You can add the George Kaser to the list that includes Pielke Jr, Latif and Lal. It’s like he can’t help himself.

Rose claimed that he was told by Kaser that he wrote to Lal:

I’m not the only person in disagreement with Dr Lal. Georg Kaser, the Austrian glaciologist, insists (indeed, he told me last week) he wrote to Lal, warning him not to include the 2035 glacier melting date in AR4. Lal says he got no such letter.

But Kaser says that he didn’t write to Lal:

Dr. Kaser, who has been a report author and has also studied the retreating snows around Mount Kilimanjaro, said Monday in a telephone interview that he had sent the information to a “technical support unit” at the climate change panel rather to the lead authors directly. Dr. Kaser said he chose not to go “straightforward, to the lead authors” because “it is always a delicate matter” when criticizing other colleagues’ findings.

And Kaser’s message was not passed on to Lal:

>[Dr. van Ypersele] added that he had examined records of e-mail messages and found that the authors had never received the pertinent message from Dr. Kaser. Furthermore, Dr. Kaser’s “most pointed criticism” of the findings on glacial melting came after the contents of the report had been completed, Dr. van Ypersele said.

Via Dez in [comments](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing.php#comment-2237390) I find [another example of David Rose style quoting](http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/01/british-medias-blonde-moment.html).

Comments

  1. #1 Former Skeptic
    January 30, 2010

    50 internet bucks on Rose saying “BUT KASER DISAGREES WITH LAL! HA! I WIN! I WIN!”

    Any takers?

  2. #2 Monkeywrench
    January 30, 2010

    So: David Rose, a British journalist working for the Mail group of newspapers, has been exposed as a dissembler and a serial distorter of his source’s information.
    You realise there is a well-established forcing for this phenomenon, don’t you? It’s called a large treble scotch. No mishtake, shurely!

  3. #3 el gordo
    January 30, 2010

    In an unguarded, casual moment, the person being interviewed makes a remarkable comment. The recorder is not running because the reporter is only looking for a couple of quotes to give weight to the story.

    The reporter follows the same routine, but once in a while someone becomes embarrassed and claim they have been misquoted. I believe David Rose and voted accordingly.

  4. #4 jakerman
    January 30, 2010

    Wow el gordo, with an imagination and politics like yours I can’t understand why you are unemployed as a journo. You should fit right in with the Murdoch oligarchy.

    I assume you’d also vote for Rose over Latif & with Rose over Kaser? Cos Rose has already declared that he’s ["never misquoted anyone"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comment-2233283). That’s just before he was sprung for having misquoted [someone else](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing.php#c2237702).

    And on the subject of how discerning a judge you are, you still haven’t answered my [last question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2218903). You got really cocky about Lu and made a bunch of over-confident snipes about Lu’s superiority to the rest of climate scientist, just before you chucked Lu under the bus.

    So who was the source that you believed about Lu? (like you now believe Rose). And why are you shy to reveal where you get this kind of info from? Why would you be loyal to sources that keep embarrassing you by feeding you disinformation?

  5. #5 David Rose
    January 30, 2010

    Well here we go again. The notes of my short conversation with Kaser say he told me he wrote to the coordinating lead authors in September 2006. Graham Cogley told me the same thing. I put it to Lal, and he said he hadn’t received the letter.

    So, maybe Kaser misspoke: after all, he was speaking in a foreign language. Either way, he tried to draw the attention of the IPCC to the error, but was ignored. Meanwhile, you will have seen this:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009081.ece

  6. #6 Neil
    January 30, 2010

    I can’t help imagining David Rose being pulled over for speeding.
    PC: Do you have any idea of how fast you were going, sir?
    DR: I was under the limit; it’s here in my notes.

  7. #7 sod
    January 30, 2010

    David Rose,

    over a time span as short as 2 month, you have been caught misrepresenting 4 scientists, one among them a sceptic.

    the idea that all 4 of them “misspoke” is simply stupid.

    it is much more likely, that you are just getting stuff wrong all the time. i am sorry, but as a journalist you lost the tiny bit of credibility you had left..

  8. #8 David Rose
    January 30, 2010

    I haven’t been “caught”. I’ve been accused in an extremely hostile internet forum. It’s a very different thing. And this really is my last post.

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    January 30, 2010

    As gullible as they come:

    The recorder is not running because the reporter is only looking for a couple of quotes to give weight to the story

    And when you’re looking for quotation out of context, you don’t want anyone to know the context.

  10. #10 Shortened David Rose
    January 30, 2010

    This really is my last post. Before my next one.

  11. #11 Bob
    January 30, 2010

    This is a scandal I will be writing to my MP about this. There are billions of dollars and the lives of millions at stake on this issue and these so-called “journalists”, are just running around distorting and misrepresenting the words of scientists.

    Perhaps if these “journalists” had stuck to hard sciences instead of “media studies” (or whatever rubbish they teach in schools these days) they wouldn’t be so prone to their subjectivism and “imagining” reality as they believe it.

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    January 30, 2010

    [Rose](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis.php#comment-2237793).

    You just stagger from bad to worse to worst to worstest, to worstester.

    So, maybe Kaser misspoke: after all, he was speaking in a foreign language.

    So, Kaser spoke to you in a foreign language, but it was he who “misspoke”?

    In which “foreign language” did he speak to you, and just how proficient are you in that language, and exactly how do you discount the very real alternative that you either consciously or subconsciously ‘mis-heard’ what was spoken to you, in a language foreign to you?

    I suggest that you quit whilst you are only a train wreck.

  13. #13 sod
    January 30, 2010

    let me repost:

    David Rose: (January 28, 2010 )

    Listen up. I’ve been a journalist for almost 30 years. I’ve never misquoted anyone, and until I wrote about Dr Lal, no one had ever claimed I had.

    Roger Pielke: (12 December 2009)

    there is a misquote of my comments that I think needs to be corrected.

    sorry David, but this is GETTING CAUGHT, not “being accused”.

    you certainly struggle with facts, don t you?

  14. #14 Nick
    January 30, 2010

    David Rose @ 6,without passing judgement, maybe Kaser wasn’t so much ‘ignored’ as ‘overlooked’ which would be regrettable, but not very sexy. To speculate as to why is …speculation. It’s all about choosing ones words carefully,isn’t it?

