There have been two shock new developments in the Rosegate scandal. First, Deltoid can reveal that as well as misrepresenting Murari Lal and Mojib Latif, David Rose did the same thing to Roger Pielke Jr. Just as with Lal and Latif, no correction has been made.
Second, in a comment left here David Rose has admitted that he has no credibility, conceding that "nothing I write here will make a scrap of difference". While it's certainly true that Rose lacks credibility, it's worth reflecting on why. I imagine you've noticed that when a reporter writes about something that you are expert on, they often get stuff wrong. That's because reporters have to write stories about many different areas and it is impossible for them to be expert in all of them. In the case of David Rose this is exacerbated because he has only been reporting on climate science for a couple of months and is getting his scientific information from Steve McIntyre.
It should be obvious that Lal and Latif know more about science and their own views than Rose, but when they say that he got it wrong, rather than admitting that he misunderstood them, Rose accuses them of lying:
"climate scientists find their views expressed to journalists make an unexpected impact, so they claim they were misquoted"
Alternatively, David Rose wouldn't have an interesting story if he accurately reported what the scientists said, so his incentive is to sex it up. And the newspaper he works for is more interested in selling papers than in the accuracy of their stories, so they support him in this. (The Daily Mail is infamous for its scare-mongering about vaccination.)
- Log in to post comments
See:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…
And allow me to quote:
"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."
Seems a certain Pielke Jr disagrees with that claim...
Rose, you're busted!
Could Rosegate develop to be the greatest press scandal this year? Possibly of the decade? Could it spell the end of the media juggernaut, the Daily Mai... er, the Mail on Sunday? Could it finally and without a shred out of doubt prove that denier journalists are LYING about the scientific evidence?!
...probably not.
OK. So let's get this right. Roger Pielke jnr writes a post in which he describes a long article by me about Climategate that quotes him several times as "well done," but takes issue with the fact that I've attributed the word "big" instead of "some" to him, in relation to the issues that may have to be revisited ion the light of the CRU emails.
Wow. Damning. Just damning. Well, I thought he said "big". Maybe (on this occasion) I was mistaken, but the sense is essentially the same. And one thing I have noticed that Roger's blog - a really superb resource - concerns itself with bigger things than this one.
But as I've already said, it's evident that nothing I write will make any difference. If you want to google me you'll find that over the years I've managed to do some fairly serious investigative pieces on some big and serious subjects: the Bush administration's role in triggering the Hamas coup in Gaza; Guantanamo, torture and extraordinary rendition; the terrifying extent of child abuse; the lies and twisted evidence that put a man on death row. But your correspondents have all made up their minds that I'm uniquely evil, being paid by who knows what to write lies, though I must say I was saddened to read the post from the person who used to know me as a caver.
I just hope Osama bin Laden, now that he's become concerned about AGW, isn't reading this blog, or I really am doomed. No doubt further rants will shortly appear below, but I shall not be posting here again.
Just one last point. 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.
Rose, you are terrible, terrible journalist when it comes to AGW. The fact that you misquoted Pielke gives credence to Lal and Latif's claims that you misquoted them.
Tell Steve McIntyre I said "Hi."
(And please don't change it to "Boris said you're doing a great job." All I said was "hi", capiche?)
Writing in a blog comment at Deltoid, Rose admitted the accusations against him were "Daming. Just Damning." Trying to downplay his egregious mistakes, Rose noted "[I]t's evident that nothing I write will make any difference." But has damage been done?
Rose wasn't finished, however. He concluded: "I'm uniquely evil, being paid...to write lies, though I must say I was saddened to read the post from the person who used to know me as a caver (Osama bin Laden)."
Kudos to admitting your bias, Mr. Rose.
>No doubt further rants will shortly appear below, but I shall not be posting here again.
"Georgie Porgie puddin' & pie..."
Yes, David, it IS damning. It shows you lied when you claimed no one ever said you had misquoted them before (Pielke clearly DID claim you misquoted him).
It also shows you inflating people's comments. Read what Pielke claims he said, and your interpretation of his words. It fits in your pattern of trying to make statements as inflammatory as possible.
Perhaps you have been a reasonably apt journalist on several other issues. That does not make you automatically trustworthy when it comes to climate. It looks strongly like you have a confirmation bias, and thus *think* you hear something that fits your prior notion. A bit like your Iraq-debacle.
I do sympathize with Mr. Rose per Pielke Jr. Trying to pin down Roger's penchant for semantically ambiguous gibberish is tough. Or is that what he finds 'superb'?
The David Rose version of events:
*A climate scientist is contacted by some unknown journalist (Rose). The climate scientist sings like a canary. When his interview - shockingly! - appears in print, he denies having said it.*
This version of events comes from someone with a history of misquoting people and who works for a publication with a *horrendous* reputation for [printing falsehoods](http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit/comments/aqe51/dear_reddit_please_stop_s…).
