Comments on: Crowley’s Apology

By: Peer review or gatekeeping? | JunkScience Sidebar

Peer review or gatekeeping? | JunkScience Sidebar — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:06:38 +0000

[...] similar experiences, as have John Christy and David Douglass and Roy Spencer, and I am sure others. The unfortunate side-effect of this differential treatment is that a [...]

By: Lindzen on getting the “special treatment” for publishing papers | Watts Up With That?

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:16:33 +0000

[...] similar experiences, as have John Christy and David Douglass and Roy Spencer, and I am sure others. The unfortunate side-effect of this differential treatment is that a [...]

By: Publishing Review Comments – the Crowley Incident | Another Newyork Times

Publishing Review Comments – the Crowley Incident | Another Newyork Times — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:49:00 +0000

[...] Crowley’s original EOS editorial is online here, reported at CA at the time here, rejected reply here, apology here. [...]

By: Publishing Review Comments – the Crowley Incident « Climate Audit

Publishing Review Comments – the Crowley Incident « Climate Audit — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:55:40 +0000

[...] Crowley’s original EOS editorial is online here, reported at CA at the time here, rejected reply here, apology here. [...]

By: Top Posts — WordPress.com

Top Posts — WordPress.com — Thu, 06 Jan 2011 00:18:24 +0000

[...] Crowley’s Apology Tom Crowley has asked that the following apology be published at Climate Audit for his 2005 EOS article, as well as a [...] [...]

By: pesadia

pesadia — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 23:00:15 +0000

Having read the letter three times in order to get a feel for the sentiment, i am of the opinion that this apology together with the request that it be put on the website, is significant.It may have be somewhat overdue but both parties benefit significantly. Not everybody is big enough to apologise and Thomas Crowley appears to be. Apologizing to Steve in particular, sends a message to those on the other side of the debate that he and consequently this website deserve respect. I salute you Thomas Crowley and i hope that your opinion of this honest man is enhanced.

By: curious

curious — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:45:55 +0000

I applaud Mr Crowley’s action to set the public record straight by requesting this is published at CA. Only Steve can judge to accept the apology.

I wasn’t following in 2005 but, having read the article linked in the post, I echo comments above that the publication should also set the record straight. If this is the publication concerned,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eos_%28journal%29

they appear to have been in publication since 1920, so accuracy of the record should be of great importance to them.

Given Mr Crowley’s revelation, I think it would be appropriate that they should offer Steve a right to reply in the same word count as the original article.

With regard to Mr Crowley’s article and his comments on data disclosure in other branches of science inc. medical research – this crossed my radar the other day and IMO seems relevant:

13.10.2010
IQWiG: Law must prescribe obligation to publish all clinical trials

https://www.iqwig.de/index.1133.en.html

By: Philip Thomas

Philip Thomas — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:31:50 +0000

I have seen better written letters by children forced to apologise for bullying their classmates.

By: profootballwalk

profootballwalk — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:55:02 +0000

On general principle, I am not big on apologies. I prefer to say: Dont’ do it in the first place. If you do it, it’s done. In this case, we have a different reason to look askance at an apology. If I didn’t know the entire backstory, I’d have no idea what was being apologized for. I understand that some people feel that anything is better than nothing, but personally, I hold that if it isn’t done right, there’s no sense doing it. The worst of all possible apologies is the ‘If I have offended anyone’ card – this is not in that category. I do know that if I had tried this on my parents, they would have raked me over the coals to say what it was I was apologizing for – to make me understand the wrong I had done. In this case, I don’t see much more than “I said it – now leave me alone.” Needless to say, when there is any self-serving element in an apology, it doesn’t wash.

But that’s just me. Ever man has to judge the value of his own reputation.

By: Neil Fisher

Neil Fisher — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:49:43 +0000

Re: Duke C. (Jan 5 11:30),

…phrases like “make the following statement” and “for the record” it sounds like legal maneuvering…

Really? To me it sounds more like “for something quotable and attributable to me, use this”.
I thinks SM’s handling of this, which appears to follow his usual posting style, is commendable – simply post the availble facts, thank those involved in what appears to be a genuine correction, and move on. I like to think I am a very patient and tollerant man in general, but I don’t know how you manage it Steve – it will certainly be interesting to see how (and who!) the rest of the climate blogosphere presents this.