Tom Crowley has asked that the following apology be published at Climate Audit for his 2005 EOS article, as well as a similar interview on BBC, both of which contained numerous untrue and damaging allegations against me. See the original EOS article is here , my rejected reply here, the underlying correspondence here with some contemporary commentary. As I noted at the time, Crowley and I subsequently corresponded constructively, but he has continued to sharply criticize me in public e.g. at dotearth in 2009 here and had never apologized for his untrue allegations. His apology today is quite generous though belated (and is one of a kind.)
With respect to Steve’s comment on my Eos article, I would like to make the following statement:
when I wrote that article, and later gave an interview on BBC, I was genuinely under the BELIEF that what I said was true (I had deleted the original emails long ago, so could not verify my belief).
However, a few months ago I had an idea where I might be able to access at least some of those mails. I was shocked when the mails did not reveal what I had totally come to believe Steve had written.
This realization called to mind another, entirely different, situation where I was also convinced about something that I thought I had read. That too later turned out to be unverifiable — I still can’t believe that either, but the evidence (not as strong) seems to suggest so.
The only way I can understand this is that my memory is not NEARLY as good on specifics as I thought it was – it can in fact play gross tricks on a person (I suppose that is why police are always wary of visual descriptions, etc).
Whatever, I know I didn’t intentionally lie, but I also now know that what I said was not true.
I had been meaning to apologize to Steve for that matter but, like many things, I forget about this and many other resolutions when I actually sit down at a computer (I in no way spend all day at it).
Whatever, for the record I now apologize to Stephen for that matter and request him to post it on his climateaudit site. I know some people will not believe my (proposed) explanation, but that’s life – I
for one know I did not lie (intentionally tell a falsehood) because I try quite hard to say what I think is the truth, by all means to not lie, and teach my children likewise.
With regards, and final sign-off on both these matters, I wish you all the best for the new year, Tom Crowley
Crowley didn’t mention where he located the missing correspondence. However, had he consulted the first google in “crowley mcintyre”, the correspondence has been online for the past five years.
The comment referred to in his apology was from email correspondence arising out of Crowley’s statement at dotearth commenting on the 88 pages of review correspondence in connection with O’Donnell and challenging me to produce evidence.
I am concerned about McIntyre’s claim of 88 pages of reviews and responses to the Journal of Climate paper – I have never heard of any paper having that much of a go-around. I think he needs to post this evidence on his blog.
I have seen a few thousand reviews in my life (I used to work at NSF) – if McIntyre is right he may well have a point about fairness – but he HAS to present the evidence or his charge is meaningless.
This led to correspondence among Ryan, myself and Crowley, in which Crowley observed that we had had “run ins” in the past, to which I replied:
..as Tom pointed out, we have had “run-ins” in the past . Tom may not be familiar that one of these incidents contributed strongly to my bad impression of “peer review” as carried out in climate science. In 2005, Tom wrote an article in EOS that contained strong assertions against me – claims that, in my opinion, were both untrue and unsupportable on the record. The article was very damaging to me – for example, it was cited as evidence of poor conduct on my part in a visit to KNMI a year later. I submitted a detailed reply to EOS refuting these claims. EOS took eight months to peer review the article. The reviewer conceded that I had legitimate grievances. However, the editor said that the article was no longer timely and rejected it. At the time (and still), this struck me as a very unfair handling of the matter both in the suppression of the response but in the unequal standard of review between the original commentary (which seems to have had either no peer review or negligible peer review) and the lengthy peer review that my reply was subjected to.