What sort of idiot is Rose to think anyone would be so stupid as to give him the benefit of the doubt?!
> No doubt further rants will shortly appear below, but I shall not be posting here again.
You call them rants, others might call them 'eviscerations' or 'rational, evidence-based deconstructions'. Your form of 'journalism' might be swallowed by the mouth-breathers over at the Mail, but it's not going to gain any traction with a vaguely intelligent, informed audience. Scuttle on back to the safety of your rag.
David R, I'm really sorry, but you don't seem to understand how your use of "big scientific questions" instead of "some scientific questions" impacts on the impression of the science.
The "big scientific questions" can easily allude to the entire theory of anthropogenic climate change, whereas "some" is merely questions on a few parts of the overall science, which is actually a normal state of affairs in any field of science. Hanging out at Climate Audit could colour anyone's views on climate science to the point where they see Guantanamo rendition style conspiracies where there are nothing of the sort.
The problem is that more people have probably read your typo than have read IPCC AR4 itself.
I for one am open to the idea that David Rose isn't misinforming on purpose, but it is equally clear to me he has allowed himself to be misinformed and unwittingly spreads this misinformation. This act has consequences, and if AGW turns out to be true after all, notwithstanding the obstruction of harassed scientists and the 0,1% mistakes in the IPCC reports, David Rose is in an ethical pickle.
Unfortunately the way the critique on his spreading misinformation is expressed (and again, I believe most commenters here have restrained themselves considerably) will force Mr Rose to entrench himself in his misinformed opinion, which increases the chance that he will spread misinformation again, this time with the aspect of spite added.
But Mr Rose, put yourself in the shoes of people who take the word of thousands of scientists in various scientific disciplines over that of - for the most part - amateurs who offer little to none scientific counterpoints and thus employ dubious tactics to gain traction in the MSM in order to create some alternative reality, as if winning the game by whatever means is all that matters.
I understand how the mind of most of the skeptics/denialists/inactivists works. Try to understand why people who think AGW could very well be a big problem, are so hard on you. They have a very good reason for it.
David Rose: You are missing the point; the difference is in the second part of RP Jr's statement.
RP Jr isn't a scientist; he's a policy guy. He's saying that the email episode will have implications of perception and politics. He isn't qualified to make judgments on whether any basic science comes into question.
A reader of your article would get a different impression.
You know something is happening
but you don't know what it is
Do you, Mr. Rose?
OK. I said I wouldn't post again but I was lying. (Aha! Again!!) Just to say: number 5, your comment is very witty and made me laugh out loud. But you're not me, so why pretend you are?
This is from the real David Rose. The one with the secret tattoo denoting membership of the Trilateral Commission (Daily Mail and General Trust chapter).
My faith in our distinguished host's, er, reporting skills is not helped by his dexterous use of the 'cut' bit of 'cut and paste'. Thus, he 'quotes'(!) Mr. Rose (about whom I know nothing) as writing: "Perhaps I should be flattered. I realise that nothing I write here will make a scrap of difference and uses this'quote'(!)to claim that Mr. Rose is admitting his own lack of credibility.
What Mr. Rose actually wrote was: "Perhaps I should be flattered. I realise that nothing I write here will make a scrap of difference to you." Ah, what a difference two little words can make! And, ah, what volumes they speak concerning the snipper-in-chief!
Still of the belief that it's only been cooling, Mr Duff?
Straining out gnats, and swallowing camels, are denier hallmarks.
Is that a David Duff parody or did he miss the train?
"My faith in our distinguished host's, er, reporting skills is not helped by his dexterous use of the 'cut' bit of 'cut and paste'. Thus, he 'quotes'(!) Mr. Rose (about whom I know nothing) as writing: "Perhaps I should be flattered. I realise that nothing I write here will make a scrap of difference and uses this'quote'(!)to claim that Mr. Rose is admitting his own lack of credibility."
At the risk of stating the obvious, Tim is being tongue-in-cheek. He's parodying Rose's own style by taking his words out of context and implying that he means things that he doesn't. In fact, the whole breathless (now up to 3 post) series on "Rosegate" is a style-parody of how the denialosphere operates. Each new pseudo-scandal gets flogged to death until the next one comes along.
This might be an obvious question Mr. Lambert, but what proof do you have that this "David Rose" commenter that you base this entire post on is the actual David Rose?
I ask that mostly because I never played for or managed the Cincinnati Reds.
> no correction has been made.
>> [UPDATE 12/13: I received a reply from David Rose who
>> said he would forward my request to the appropriate
>> editor.] Posted by Roger Pielke, Jr. at 12/12/2009
Who would the "appropriate editor" be? Anyone know?
