Steve McIntyre, down in the quote mine

The phrase “hide the decline” from the stolen CRU emails has been taken out of context and construed to refer to a decline in temperatures this century when in fact it was a reference to a decline in tree-ring density since 1961. Steve McIntyre knows this, but instead of a correction, he offers another misrepesentation of its meaning, quote mining the stolen emails to argue that the IPCC was hiding stuff:

IPCC Lead Authors met in Arusha, Tanzania from September 1 to 3, 1999 … at which the final version of the “zero-order” draft of the Third Assessment Report was presented and discussed …

No minutes of this meeting are available, but Climategate correspondence on Sep 22-23, 1999 provides some contemporary information about the meeting.Mann noted that “everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that the [decline in the Briffa reconstruction] was a problem”

But Mcintyre has mislead his readers by leaving out the parts of the emails that show that his intrepretration of them is false. Deep Climate has the bits that McIntyre deliberately left out:

But even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa’s reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction’s length. Thus, once again, McIntyre’s speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation. …

Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead.

Seriously, any time one sees McIntyre using elipsis it’s a good idea to check it out.

Comments

  1. #1 MarkB
    December 14, 2009

    MapleLeaf and Bud,

    His top speaking engagement at the Heartland Institute conference is what I had in mind. Those who speak at a PR event that declares:

    “The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.”

    ultimately hurt their credibility.

    [Heartland Institute Conference](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/)

  2. #2 Martin Vermeer
    December 14, 2009

    Accepting a Heartland invitation bears witness of poor judgement — but nothing above and beyond what we have already seen from McI.

    He is not a denialist; he has more than once stated that he accepts the reality of AGW, and I have no reason to doubt him. What drives him then? Honest ‘auditorialism’? I don’t buy it, precisely because of the transparent, ongoing intellectual dishonesty with which he runs his blog.

    I would guess that he just holds a grudge, wanting to get back at Mann and ‘the team’ still after all these years.

    How small.

  3. #3 MapleLeaf
    December 14, 2009

    Thanks Mark. So he did speak at the conference? We know this for sure, which one? I know, I’m being lazy, but if you already have the answer…..

  4. #4 MarkB
    December 14, 2009

    MapleLeaf,

    The recent one:

    [Speakers](http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html)

    He’s also had political comments “published” by the Heartland Institute over the years. Example:

    [Climate Alarmists Playing Shell Game with Data](http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/16812/Climate_Alarmists_Playing_Shell_Game_with_Data.html)

  5. #5 MapleLeaf
    December 14, 2009

    MarkB, thanks. Brilliant, some journalists need to know about this.

    I believed him when he said he was clean…..should have known better.

  6. #6 MarkB
    December 14, 2009

    On the topic of scientific conferences (real ones, not PR events like the Heartland Institute conference that gather fringe opinions to support a political thesis), is anyone attending the AGU fall meeting this week? Maybe Tim can do a post on this later and allow folks to discuss the various topics. These conferences tend to fly under the radar, as media and blogs focus on soap boxes like “ClimateGate”. There remains a huge gap between real science and the public.

    [2009 AGU Fall Meeting](http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/)

    [Program (large pdf)](http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/pdf/AGU_FM09_Scientific_Program.pdf)

    One of many potentially interesting lectures on climate change:

    The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History
    Presented by Richard B. Alley Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

    [Town hall meetings](http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/town-halls.php)

  7. #7 Dan Hunt
    December 14, 2009

    ali baba, the *s were meant to denote the text I had added to the climate audit thread. I tried blockquotes in several different variations, but the formatting was coming out all wrong.

    So yes, that doesn’t appear there. Since Dr. Curry was commenting there, I would have just asked her the question rather than suggesting it be asked.

  8. #8 MapleLeaf
    December 14, 2009

    As if having ties to the Heartland Inst. was not bad enough, McIntyre is also feature din a video on the web-site for ‘Friends’ of Science (an astroturf denialist group funded by the FF and energy sectors) in Canada. McIntyre and McKitrick are cited many time son their web-site:

    See

    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=394

  9. #9 Lars
    December 14, 2009

    What drives him then? Honest ‘auditorialism’? I don’t buy it, precisely because of the transparent, ongoing intellectual dishonesty with which he runs his blog.