    So Dr Pachauri,busy in the lead up to Copenhagen,didn’t jump on being reminded about a paragraph in AR4 WG2. I could not care less for further speculation or insinuation of motive. Many people realised long ago that there is a huge volume of science to assimilate,and to keep updated,covering climate,within the full IPCC works and without. Maybe trying to put Pachauri’s head on a stick is more important for you?

  15. #15 Steve Reuland
    January 30, 2010

    “In which “foreign language” did he speak to you, and just how proficient are you in that language…?”

    To be fair to Rose, I assume he meant that Kaser spoke to him in English, which for Kaser would be a foreign language.

    Not that this excuses anything.

  16. #16 carrot eater
    January 30, 2010

    The Economist apparently got the Kaser story down accurately; why is it so hard for everybody else? (Though they don’t go into the detail of how Kaser submitted his comments).

    [Economist on glaciers and Kaser](http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15328534)

  17. #17 DavidCOG
    January 30, 2010

    Hilarious. Especially the bit where Rose returns – *definitely* the last time *this* time – to bleat about how unfairly he’s being treated for being caught.

    Comedy gold.

  18. #18 This really is my last comment
    January 30, 2010

    Internet, please meet an enthusiastic new user, David Rose.

  19. #19 guthrie
    January 30, 2010

    Bernard J #12 – its spelt Worcester, actually.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    January 30, 2010

    [Steve Reuland](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis.php#comment-2237856).

    Good point about Kaser speaking English as a second (“foreign”) language – although I have to say that all of my Austrian friends speak it so fluently that there is never any problem with matters of translation.

    However, as you also point out, this does nothing to exonerate Rose. In fact it simply makes it worse in my personal opinion – not applying careful consideration, clarification, and corroboration to the words of a non-native English speaker is careless non-professionalism indeed, even if the conversation appears to flow without difficulty. Even the words of an Oxbridge speaker should be carefully reviewed, where the interviewer is untrained in the science of the matters raised in the conversation.

    It is especially pernicious to accuse said non-native English speaker of mis-speaking. Kaser might have known exactly what he was saying, and it might well have been completely understandable to someone technically proficient in the scientific area being discussed. In this case it is Rose whose ignorance leads him to mis-understand, and the fact that he did nothing to clarify the matter is simply a reflection of his lack of serious journalistic professionalism.

    [The comic strip](http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623) that Tim Lambert linked to in the “[Rosegate scandal still growing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing.php)” thread illustrates exactly why care and diligent professionalism should be exercised by any interviewer.

    Ultimately though, it all requires the interviewer to demonstrate integrity and objectivity to start with…

  21. #21 TrueSceptic
    January 30, 2010

    8 David Rose,

    In case you come back, yes this is a hostile forum. It is hostile to anyone who lies about or misrepresents science and scientists. Perhaps you could learn a thing or 2…

  22. #22 dhogaza
    January 30, 2010

    It is hostile to anyone who lies about or misrepresents science and scientists.

    Personally, I’m hostile to anyone who lies about anything … :)

  23. #23 Blob
    January 30, 2010

    “So, maybe Kaser misspoke: after all, he was speaking in a foreign language.”

    The language of Science…

  24. #24 Phila
    January 30, 2010

    If we were all a bit less hostile, we’d be able to see that Rose is a preternaturally decent and honest man who’s always right regardless of any appearances to the country.

    I mean, Rose is a journalist. They don’t let just anyone do important work like that.

  25. #25 Marion Delgado
    January 30, 2010

    I can’t see listing a political science degree holder (Lomborg, Pielke Jr.) as a scientist. Nor a person with only a bachelor’s degree in math (McIntyre).

    Especially as the net knowledge Pielke, Jr., Lomborg or McIntyre, let alone McKitrick display about climate science is very low.

    Pielke, Sr., is a scientist, however confused he might be by ideology or whatever. But Jr. is not. I just think there are bad consequences to adding the ad-hoc non-scientist to the category. Look how Judith Curry defends (endlessly) McIntyre as if he were a scientist.

    We went through a lot of this with creation science.

  26. #26 Hank Roberts
    January 30, 2010

    > I’ve been accused in an extremely hostile internet forum.

    Not this one. I’m still asking who the appropriate editor was for the PielkeJr correction, did you ever get that addressed? Sounds like you were already captured by the McIntyre worldview, and that whoever assigned you this story knew it.
    They may have set you up.

  27. #27 Dave Andrews
    January 30, 2010

    Tim,

    Again tilting at windmills. Kaser wrote to the IPCC secretariat. One would assume that if they were doing their job properly they would have passed the emails on to Lal.

    They didn’t – for whatever reason?

    Still you can still say that Kaser was writing to Lal, so nothing wrong there with Rose’s analysis

  28. #28 Dave Andrews
    January 30, 2010

    Marion Delgado,

    You’re going backwards! The logic of what you are saying is that only scientists in a particular field can comment on what other scientists in that field say.

    This is rubbish. For example, much of what climate scientists do involves complex statistics, They are not, generally, trained statisticians as well as climate scientists. They should therefore actively seek the help of statisticians in their work. But it is manifest that they do not.

    SteveM is a statistician with long experience in using statistical methods. He has every right to comment upon the use of statistics by climate scientists.

  29. #29 el gordo
    January 30, 2010

    This is an ‘extremely hostile internet forum’ and will remain so even after global warming has disappeared off the political landscape.

    Stop badgering me about Lu, I was taking the piss.

  30. #30 MapleLeaf
    January 30, 2010

    David Rose,

    Much easier to fabricate a scandal and misrepresent the facts, than to do some real investigative journalism. The Economist got the story right, they clearly seem to require higher standards of their journalists, so you have no excuse.

    Yes, the image of Dr. Pachauri’s head on a stick might be sexy to you and others, but you are missing the real story. The irony that you repeatedly choose to misrepresent the science, scientists and IPCC, while demanding perfection and making completely unrealistic expectations of the same people/groups, sadly seems to be lost on you.

    How about you apply your “investigative skills” to get at the real story here. The assault on science and scientists by right-wing lobby groups. There is enough material and evidence there that even my toddler could join the dots– Yet, the media stay silent on how the science and scientists are being harassed, intimidated, misrepresented and worse by these groups. I suppose “doing in” the IPCC is much sexier for some, or is that just what your war lords wish of you?

