other quotes,< a href=”http://www.acfe.com/acfe-in-the-news.aspx”>the Huffington Post, reviewing an ACFE book.

(Source: acfe.com)


[** Vaughan Pratt’s conclusion.**]

Climategate is incontrovertible proof that every government in the world is part of the coverup of the fact that climate science has lied to everyone: governments, the public, you name it.

Read More

Yet Another Procrustean Bed

[In reply to David Holland’s contention that there was an instruction regarding the confidentiality of the IPCC’s working drafts:]

Here is Solomon’s “instruction” in that “leaked” email 1141226255:

> As you will all be well aware, all of our findings are currently under development and cannot be quoted or cited until the report is officially finalized at the end of January, 2007. Please do not give anyone the impression that you can currently represent information on behalf of the IPCC, or provide information about the draft material in the report. To do so would be not only a great discourtesy to your colleagues but may allow others to question the credibility of the IPCC process.

Let the lawyers determine if that counts as “instruction to keep anything confidential.”

Salomon is wrong: both disclosing and not disclosing the draft material “allow others to question the credibility of the IPCC process.”

Yet another Procrustean bed.

(Source: climateaudit.org)

Older posts RSS