    I get the very strong impression that it’s a desire to impose the norms of business and the law on science. The assumptions of incompetence and dishonesty on the part of one’s opponents, the constant insinuations of a hidden agenda, the insistence upon accepting or rejecting lines of evidence according to whether or not they support one’s agenda – all very evocative of a different mode of inquiry altogether.

    He’s really quite a clever man. He’s taken the exoteric aspect of science, the idea that it’s open to anyone who’s willing to do the work, and used this as cover for an ongoing work of subversion. And I’d say that he’s been pretty successful at it. That probably carries its own satisfactions. But it’s also enabled the camp with which he most likely identifies to seriously hobble environmental research.

  10. #10 TrueSceptic
    December 14, 2009

    107 Dan,

    I’ve never tried nested blockquotes, but let’s see…

    Some stuff

    Nested stuff

    More stuff

    More nested stuff

    That was (without the spaces)

    < blockquote >

    Some stuff

    < blockquote >

    Nested stuff

    < /blockquote >

    More stuff

    < blockquote >

    More nested stuff

    < /blockquote >

    < /blockquote >

  11. #11 Dave Andrews
    December 14, 2009

    luminous beauty, #68,

    If you accuse me of quoting ‘out of context’ then I will say you did exactly the same.

    Curry concludes her emails thus

    “In defending the IPCC process the IPCC doesn’t seem to have caught on to the need to make the assessment process more objective and scientifically watertight. Unless the IPCC reflects on and works to improve its assessment process, it risks becoming irrelevant oo even indefensible

    I note that you easily found the reference for yourself. Too many others here were simply calling me a ‘liar’ to bother doing even the most simple search to find out the facts. No doubt that is a reflection on how much research they actually undertake into the science of climate change.

  12. #12 dhogaza
    December 14, 2009

    No doubt that is a reflection on how much research they actually undertake into the science of climate change.

    No, it’s a reflection on your posting history.

  13. #13 Dan Hunt
    December 14, 2009

    Thanks TrueSkeptic, but I can handle nested blockquotes- it’s the multiple paragraph blocked text (on this editor) that has me laid low. The editor interprets the break in paragraph as ending the blockquote. I could’ve gone through and just individually blocked out each graf, but didn’t have the time or inclination. Probably should’ve used some words to decipher the cryptic punctuation in any case, (though they would’ve been less so if the editor allowed for multiple sequential asterisks or dashes, but it’s having none of that either).

    Dave Andrews, perhaps the snap judgment of commenters here has something to do with the credibility you’ve heretofore established with them? Don’t know for sure, but that’s typically a quite common rationale for prejudicial dismissal of specific claims. Perhaps you should spend some time in reflection before making as rash an assessment on that issue as you have here.

    PS would you agree that there needs to be more transparency on all sides of this public policy issue, not merely as regards summaries for policy makers of scientific assessments? If so would you support an effort to reveal the private correspondence of skeptical scientists such as McIntyre and Michaels (as they relate to this issue)?

  14. #14 MapleLeaf
    December 14, 2009

    Andrews, you stated earlier was in quotation marks! Do you know what that implies? I’ll help, it suggests that those were her exact words.

    You allege that Curry has said that “The defense that the emails don’t change anything in terms of the science or the IPCC report is clearly refuted by what Steve has put together here”

    Where did she say these exact words? I searched CA, the quote that you posted earlier was nowhere to be found. I also Googled the quote (word for word) and the ONLY hit that I got was here on Deltoid. Hmm…

    Also, what did she mean by “irrelevant oo even indefensible”. Where is this email?

    “In defending the IPCC process the IPCC doesn’t seem to have caught on to the need to make the assessment process more objective and scientifically watertight. ”
    The only hit for that quote in Google was this thread. Hmm….

    What you claimed that she said at #55 and what you posted in #111 are not the same thing. Claiming that she said what you posted in quotation marks earlier at #55 is thus a lie.

    Can any of you denialists go a day without telling lies or grossly distorting something? Apparently not. And you have the audacity to falsely accuse the IPCC et al. of fraud, distortion blah blah blah. Good God man look in the mirror!

    PS: This is another reason for SteveM et al. need to open their Inboxes, b/c I certainly can’t believe a bloody word that you type.

  15. #15 guthrie
    December 14, 2009

    Mark B #166 – MIchaeol Tobis is attending AGU:
    http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/

  16. #16 TrueSceptic
    December 14, 2009

    114 MapleLeaf,

    Are we talking about 55 Dave Andrews?