    How about you investigate your friends, McIntyre and McKitrick, Watts, Morano, Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Plimer, Pat Michaels and others (it is a very long list). How about you place them under the same scrutiny and hold them to the same unrealistic standard as the IPCC, and then parade their heads on sticks? You are not biased, are you? The fact that the aforementioned individuals (M&M et al.) are the people actually repeatedly screwing up, deceiving and distorting and using alarmist language seems to be lost on you.

    A suggestion, when you start claiming that “they all got it wrong, it is/was not me”, then you sound just like your mentor McIntyre.

  31. #31 J Bowers
    January 30, 2010

    Re: Dave Andrews | January 30, 2010 3:43 PM: “For example, much of what climate scientists do involves complex statistics, They are not, generally, trained statisticians as well as climate scientists…”

    Actually, climate scientists generally are also trained statisticians. Helmut Landsberg led to statistical analysis being used in climatology, which led to its evolution into a physical science.

    Steve McIntyre is not a trained statistical analyst to my knowledge (I’d like to see his actual qualifications in statistical anlaysis cited please), he’s a mathematician which is not the same thing.

    ‘Mathematical statistics’ are concerned with the theoretical basis of the subject, but ‘statistical analysis’ is the science of making effective use of numerical data.

    In other words, a mathematician is not automatically qualified to perform statistical analysis, but a climatologist is.

  32. #32 MapleLeaf
    January 30, 2010

    Someone spouted “SteveM is a statistician with long experience in using statistical methods.”

    Err, actually McI he is a mathematician, of sorts anyways– McI certainly not in the same league as Dr. Gavin Schmidt and others.

    McI loves to pontificate, and to avoid publishing at all costs. That is not how the science moves forward. McI is an obstructionist and loves to harass and embark on character assassinations, libel and witch hunts. And what McI does he certainly does not do in ‘good faith’ as he frequently likes to lie about in public. Amazing that he has avoided being audited, but then it is difficult to do so when he does not publish. His blog, however, has been discredited several times.

    He does have a UofT email account and one can, with many good and valid reasons, demand to see his emails. McKitrick also has a university account. Anyone interested in trying to determine their role, if any, in ClimateGate? Or how they scheme and manipulate and corroborate behind the scenes to flood CRU with FOIA claims, for example? How funds might be exchanged perhaps….

    So much to find out…..

  33. #33 Marion Delgado
    January 30, 2010

    McIntyre has only a bachelor’s in math – which is nothing. He also has experience in mining. It’s not that he doesn’t have relevant credentials, it’s that he doesn’t have credentials. Furthermore, he’s inept too often in too many areas for it not to grate on people who even have a better lay knowledge of the relevant science in areas which he writes about. As well as the facts – when McIntyre was claiming Hansen was claiming 1998 was the hottest year in the contiguous US, I had info from Hansen that 1936 was, by a tiny margin, and I’d gotten a newsletter from an environmental organiztion saying 1998 was the 2nd hottest year in the contiguous US after 1936.

    In many ways, people like Tim Lambert, e.g., don’t have relevant credentials for some things Pielke, Jr. or McIntyre or Lomborg get into, but the difference is, they, like most of us, fall back on the body of scientific knowledge, which, frankly, uneducated (in the relevant science) people like Pielke, Jr. and McIntyre are simply not qualified to challenge or refute, and which they cannot fall back on because they reject it for poitical or ideological reasons.

    Notice, too, that in the case lately where Dr. Lambert (Computer Science) was dealing in his area of expertise he knew what language the CRU code was written in, among other thing, and Eric S. Raymond, even though it’s his area of expertise as well, did not. When the climate denialist amateurs butt heads with people who know what they’re talking about – vs. “Tamino” in time series, or “Eli Rabbett” in spectral analysis, or Keith Briffa in dendrochronology or Jeff Severinghaus on CO2 absorption and glaciation – they’re invariably wrong.

    Worse, really, they don’t know enough to pick the right people with expertise – they pin too much on a handful of people, some of whom are too speculative – like Lindzen – and others of whom are both out of their area of expertise and no longer participating, really, in the scientific endeavor, like Ian Plimer.

    A lot of this doesn’t necessarily apply to Pielke, Jr. – he has a reasonable lay analyst’s comprehension of the science relevant to what he writes about. His studies in math and political science gave him a reasonable working knowledge of statistics – which Lomborg has also – and statistical analysis is a key component of climate science, no doubt about it. Still, there really is no reasonable basis for including Pielke Jr. as a scientist – I would say engineering and computer science are both closer to being sciences than political science is, many times closer, and I wouldn’t necessarily call someone with a PhD in engineering or computer science a scientist per se.

    There are scientists like Ian Plimer (who’s not actually been a working *scientist* most of his career, he’s been an applied technician with a science doctorate) that get virtually everything wrong much moreso than Roger Pielke, Jr.

    But the whole situation where Dr. Curry was defending McIntyre as if he were a scientiific colleague instead of a lay analyst with an extreme viewpoint entirely out of the scientific mainstream reminded me how tired I am of Pielke’s obfuscation and weaseling about science. If he were his father, we’d have to say, okay, you’re a scientist, you’re not *that* wrong, and it’s tricky to point out every time all the point-shaving you do to minimize the science and promote delay, but we’ll have to do it. Given that he’s not, we can turn and ask people why they take the word of someone who studied math and political science over people who actually study the specific topics he wants to work and alter.

    If it’s simply a free-for-all, I studied physics and math at both the graduate and undergraduate level (also taking a couple grad courses in engineering). I think I’d make an ideal crank. My default position will be no glaciers in 10 years, sea levels up 100 feet, everything in “The Day after Tomorrow” is true, and indeed, too conservative. Etc. So where’s my Dr. Curry? Where’re the people saying I’m being shut out of the debate? If anyone disagrees with me, who will tell them they’re not being collegial?

    It’s completely absurd. The worst part is, simple repetition has made it seem normal and natural. It’s as if having a toxic waste dump in the backyard is terrible the first few years. But if you’ve had one for 50 years, it’s kind of venerable and lovable and normal so what’s the problem?

    The fact that they’ve done parodies of peer-reviewed journals, and even smuggled bad papers into real ones that are too catholic in their acceptance policy, is not enough to say we have to take, at least, people at the level of McIntyre, Pielke Jr., Lomborg, seriously as scientists.

    Sorry to be so long-winded. I really could have just said – someone sometime will point to these posts and say, “see, they acknowledge that Pielke, Jr. is a scientist,” with the implication being a scientist relevant to climate. And said, I want to distinguish the people who look it up from the people who make it up.