Hi David Rose,
I think a lot of us are concerned with the use of grey literature in the IPCC reports, particularly when they get into the report without comment, or validation by relevant experts amongst the IPCC reviewers. I'm concerned that the IPCC didn't discover the error before publication. Mistakes happen, especially in large detailed reports that are done on volunteer time, but we still remain concerned, nonetheless.
On the other hand, I question your competence in these matters. The quotes you attributed to Dr. Lal are beyond credulity. Who in their right mind is going to publicly damn himself like that? Seriously. You should have asked for clarification when what you wrote down on your notepad didn't make any sense. Dr. Lal's corrections of your article makes way more sense than what you attributed to him.
Anyway, I'm not going to pretend how this was messed up. But, it's clear that you did not accurately reflect Dr. Lal's perspectives. It's also clear to me from your recent writings that you believe a number of things that aren't just outside of mainstream, they are way out in the fringe, and not only in the fringe, but completely unfounded in the scientific literature. I don't think you could find a single scientist to back up your claim that the recent cold spell in England is directly connected to the changing of ocean oscillations. It's beyond absurd. If you believe that, it's no wonder you think that people like Dr. Lal is trying to intentionally deceive the public. You seem to believe that tens of thousands of climate scientists are dishonest, and covering up the greatest hoax ever.
I gotta admit though. Life would be far more interesting if you are right. Wouldn't it be great if our layman intuitions were more reliable than the scientific community? Wouldn't it be great to expose those elitist scientists as frauds? That would be fascinating.
It's also wishful thinking that's not supported by credible evidence.
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 simply too much for me.
ps: some related insanity: Tilo Reber has posted a guest post on WattsUp. how low can you sink, when you have already hit the bottom???
Pete, you've hit the nail on the head. It's all been a hoax. I'm the guy that wrote The Stripper.
"But your correspondents have all made up their minds that I'm uniquely evil..."
Don't be so hard on yourself. You are hardly unique in your propensity for bullshitting.
"Still of the belief that it's only been cooling, Mr Duff?"
Always willing to indulge in a pleasant conversation, Mr. Bowers, but first you would need to be more explicit as to what, exactly, I am supposed to believe is cooling; and secondly, if you mean our globe then a quotation in which I expressed such a belief would be useful.
For what it's worth, it's knacker freezing here at the moment, er, but that's weather. isn't it?!
For what it's worth, it's knacker freezing here at the moment, er, but that's weather. isn't it?!
apart from being just weather, it also is NOT global.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
but you don t know the difference, do you?
This could have been better expressed, Tim, as it gives the impression that McIntyre is interested in propagating actual scientific information, instead of Sound Science - there's room here for the interpretation that he could be relaying honest error or misunderstanding, instead of working away at undermining the autonomy of science as an institution.
"it also is NOT global.
Indeed, 'Sod', but when it comes to temperature, what is?
David Rose is just another journo more concerned with producing a 'gotcha' story than getting the facts right.
He did manage a particularly egregious mangling of AGW science though. Top marks for that.
David Duff: "...but first you would need to be more explicit as to what, exactly, I am supposed to believe is cooling; and secondly, if you mean our globe then a quotation in which I expressed such a belief would be useful."
Right you are then:
http://www.johnband.org/blog/2009/06/08/proud-to-be-a-londoner/comment-…
"Incidentally, âLittle Willyâ, whatâs happened to all that global warming in the last 10 years?"
http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2009/06/target-for-tonight.html
"...Well I've got the mother of all trend lines - it's called a Loess line - and no I haven't a clue what it means, but if you go here you will see a pretty picture of several of them for the same 20 year period and guess what, it shows either temperatures holding steady or cooling slightly..."
http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2008/06/you-want-trend…
"...but the consensus of satellite measurements (generally considered to be the most reliable instruments) shows that at best the global temperature is in a state of hiatus but at worst (from his point of view) it has actually cooled slightly."
David Rose, it's admirable that you're willing to face your critics here. However, if you want full credit for walking into the lion's den, you can't just say, "Holy Shit! There are lions in here!" and then run out the exit. That kind of defeats the purpose of showing up.
The discourse here isn't always civil, but that's how it is anywhere. If you think ridicule or anger is inappropriate, then feel free to ignore anyone whose behavior seems out-of-line.
That would still leave you with some questions which deserve to be answered. Todd F, in #22 above, is asking you the same question I posed (politely, I hope) in an earlier thread. Regardless of whether or not your quotes were accurate, it's clear that Lal does not hold the opinions that your article implies. In that case, shouldn't you make an attempt to clarify what he really does believe?
If you give someone a choice between [Cake or Death](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNjcuZ-LiSY), and they accidentally say "Death," before they say "Cake cake cake!" you probably ought to be willing to go ahead and give them the cake.