    Judith Curry, from Georgia State Uni and participant in the IPCC process, says clearly that

    “The defense that the emails don’t change anything in terms of the science or the IPCC report is clearly refuted by what Steve has put together here”

    (I do wish that people would cite comment numbers so there can be no misunderstanding!)

    I found [this](http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#comment-208573) with close to zero effort.

    Judith Curry
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 8:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The defense that the emails don’t change anything in terms of the science or the IPCC report is clearly refuted by what Steve has put together here. In trying to understand how this has happened, I think it is important to understand that the IPCC is a scientific assessment for policy makers: its something different than either science or policy. The purpose of such assessments is to synthesize published research and assess the state of our understanding, in a way that is understandable and somehow useful for policy makers. This would seem to be straightforward, but I don’t think it is simple at all from a scientist’s perspective. The assessment activity is very different from publishing a scientific paper. For example, in the CRU emails, we see a discrepancy between what Briffa really thinks and is publishing in his papers versus what is written in the IPCC FAR.

    Is there some doubt that Curry said this? Well, OK, a sockpuppet _might_ have said it but I’m not going with that idea.

  17. #17 To
    December 14, 2009

    114 MapleLeaf,

    Apologies. You did cite comment numbers. Too many people don’t.

  18. #18 MapleLeaf
    December 14, 2009

    OK, I retract. That is really odd, I searched CA using their own internal search engine and found nothing. Perhaps my search criteria were too strict? Regardless, sorry Andrews. I’m willing to admit when I screwed up.

    That said, I do not agree with Curry’s statement as noted above.

  19. #19 TrueSceptic
    December 14, 2009

    118 MapleLeaf,

    Did you try the normal browser search (ctrl f or command f)? I searched for “curry” and just jumped to each hit because I thought the text might not be exact (line breaks, multiple spaces, that sort of thing).

    Anyway, this is a defining difference: we admit error. When do denydiots do that?

    BTW 117 was me cocking up. ;)

  20. #20 WotWot
    December 14, 2009

    I note that you easily found the reference for yourself. Too many others here were simply calling me a ‘liar’ to bother doing even the most simple search to find out the facts.

    DA @ 111

    I found this with close to zero effort.

    TrueSceptic @ 116

    Sorry folks, but the onus has always been very firmly on the person making the claim to properly reference the source of evidence, not on others to waste their time chasing it down.

  21. #21 Janet Akerman
    December 14, 2009

    What Maple [demonstrates @118](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo.php#comment-2144633) is proper practice for someone seeking clarity and persuing truth.

    This is the sort of retraction and clarification sorely lacking in denialists. And its the reason Dirty Dave Andrews [got his tag](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2102489).

    Hence [my continuing policy with Dirty Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo.php#comment-2142795).

  22. #22 Bud
    December 14, 2009

    MarkB @101, 104 and 106. Also Mapleleaf @108.

    With the greatest respect to both of you:

    I won’t argue that accepting a speaker invite from The Heartland Institute (or indeed appearing as a talking head for Friends of Science) displays, as [Martin Vermeer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo.php#comment-2143984) says, poor judgement. I won’t argue that it hurts his credibility. But I don’t think allegations of “association” between McIntyre and either of the two Institutions mentioned are warranted, or likely to be of use against McIntyre. Best to concentrate on what he says, as I don’t think arguing about tenuous links to right-wing tanks will get us anywhere against those who are taking his arguments to heart. If anyone asked me about McIntyre, I’d sooner point him to Deep Climate’s brilliant post (linked by Tim above) than to his speaker slot at Heartland.

    Denier or sceptic, interest mouthpiece or lonely blogger, the point is that he is usually wrong, and often maliciously so (although I often get the impression he doesn’t even realise his malice). Martin Vermeer (linked above) has a pretty good perspective on the issue, and Lars puts it [pretty close to how I've felt all along](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo.php#comment-2143984).

  23. #23 Bud
    December 14, 2009
  24. #24 Bud
    December 14, 2009

    Btw, [Mapleleaf @ 100](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/steve_mcintyre_down_in_the_quo.php#comment-2143956)

    Can I suggest that [this fantastic piece of journalism](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMQCcOSfaYw) may well hint at part of the reason? That busy journalists don’t really do fact-checking any more?