  34. #34 Connor
    January 30, 2010

    David Rose reminds me very much of the reporter in Season 5 of The Wire – “It’s right here in my notes!”

  35. #35 elspi
    January 30, 2010

    “McI he is a mathematician, of sorts anyways”

    Mathematician my ass.

    WHAT ARE HIS THEOREM’S?

    Mathematicians prove theorems.

    Good mathematicians prove good theorems.

    Great mathematicians prove great theorems.

    McI = poser.

  36. #36 MapleLeaf
    January 30, 2010

    Elspi, I agree, that is why I added “of sorts” and was sure to state that he is not in the same league or of the same calibre as some other good mathematicians.

  37. #37 J Bowers
    January 30, 2010

    “David Rose reminds me very much of the reporter in Season 5 of The Wire – “It’s right here in my notes!””

    Funnily enough, The Wire was written by actual, real life journalists and crime authors. The most prolific, and driving creative force, was David Simon, who actually worked at the Baltimore Sun covering the crime beat between 1982 and 1985. I wonder where his inspiration came from?

  38. #38 J Bowers
    January 30, 2010

    Typo correction to the above about David Simon: he worked on the Baltiore Sun’s crime beat between 1982 and 1995. 13 years, not 3.

  39. #39 dhogaza
    January 30, 2010

    Typo correction to the above about David Simon: he worked on the Baltiore…

    Typo correction fail! :)

    (just teasing, I have days like this, too!)

  40. #40 J Bowers
    January 30, 2010

    Doh! Should’ve become a journalist.

  41. #41 Sortition
    January 30, 2010

    Marion Delgado says:

    > In many ways, people like Tim Lambert, e.g., don’t have relevant credentials for some things Pielke, Jr. or McIntyre or Lomborg get into, but the difference is, they, like most of us, fall back on the body of scientific knowledge, which, frankly, uneducated (in the relevant science) people like Pielke, Jr. and McIntyre are simply not qualified to challenge or refute, and which they cannot fall back on because they reject it for poitical or ideological reasons.

    I don’t think this is a good argument because the situation that you are describing matches, more or less, my position regarding economics. The “body of scientific knowledge” in economics (or at least a large part of it) is really nothing but ideological nonsense. I don’t think that one needs to be a professional economist to figure this out. In fact, being a professional economist (i.e., someone who went through the selection and indoctrination process) is a hindrance at being able to assess the value of economic theory.

  42. #42 Marion Delgado
    January 30, 2010

    Sortition -the components of anthropogenic climate change science are all hard sciences. Economics is not firmly a science, for many reasons, including the lack of an agreed-upon body of knowledge. That someone doing economics in one milieu gets different results than in another is another reason. Another is that it’d be hard for an economist to prove you wrong, because there aren’t universally agreed-upon standards for including or excluding hypotheses. Contrariwise, if you disagreed with the mathematics of a particular economics equation, and you didn’t know calculus, your lack of expertise would be objectively relevant.

  43. #43 Nick
    January 30, 2010

    The torrent of bullshit pouring from the UK press needs a quick factcheck. David Rose,are you available? Go blow that whistle.

  44. #44 Donald Oats
    January 31, 2010

    Monckton is being presented as a (professional) mathematician by way of weasel wording:

    Lord Monckton is a mathematician by training who invented the very popular Eternity Puzzle in 2000 and eventually paid out the pound stg. 1 million prize — but only after he had sold 500,000 copies at pound stg. 35 each. Do the maths.

    His maths on climate change is even more confronting.

    “The warming effect of carbon dioxide has been exaggerated to a prodigious extent,” he says.

    [My boldface on text in the quote.]

  45. #45 Connor
    January 31, 2010

    I wonder if David Rose ever worked at the Baltimore Sun during his 30 years as a “journalist” :p

  46. #46 sod
    January 31, 2010

    mailonline gives a nice idea, about how David Rose will handle things, when he is proven wrong about his climate claims in the future:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1247424/I-feel-shame-regret-having-supported-Iraq-war—Blair.html

    he will abuse his errors, to accuse others.

    for the moment, i have seen enough of the character of David Rose.

  47. #47 sod
    January 31, 2010

    Daily Mail 2050, article by retired journalist David Rose:

    headline: “why isn t Al Gore ashamed, that his predictions did not go far enough?”

  48. #48 Neven
    January 31, 2010

    Cut this guy some slack. He definitely doesn’t fall in the Delingpole/Booker-category. He just got burned with the Iraq-scam and now thinks other hyped up international stuff, such as AGW, must be a scam as well.

    With a little less aggression in the comments here (though many most certainly aren’t) he might become more objective again and not let himself be used as a vehicle for spreading misinformation on AGW.

  49. #49 Michael
    January 31, 2010

    Neven @48,

    I had the same thoughts.

    Though, if Rose thought that after being stung on WMD, he’d be more sceptical of powerful interests this time round, he’s gone and got it completely wrong again.

    With AGW, those with the powerful interests aren’t scientists, but those who continue to profit handsomely from the status quo.

    As the Iraq war demonstrated, if all this AGW and alternative energy stuff was being driven by self-interested Govts, the carbon economy would already be well on the way to joining Saddam Hussein as past history and we’d all be driving electric cars despite our fierce opposition.

  50. #50 This really is my last comment
    January 31, 2010

    With a little less aggression in the comments here (though many most certainly aren’t) he might become more objective again and not let himself be used as a vehicle for spreading misinformation on AGW.

    I know I lost my objectivity after reading a blog comment.

  51. #51 J Bowers
    January 31, 2010

    50 – This really is my lastcomment says: “I know I lost my objectivity after reading a blog comment.”

    If ‘This really is my last comment’ is who I think it is, why don’t you try this: Create a list of questions, quotes from the UEA emails, assertions by those you seem to look to most, etc, etc, and post them, one by one, and then maybe you can get a wider view and, I’m sure, a lot of helpful links and sources that would help explain and remove the veil of mystery, misdirection, grandstanding and smokescreens of pseudo-science, crankery, astroturfing and shilling, especially those coming from “economic thinktanks” and psuedo-climatologists who never spent the years and years of hard work studying the subject itself?

