Chronicle on Barton Letters

The Chronicle of Higher Education posted on July 1, 2005 here has some comments on the Barton Letters and on me.

The writer, Richard Monastersky, says that:

Mr. McIntyre did not respond to an e-mail message requesting an interview for this article.

At 2.46 pm yesterday, Monastersky, sent me an email asking to speak to me. At 4.41 pm, I sent him the following email:

Tomorrow is Canada Day and this is a long week-end here. I’m unavailable until Monday or Tuesday. I provided the following comment to another inquiry, which may anticipate your question: I was contacted by a staffer for the House Committee for confirmation following the report in the Wall Street Journal that Mann et al. had refused to release important portions of their source code. At no time were either Dr McKitrick or myself ever asked to help in framing the requests for information in the Barton letters nor did we do so. We have recently published articles about the Mann et al. [1998] in Geophysical Research Letters and Energy and Environment and I have commented extensively at my blog http://www.climateaudit.org.

Monastersky received this message, because he sent me a response this morning of July 1, 2005 as follows:

Hi Mr. McIntyre–Would you be available on Tuesday to talk? If so, what time would be good for you and how could I reach you?

I guess no one ever said that reporters were fair. He also reported Crowley as saying the following:

According to Mr. Crowley, the Duke professor, he received repeated e-mail messages from Mr. McIntyre demanding data and documentation, which grew increasingly threatening. "I’m usually happy to send people some stuff," said Mr. Crowley. However, he added, "McIntyre comes back time and again. He could take up a huge amount of time. It’s like you have nothing better to do in your life than answer questions from Steven McIntyre."

The issue was not that I was making requests for different data. It’s just that Crowley never sent the data. Since Crowley’s made an issue of this, I’ll collate and post up our correspondence and let the record speak for itself. Crowley also made an issue of the fact that I was a Canadian.


3 Comments

  1. John A
    Posted Jul 2, 2005 at 6:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

    If I were Joe Barton, or other members of the Committee, and saw hysterical reactions such as these to a simple request for transparency that most politicians would find innocuous, then I’d know I was on to something

  2. John Hunter
    Posted Jul 17, 2005 at 9:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve:

    You said in your email to Richard Monastersky:

    Can we infer from this that neither you nor Ross McKitrick has ever had contact with Joe Barton?

    John Hunter

    Steve: As I said in the email to Monastersky: “I was contacted by a staffer for the House Committee for confirmation following the report in the Wall Street Journal that Mann et al. had refused to release important portions of their source code. At no time were either Dr McKitrick or myself ever asked to help in framing the requests for information in the Barton letters nor did we do so.” You should be careful what you “infer”. However in this case you inferred correctly; our contacts were limited to a staffer and we were never in contact with Joe Barton. At present I am busy going through the various new documents and will not be able to respond to your taunts or cross-examination and will not post any such comments by you for 2 weeks, although non-taunting non-cross-examining comments are welcome.

  3. TCO
    Posted Sep 20, 2005 at 9:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m not crazy about voice of god replies. And JohnA with his more minor status should be forbidden entirely from such amplifications…

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,131 other followers

%d bloggers like this: