Comments on: The Dog That Didn't Bark

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:15:47 +0000

A CG2 email from Tim Osborn expressing a somewhat disdainful attitude toward my “”proof” that Ammann corresponded directly with us and not via the official review comments process, and thus his correspondence is apparently not included in the official set of comments/responses”
The correspondence was between Ammann coauthor Wahl rather than Ammann himself, but the surmise was 100% correct. This makes me question the degree to which Osborn (and perhaps even Jones) were aware of the surreptitious contact between Wahl and Briffa and that Wahl had re-written IPCC language that had been sent to external reviewers to suit his own ends.

1701. 2008-05-26 10:12:07
______________________________________________________
cc: t.osborn@
date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:12:07 +0100 (BST)
from: “Tim Osborn”
subject: FOI stuff
to: k.briffa, p.jones
Hi Keith and Phil,
I see on ClimateAudit that there are now many posts on Wahl & Ammann, its citing by Chap 6 of IPCC and how this fits with the publication deadlines etc., late changes to the IPCC publication deadline rules (a memo from Manning), plus “proof” that Ammann corresponded directly with us and not via the official review comments process, and thus his correspondence is apparently not included in the official set of comments/responses:

McIntrye: “I’ve added a section to the above post showing the remarkable parallelism in language between the Reply to Review Comments for Review Comment 6-735 and language in then unsubmitted Ammann and Wahl. The Chapter Authors asserted that they were giving a “balanced” view of the literature, while relying on unpeer reviewed opinion from Ammann to supposedly rebut Review Comments.”

David Holland comments that he will follow up some of these issues:
“Incidentally, the email address in the Manning memo is ipcc-wg1@al.noaa.gov and must be subject to US Freedom of Information Law. I will be asking some questions this side of the pond, hopefully someone in the US will also ask a few.”

So I’m sure that Holland will be pursuing or even expanding his FOI request! I can’t remember what emails I do or don’t have, but it would be useful if we do have the one from Wahl/Ammann confirming that their article received final acceptance, to demonstrate that we followed the rules concerning the deadlines for material that we cited.
Tim

By: Acton “Tricks” the ICO « Climate Audit

Acton “Tricks” the ICO « Climate Audit — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:14:49 +0000

[...] as his “borrowed (stolen)” language was noticed in a CA post of May 24, 2008 (The Dog That Didn’t Bark), leading me to postulate surreptitious non-open non-transparent contact between Wahl and Ammann [...]

By: “Keith Should Say…” « Climate Audit

“Keith Should Say…” « Climate Audit — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 22:31:35 +0000

[...] unsubmitted paper get applied in Review Comments purporting to dismiss Mc-Mc results? On May 24 here, I surmised that, contrary to Mitchell (and Solomon’s) representation that all the review [...]

By: Mosher: The Hackers « Watts Up With That?

Mosher: The Hackers « Watts Up With That? — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:37:54 +0000

[...] exists outside of the climategate mails. The mails, merely confirm what Steve McIntyre had already figured out. The mails of course add some background that strengthens the case, including the hacker’s [...]

By: Unique Gift Newborn

Unique Gift Newborn — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:40:54 +0000

This is really interesting. When he said:

“would I even bother answering your questions, isn’t that just lost time?”

I wonder about what Ammann was trying to hide…

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Mon, 26 May 2008 05:10:12 +0000

#19 is proof positive that Mosher is really me. Why you ask?

I’m notorious for short one sentence paragraphs. Rafts of them. A rather unusual style.

And here I am breaking my own rule except for this paragraph, however the others are short.

So there.

By: Bob B

Bob B — Sun, 25 May 2008 21:40:31 +0000

Steve, I know of an expression—”That dog don’t hunt”
I think it would apply better

By: steven mosher

steven mosher — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:34:13 +0000

The texts are teleconnected.

Now I get to say this because I am a textual scientist, having caught out many an undergradute on “inappropriate attributions”

Things that you look for. Odd locutions repeated. structural similarity in paragraphing. Structural similarity in argumentation.

Minor edits that seek to disguise the source. basically, trying to hide the source by adding words or deleting words

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Sun, 25 May 2008 04:02:15 +0000

Re Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle – horrible trivia

It is on record that the novel hero was nearly named “Sherrington Hope” but was finally cast as “Sherlock Holmes”. Numerous Google references. Also note that Toronto Public Library has an extensive collection of Doyle’s works, eh Steve?

Re Ammann. Is Caspar the Friendy Ghost writer?

By: jae

jae — Sun, 25 May 2008 02:55:35 +0000

13, Craig:

I believe what we are seeing is the belief among some scientists (and it is not just in climate science) that there is an inner circle of anointed scientists who can dispense with certain formalities required of lesser mortals. Formalities like proving your point, citing authoritative references, and taking criticism seriously. Once you reach this exalted station, you can speak from authority and everyone is supposed to listen to you. Steve M. violates the code by not bowing down with sufficient obsequiousness.

LOL, sad but true, even when big money and politics are not involved.