Climate Audit at Last Back On track

After wasting his time on an ignominious essay from Tony McIntyre gets back on track doing what he does so well.
Not science.
Nothing to do with climate.
Nothing to do with auditing.
Nothing to do with statistics.

He's frothing at the mouth on his quest to embarrass scientists who wrote emails where they robustly discussed science.

A brilliant invention - emails - as quick as voice, you have a copy of what was discussed, you can send data and plots. It is not as formal as a letter and you feel you can tell someone their ideas are wrong without causing real hurt.

Then along comes a slavering pack of underworld denizens who cannot kill climate science with their own research - they do ABSOLUTELY NONE - but they can stop  real scientists working using FOI attacks. They then attempt to destroy their science (in the minds of the public) by quoting from stolen Emails that the authors thought were private robust discussions.

It must be difficult finding a private channel where these discussions can now be made!

It is also interesting that Tallbloke has been away from blogging for weeks:

Roger Andrews says:
Welcome back. I guess the Norfolk fuzz released you when they wrapped up their enquiry, right? ;-)

Or is it he has been going over the next batch of emails with FOI looking for the good bits!!

From Tony a call to Arms:

The secret letter UEA and CRU doesn’t want us (or anybody else) to read

Uh oh.
Steve McIntyre has written an eviscerating essay about a secret letter circulated by the IPCC to UEA/CRU, which they are refusing to divulge, because it will:
I suggest that all hands immediately work on FOI requests to UEA requesting this letter. We might also want to start a betting pool on how long they’ll be able to hold out.
Somewhere, we have the procedure for FOI requests in the UK, but I’ve misplaced it. Sharp readers will likely find it and post in comments, so I can update this post.
Oh dear the man seems out of control:

  1. Please don’t file FOI requests on this matter to UEA. That’s already been done and is under appeal. Further efforts doing the same thing will make it more difficult in the future. Please don’t do this.
    On the other hand, you may wish to consider steps in your own jurisdiction.
    REPLY: I’ve made some changes to the text which will likely yield better results – Anthony
Is this a way of hiding the failure of Tony's paper?

No comments:

Post a Comment