Of Geese and Ganders

"Show me the code!" This is the rallying cry of climate "skeptics" everywhere and the foundation of the numerous climate conspiracy insinuations hurled around the blogosphere.

Well, apparently what is good for the goose, the infamous Hockeystick, is not so good for the gander, the Wegman Report.

Please see John Mashey's article on Desmog Blog.

Where is the code promised to Waxman almost 6 years ago?  Dr. Mann's code was written for a research paper in 1999. Wegman's was used for a high-profile Congressional report widely publicized by Reps. Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield, announced in the Wall Street Journal.

Surely such prominent code and data had not been lost in the immediately-following months?  Given Wegman's criticism of Mann, surely it was well-documented?

Where is Climate Audit when you really need them?

Also be sure to check out the latest on Wegman and the plagarism scandals at Deep Climate.

More like this

Last month the National Research Council report on climate reconstructions released its report and basically vindicated the hockey stick. This was widely reported in the media. But not in The Australian. I did a search through the archives of The Australian to see what they had published about…
It seems that substantial evidence compiled by John Mashey has helped lead to an investigation into Edward Wegman's possible academic misconduct in the production of his very prominent report to Congress [PDF] on the Hockeystick. See DesmogBlog for background, USA Today for the story, and Deep…
Lifted from comments. John Mashey writes: The saga continues... inspired by Deep Climate, I've been examining the Wegman Report in detail. Plodding patience pays off... but the latest is an example of breathtakingly-bizarre incompetence. Many WR references were sourced through Barton staffer Peter…
Dan Vergano in USA Today reports: Officials at George Mason University confirmed Thursday that they are investigating plagiarism and misconduct charges made against a noted climate science critic. "I'm very well aware of the report, but I have been asked by the university not to comment until all…

Oh come on coby!

You don't expect the same degree of integrity from deniers that you do from scientists do you? Next thing you know you will be demanding that wattsupmybutt actually reads the papers they are commenting on.

I well remember the argument I had with crakar about plagiarism. He was all over (I think it was) Hansen like a cheap suit with his claims about plagiarism and demanded that skip and I condemn him. And he wouldn't take yes for an answer when I said that I condemn any plagiarism no matter who was involved.

But he fell strangely silent when it turned out that there was no plagiarism involved. Then when I made similar demands from him to condemn Wegman for proven plagiarism he showed just what a hypocrite he was.

Seems nothing much has changed in the alternative universe inhabited by deniers.

Ok, so when climate studies are published, all data and computer codes should be available to the public. Glad to see everyone on board with this.

Problem is, juice, that the deniers aren't.

They only demand it of others and refuse themselves.

I would pop over to WUWT and Bishop Hill et al and mention that they need to get on board the idea that climate studies, when published, all data and computer codes must be made available to the public.

Because, at the moment, despite saying they would specifically, they have still not done this six years later.

One thing to keep in mind though, when you're inclined to issue a "tu quoque" critique like this one, or when some beyond-the-pale provocation pops up that couldn't have been designed to elicit any more outrage & volume, is the possibility that it could be co-opted, or was planned, to serve in a "funhouse mirrors tu quoque" gambit -- since at this point in time, carpet-bombing the public conversation with intense he-said-she-said decrial & confusion & distraction has got to be the best strategy the fossil fuels industry has left; since science and the climate are both now refuting them. And rolling out more Serengeti attacks would do the job.

Further delay is these folks' bread and butter -- and they're the sharpest strategists money can buy, pushing a position not aligned with civic or moral values. Potential influence isn't going to get left on the table.

Would the intention be to use the gambit, or just to hobble communicators with the implied threat of its use? Both would serve, as Lessig pointed out in the campaign finance arena.

It could also be a "volumizer" to prep the ground for an escalated next move - or to encourage the audience to tune out in "both sides" disgust.

By Anna Haynes (not verified) on 20 Jul 2012 #permalink

The deniers power comes from the fact that they have absolutely no need for truth or accuracy.

With a complete lack of shame and no consequence for lying their arses off, the denier can ALWAYS "win" an argument to their side's satisfaction.