Of course this is hardly news to the skeptical blogosphere, but I’ve been howling with laughter at the comments over Josh’s cartoon at Bishop Hill – I’ll not attribute individuals but here are some that tickled me:
Steig in the dumps
There is very clearly only warming in the peninsula regions: the interior is still looking blue…
Is he sitting in the Schmidt house?
Is it his turn to keep the lid on the borehole?
Eric has no shame; that red you see is blackness from his heart spread temporally and spatially over his facade.
This is how Eric produces the material to smear his critics, when he runs out of Real Science
The sore behind …. the 88 sheets of abrasive paper.
For anyone thinking – huh? at these insider comments, James Delingpole is probably a good place to start. JD is well-known for his skeptical polemic and his regular readers will have some familiarity with AGW and Climategate, but that set me thinking – if I was a journalist – a regular, straight up one, not habitually pushing a
warmist* pro-AGW agenda, just how would I sell this to an uncaring general public? I mean just where would you start?
A good headline – sport, that is attention grabbing. Team Player Plays Dirty. Hmm. Maybe so the less sport-inclined won’t be put off – David and Goliath: academic slain by blogger for duplicity. No think tabloid. David and Goliath: blogger slays two-faced academic. Better. OK enough!
Here it is in a nutshell (although such brevity doesn’t do it justice for the full story try here): After methods in his 2009 high profile paper were suggested to be erroneous, Univ. of Washington academic Dr Eric Steig challenged critical “skeptic” bloggers to get their own paper though “peer review” and published in a climate journal. Eventually they did so – publishing a rebuttal just before Christmas, but yesterday it emerged that Steig was a reviewer of the paper – the one whose demands resulted in 88 pages of comment and review for a paper of 14 pages. Now Steig is discussing his rivals’ paper openly on a “
warmist“* por-AGW climate science blog (Real Climate) criticising the very changes he asked them to make during the review process.
I cheered when Jeff et al. announced their publication, and I am truly shocked at Steig’s shenanigans. I know I shouldn’t be, after Climategate and having had innocent questions snipped at RC in my early days of scepticism, but it pains me that this behaviour is at the heart of what is held up as ‘mainstream science’. I know many (including some academics) who, not having looked at the issues themselves, trust ‘the scientists’. I also know many of these would be shocked at Steig’s behaviour, but somehow they have this image of scientists as ‘honest’ and ‘beyond reproach’ that somehow they must be in the right. Funny that. I guess the Hockey Team thrives on such ignorance. So much for scientific integrity – Steig’s behaviour is disgraceful.
But I am repeating myself – I said much the same thing after Climategate and it still stands.
*Altered 02Oct2011 in line with new policy: https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/cleaning-house/ VJ.