    An eloquent example of why many here aren’t too fond of the usual AGW “sceptics” is here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis.php#comment-2239055

  52. #52 clippo
    January 31, 2010

    Re: mapleleaf #30 & Nick # 43
    On another forum, when I suggested to a Poptech, (who is well known AGW denier in some other scienceblogs), that he should read ‘The Republican War on Science’ by Chris Mooney, he replied that there was no way he was going to read something by a left-wing author. This sums it all up for me that many right-wing journalists just can’t, or won’t see past their political beliefs.

    (BTW, I have no idea if Chris Mooney is left wing – certainly unlikely in UK / European terms).

    I stopped reading the UK ‘Mail’ many years ago after the death of Princess Diana and following which I swear they DAILY had pointless articles about her,(and things like what she had for breakfast on a certain day,for at least a whole YEAR or more after.

    That’s their standard and I see it hasn’t improved by David Rose’s contributions.

    Even now the UK Daily & Sunday Telegraph claims today that Global warming is one of the most serious problems facing humanity today – yet is very ambivalent in its’ approach.

    There is a definite bias in the letter section for those against AGW , (5-0 today, 1-0 yesterday and similarly for weeks & months past). Although they have extremely sensible Geoffrey Lean they also have the ludicrous Christopher Booker –
    Tim, in your admirable and relentless way, can you start a destruction of Booker please?

  53. #53 Hank Roberts
    January 31, 2010

    Message for David Rose:
    I’ve watched people like David Perlman make the effort involved in chasing down and correcting errors in the text and headlines of their science stories. It’s a challenge but it’s a measure of the importance of getting what’s attributed to you correct.

    I’d be interested in seeing you post in some of the places using your story.
    Example: http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/glaciergate-a-prima-facie-case-of-criminal-fraud/

    which begins:
    January 26, 2010 by David Middleton

    From the Mail Online…

    >Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified

    >By David Rose
    >Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

    >The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders……

  54. #54 J Bowers
    January 31, 2010

    Just a heads up on the latest emails meme, this time from Christopher Booker of the Teletubbygraph:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7113552/Climategate-confusion-over-the-law-in-email-case.html

    However, here’s a piece by a BBC journalist who not only contradicts what Booker has to say, but who also specialises in the UK’s Freedom Of Information Act:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/01/climate_data_why_ministers_ref.html?s_sync=1

    I’m sure we’ll get to see who got it right, but I know which one my money’s on and it ain’t the former.

    The Telegraph could be called comical if it wasn’t for the sheer venom and spite of its regular commenters on climate change.

  55. #55 dhogaza
    January 31, 2010

    J Bowers:

    Doh! Should’ve become a journalist.

    ROTFL!

  56. #56 Brian Schmidt
    January 31, 2010

    This blog post (and el gordo’s comment in #3) reinforce the necessity that scientists refuse interviews with David Rose unless the scientists have their own audio record of the interview.

    Or maybe Rose should be assigned a different beat where his own inclinations are less likely to interfere in his writing.

  57. #57 Hank Roberts
    January 31, 2010

    You have to put backslashes before the underscores, to insist you literally want an underscore, or the overly helpful blog software interprets them and makes words into italic instead.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2010/01/climate\_data\_why\_ministers\_ref.html?s_sync=1

  58. #58 J Bowers
    January 31, 2010

    @ Hank Roberts; Aha! Thanks!

  59. #59 Sortition
    January 31, 2010

    Marion Delgado,

    > the components of anthropogenic climate change science are all hard sciences. Economics is not firmly a science, for many reasons, including the lack of an agreed-upon body of knowledge. [...]

    I agree that the case could be that a certain field of inquiry and the associated predictions would require some sort of expertise to understand and dismiss while other fields would not merit such distinction. The analysis of what differentiates those categories and whether a certain specific field, say, climate science, belongs in one category or another must be part of the argument.

    Simply asserting that someone is not an expert in a field and therefore cannot comment intelligently upon it is facile.

  60. #60 J Bowers
    January 31, 2010

    Posted by: Sortition | “Simply asserting that someone is not an expert in a field and therefore cannot comment intelligently upon it is facile.”

    A climate scientist knows statistical analysis of data, but a statistical analyst doesn’t know climate science. A statistical analyst who criticises a climate scientist on the broader subject is on very shaky ground, but a climate scientist who criticises a statistical analyst could very well be right.

    When someone with a degree in maths, which does not automatically include meaningful knowledge of statistical analysis of data at all, alludes to authoritatively criticise a climate scientist’s statistical analysis of data, I bang my head on the desk. Not because they examine the data, but because of the grandstanding and circus that surrounds it, and the memes and fallacies it generates.

    “If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability. ” – Vannevar Bush

    I’m no climate scientist or expert, just a Joe Public (with a very sore head) who “gets the gist” of that quote.

  61. #61 Dave Andrews
    January 31, 2010

    Marion Delgado

    “. My default position will be no glaciers in 10 years, sea levels up 100 feet, everything in “The Day after Tomorrow” is true, and indeed, too conservative. Etc.”

    WHAT??????

  62. #62 GWB's nemesis
    January 31, 2010

    Dave Andrews,

    Can you actually read and understand simple prose? The two sentences before your quote say:

    “If it’s simply a free-for-all, I studied physics and math at both the graduate and undergraduate level (also taking a couple grad courses in engineering). I think I’d make an ideal crank.”

    On the ball again, I see.

  63. #63 Neven
    January 31, 2010

    Thanks, Hank, that helped. :-)

  64. #64 sleepy
    January 31, 2010

    Dave A yes that’s right – you’ll never understand even the simplest things but you’ll always talk talk talk as though you do.

  65. #65 Hank Roberts
    January 31, 2010

    David Rose, meet your fans, one in a series:

    “Mr. Lal is a lying weasel and a wog!! How much credence do you think he gives to unsubstantiated sources which tend to indicate that global warming is abating or reversing!….”

    Yes, that’s what he said. No doubt this guy gives the highest possible credence to unsubstantiated sources which tend to indicate that what he believes is true. No doubt.

    From: Sciencenews
    Indian climatologist disputes charges over Himalayan projection Politics was not the impetus for the mistake, he maintains. By Janet Raloff
    Web edition : Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

    Source:
    http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55682#comment_55876

  66. #66 MapleLeaf
    February 1, 2010

    Hank @65. Wow! And I thought Dumb Duff was bad….