  25. #25 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 14, 2009

    Lars,

    I think that in the beginning, he was motivated by a desire to impose upon science the same standards as business (of course, given what we have seen over the last year or so, I’m not sure that business standards are to be emulated). However I now think that he is much more motivated by the notoriety he gets from his screeds against climate science and scientists. He also gets invited to speak at contrarian conferences (Heartland, ERICE), been the catalyst for getting a prominent scientist investigated (twice!), although not with the results he claims, and all of this attention for basically never having made a constructive contribution to the science.

    I long ago learned to take whatever Steve said with a large pile of salt. It is about time the press learned to take a hard look at anything the man says.

  26. #26 MapleLeaf
    December 15, 2009

    Good thoughts. You guys are being too easy on me, but thanks for the support.

    Bud, excellent example, wow. Regarding FoS and Heartland, I hear what you are saying. However, I do believe that it is important that lay people are aware of McI’s affiliations. DC has done a most excellent job. Alas, it is not being picked up by the media– not yet at least. There have been several articles in the Canadian media recently and the press are clearly blind to what the truth it about CA. If that were not bad enough, this is the kind of nonsense that we are being subjected to in Canada:

    http://communities.canada.com/calgaryherald/blogs/corbellareport/archive/2009/12/11/real-scientists-would-care-about-climategate-fraud.aspx

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Climate+jihadists+want+Canada+embarrassed+what/2333997/story.html

    What to do…..

    I’m reminded of the the song “Blame Canada, blame Canada” featured in SouthPark. First we brought you the tar sands, then Climate Audit, and now Harper. At the time we all laughed at those lyrics, but now they make us cringe, because now they are actually true.

  27. #27 dhogaza
    December 15, 2009

    I think that in the beginning, he was motivated by a desire to impose upon science the same standards as business (of course, given what we have seen over the last year or so, I’m not sure that business standards are to be emulated)

    Sorry, but having been involved in science-based conservation work in the western US for about 15 years (1985-2000) I would disagree. Funny, back in those days, the denialists would smear science but would at least admit “these people base their argument on science” and respect it … while at the same time smearing it as not being particularly relevant.

    His audit bullshit is an excuse. He’s going one step beyond the old anti-conservation arguments we’ve seen in the past in the US, essentially saying that science itself is suspect. The “audit” paradigm is simply meant to discredit science, so that natural resource exploitation can march forward (McIntyre made his money in the mining industry, after all, which in the US at least loathes any science-based objections to the engineering that makes them money).

    He’s a smart guy – I give him that – but he’s simply out to protect a world view which places economic exploitation above any cautions that science (“reality”) might impose.

  28. #28 dhogaza
    December 15, 2009

    I’m reminded of the the song “Blame Canada, blame Canada” featured in SouthPark. First we brought you the tar sands, then Climate Audit, and now Harper. At the time we all laughed at those lyrics, but now they make us cringe, because now they are actually true.

    Maybe you should’ve come over to the dark side when we invited (oops invaded) you early in the revolutionary war, thinking you were as pissed at the brits as we were.

    Just teasing … however, it’s interesting to see that Canada and Oz have strong anti-climate science factions as bad or worse (adjusted for population and influence) as in the US. England had a long antipathy towards “boffins” (those engineers were mostly scottish, after all), is anti-intellectualism part of our common heritage?

  29. #29 dhogaza
    December 15, 2009

    Oops, I understand of course that “boffin” is a term applied mostly to scientists, but still, the invasion of the non-gentry into tech fields came from the engineers and worked upwards to what’s now known as science, which was long mostly a “gentlemanly pursuit” …

  30. #30 Janet Akerman
    December 15, 2009

    >*The “audit” paradigm is simply meant to discredit science, so that natural resource exploitation can march forward (McIntyre made his money in the mining industry, after all, which in the US at least loathes any science-based objections to the engineering that makes them money).*

    What is need to put help McI’s “audit paradigm” into perspective is a similar resourced audit of every other aspect of science. Then we could have a baseline to compare the activity of the scientists that McI want the focus on.

    There is so much noise from those receiving McI’s “dog whistles”, but so little substance. This latest beat-up is a prime example. How much innuendo can one insert into a group of academics debating the comparative validity of one of Biffra’s tree-ring proxy reconstruction (“which may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance”) compared to two multi-proxy reconstructions (“which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations”).. And how much relevant explanation did he [leave out]( http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/) to bolster the innuendo.

    >The latest tree-ring density curve ( i.e. our data that have been processed to retain low frequency information) shows more similarity to the other two series- as do a number of other lower resolution data ( Bradley et al, Peck et al ., and new Crowley series – see our recent Science piece) whether this represents ‘TRUTH’ however is a difficult problem.

