Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/22/2009 11:57:53 AM PST by Duke C.
Due to the amount of traffic, the climateaudit.org site has been overwhelmed the last few days. CA founder Steve MacIntyre (The target of most of the controversy) has started a blog at the above address which can better handle the load. He has some interesting things to say about the CRU/Climategate revelations.
One interesting tidbit- It has been determined that the infamous 62meg FOIA zipfile was created on 11/12/09. The latest FOIA denial letter sent to Steve was dated 11/13/09. Things that make you go "Hmmmm..."
Credit to WUWT for making this info available!
Any mention of it on any Sunday AM shows ?
I thought it was Climate Depot.com. Are they connected?
Simple answer, Creation date and modification date are two different critters not to mention capabilities to alter date stamps of files. Overall this rebuttal is meaningless especially when the raw info (original emails on tape backups) could be checked to verify its authenticity.
Nary a peep...
Since Steve has been attacked incessantly by the leading global warming researchers, he is uniquely qualified to comment on this issue. We need to stay on top of what he has to say, and offer support in any way we can.
Bill Bennett regularly has Inhofe on; I’d be hopeful he can feed the fire on this; Beck , for one, doesn’t seem too conversant with it except as a tool to attack NBC/GE. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong; I’d like to know.
I think what MacIntyre is suggesting is that the files were never hacked at all, but rather there is a whistleblower involved. That person became aware that the FOIA would be denied prior to that becoming public knowledge, and initiated the release of documents at that point.
And let's not forget, he has a lot of new data (that they illegally withheld from him) to crunch. I would imagine that he will uncover some even bigger things when he finishes doing that.
This may turn out to be one of those "gifts that keeps on giving".
From: "Steve McIntyre"
mailto:stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>stephen.mcintyre@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Colin O'Dowd" <<mailto:jgr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>jgr@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Rob Wilson"
<<mailto:rjwilson_dendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>rjwilson_dendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Rosanne D'Arrigo"
<<mailto:druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: D'Arrigo et al, submitted
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:37:06 -0400
Dear Dr O'Dowd,
I am a reviewer for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 4AR) and am writing in respect to a submission to your journal by D'Arrigo et al., entitled "On the Long-Term Context for Late 20th Century Warming." This article was referenced in chapter 6 of the Draft IPCC 4AR and made available to IPCC reviewers. In the course of my review, I contacted the senior author, Dr. D'Arrigo, for the FTP location of the data used in this article or for alternative access to the data. Dr D'Arrigo categorically refused and I was referred to the journal editor if I desired recourse.
…
At 08:33 28/09/2005, Rob Wilson wrote:
Hi Tim and Keith,
please see the e-mail (below) from Steve Macintyre to the Editor of JGR.
This seems a major abuse of his position as reviewer for IPCC?
In some respects, I don't mind having to address his comments (many of which are already adequately explained I think, although a detailed list of all data used could certainly go in an appendix), but this just seems a bit off. After all, we have addressed the reviewers comments and are currently awaiting a decision. This e-mail may effect the decision greatly.
Is he going to do this for all papers he does not quite agree with.
comments?
Rob
…
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:08:22 +0100
To: "Rob Wilson" <rob.wilson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Rosanne D'Arrigo" <druidrd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Fw: D'Arrigo et al, submitted
Cc: <K.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Dear Rob and Rosanne,
I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his position as IPCC reviewer! The data archiving issues are a separate issue because I think there's no need for the data you used to be publicly available until the paper is actually published, and I would hope that the editor would respond appropriately. But the other comments could clearly influence the editorial/review process and this is very unfair when your paper has already been reviewed by others. McIntyre could of course submit a comment after your paper was published if he wished to criticize certain aspects, and that is the route he should have followed. He tried to stop publication of a paper that I was a co-author on, Rutherford et al. (2005), by contacting the editor of J. Climate with various criticisms - fortunately the editor told him firmly that the route to take was to submit a comment after publication. However, in our case the paper was already in press. In your case, with the editor's decision still to be made, there is clearly more scope for McIntyre to influence the decision in your case - and this certainly should not happen.
The conditions which McIntyre (and all other IPCC reviewers) agreed to before downloading your manuscript were:
"This site also provides access to copies of some submitted, in-press, or otherwise unpublished papers and reports that are cited in the draft WG I report. All such material is made available only to support the review of the IPCC drafts. These works are not themselves subject to the IPCC review process and are not to be distributed, quoted or cited without prior permission from their original authors in each instance."
I don't think that contacting the journal editor with criticisms is "only to support the review of the IPCC drafts".
I will take this issue up with the chapter lead authors and the WG1 technical support unit - unless you prefer that I didn't. Please let me know.
Cheers
Tim
From: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: McIntyre and D'Arrigo et al (submitted)
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:20:00 +0100
Cc: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
<x-flowed>
Dear Phil, Eystein and Peck,
I've already talked about this to Phil and Keith, but for Eystein's and Peck's benefit the emails copied below relate to McIntyre downloading a PDF of a manuscript cited by the IPCC paleo chapter and then apparently trying to interfere with the editorial process that the paper is currently going through at JGR.
I think this is an abuse of McIntyre's position as an IPCC reviewer.
Rosanne replied to my email below, to say that they *do* want this taken further. So...
Phil has agreed to forward these messages to Susan Solomon and Michael Manning.
Eystein and Peck: do you want to add anything too?
Cheers
Tim
He's taking on the liberal establishment - he's in my prayers...
“Anyone hear Fox say anything about this? I just checked their website and found nothing, not one word. If they don’t tell the story, who will? Very disappointed.”
Nary a peep about this from O`Reilly, Hannity, or Van Susturn, either. As far as the three of them are concerned lately, it`s all Palin all the time.
O’Reilly has been very stubborn about covering the AGW issue. He insists that if the NOAA says its getting warmer, that’s the end of the debate. He won’t even consider that those data references may be wrong or misleading and you won’t ever get him to admit that he was wrong. Even climategate won’t move him on this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.