J Bowers, Thanks for #31. You are fart too polite to our ignorant troll Dumb Duff. Not only is Duff and ignorant idiot, he is also, by his own words below, a bigot, perhaps even a racist (I'm picturing an old white fart who thinks that he is God's gift to mankind):
"David Duff
June 9th, 2009 at 13:22 | #9 Reply | Quote
The long lost Larry Teabag, forsooth! It was worth wading through âLittle Willyâsâ usual diarrhea just to hear from you again.
Incidentally, âLittle Willyâ, whatâs happened to all that global warming in the last 10 years? No, on second thoughts donât bother replying to that, your written equivalent of the clicks and grunts of a Kalahari bushman is simply too, too, tedious."
"Clicks and grunts of a Kalahari bushman". Actually, Dumb Duff, these PEOPLE prefer to be called "The San" or "Basarwa", and they have managed to survive in one of the harshest environments on the planet for millenia. Show some respect you effing pillock.
What Mr. Rose actually wrote was: "Perhaps I should be flattered. I realise that nothing I write here will make a scrap of difference to you." Ah, what a difference two little words can make! And, ah, what volumes they speak concerning the snipper-in-chief!
Your analytical methods work just as badly on rhetoric as they do on climate science.
A Rose by any other name...
This guy is a classic Trollunist
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/11/03/trollumnists/
David Rose thinks he has been poorly treated by commentators here and resents being called a liar. Letâs see what commentators to the Mail website have to say, having read David Roseâs misinformation.
â..global warming people have been proven to manipulate data and lie..â
â..this was a deliberate action to create the myth of man made global warming..â
â..just hope the IPCC pays back the trillions of dollars its received..â
â...the unsupported drivel conconted by the IPCC...â
âAs with all liars it will be difficult to beleive anything they say in future.â
âThere are obscene amounts of money being made out of this scam...â
"Lies", "fraud", "scam" - it goes on and on.
And it was particularly nice of David Rose to bracket scientists along with child abusers and torturers. Does David Rose even see this as a problem?
I guess the next talking point is up now:
http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/climate_scientists…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
Short version: Phil Jones guilty of incorrectly complying with FOI request, but it's too late to be charged for it.
It ends up being win-win for denialists. They get the "guilty" (and will claim it's about hiding data and code) and can probably also claim that nothing was done because of incorrect usage of tinfoil hats.
It makes me wonder, though: is there no way to correctly not-comply with a FOI request? From what I read of the emails, it sounded like Jones honestly thought that the FOI was frivolous and outside the scope of the institution's actual obligations. Can I get a sexy intern's underpants through FOI? What's obligatory and what's not?
David Duff.
You really do struggle with the concept of appropriately representing trends for sufficiently acceptable periods of time, don't you?
Do some homework and read [this thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/the_australians_war_on_science_…
) and [this one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/sixth-degree_polynomial_fits_j…
), and see whether or not you are able to figure out why [your effort at describing climatic trends](http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2008/06/you-want-trend…) (and I apply, with much generosity, the term 'trends' to your drawing) is hopelessly inappropriate just plain wrong.
[Fallenmonk](http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2008/06/you-want-trend…) even tells you that your selection of starting parameters/granularity are up the duff, in the non-pregnant sense, but it seems that any sense at all has yet to avail itself to your practise of 'curve-fitting'. Your response (which I have archived, by the way) involving the movement of the goal posts to a pointless point about hockey sticks completely... misses the point.
As to [your concern](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) about Tim Lambert's 'selective quoting', [Steve Reuland](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) has already patiently explained to you the irony that flew right over your head, but I would add that the penny should have dropped for you when ["David Rose Quotes David Rose"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) said his piece.
Obviously your brain has been iced up...
Well, hopefully, the Information Commissionerâs Office will also advise that the enquiry introduce fines, or some kind of punitive measures, for deliberately wasting the time of those obliged to comply with FOIA requests in an effort to distract them from their usual business.
Changes in rules and regulations can have a double edge to the sword.
Meanwhile, China's sea levels are apparently at a record high. Has that been posted on WUWT yet? Oh, no, gosh, look, they're posting; "Ice in Chinese ports âexceeding anything experienced in 30 yearsâ". Quel surpris!
If this subject matter is relatively new to David Rose, then I suggest that he do some reading on the historical context in which the whole climate science / anthropogenic global warming issue is being debated in the MSM, *and* behind closed doors. Knowing the basics about the science would clearly help too but that does take time to acquire.
Reading Plimer's H&E is not what I mean, either.
Surely this could all be easily cleared up if David Rose would simply provide the recordings of his interview with Dr Lal. Of course, he would need Dr Lal's permission but I imagine this would be forthcoming (it would be worrying if it weren't). Posting the sound file (or providing it to an acceptable third party to summarise and report) would let us all know who said what.
[Dez](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…).
David Rose admitted that [he did not make a voice recording](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…) of the interview with Lal: he only took ([Quick Quote](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_objects_in_Harry_Potter#Quick_Quot…)?) 'quillings'.