    Why also did McI want to tie this in with the “hide the decline” meme?

  31. #31 Deech56
    December 15, 2009

    MapleLeaf, don’t lose heart; you guys also brought us hockey and Molsons, and for those of us who grew up in Buffalo, Crystal Beach. :-)

  32. #32 TrueSceptic
    December 15, 2009

    120 WotWot,

    I agree that DA should’ve given a URL when he first posted that quote, or at some point in the discussion, but to call him a liar because he didn’t is not right either.

    Just because DA is mostly wrong doesn’t make him always wrong. The same applies to anyone we disagree with.

  33. #33 TrueSceptic
    December 15, 2009

    113 Dan,

    Which editor? The Markdown parser?

    Multiple paras within a blockquote.

    Para 1

    Para 2

    Para 3

    That was using, without the spaces,
    < blockquote>
    < p>
    Para 1
    < p>
    Para 2
    < p>
    Para 3
    < /blockquote>

    The < p> tags can be on separate lines or at the start of the first line of each para.

    You can also use > to start a blockquote.

  34. #34 TrueSceptic
    December 15, 2009

    123, 124 Bud,

    I missed Lars’s comment on McIntyre before. I agree too. As I’ve said many times, do not underestimate McIntyre. He might be wrong, but proving it is not as easy as some seem to think.

  35. #35 Dano
    December 15, 2009

    He might be wrong, but proving it is not as easy as some seem to think.

    Look at the body of “work”, not individual instances of x, y, z. He has a long history of mendacicization, and therefore is a time-waster. I think many in the decision-maker world are starting to get it and Stevie is just a media channel now.

    Best,

    D

  36. #36 Deep Climate
    December 15, 2009

    RN,

    Like you I thought McIntyre might have something of substance to offer; like you, I now see that he doesn’t and is in fact a destructive force. Where I differ, is that as far as I’m concerned his history, especially in the beginning (co-operating with CEI, APCO, Fraser Institute etc.), shows that he has never acted in good faith. What I’m not sure of is whether he is simply dishonest or unbelievably delusional.

    dhogaza, Janet,

    McIntyre has altered his story about “decline” (in the face of incontovertible evidence he was wrong), but now claims the issue resurfaced later. And he is still claiming that authors Folland and Mann pressured Briffa into changing his reconstruction, all of which is the version put out in the Daily Mail (and I’m sure more to come). Of course this story does not fit the facts (as I showed with my post update on Briffa’s May 1999 Science piece).

    So I’ll probably be doing another post on this, especially if these falsehoods get more traction. But first a new surprise later today. You may be astonished – I know I was. To be continued …

  37. #37 MapleLeaf
    December 15, 2009

    Dano used the term “mendacicization”. That really doe sum up nicely what CA does. They are more obstructionist than anything, yet have the gall to claim that they are moving the science forward. Maybe DC is right, perhaps SteveM is delusional after all.

  38. #38 Lars
    December 15, 2009

    @Rattus norvegicus 125:

    Looking back, I didn’t express myself clearly enough and was too easy on McIntyre. And yes, you’re undoubtedly right, the recognition and sense that he’s part of a movement are probably very seductive. But I think that at the base of it all, what he wants to do is reduce the autonomy of science, make it subject to the epistomological norms of the legal and business worlds, turn it into something that is going to tell you what you want to hear, if you have enough money or political will behind you. Dhogaza has it right.

    And I think that this should be pointed out frequently – what he’s trying to subvert is the most fruitful method that we’ve ever stumbled upon for exploring the natural world. All for a bit of adulation. Or because it suits his politics. Or to protect his investments. Real admirable.

  39. #39 dhogaza
    December 15, 2009

    McIntyre has altered his story about “decline” (in the face of incontovertible evidence he was wrong), but now claims the issue resurfaced later. And he is still claiming that authors Folland and Mann pressured Briffa into changing his reconstruction, all of which is the version put out in the Daily Mail (and I’m sure more to come).

    Thanks. Since I can’t afford to buy a new laptop every time I read CA, and since I’ve not found one that can withstand being hurled across the room, I’ve only been following this through the rebuttalsphere :) In which you’re doing a great job, DC.

  40. #40 Dave Andrews
    December 15, 2009

    Mapleleaf @118,

    Apology accepted.