    Yes, Rose likes to play innocent, but I am sure that he knows a priori how people with agendas will spin his “work”. Didn’t Dick Cheney use a similar tactic? SteveM uses a similar approach and when wild accusations are made (based on ideas sown on his blog by him), he throws his arms up and says “it wasn’t me; I didn’t say it”. Nice try. But McI assures us (with big puppy eyes) that “everything I have done has been done in good faith”. Uh, huh.

    David Rose, did your mum never emphasize to you the importance of making friends with good and honest people? Well, you have failed, now try again, and please buy an electronic recording device. Then clear your head of everything M&M lied to you about, go and speak to some real climate scientists for a backgrounder and then have another try….

  67. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    February 1, 2010

    Personally, I don’t hold out much hope for anybody who fell for Alastair Campbell’s Dodgy Dossiers 1 & 2.

    They were cram-packed full of the same sort of transparent bullshit we now see the Denialidiots indulging in, and Rose has fallen for both politically-motivated scams.

  68. #68 bigcitylib
    February 1, 2010

    Slightly OT, but Andrew Weaver is now disputing the claim that he called for anyone’s resignation:

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2010/02/national-post-one-editorial-two.html

  69. #69 J Bowers
    February 1, 2010

    @ bigcitylib: Thanks for the heads up.

    I wish there was a database somewhere of this rpess nonsense. It’s getting ridiculous, and is as worrying as the misrepresentations of the science itself.

    As they say, “One finger pointed at someone else leaves three more pointed back at yourself.”

  70. #70 Hank Roberts
    February 1, 2010

    > backslashes … underscores

    By the way, I ignore the ” Please make urls into proper links like this: [Description](http://example.com).” line above the Comments box — here’s my reason.

    People may now or later read this in print form or as text.
    That “proper links” suggestion hides the link for anyone reading a printout or text file later — they get no clue there was a link or where it was pointing to, to check out.

  71. #71 luminous beauty
    February 1, 2010

    Hank,

    It’s easier to just bracket the url with chevrons, <>:

    < http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis.php#comment-2242295>

  72. #72 hmmmm
    February 1, 2010

    Dr. Kaser said he chose not to go “straightforward, to the lead authors” because “it is always a delicate matter” when criticizing other colleagues’ findings.

    That goes down easy with you all? And it is Rose who gets the bum’s rush?

    [Dr. van Ypersele] added that he had examined records of e-mail messages and found that the authors had never received the pertinent message from Dr. Kaser. Furthermore, Dr. Kaser’s “most pointed criticism” of the findings on glacial melting came after the contents of the report had been completed, Dr. van Ypersele said.

    Perhaps, but less believeable than Rose? Anyone see a problem with Lal’s group?

  73. #73 jakerman
    February 1, 2010

    >*Dr. Kaser said he chose not to go “straightforward, to the lead authors” because “it is always a delicate matter” when criticizing other colleagues’ findings.*

    Human systems are faliable, some more than others. The IPCC appears to be self correcting and hoepfully will be more rapidly so in the future. Thus science progresses.

    Rose appears to be immune from self correction. As are denialist sources such and Monckton, Plimer, and their cheer leaders.

  74. #74 hmmm
    February 2, 2010

    Agreed. And I don’t think just because a mistake is made these scientists are frauds. I just don’t understand the drift of Tim’s post as Rose’s story and Kaser/Lal’s are essentially consistent AND there was a problem with how the objections were handled. Rose may or may not deserve your scorn on other points but on this one, he seems to be getting a deal that is not only raw, the comments are malignant.

  75. #75 D
    February 2, 2010

    Vince Whirwind,

    So back in 2002 were you standing out against the considered view of all Western intelligence agencies that Saddam was still trying to develop WMD?

    Or perhaps you’ve just got a bad case of ‘galloping hindsight’!

  76. #76 TrueSceptic
    February 2, 2010

    58 Hank,

    Or just use the instruction above the comment box!

    Please make urls into proper links like this: [Description] (http://example.com) without the space!

  77. #77 TrueSceptic
    February 2, 2010

    70 Hank,

    OK, you have a point. :)

  78. #78 Chris O'Neill
    February 2, 2010

    D:

    So back in 2002 were you standing out against the considered view of all Western intelligence agencies that Saddam was still trying to develop WMD?

    That view was not unanimous among people in the business.

  79. #79 Vince Whirlwind
    February 2, 2010

    #75, Western intelligence agencies believed no such thing.

    The intelligence they were *told* to rely on when sending their report to the minister was (from memory) threefold:
    – utter nonsense coming from a very dodgy Iraqi defector in the US about WMD weapons sites.
    – forged “Niger yellowcake” docs provided to the Italians by the Israelis
    – some crap from some crappy source about Saddam being involved with Al Qaeda, when it was a matter of public record that when they came to him with their begging-bowl he sent them away with a flea in their ear and was known to gladly execute islamic fundamentalists found operating on his turf.

    The intelligence they chose to *ignore* was that coming from those such as David Kelly who actually knew about Iraq’s WMD status.

    Anybody with even an ounce of commonsense could see that the government’s reliance on Alastair Campbell’s transparently dishonest and non-factual Dossiers could only mean that there was no real evidence for WMDs in Iraq.

    And yes, I most certainly stated this very simple analysis at the time.
    I believe you’ll find people such as Andrew Wilkie told the truth back then, too.

  80. #81 Bernard J.
    February 3, 2010

    [D asks](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis.php#comment-2245794):

    Vince Whirwind

    So back in 2002 were you standing out against the considered view of all Western intelligence [sic!]agencies that Saddam was still trying to develop WMD?

    Dunno about Vince, but in the context of Saddam having (or seriously trying to re-establish) WMD capacity I was “standing out”, and loudly too. In fact, it was the first cause ever that actually enticed me to join protest marches in the streets in two cities.

    It was patently obvious to anyone who kept abreast of the political milieu, of the trajectories of relative military capacity, of the consistency of pronouncements and of action by various parties involved, and not least of the opinions of real experts such as Scott Ritter, Andrew Wilkie and many others, that Saddam didn’t have anything to threaten another country with, beyond fear itself.

    Saddam was just a big schoolyard bully talking tough, but it suited the Coalition of the ‘Willing’ to lie about Iraq’s capabilities. And lie they did: if they truly didn’t know that there was no real WMD threat, then they were incompetent beyond words – aside from having mangled the facts of the matter beyond recognition…

    And it might be harsh of me to say it, but any Joe or Jane Public who didn’t have the capcity to sift through the available information and arrive at the truth was either insufficiently capable of exercising the requisite analytical skills, or ideologically entrenched to accept the WMD line, or both.

