Herbert N. Arst, Jr., Imperial College School of Medicine, London. Nature 403:478, 2000. [from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) website]

This is a fair description of what’s called the “offensive use” doctrine in law. The privilege of keeping some communication confidential is to provide a shield against disclosure (attorney-client communications, for example). However, when someone uses the privilege as a sword, such use is considered offensive and waives the privilege. Therefore, whenever a former client sues an attorney, the client cannot keep the attorney from disclosing what was once confidential communications if confidential communication could be used by the attorney to defend against the client’s suit.

It makes wonder what’s going on. Is the “Team” approach nothing more than a “scientific” Ponzi scheme? Rewarding early “investors” — themselves — by selling a fraudulent story to an expanding and increasingly gullible audience of participants, constantly devising ways to prevent truths from emerging?

In any case, the Team’s behavior is frightening and disheartening. Their malfeasance has already discredited the entire climate-science discipline, at least for those paying attention.

This cannot be good for science.

Mark

Are you dr. Steig in disguise or something?

That would be incredibly amazing, btw.

If people don’t know how to behave, bad for them. And that goes to you too, I’m afraid.

Nobody but you made the errors of fact and judgement that you have made

Really. Having seen what Eric has done in recent past, I’ll take Ryan’s “errors of fact” any day. At least here’s a man of honor who tries to do his best under a storm of torment and bad faith.

Sorry, that is incorrect. It was at http://www.realclimate.org/Crowley_EOS_2005.pdf, but it appears to have been taken down.

Try this: http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/07/eos.2005.submission.pdf