For obvious reasons a journalist's unverified hand-written notes hardly constitute evidence of the reality of an interview, as neither the datings nor the content is independent of said journalist, nor of said journalist's conscious or subconscious baises. To this end, either a voice recording or notes provided by the interviewee would serve as a reliable record of the intent of meaning of the interviewee. However, even though [Rose claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…) to to have been "a journalist for almost 30 years", and even though he comments on extremely topical and profoundly serious matters, such as anthropogenic climate change and the a priori obviously illegal and unjustified invasion of Iraq, it seems that he had not thought to protect both his interviewee's and his own arses with intern-level duty-of-care.
He may bluster that he is a profesional, but the quality of his understanding of science, and the cavalier disregard that he exhibits for proper documentation of his 'research', both indicate that he leans more toward 'hack' than to 'investgative journalist'.
His feeble attempts on Deltoid at defense of his behaviour do nothing to dissuade me of this impression.
Dez: "Surely this could all be easily cleared up if David Rose would simply provide the recordings of his interview with Dr Lal"
No recording, only notes.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…
Hmm, 'verbatim notes' eh? Seems an optimistic concept. It may be reasonable if you've got a professional transcriber doing nothing but recording what's said (and even then it's well-known that serious errors occur), but conducting an interview at the same time as (attempting) to take down comprehensive notes is going to introduce numerous problems. [LanguageLog](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/) has discussed numerous examples of this kind of problem, even where the interviewer has made an audio recording (and simply mis-transcribes, inappropriately paraphrases, or whatever).
I'm not claiming that David Rose went as far as [John Harlow of the Sunday Times](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2086), but he's certainly put himself in a situation where he can't claim to have an accurate record of interview; because there isn't one, only his own notes.
So I think it's disingenuous of David Rose to claim that he made 'verbatim notes' and that these are totally trustworthy. And while it's also true that Dr Lal would not have perfect recall of what he said, he surely has a clear sense of what he _would_ and _would not_ have said.
I see now that I missed several points (in the previous posting) where David Rose admits he didn't record his interview. Sorry to have rehashed this point--it's can be hard keeping up with the speed of blog commenting.
Recording interviews is SOP at least here in the US.
Maybe the UK has declined even further than we've thought. Maybe reporters can't even afford a cheap-assed tape recorder, which would explain why they might be bought for a fiver ...
> 35 A Rose by any other name...
Might be called [The World Health Organization](http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2010/h1n1_pandemic_20100…)
What goes around, comes around. That's how it is with karma.
When will you debunk Costella on Climategate ?
David Rose states that someone claiming they sent someone a letter and another person saying they didn't receive a letter are in contradiction. Need I point out that this is not necessarily a contradiction?
It seems there is no frackking consensus. WWF PR and Greenpeace delusions make up the IPCC. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/greenpeace-and-nobel-wi…
This really is my last contribution. In Britain, it has for many years and remains standard practice to take contemporaneous written notes of journalistic interviews, and the techniques of how to do so are basic to reporters' training. In the nine years I've been writing for the American magazine Vanity Fair, I have continued to use this method, and it has proven acceptable to its editors and rigorous fact-checking department. I do record interviews when I expect them to be contentious, or to have to reproduce very long verbatim passages, but I avoid doing so most of the time because working from a recording is far more time consuming than reading back from notes. When I phoned Dr Lal I had no expectation he would say anything very interesting. But I assure you yet again that what I wrote he said, he said, and no one was more surprised than I. But that, after all, is why it was newsworthy.
I'd also like to point out that Roger Pielke's complaint is of a very different order from Dr Lal's. Roger disputes one word, whereas Lal claims I made up an entire interview. Why would I do such a thing? I've been around long enough to know that to behave in such a manner would be bonkers. Y'all have a good weekend.
To flagrantly mis-represent (or completely misunderstand) AGW would also be bonkers - but you did it.
Who's making money besides the oil-funded anti-science think tanks? Great work if you can get it.
I do record interviews when I expect them to be contentious
But since everyone pretty much agrees on AGW, there was obviously no need.
[Language Log](http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2086) on reporters:
>There are other reasons that I prefer to answer journalists' questions via email, but this is certainly a good one all by itself.
>Based on the links above, or the dozens of other examples we've documented over the years, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that many if not most journalists feel free to mis-remember, select, edit, re-order, fill in, and generally simulate (not to say fabricate) quotes, to fit the story that they've decided to tell. When the mis-quotes are roughly congruent with at least some out-of-context piece of what the source actually said, then nobody usually pays any attention, even if a recording of the misquoted passage is easily available.
>But another fact about journalists is that they sometimes â maybe often â don't really know much about the topic of their story. This is especially likely to be a problem with science reporting, where misunderstanding may lead to airbrushed quotes that are nonsensical, or at least largely unrelated to what any sources ever actually said.
