Comments on: Materials Complaint on Moberg: Update http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/ by Steve McIntyre Tue, 21 May 2013 15:32:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Steve McIntyre http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/#comment-40702 Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:33:17 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=430#comment-40702 See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=440, although nothing’s been done so far.

]]> By: Ian Castles http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/#comment-40701 Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:45:33 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=430#comment-40701 Steve, Do you have any developments to report on the Materials Complaint against Nature that you lodged on 9 September?

]]> By: Dave Dardinger http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/#comment-40700 Fri, 11 Nov 2005 05:14:46 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=430#comment-40700 Sustainable, TCO?

Isn’t that one of the envirowacko’s code words meaning if you’re poor we’re gong to make you stay poor so we can sustain the wealth we’ve become accustomed to here in the first world?

]]> By: Spence_UK http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/#comment-40699 Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:56:54 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=430#comment-40699 I reckon Steve left us a bit of a cliff hanger because he was planning to go away for a few days. He was probably worried that people like John Hunter would get bored and go away, so dangled a little carrot here for them to encourage them to stay.
:)

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/#comment-40698 Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:08:55 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=430#comment-40698 John wants to beat him up for lack of transparency if he doesn’t share stuff or to beat him up for not following community norms if he reveals something that has not yet published.

And…he has a bit of right on his side in that Steve’s comment defines the term “half-pregnant”.

I still think we are doing better than the RC guys with their censorship (on one aspect) and then with citing/press-releasing unpublished and then rejected papers (on the other side).

]]> By: Dave Dardinger http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/#comment-40697 Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:41:02 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=430#comment-40697 Re: #11

The thing is, John, that Steve doesn’t know if he’s allowed to post the message he got from Nature or not. Therefore he doesn’t want to try pretend that something has happened and mislead people, but he did, for whatever reason, want to indicate that something has happened. I suppose this could be another rebuff from the Climate powers-that-be or it could be something positive from his POV.

Surely you wouldn’t want Steve to leak information, now would you?

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/#comment-40696 Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:28:43 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=430#comment-40696 John, It’s the night before Chris (Fitz) mas.

]]> By: Luboš Motl http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/#comment-40695 Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:09:47 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=430#comment-40695 If there were a global contest to look for demonstrable problems with other climate papers, you would probably win.

]]> By: John Hunter http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/#comment-40694 Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:23:33 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=430#comment-40694 Steve (#6):

> It is intentionally obscure. If I wanted to say what I mean, I would have. I’m offline
> for 4 days starting in 3 hours so everyone will be on their own.

This seems a funny way to behave. If the intention was to deliberately mislead, then I could understand. But — silly me — I thought this site was meant to educate …..

]]> By: mark http://climateaudit.org/2005/11/07/materials-complaint-on-moberg-update/#comment-40693 Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:34:05 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=430#comment-40693 that’s just not right… just not right.

mark

]]>