  41. #41 DABbio
    December 15, 2009

    It’s really become more interesting for me to think about the deception and self-deception involved in interpreting the obvious talk about how to cook figure 2 as if it were about Briffa’s tree ring density. When you look for an objective correlative for the deception in the quotes you can find only possible misuse of one pronoun. But the entire context shows that the Tanzania crowd were only concerned with the graphic, not the tree ring methodology. So, is the deception purposive or accidental, like missing seeing something that you think just should not be there? Lots of car accidents happen that way.

  42. #42 DABbio
    December 15, 2009

    Folland: “A proxy diagram of temperature change is a clear favourite for the Policy Makers summary. But the current diagram with the tree ring only data somewhat contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly. We want the truth. Mike thinks it lies nearer his result (which seems in accord with what we know about worldwide mountain glaciers and, less clearly, suspect about solar variations). The tree ring results may still suffer from lack of multicentury time scale variance. This is probably the most important issue to resolve in Chapter 2 at present.”

    Real Climate (RC): “How can anyone read this and possibly come to the conclusion that what is being discussed is the “decline” in the late instrumental period? And what word comes to mind for someone who would deliberately remove the fact that the “issue” Folland raises is the lack of multicentury variance for the Briffa reconstruction as a whole?”

    Me: Come now. The issue that is being discussed is overtly stated as how to present the Chapter 2 chart, not the underlying reasons for Briffa’s reconstruction. I concede that Folland’s use of the word, “this,” in the last quoted sentence by Folland above, lends itself to interpretation; it’s usually preferable to avoid pronouns in such cases. But GC’s interpretation is misleading the reader away from the fact that the chart is the object of everyone’s attention.

    As for RC’s, “How can anyone read this and possibly come to the conclusion that what is being discussed is the ‘decline’ in the late instrumental period?” Why, anyone with an open mind who looks at the entire context that McIntyre presented, and which RC did and now Deltoid did its best to “dilute.” Filling the elipses does nothing to counteract the clear evidence that the folks involved in this chain of e-mails were cooking the chapter 2 chart. And I’m sure the august panel who may eventually carry out the dispassionate examination of that context will eventually conclude likwise– if they even have to bother to get so far as this strained parsing of sentences.

  43. #43 MKE Dolenz
    December 16, 2009

    A journalist writes:

    “I am honoured by the kind comments on my article. For the record: without Steve’s brilliant work and this magnificent website, it could not have been written. May I also pay tribute to Ross McKitrick, who gave me several hours of his time on Thursday and helped clarify the issues in my mind.

    “I am not a scientist, but an open minded investigative journalist. I have not written on climate before.”

    David Rose’s love letter to M&M

  44. #44 el gordo
    December 26, 2009

    dhogaza #128

    If I may speak for all the Denialati, we are not against climate science. We study it with enthusiasm, just like you, and hope to win the debate.

    The problem we both face is how to communicate the opposing views to the electorate, in bite size chunks that they can easily understand. The populace is not interested in splitting hairs, as we do here at Deltoid.

  45. #45 jakerman
    December 26, 2009

    el gordo writes:

    >*If I may speak for all the Denialati, we are not against climate science. We study it with enthusiasm, just like you [...]*

    [Your recent post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/the_washington_post_cant_go_ou.php#comment-2165536) provides direct evidence to the contrary el gordo.

    You employ to the ugliest propaganda when science could be instead used in truth seeking practice.

    If you keep employing such ugly creepish behaviour you’ll risk becoming that which you practice.

  46. #46 el gordo
    December 26, 2009

    Steve McIntyre wrote recently that it’s his impression that the science ‘community’ which is sympathetic to AGW have not ‘expressed any disapproval of Climategate conduct (George Monbiot is a visible exception) and that the predominant public reaction of the ‘community’ is nothing-to-see-here-move-along.’

    Truth is the enemy of the state.

  47. #47 dhogaza
    December 26, 2009

    Steve’s wrong, there’s been plenty of commentary on Jones’ e-mail suggesting that e-mails be deleted rather than made available for a FOIA request. Gavin Schmidt called it “ill-advised”, other scientists have responded negatively.

    On the other hand, the other crap that McIntyre et al have tried to blow up into a scandal proving global science to be a fraud has not been negatively responded to because … there’s nothing negative to respond to. The fact that the science community refuses to accept the lies and misrepresentations of right-wing ideologues is a *good* thing.