Voice transcription software.
I bought DSN last year, and it works well. V9 is cheaper - and from what I hear better - than v10, so there's really no excuse...
Science and technology have both eluded you, haven't they?
I'd also like to point out that Roger Pielke's complaint is of a very different order from Dr Lal's. Roger disputes one word, whereas Lal claims I made up an entire interview.
again David, you made a simple claim:
"I've never misquoted anyone, and until I wrote about Dr Lal, no one had ever claimed I had."
both parts of that claim turned out to be wrong. you misquoted Pielke. and you did so very recently. and he complained about it, even writing a blog post.
you were caught with a lie, while defending your reputation of honesty.
i would call this epic failure.
I really do think Mr/Mrs/Ms. J. Bowers deserves a medal for spending so much time ploughing through all my past scribblings in an effort to find a quote in which I stated my belief that the globe is cooling, only to find a re-iterated emphasis on my own personal scientific ignorance and a series of links to sundry scientific types who claim either to have disproved the claim that the earth is warming, or propose that in the last 10 or so years it has slightly cooled. Allow me to re-iterate yet again, I have no scientific qualification to make any claim on this subject beyond the obvious and indisputable fact that the temperature of the earth's atmosphere has always changed up and down which is an enormous relief because stasis would be a disaster. If you dislike/disbelieve the claims of the people I quote, take it up with them. Then you can all swap diagrams adnd statistics to your heart's content.
However, what I do know a little bit about is human nature and politics. Within the last couple of days 'St. Barack of Obama' made a speech in which he mentioned the settled science of global warming. Now, there are many possibilities as to how his audience might have re-acted, maybe approbation and applause, or possibly anger and abuse (like one gets here) but instead - they laughed!. Yes, they actually laughed at him and his silly notion!
The party's over, folks, when they laugh at you your cause is lost. So, allow me to introduce you to the theory of exploding meteorites which, if not dealt with immediately will bring an end to human life on this planet ... wait a minute ... why are you all laughing ...?
David Duff: "I really do think Mr/Mrs/Ms. J. Bowers deserves a medal for spending so much time ploughing through all my past scribblings..."
Don't flatter yourself. It took 10 minutes while actually looking for other things, and prior to your comment here which was how I recognised your name in the first place; you do seem to make a concerted effort to stand out from the crowd.
This comment took less than a minute, by the way.
So, David Duff, by [your own admission](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) you:
and yet you don't seem to understand why [your playing at constructing 'trends'](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) is so roundly disparaged.
Having a bet each way, hmmm?
And on the matter of changing climate, you have missed the very obvious fact that it is the rate of mean global temperature change that is especially important, and not the trivial fact of change itself. You are confabulating two very different mathematical/physical issues, and this is leaving aside the eventual magnitude of the shift in mean global temperature, which is also an issue in its own right.
I guess that this happens though, when a self-confessed scientific ignorant nevertheless pretends to have the capacity to engage in scientific analysis and commentary.
Oh, and have you thought yet to address [the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…
) that [I put to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php#comm…
)?
David Rose:
I can picture a door at Vanity Fair with a sign on it saying:
RIGOROUS FACT-CHECKING DEPARTMENT (honest)
The Duffer:
We laugh at you so you can get lost now.
Bernard (if I may use the familiar), you keep referring to "my efforts" and "my trends" and so forth, and I keep telling you, as I emphasised to my readers at the time, that I wouldn't know a Loess line from a fishing line! I merely reproduce it as an example of a 'sientific', or at least a mathematical, diagram seeking to prove exactly the opposite of claims that global temperatures have increased. Similarly, as your plaintive cries to the effect that "the science is settled", so the number of shouts of dissent from people whose qualifications are the equal of yours increases almost daily particularly since certain, er, embarrassments have become public.
I accept completely your comment to the effect that the rate of change is hugely important, er, but first you need to prove without doubt that there is a change at all! At that point, men of goodwill (are there any here?) will urge the scientists to greater efforts to come to some conclusion which, alas, they have not yet managed.
As to your questions, which were not addressed to me but to someone else, I could answer them if I had the time and inclination to reproduce here the work of scientists who do not agree with the AGW proposition, but what would be the point? You would dismiss their reports with equal disdain. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" because in the end "That old common arbitrator, Time, will one day end it"! In the meantime, just so long as you lot do not get your grubby, greedy, power-mad hands on my money, you can parade up and down with your 'The end of the world is nigh' placards for as long as you like.
Now, are you sure I can't interest you in my theory of exploding meteors - it's the coming thing, you kno, and it pays to book early!
Someone spouted "'The end of the world is nigh' .
Err, climate scientists are not saying that. Calm down, and read the AR4 again (assuming that you even bothered to try and read it before).
There is a nice rock over there Dumb Duff, go boy! Good boy, now stay!
