Well, that was interesting. Here are some nuggets from the discussion. On the inconsistent standards of climate skeptics:
The symmetry of this issue is intriguing to me. With regard to Mann we're told all that matters is that there's a flaw. It doesn't matter whether correcting it changes the conclusion, it doesn't matter whether the same conclusion was reached by other researchers. The hockey stick is flawed. Flawed flawed flawed. With the "Climategate" emails we're told all that matters is the intent revealed by what the scientists discussed. They said mean things and acted like they didn't trust sceptics. They're bad men. Bad bad bad. Then we have the Wegman report which has now been shown to be a product of plagiarism on such a remarkable scale which is defended in such a bizarre manner it's basically impossible to retain a belief in one of the ethics or competence of the authors. The response? Oh none of that matters, hey look over there did you see this is the result of some pesky anonymous blogger? Hey look over there they're doing this because they can't attack the conclusions. Oh they are attacking the conclusions too? Oh hey look over there, see it's a report for Congress why would you apply those crazy rules of "ethics" or "correctness" all that matters is the "truth" and I know it's the truth because it agrees with me.
Some blog love from a dear fan, who writes that
your post clearly betrays your bloodthirsty side: rile up the factions, soak up the responses and watch from the sidelines. One hopes your ratfucking Stalinist Football Club buddies don't hang you out to dry one day. They already did it a bit, if I am not mistaken, when one of them called you an "˜inactivist', didn't they?
Just to clarify: I am a life-long, diehard NY Giants fan, and yes, I am often hung out to dry for my blog sins. Mosher on why it's all such jolly good fun:
Since I sit in the middle I'm more than happy to toss people from both sides under the bus. Its good sport. has nothing to do with the science.
On why perhaps all this Wegman stuff really matters to skeptics:
But the more technical criticisms of the Wegman report lead to interesting and unresolved technical criticisms of M&M2005, which might be felt to be dangerous for a number of positions and deeply held beliefs.
Some more observations on those oddly inconsistent standards of climate skeptics:
Skeptics and "˜lukewarmers': Interested in whether Michael Mann forwarded an email, in whether Phil Jones deleted emails, in whether journal guidelines were followed, in whether Michael Mann trims his toe nails. But not interested in plagiarism. Just the facts ma'am. If it doesn't change published scientific conclusions, we're not interested.
