A couple of months ago, after getting nowhere with Moberg on same peculiarities in some data sets (see right category Moberg et al ), I filed a Materials Complaint to Nature discussed here. There have been some developments on this.
Readers may recall that, on a previous occasion, in connection with MBH98, Ross and I filed a Materials Complaint with Nature and, as a result, Nature required the authors to issue a Corrigendum.
Climate Audit 
19 Comments
What are the developments?
This is a bit of a tease. Are you saying Moberg is going to have to do a Corrigendum ?
What have relations with Moberg been like? Mannian? worse? better?
I asked him for some stuff; he refused; I complained to Nature. Is that Mannian? I don’t know how Moberg feels about the process. There’s nothing personal as far as I’m concerned.
Is this an unfinished post or do we get 20 questions?
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.
The “Readers may recall…” sounds pretty suggestive. Perhaps we should be on the lookout for another Corrigendum?
Have a good trip, and don’t forget to come back.
mo, mo, mo! I want mo!
that’s just not right… just not right.
mark
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 …..
If there were a global contest to look for demonstrable problems with other climate papers, you would probably win.
John, It’s the night before Chris (Fitz) mas.
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?
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).
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.
🙂
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?
Steve, Do you have any developments to report on the Materials Complaint against Nature that you lodged on 9 September?
See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=440, although nothing’s been done so far.