Duff writes:
>*but first you need to prove without doubt that there is a change at all! At that point, men of goodwill (are there any here?) will urge the scientists to greater efforts to come to some conclusion which, alas, they have not yet managed.*
Boy Duff, do you have some reading to catchup on:
>*"2.1 The warming of global climate is now unequivocal. There are many observations of increasing air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea levels."*
[Here is](http://www.greenfacts.org/en/climate-change-ar4/index.htm) a condensed summary for you to gloss over what you are currently ignoring.
David Duff [says]():
If, by your own admission, you do not understand the statistical procedures which which you are attempting to describe climatic trends, then why are you applying them "to prove exactly the opposite of claims that global temperatures have increased"? Essentially you are telling us that you don't have a clue what you're doing, or when it might be appropriate to do so, but that you'll do it anyway to 'prove' your own personal ideological point.
You're a numpty with an ideological hammer, and to you everything looks like an AGW denialist's nail, including the grandfather clock that is AGW.
It seems that even though you admit your statistical ignorance, you believe that you are nevertheless able to apply statistical methodologies appropriately. Sorry, but that logic doesn't hold - beyond the tenuous statistical possibility that you may perform a correct analysis purely by random chance...
There's [a term for the condition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) where people who don't know something, and don't know that they don't know something.
All competent scientists and statisicians accept without doubt that there has been a change in the planet's mean temperature. Feel free though to point out those whom you believe are competent and who also think that there has been no change in mean global temperature.
Duff, by my very asking, the questions were, and continue to be, addressed to you. The fact that they have been addressed to many other Denialists on Deltoid is irrelevant to your protestation, but it is very relevant that like others here who exercise Denialist compadrazgo, you choose to avoid answering them.
And believe me, if you answer any of the questions, I and others here will "dismiss" them only after we have carefully determined that they are devoid of scientific content. So there's the challenge for you - present some answers that have scientific merit.
I've been waiting for months for just one decent response.
It's cute though that you are more than willing to repeatedly appear here and elsewhere, to try to tell appropriately educated and experienced scientists that they are wrong, but that you are too petulant to provide in the process a skerrick of solid evidence to actually support your claims.
Perhaps you really are the 6 year old school-child whose level of argument your own so closely resembles.
I'm off to the theatre today so no time for a detailed reply but I was struck by this from 'J' (well, he obviously doesn't care for the friendly use of Christian names):
"All competent scientists and statisicians accept without doubt that there has been a change in the planet's mean temperature".
I AGREE - HURRAH!
But alas (BOO!), they do not seem to be able to agree on whether it is going up, going down, or, for the last 10 years, bimbling along neither up nor down, and that's before they even reach the question of what causes the change, assuming there is one!
Sorry, 'J', I know you're a scientist and all that but you really must get your people to agree on something, say the time of day, or whether it's raining or not. Start from there and work upwards in a spirit of collegiate good nature. If you don't, scientific illiterates, like me, will laugh at you, ask that nice Mr. Obama, and that Mr. 'Millipede' in The Observer today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/31/ed-miliband-climate-c…
Duff accepts correction on one argument:
>>"All competent scientists and statisicians accept without doubt that there has been a change in the planet's mean temperature".
>*I AGREE - HURRAH!*
But then falls into the next denialist trap:
>*But alas (BOO!), they do not seem to be able to agree on whether it is going up, going down, or, for the last 10 years*
David, let me help you correct that:
>*But alas (BOO!), they do not seem to be able to agree on w[eather]...*
[Hear is](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/) your next homework assignment.
And [here is](http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/plot/gistemp/from:1980/t…) is a summary in pictures.
David Duff, who is, incidentally, [unaware](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) of the convention where surnames may be used to refer to a person in instances subsequent to the initial use of the same person's full name, moves the goal posts faster than a croupier shifts chips on a card table.
He started with [his own admission](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) that he had:
even though [he takes it upon himself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) to attempt to demonstrate that there is no warming trend in the global climate.
He [then said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…), in apparently complete contradiction to his previous statement:
When [I pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) that:
[he agreed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) ("HURRAH!"), apparently no longer fixated on the requirement of finding the proof, but then changes direction again and rabbits on that scientists:
He seems completely oblivious as to why this last statement of his his totally bogus nonsense, but [jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…) points in him the right direction with reference to [a pertinent post by Tamino on Open Mind](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/).
This post of Tamino's is so relevant in fact, that it bears repeating the last two paragraphs:
The third last paragraph is interesting too:
Without a reading of the whole post of Tamino's the mathematics are abstract, but the implication is clear: a 15 year period at least is required to identify with statisitcal confidence a trend in the temperature trajectory, and the statisitcal analyses indicate that any significant trend is a positive (warming) one and not a negative (cooling) one.
Oh, and there is no indication that the climatic trend is changing, the fallacy of attempting to comment on periods of leass than 15 years from the present notwithstanding.
