Steve McIntyre caught quote mining again

Deep Climate catches Steve McIntyre in a particularly outrageous piece of quote mining. McIntyre strips a sentence written by Trenberth from its context to make it appear that Trenberth was saying that Jones was an IPCC author for the first time, when in fact Trenberth was saying that Jones was an IPCC lead author for the first time.

My comment from a previous McIntyre quote mining incident still applies:

You don't have to take my word for any of this -- check it out for yourself and ask yourself if you can trust the claims McIntyre makes about things that aren't so easy to check.

More like this

What? Some deluded people still take McIntyre seriously? Pffft. That's sooooo September 10th.

By Former Skeptic (not verified) on 20 Jan 2011 #permalink


By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 20 Jan 2011 #permalink

I'm thinking that this constant stream of bullshit by Watts, McIntyre, et al. is just a way to get the conspiracy theorists' testosterone levels pumped up 24/7/365.

If the bullshit stops, then the audience may stop thinking with their blood and start thinking with their brains, and won't that be bad!

McIntyre quote mining? Inconceivable! What next? Watts doesn't understand temperature anomaly?

You keep hyusing dat word. I do not-a think it means what you think-a it means.

And over at Deep Climate, we get the usual nonsensical calls for reconciliation:

> The audience can stipulate that you [DC and McIntyre], um, dislike one another and, er, disagree with one another's interpretations.

> How about putting that aside. On the varied matters of fact, can you identify you opponent's strongest arguments? Which have merit? Are there any bases for that old trope, "reasonable people can disagree?"

My reply (still in moderation):

> AMac, are you saying that we shouldn't try to debunk obvious bullshit, because doing so may upset some people? Yeah right. Boo-hoo.

Tim Lambert says:

> ...Steve McIntyre ... was an IPCC lead author ... take my word for ... this ... you can trust the claims McIntyre makes ...

Am I doing it right? :)

>...Steve McIntyre ... strips ... Trenberth for the first time...

Um, I think I'm doing it wrong.

It is called "Denialist Chum" folks, and Stephen McIntyre is a pro at it. Nice fella eh? Not.

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 20 Jan 2011 #permalink


I've got three comments up at CA right now all of which end with the tag line: "Steve is Wrong". Waiting for them to be deleted.

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 20 Jan 2011 #permalink


No surprise there. Why it cross-post them here for the record?

We don't want McINtyre's denialist chums getting to censor freely....

By MapleLeaf (not verified) on 20 Jan 2011 #permalink

Quote mining? I'd say it's misrepresentation to the point of lying.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 21 Jan 2011 #permalink

Hey, how about that? They didn't get deleted, but the fun does continue -- take a look at the responses to me.

By Rattus Norvegicus (not verified) on 21 Jan 2011 #permalink

Workin' in the quote mine,goin down,down,down

Workin in the quote mine,whoops about to slip down

Five a clock in tha mornin',I'm already up and gone

Lord I'm so tired,how long can this go o-o-on?

Endlessly,it seems.

Has McIntyre issued a correction?.......sorry, silly question.

Am I alone in wondering what on earth the fuss is all about?

Does anyone still take McIntyre seriously? Please, everyone, let him fade into oblivion, (which is where he was heading till he pressed the right buttons). He can keep his fans who want to waste their time speculating on the meaning of random phrases in private emails rather than consider how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, restore oceans, stop deforestation etc.

Time to call a stop to this. Don't let the idiots get to you. There are more important matters on the table.

But Sou, he's the can-do guy who took down the biggest plank of the Global Warming argument. He showed than anyone can review climate science. He's the maverick driving wedges into the cracks in the Ivory Tower!

(thought I'd get in before the fans)

Wow, Rattus, you show a lot of patience with those cross-eyed, navel-gazing, teeny-nit nitpickers. I would probaly just try to post repeatedly in huge letters: So Why Doesn't McIntyre Do Some Real Actual Science Instead of Bloggy Gossipy Nitpicking?

By Holly Stick (not verified) on 22 Jan 2011 #permalink

I offer a question:

Is there any difference between:

1) Claiming the moon is made of cheese, as Orr Wallace and Gromit


2) Claiming that, and then that the astronauts who claim otherwise are a cabal of liars who just dud so to help NASA get a lot of money

By John Mashey (not verified) on 22 Jan 2011 #permalink

Especially since we know that Wallace and Gromit both have major cheese interests.