    I could also present a few even less charitable alternatives, but I will desist – for now…

  81. #82 zoot
    February 3, 2010

    Bernard J has pretty much described my position in 2002. As I recall there were a rather large number of us “standing out against the considered view of all Western intelligence agencies that Saddam was still trying to develop WMD” if in fact that was the considered view of all Western intelligence.

  82. #83 Dave Andrews
    February 3, 2010

    Bernard J,

    “Saddam was just a big schoolyard bully talking tough”

    Go to Iraq, stand in the middle of Baghdad and repeat that statement and see what reaction you get.

    You have no credibility, a typical ‘Western leftie’ who is wise after the fact and understands nothing outside of your scientific ivory tower.

  83. #84 dhogaza
    February 3, 2010

    You have no credibility, a typical ‘Western leftie’ who is wise after the fact and understands nothing outside of your scientific ivory tower.

    Unlike Dave Andrews, who understands nothing, regardless of whether its inside or outside the scientific ivory tower …

  84. #85 jemima
    February 3, 2010

    ‘D’ knows that all the smart people are no smarter than ‘D’, and knows better than the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

    “Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information”.
    [Conclusion 15, p82]

    < http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775>

  85. #86 jemima
    February 3, 2010

    The link to the Senate report itself from which that quote is taken is (PDF) < http://intelligence.senate.gov/pdfs/110345.pdf>

    ‘D’ and Andrews won’t be able to find or read it, naturally.

  86. #87 Lee
    February 3, 2010

    I was reasonably certain in 2002 that SAddam had diddly-squat, and our government was lying to us.

    I became ABSOLUTELY certain after the farcical interplay where we (the US) announced that we knew where Saddam was hiding weapons, UNSCOM said, well then tell us so we can go look, the US resisted and delayed telling them and when we finally did, UNSCOM looked and there wasn’t anything there.

    Shortly after that, we kicked UNSCOM out of Iraq and invaded.

    It was all a pile of obvious crap from the start.

  87. #88 Bernard J.
    February 3, 2010

    [Dave Andrews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis.php#comment-2247965).

    Do you seriously believe that your strawman is worthy?!

    In the context of geopolitics, Saddam was exactly what I said – a schoolyard bully. After Bush Snr had kicked seven colours of snot out of him, Saddam was still emasculated and posed no serious threat to another country – certainly not for years to come.

    I never said that he was not a tyrant. He was, and he should not have been supported in power by the US for the decades that he was.

    And I don’t know many Middle Eastern folk, but those that I do to a person believe that given the huge loss of life, and of cultural heritage, the invasion was by far the greater of two evils, and that there were far better options for removing Saddam from power.

    It has nothing to do with being wise after the fact: as I said, I was out there protesting and contacting politicians for a year before the invasion. I believe that the world should have addressed the Saddam issue, just as it should have done something years ago about Zimbabwe, Burma, and many other human rights basket cases, but I don’t think that holus-bolus invasion of countries is the answer.

    You might claim that I have no understanding “outside of” my ivory tower, but I was damned-well bang on the money about what would happen in Iraq following an invasion. It seems that I, and millions of others just like me, undestood more clearly than the leaders of the Coalition of the ‘Willing’, and than the sheep who so happily and uncritically bleated the Coalition’s message about non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

    In fact I understood it the day I watched the towers burning. I said to my housemate as we watched them fall that Bush would blame Iraq and find a reason to invade, and that Iraq would have had nothing to do with it.

    Before the invasion I also said that Bush and Howard would invoke the cause of ‘democracy’, and sure enough there was much post hoc blustering about exactly that, once they realised that they would find nothing that they could pretend was a WMD.

    And I’m happy to make some wise predictions before the fact about AGW… By 2100 the the mean global temperature anomaly will increase beyond 2C, and it will have major impacts on ecosystem integrity and function, and it will bring societal upheaval, conflict, and death to hundreds of millions of people.

    If you disagree with me, you are more than welcome to apply your Bush/Howard Iraq-invasion logic to [these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083
    ), and explain why your “wisdom” is greater than mine, or from which tower it is that you have a view that is more clear than that of science’s “ivory” one.

  88. #90 Vince Whirlwind
    February 3, 2010

    Lee,
    I totally agree, the UNSCOM shenanigans set the scene for me by displaying with 100% clarity that the USA were driving a dishonest agenda with regard to WMDs. From trying to discredit individual inspectors to kicking UNSCOM out and lying that it was Saddam who had done it.

    Bernard,
    It is amazing to see the same WMD-idiots pushing a new brand of idiocy.
    Just goes to show how hard it is to teach old dogs new tricks.

  89. #91 Chris O'Neill
    February 3, 2010

    It is amazing to see the same WMD-idiots pushing a new brand of idiocy.

    Colin Powell was told by the White House to present papers to the UN that “proved” the existence of mobile bioweapons labs. He was told to go to the CIA to get sourcing for the assertions in the papers. The CIA failed to tell him the most important source was a known liar and fabricator.

    The White House and CIA didn’t bother checking sources. Once they had the assertions they wanted, they didn’t care whether they were true or false.

  90. #92 Dave Andrews
    February 4, 2010

    Vince Whirlwind,

    I am not a US citizen so I don’t know exactly how the arguments were played out there. I had been, however, an anti nuclear weapons activist for over 20 years and had considerable understanding of the WMD issue. You may not like it but it was the considered view of most Western Intelligence agencies that Saddam was maintaining the capability to develop WMD.

    His track record was also one of deceit and obstruction in relation to UN inspections and resolutions.

    Like me you, of course, were never in the situation where you had to make any real decisions about matters such as these. The luxury of hindsight can make you forget the then current realities.

  91. #93 Dave Andrews
    February 4, 2010

    Bernard J,

    he should not have been supported in power by the US for the decades that he was.”

    Are you aware that the two major suppliers of arms to Saddam were France and Russia and that they were still owed billions of dollars for those supplies, whilst simultaneously blocking new UN resolutions and seeking an end to sanctions?

    Perhaps there’s a connection, don’t ya think?

  92. #94 Dave Andrews
    February 4, 2010

    Chris O’Neill,

    Nice link. Did you notice that David Kays comments about the WMD assertions “falling apart” came after investigations over the summer of 2003 several months after the invasion?

