Art’s feigned neutrality was shallow enough that a seasoned reader (I guess you’re not one) can see through it.

Art is playing the troll. That’s why I’m not getting into it even to the extent of reading the original material. Somebody PLEASE post a real thread ASAP!

No quotable apology necessary this time. Jsut a text edit.

Just to be clear on your criticism and art’s criticism of me. Beyond the basic mistake, you find fault with the speed and manner with which I corrected the error. I’ve asked you if you are willing to apply that same standard across the board. To yourself, to Art, to others.

roll tape:

“Phil Jones wrote:
>
> Tom, Caspar,
> Keep the attached to yourself. I wrote this yesterday,
> but still need to do a lot more. I added in a section
> about post-Lamb work in CRU, but need to check out
> the references I’ve added and look at the extra one
> from 1981 that you’ve sent. This may take me a little
> time as I’m away Weds/Thurs this week. I see my name
> on an abstract, by the way, that I have no recollection of !
> I presume this has something in about instrumental global
> temps. This abstract isn’t in my CV!!!!!
>
> So your point (3) needs to document that we knew the
> diagram wasn’t any good, as well as how far back it goes.
> Knowing Hubert on some of his other ‘breakthroughs!’
> it is clearly possible it goes back to Brooks !
>
> On the post-Lamb work in CRU, I recall talking to Graham
> (maybe mid-1980s) when he was comparing recent CRU work
> with Lamb – correlations etc. Did that ever see the light of day
> in these pubs or elsewhere? I will look. It isn’t in the chapter
> Astrid and he wrote in the CRU book from 1997. I recall some
> very low correlations – for periods from 1100 to 1500.
>
> This is all getting quite complex. It clearly isn’t something that
> should be discussed online on RC – at least till we know all
> the detail and have got the history right as best we can. A lot
> of this history is likely best left buried, but I hope to summarise
> enough to avoid all the skeptics wanting copies of these
> non-mainstream papers. Finding them in CRU may be difficult!
>
> As for who put the curve in – I think I know who did it. Chris may
> be ignorant of the subject, but I think all he did was use the
> DoE curve. This is likely bad enough.
> I don’t think it is going to help getting the real culprit to
> admit putting it together, so I reckon Chris is going to get the blame.
> I have a long email from him – just arrived. Just read that and he
> seems to changing his story from last December, but I still
> think he just used the diagram. Something else happened on
> Friday – that I think put me onto a different track. This is all like
> a mystery whodunit.
>
> In the meantime – any thoughts on the attached welcome. Getting the
> level of detail required is the key.
>
> I need to do a better diagram – better scanning etc.
>
> Cheers
> Phil

And then.. in response:

>> I see the problems with this in terms of history, IPCC image,
>> skeptix, etc. I’m sure you can handle it. In doing so, you might
>> consider (or not) some of these points.
>>
>> (1) I think Chris Folland is to blame for this. The issue is not
>> our collective ignorance of paleoclimate in 1989/90, but
>> Chris’s ignorance. The text that was in the 1990 report (thanks
>> for reminding us of this, Caspar) ameliorates the problem
>> considerably.
>>
>> (2) Nevertheless, ‘we’ (IPCC) could have done better even then.
>> The Rothlisberger data were available then — and could/should
>> have been used.
>>
>> (3) We also already knew that the Lamb UK record was flawed.
>> We published a revision of this — but never in a mainstream
>> journal because we did not want to offend Hubert. I don’t have
>> the paper to hand, but I think it is …
>>

Anyway, the crowd here awaits your best judgement on these cases.
whatever standards you may claim for judging peoples’ responses, I’d like you to demonstrate your ability to apply those standards fairly by comparing these cases. Your displeasure at me, and your assessment of the two mails above.

“By merely changing the statement, Smith in fact has pointedly avoided commenting about the truth or falsehood of it.”

Yep, that’s the problem with unresponsive responses. No admission of guilt. Moving right along. contrast with Mosher.

Who’s taking the credibility hit now? Who’s got the more scientific MO?

1. I obviously dispute the clarity of your “demonstration”. For the reasons mentioned earlier – that “responses” and “replies” are different things.

2. I do not judge someone’s proclivity to “make things up” on the basis of one incident. In the past few say, RTF, has taken pains to AVOID putting words in my mouth – even when I accused him of doing so. Almost as a journlist who makes effort to get the story straight so that he is not accused of “making things up”. So I sense a pattern of behavior rather opposite to your judgement.

By merely changing the statement, Smith in fact has pointedly avoided commenting about the truth or falsehood of it.

THAT’S the reason it has to be quoted: because if there’s nothing to quote, THEN THERE IS NO RESPONSE IN EXISTENCE.

Other than that, I agree with the words Bender has just written.

RTF