#zeeffword

[neverendingaudit]

Mansplaining, Dogwhistling, and Gaslighting

[After the scorched earth tactic, @ShubClimate rediscovers moderation. UPDATE - Shub says "pussyfooting" triggered moderation.]

Nor is it true that I never use the word “fraud”. I’ve written from time to time at Climate Audit about major frauds e.g. Bre-X and Enron.

The "regarding Mike" was implicit in my remark, which was preceded by a sentence you again forgot to take into consideration. I know your blog featured lots of fraud stories, and I believe they serve as perfect examples of how to stretch the limits of justified disingenuousness. You're basically dogwhistling when you do that, and perhaps also conveying enough of "what you think" for having others say what you are prudent enough not to say. The contrarian blog ring provides a well adapted commensalist niche.

That you again use the "get your fact straight" is to be expected, as you use this for most of your gaslighting. How you played the "doctored quote" card was suboptimal, at least way more than playing the "eight" one. (I noticed how you changed subject when Nick Stokes nailed on that one, btw.) But that last card won't prevent you from having to face the fact that Steyn used an F word, and that Dr Mann has been exonerated, as the title of the section you parsomatize indicates.

Sooner or later, you may need to do more than wage a public relation war against Mike.

You also say:

moderation at CA is triggered by various keywords

I have enough comments that did not appear to doubt your explanation of moderation at CA, Steve. Here again must I presume that you do not say what you think?

You might have more allies if you stopped playing cheap and dirty tricks, you know. A first good step would to link to the goddam documents you criticize. A second one would be to stop pussyfooting with expressions like "one of the parties" when you know damn well which party you might advise in a foreseeable future for a fee, and that you are openly helping pro bono if we exclude what comes by way of your Donate button, anonymously or not.

Yes, but costs opportunities, I know, I know.

Due diligence,

w

[neverendingaudit]

[The Auditor]’s entire appeal was built upon an assertion that the disputed information was withheld without intention to publish and should be disclosed under the EIR because it would ‘show a long-standing academic fraud by the Climatic Research Unit’.

The Information Tribunal, observing that the Auditor does not use the F word, but when he does, it's in official documents.

[neverendingaudit]

A conspiracy to commit an offence is subject to a longer statute of limitations, even if the underlying offence committed by an individual is a misdemeanour.

The Auditor, getting the C word out.

[neverendingaudit]

Call a spade a spade.

David Stockwell, after having cited Fraud in Science and Ruthless Science Fraud, in a comment following one of the Auditor's post reminiscing Yamal

[neverendingaudit]

The vicious tone of Mann’s response to criticism was worthy of Andrew Fastow.

The Auditor, unviciously comparing Mike to the convicted felon and chief financial officer of Enron.

[neverendingaudit]

Money and Fame

I’m not trying to make any magisterial pronouncements here; I’m just trying to draw attention to an interesting long record of climate change.

On the next day, at 9:55, he asks a question related to a geologist, while figuring out how to mention **24**:

As to the faked death: is life imitating art or vice versa? It made some sense that de Guzman might have been murdered, as he was the direct link between the physical fraud and any people that might have sponsored it. It makes sense that he might have pulled a Jack Bauer and faked his own death. But de Guzman’s suicide made no sense. It looks like there is a little more to come in this story.

http://climateaudit.org/2005/05/25/bre-x-is-de-guzman-alive/ Here is the moral that the Auditor infers from the story:

A moral to the Bre-X story, which I posted before and refresh again: I’m convinced that the Bre-X fraud originated not from the financiers, but by the field geologists. Incomes for field geologists in micro-cap companies are very hit and miss; it’s not like being a civil servant. If they sent good news to head office about better and better results, Bre-X could raise more money and keep the exploration funding going. The wheels fell off because, in mining businesses, you can objectively tell eventually whether there is ore or not. For some one on the business side of speculative exploration, even where there is no overt fraud, you have to be wary of your own geologists, who are unconsciously inclined to make the exploration seem more promising than it may actually be.

Here is the very next paragraph, and the punchline of the article:

The amount of money being spent on climate research is a big amount. So when UCAR (the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), who receive a huge amount of federal funding for climate reasearch, issues a national press release announcing that Ammann and Wahl had merely submitted a paper supposedly showing that they had “confirmed” the hockey stick, do you think that there is a touch of self-interest in their behavior?

And interesting update, made around 12:39 on the same day:

Update (Wed. aft.) : [Junior], who knows the institution, suggests in a comment below quite reasonably that the press release probably originated from the self-interest of the individual scientists, rather than corporate self-interest. I don’t view self interest in these matters on behalf of individual scientists in exclusively monetary terms, since people fight over prestige as well as money.

So not only Steve McIntyre “figured out how to mention 24″, but he also figured out how to mention Amman & Wahl in an article mentioning a fraud. Money and fame. Yup.

[neverendingaudit]

What do you think "noble cause corruption" is supposed to be, if it doesn't involve some sort of wrong-doing by the parties involved?

Arthur has a point.

[neverendingaudit]

CA site has been sanitised.

thefordprefect, telling that if you look for "fraud site:http://climateaudit.org/" over 400 hits, mostly from links to pages with no use of fraud some link to valid use. And also recalling to check the cached pages.