Duff's hopping around from one point to another is bad enough, but that he cannot absorb the lesson of the futility of commenting on the too-short a period with which he himself attempts to identifiy 'trends' is simple proof of the fact that, to use [his own words](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_still_growing…), he:
He's just another ideologue who doesn't let his own profound ignorance stand in the way of commenting on matters beyond his ken, and in the process he mows over scientific facts in the same fashion that a 16 year old learner driver skittles a line of witch's hats.
Sadly, [such situations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect) have always been, and will ever be, thus. As the Bertrand Russell quote on the last link observes:
Alas, our imperfect world!
a comment left here David Rose has admitted that he has no credibility, conceding that "nothing I write here will make a scrap of difference".
Wow, that was an extremely disingenuous quote you used, Mr. Lambert. He said nothing that he wrote would make a difference to YOU, implying that you are not interested in facts that disagree with your position. You should be ashamed.
Kevin, I think this whole series is Tim trying to satirize the Denialosphere.
Kevin, Tim is using Rose's techniques on Rose!
At least you've noticed the dishonest sensationalist journalist's tactics in action. You will be equally perceptive in commenting on The efforts of people like Rose, I expect. Rose should indeed be ashamed, but his hide is too thick for that, as his comments show.
The "First, Deltoid can reveal..." bit sort of gives it away. I've never seen TL use that kind of phrasing in any of his blog posts before.
The point of this style of journalism is to whip a relatively irrelevent issue into a massive meme by sheer brute force and volume or correspondence. So when Rose says he should be "flattered" at the attention, he's sort of missing the point.
God I don't think I've read such childish crap since I was at school. You, Tim, remind me of the character Nelson off The Simpsons.
By the way, appropriately for the above cartoon, the Daily Mail is also infamous for its [cancer-related stories](http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=mail+cancer&init=quick#/group.php?gid…)
"God I don't think I've read such childish crap since I was at school. You, Tim, remind me of the character Nelson off The Simpsons."
You don't have much of a sense of irony, do you?
The vast bulk of denialist "literature" is childish crap, and journalists like Rose are just a more sinister version - they do know better, but choose to mislead.
So what do you think of Rose's articles? (Have you read them?? ) Do you understand the distortion techniques he indulges in? Can you see that Tim is doing a Rose?
One of the delights of satire is the people who don't get it, and reveal their blinkers and biases in the process.
The influx of people of people unable to detect satire comes [courtesy of Tim "not getting it" Blair](http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegra…).
Go on Tim, repeat the one about Danny Glover!
"I was being satirical! I was joking! Waaaah!"
Ex post claims of satire - the last refuge of the mendacious idiot caught out being a mendacious idiot.
Lambert, you're a fool.
Maybe the cartoon was too complex for Ewan to understand?
They're not the sharpest pencils in the box over at Blair's.
SMACKDOWN.
Ewan Henry Lee starts with his own poor satire:
>*"I was being satirical! I was joking! Waaaah!"*
then adds his misrepresentation (rooted in Ewan's use of either false naiveté, or bias induced blindness- similar to Rose's?):
>*"Ex post claims of satire"*
Then used his disingenous represention to draw his fabricated conclusion:
>*"the last refuge of the mendacious idiot caught out being a mendacious idiot."*
Could Ewan Henry Lee act like more of "mendacious idiot"?
Ewan, do you realsie that Tim's satire also fits with critique of your mendacious tactics. And he got you 'Ex post'. Were you trying to walk into that one?
James writes:
>*"God I don't think I've read such childish crap since I was at school. You, Tim, remind me of the character Nelson off The Simpsons."*
God James, I don't think I'll read such childish rubbish as this for a long long time:
>*You [...] remind me of the character Nelson off The Simpsons."*
POE right?, If POE you are brillant!
You know, with all the crap the denialists are barfing up, Eli is getting sick and fucking tired of being a reasonable bunny. Screw this clown and the horse he rode in on.
Well, I hope you guys appreciate David Duff more. Even though he didn't notice that my misquote was a parody of Rose's misquote of Pielke Jr, he did get it after it was explained to him.
I particularly like that they decide that it couldn't be satire because they don't get the joke.
Oh no Tim. It looks like you've shown up Blair. Watch he doesn't call you and hang up mid-call again.
Ewan, it's been said, but I feel compelled to drive it home: This IS satire, and has been for the past three blog posts by Tim. The single fact that he called this the "Rosegate scandal" should have made it blindingly obvious. Sorry if this goes over your head - the fool here is you.
DAVID ROSE did a puff piece aht Alan Grayson was this big litigator,
Turns out in qui tam actions, he recovery nothing, he was sanctioned, and some of his clients feel they got had.
How DID DAvid Rose get so suckered on his Vanity FAIRE piece, is he clueless how courts work in the U S