Although NOAA were minor players in the Climategate letters, the recent report from the Inspector General of the US Department of Commerce (re NOAA) is the first report to date in which the investigators made any effort to crosscheck evidence from Climategate correspondents against independent sources. It does not list the emails that it investigated […]
New light today on Phil Jones’ notorious request that Mann, Briffa, Wahl and Ammann “delete any emails”.
Huge comment traffic at Judy Curry’s discussion of Hide the Decline here and here
Here is a longer excerpt from the July 19, 2000 Raymond Bradley Climategate email posted earlier today: [……At this point Keith Alverson throws up his hands in despair at the ignorance of non-model amateurs…] But there are real questions to be asked of the paleo reconstruction. First, I should point out that we calibrated versus […]
Here is an excerpt from a troubling Climategate email that hasn’t been discussed much (if at all) – from Raymond Bradley to Frank Oldfield of PAGES (172. 0963233839.txt) on July 20, 2000. I’m presenting only an excerpt today, but will discuss more from this email on another occasion. Bradley stated of MBH98-99 results: in the […]
Iridge versus TTLS. What if a key text on this conundrum of the day resided in an anonymous open peer review? Would we, within the ethical standards of modern climate science, be entitled to speculate on the identity of the author of these pearls? Or would that be an ethical violation “as bad as possible”? […]
In order to respond to Nielsen-Gammon’s comments about the morality of publishing review comments and/or speculating on reviewer identities, I think that it would be helpful to review a couple of other incidents. Today I’ll review an incident involving Tom Crowley’s publication of a farrago of falsehoods in EOS (as well as in contemporary interviews) […]
John Nielsen-Gammon has articulated a doctrine of what might be termed justified disingenuousness as applying to climate scientists acting as reviewers. I criticized this doctrine in yesterday’s post. In comments to that post, Nielsen-Gammon said that I made unrealistic assumptions about the academic world, that I was (in effect) too idealistic, perhaps even a pollyanna […]
John Nielsen-Gammon writes as follows in a comment in the preceding post: If you are a reviewer and wish to remain confidential while remaining engaged in scientific discourse, it is necessary for you to pretend to not be a reviewer. Scientists expect this and know that reviewers may need to be disingenuous when talking publicly […]
The Steig-O’Donnell story is featured in this week’s Spectator in the UK. Authors are Nic Lewis, a coauthor of O’Donnell et al 2010, and Matt Ridley.
Climate Audit 