Note 8/21 9:40 am PDT: No response from Judith Curry. The doctored quote still appears on her blog.
Mark Steyn is doctoring words from Climategate emails. That's bad enough, but worse yet, Judith Curry is helping him.
This is shocking for being so obvious.
Here's what Steyn quoted in his vanity book "A Disgrace to the Profession," according to the angry, anonymous blogger Tony Heller Exposed. It is a supposed quote from Phil Jones to Michael Mann:
Keith [Briffa] didn’t mention in his Science piece but both of us think that you’re on very dodgy ground with this long-term decline in temperatures on the thousand-year timescale. It is better we put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them in for us.Judith Curry repeated this quote here:
In fact, this isn't what the actual email says at all. It was, instead, the following -- I've highlighted in red what Steyn and Curry left out:
1) Keith didn't mention in his Science piece but both of us
think that you're on very dodgy ground with this long-term
decline in temperatures on the 1000 year timescale. What
the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what
it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic
forcing are two very different things. I don't think the
world was much warmer 6000 years ago - in a global sense
compared to the average of the last 1000 years, but this is
my opinion and I may change it given more evidence.
2) The errors don't include all the possible factors. Even
though the tree-ring chronologies used have robust rbar
statistics for the whole 1000 years ( ie they lose nothing
because core numbers stay high throughout), they have lost
low frequency because of standardization. We've all tried
with RCS/very stiff splines/hardly any detrending to keep
this to a minimum, but until we know it is minimal it is
still worth mentioning. It is better we ( I mean all of us
here) put the caveats in ourselves than let others put them
in for us.
That's right -- neither Steyn or Curry gave the actual quote, or put in ellipses for the part they left out.
They also changed "1000 year" to "thousand year," and, more importantly, left out -- again, without ellipses -- the paranthetical phrase in the last sentence, "...(I mean all of us here)..."
What they left out obviously changes the meaning and context of the quote they did give. Their quote is simply wrong, and worse, it's dishonest.
More analysis of the Steyn/Curry denier power couple and their hit piece on Mann here: https://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/as-the-world-burns-episode-i-judith-curry-mark-steyn-partners-in-slime/
Sorry, here's the hyperlink to article: https://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/as-the-world-burns-episode-i-judith-curry-mark-steyn-partners-in-slime/
Yes, it's a little over the top because it's a parody of deniers but all the facts in there are accurate and can be backed up.
You're very foolish to get in bed with that particular website, Mr Appell. Had you actually read my book, you would see that on page 106 that entire passage in red that you said I left out is quoted in full. "Doctor", heal thyself.
THE: Per Steyn, you were wrong, and owe an explanation.
Mark Steyn: So where did Judith Curry get her doctored quote from? Any ideas?
Mr appell, Sir, I have just looked at the pages as described my Mr Steyn in my own advance copy of "A Disgrace To The Profession, The World's Scientists, in their own words, on Michael E Mann, his hockey stick, and their damage to science" and it does seem as if you have a case to answer.
I checked out of respect to your point.
Can you explain your position please?
At least correct your post.
Now that you have been shown to be incorrect, maybe it would be a good time to correct your post based on the facts.
Or, like Mann and THE, do those not matter to you.
You've been shown to be incorrect--Steyn quoted the entire passage. Will you admit your entire post is wrong? Or is that one question too many?
Maybe you can wipe this post. You know, like with a cloth.
For the record, four days ago, I documented Steyn's assertion that he quoted the full passage at the end of my blog post:
However, as I also point out, that makes Curry look all the worse because she definitely did not use the full passage on her blog.
Steyn is a third-rate showman peddling his garbage to stoke sales and make a name for himself. Who cares what he does? Curry, however, is a supposed scientist who has (perhaps) literally gotten into bed with slime like Steyn. Now that she's in the gutter with him, no one should be surprised if there's a little blow back waiting for her.
Lay with the dogs and you get fleas.
Libel!!! Defamation!!! Thankfully the Koch brothers set up the Big-Oil-Denier-Anti-Scienticizer defense fund, which Steyn can use to sue you for 10 gagillion dollars for this malicious and hateful defamatory and libelous post.
So you made a mistake - it's not the end of the world - today you correct it. Damage repaired.
1) You get get your information from a lying coward (his post is demonstrably false and he is not even willing to print his name as he attacks Steyn and Curry by name).
2) You committed journalistic perjury by not verifying the source material.
3) You lied when you said "Their quote is simply wrong, and worse, it's dishonest."
4) After being provided with the facts, you created a new blog post - not convincingly apologetic, still belligerent. Still no retraction on this post, which may have been referenced by multiple uninformed bloggers.
I posit that you are no scientist and no journalist, just an amateur with an axe to grind.
Would someone please explain to me how the longer version invalidates what was expressed in the shorter one? I don't see it. Thanks.
Curry explicitly states she was only quoting snippets so as not to give away too much of the book. The lying cowards critique of Curry is also baseless.
My, my, sure has gotten quiet on the thread since it became obvious the whole point of it is moot. The Carbon Doom crew's inability to admit to even the most trivial mistakes is one of their tics that leave impression more of a pseudoscientific cult than a scientific culture. Sad.
Not only did Steyn quote the post in full on page 105 and 106, but leaving out the deleted language doesn't change a thing. I've read it a dozen times and it doesn't change anything. It just makes the crux of the statement more clear. Sure, technically there should have been ellipses used, but the meaning doesn't change at all. Not a bit. What the hell is Appell whining about?
>>David Appell's somewhat pompous slogan on his website is:
>>Rule #1: You can never ask too many questions.
>>But apparently "Do I need to verify this accusation before I make an arse of myself by publishing it?" isn't one of them.
Question: Will David Appalling EVER correct this incorrect post?
Seems as if there is vibrant competition in the blogosphere to run the site with the least integrity and most inaccuracy.
Who will you vote for?
Note 8/23 9:40 pm EDT: No response from David Appalling. The false comment still appears on his blog.
Cloud: see correction at top of post.
Post a Comment