    (BTW Kays, an IAEA/WMD expert, believed that WMDs would be found before he went to Iraq)

  93. #95 Vince Whirlwind
    February 4, 2010

    Dave Andrews:
    “…it was the considered view of most Western Intelligence agencies that Saddam was maintaining the capability to develop WMD.”

    …as opposed to the US/UK government’s assertions that he was armed and ready, including the climactic bit of WMD-idiot-nonsense: “45 minutes from doom!”

    In other words the intelligence agencies knew damn well he had none but idiots like you and Rose chose to believe the crap being fed to you by war-mongering liars in the US/UK governments.
    Your line is the line the WMD-idiots had to revert to when their idiocy was plain for all to see, post-invasion: “Oh, he was *going* to have WMDs again, some day”. That makes you a pretty dopey, dodgy, dishonest wanker.

    And hindsight has nothing to do with it – I’m saying nothing I, and all other sceptical thinkers, weren’t already saying 7 years ago, prior to the invasion taking place, based on the ample information which was in the public domain.
    Contrary to Tony Blair’s lies, no “secret” intelligence has ever come to light to contradict the publicly-available info we relied on at the time.

    We sceptics were right. The WMD-idiots were liars and fools.

  94. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    February 4, 2010

    EXCELLENT!, Dave Andrews provides us with a concrete example of the kind of selective-sourcing of information that Denialist dogmatists indulge in to support a non-factual analysis they’ve already fabricated:

    “(BTW Kays, an IAEA/WMD expert, believed that WMDs would be found before he went to Iraq)”
    Kays was *not* a current expert on Iraq weapons inspections, a role he ceased performing *11 years* prior to the invasion.

    The people who *were* involved in Iraq inspections in 2003 *said the opposite*.
    http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=6383&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect

    Just as with climate denialism, the active experts’ data is *rejected*, while irrelevant opinions from non-experts are quoted.

  95. #97 Bernard J.
    February 5, 2010

    Dave Andrews asks:

    Are you aware that the two major suppliers of arms to Saddam were France and Russia and that they were still owed billions of dollars for those supplies, whilst simultaneously blocking new UN resolutions and seeking an end to sanctions?

    Yes, I am aware of the French and US involvements.

    This does nothing to distract from the US involvement however, no matter that you might wish otherwise. The thrust of the discussion is that [the US had decades of 'friendly' association with Iraq](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) – the whole time that Saddam was beating up on his own citizenry, I might add – and that it only changed when a bigger bully-boy, in one George Shrub, decided that he wanted what Saddam had, and that he wanted it come hell or high water.

    As to the sanctions, they resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Iraqis. I remember hearing, years before Bush Jnr indulged in his romping escapade, political analysts stating that the quickest way to defuse the dictatorial nature of Saddam’s government would be to remove the sanctions and allow business to modernise the country, as was happening in other Middle East regimes.

    I personally doubt that it would have been a panacea – Iran and China are two examples that commerce does not instanctly bring happy-happy-joy-joy, Western-style government (even as it opens the counties to Western-style consumerism) – but I am sure that it would have produced an Iraq that would have been in much better shape than the country is now, and with hundreds of thousands less deaths. And with a little subtlety I am sure that Saddam might have been defused as other dictators have been over the last several decades.

    From an economic perspective France and Russia did nothing that the US would not have done, and politically their stance was much more defencible that the US’s, and as I said above, it’s all beside the bloody point anyway. It was the US that promoted the lie about WMD, with lapdogs Howard and Blair brown-nosing in a photo-finish.

    Perhaps there’s a connection, don’t ya think?

    What, so now it’s France’s and Russia’s faults that the bleating Western war-mongering populace thought that Iraq was a button-push away from strewing WMD over the Middle East?!

    Get off ya horse.

    I had been, however, an anti nuclear weapons activist for over 20 years and had considerable understanding of the WMD issue. You may not like it but it was the considered view of most Western Intelligence agencies that Saddam was maintaining the capability to develop WMD

    Vince has already kicked your arse about this, but I’ll repeat the point.

    If you believe that you had some ‘expertise’ in nuclear weaponry, and you still managed to come up with a point of view that not only contradicted the best independent experts and the opinions of most thinking folk, but that was definitively proved wrong by the the passage of time – the same passage of time that trivially proved the original sceptics (in the true sense of the word) correct – then you are repeating the same fallacy of thinking today with the matter of anthropogenic global warming.

    The biggest difference is that where your blinkered ‘thinking’ about WMD was a part of a movement that resulted in the unnecessary deaths of millions in the first decade of the 21st century, your blinkered ‘thinking’ about AGW is a part of a movement that is now pretty much guaranteed to result in the deaths of tens- (and eventually probably hundreds-) of millions of people in the latter half of the 21st century and beyond.

    And where in the past Rumsfeld was telling us that we didn’t know what we didn’t know, it’s now the likes of the two Pielkes, of Watts, and of their ideological brethren (many who pop their noses up, mole-like, here) who are claimimg that we don’t know the ‘right’ things, and who are driving whole countries from the appropriate path of action.

    You must be so proud to be a part of that.

  96. #98 Bernard J.
    February 5, 2010

    Just to be clear, when I said:

    From an economic perspective France and Russia did nothing that the US would not have done, and politically their stance was much more defencible that the US’s

    I am referring to France’s and Russia’s stance on lifting sanctions, and not to their selling of arms.

    Anyone who advocates (whether selfishly or otherwise) for lifting sanctions that kill thousands of innocent people is doing the right thing in my book, just as anyone (including the aforementioned “ones”) who sells arms without extremely good (moral) cause is doing a repugnant thing.

  97. #99 Dave Andrews
    February 5, 2010

    Bernard J,

    Well have you read all through the UN inspectors reports? Whilst Saddam was not an immediate threat to the West ( and note here in the UK the 45 minute warning went unremarked by the press and media for several months) there was indeed considerable reason to believe that he was maintaining the capability to build WMD and he had a track record of using them. This was the conclusion of most Western intelligence agencies.

    Are you saying that the latter should not be relied upon by their respective governments?

    Vince W,

    Kay says he was kept up to date by Ekeus and that there was a great deal of uniformity in Western intelligence agencies view of Iraq’s WMD capabilities.

    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8231/8231kay.html

  98. #100 Dave Andrews
    February 5, 2010

    Bernard J,

    I see you sometimes acnowledge that sceptics can be right. LOL

Current ye@r *