By Holly Stick (not verified) on 22 Jan 2011 #permalink

re: 20
Yes, we've visited Wensleydale.

But, while I couldn't resist, #19 was actually an instance of a serious question in the real world, relevant to this thread.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 22 Jan 2011 #permalink

John @19, the difference being one has constructed a narrative that attack those who are in a position to know the facts from personal experience.

John @19, the difference being one has constructed a narrative that attack those who are in a position to know the facts from personal experience.

McIntyre will file this one under "mischief". Well done Rattus for doing the hard yards over there at loon central. And Amac is a honest broker if slightly misguided.

By Bill O'Slatter (not verified) on 22 Jan 2011 #permalink

John's 1) is about someone constructing a fantasy, whether out of whimsey or ignorance or a deliberate wish to deceive other people (perhaps because they are employed by Big Cheese for this purpose).

2) is about someone defending that fantasy by attacking the competing story even though it is more realistic; because they prefer the fantasy, or they don't want to admit they are wrong, or they want to continue deceiving other people.

By Holly Stick (not verified) on 22 Jan 2011 #permalink

>Is there any difference between:

I don't think so because if (1) were true then something like (2) would have to be true as well.

Unfortunately, Dr. Curry tries to breathe new life into McIntyre by adopting him and constantly running interference. She's gone so far for him, her embrasure of other denialists - for instance, apparently 100% of the Heartland institute - is going to suffer if every time McIntyre is mentioned his portfolio of deceit is cited as common knowledge. She can be Bill Keller to his Judy Miller.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 22 Jan 2011 #permalink

re: #19
Actually, I'm thinking of a difference that actually matters.

While it is complex and messy, people might want to look at defamation law. It might apply to #2, but it is hard to apply to #1.

That is:

1) some people can tell untruths (repeatedly) about science, with zero consequences.

2) BUT if they tell untruths about people that might damage reputations, in some circumstances, that is *actionable*, can lead to civil litigation and in some places even criminal.

For example, if in #2, it were shown that:
a) Untruths were told either with malice or with insufficient care

b) People believed what was said, perhaps repeated it

c) And others' reputations were damaged, or they were harassed as a result

then there might be a case for defamation. Some of us have a habit of archiving some blog conversations for possible later use, just in case.

Maybe a credible threat of a lawsuit would lead to a groveling apology. If Tim Ball ever comes to Australia, someone should hand that out at meetings.

Andrew Weaver sues National Post is even more interesting (given the remedies demanded), and from all accounts, the attorney on that is a top Canadian libel lawyer.

American libel law is state-based and messy. Canadian libel law appears to be more straightforward. UK libel law is tough on defendants, but undergoing revision. I don't know anything about Australian law. Internet defamation law is messy, but in some cases, it might be possible to sue in multiple relevant venues.

A similar 1&2 analogy applies to the Wegman report, and perhaps this will help make mroe sense of some eents of the last year:

1) It is filled with errors and untruths and bad science and even bad statistics and one can expose those, but nothing happens. (Well, there are some that might be actionable, but it is complex.)

2) The WR plagiarism is certainly actionable and simple.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 22 Jan 2011 #permalink

Re:#19 through #25,
Makes me wonder who is going to deliver the Buzz Punch for climate science?

I haven't heard half so much from the "fake moonlanding" mob since Buzz Aldrin "explained" to Bart Sibrel that he was wrong:

Maybe Trenberth should be taking martial arts classes :-)

You might find some parallels in the James Keegstra case in Canada. He was found guilty of hate speech for teaching Holocaust denial and for demonizing Jews to his students.

So when people demonize climate scientists as a class, are they committing hate speech?

Note that for his appeal to the Supreme Court, he tried to prove the truth of his statements on the balance of probability but was unable to.

By Holly Stick (not verified) on 23 Jan 2011 #permalink

Correction, that was for his appeal to the Court of Appeal, not the Supreme Court.

By Holly Stick (not verified) on 23 Jan 2011 #permalink