Re: [asa] Ottawa Citizen: The Skeptics Are Vindicated

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Thu Nov 26 2009 - 04:05:15 EST

Hi, Schwartzwald,

I apologise for letting my tone get rather too sarcastic in the last
response, and the suggestion that you weren't listening to me.

To resolve this, let me ask you a simple question. Do you or do you
not agree that the explanation I cited for Bolt's first example (one
which has been cited as extremely damning), means that in fact the
email was quite innocent? Perhaps I am not listening to you, but I
don't get the impression you have even responded to that point -
instead you went off in another direction, citing a different email.
That is why I felt I wasn't being listened to, and (regrettably)
allowed myself to get irritated by it. If you could let me know what
is your opinion of the example I cited, this would go a long way
towards reconciling the situation.

I should also like to put the record straight with regards to your statement:

And the suggestion that what went
> on with these emails can be explained away as "typos" is an eye-roller at
> best.

I may have been misleading by typing things out in haste, but I did
not mean to imply anything of the sort. The "typo" was mine.

In my opinion, the email in question may have been poorly worded, but
in the context of the conversations that took place, it would have
taken on an entirely different, and innocent meaning than was served
by taking it out of context.

The fact that the very first example cited by Bolt in the article
turned out (in my opinion) to be a dud, leads me to speculate the
following (and I admit it is only speculation, but I am wondering if
you think it is plausible speculation):

I speculate that the stealing of the emails by criminals was a
deliberate and cynical attempt to undermine the Copenhagen summit.
Furthermore, I suggest that, given the 69 Mbytes of data available,
that those wishing to throw the work of the CRU into disrepute went
through them in detail and cherry-picked those which looked most
embarrassing when stripped of their context.

Now, of course, I could be completely wrong. Maybe there is a
"warmist conspiracy" by greedy scientists after funding. I don't
know. But just suppose this isn't the case - that AGW is true and
that if something is not done about it, that catastrophe will result
on an unprecedented scale for our children or grandchildren. And
suppose as a result of this leak of stolen information the Copenhagen
summit is derailed and fails to do anything to address the situation?
Then all of John's "crowing" on this list is not going to look too
smart, don't you agree?

You state: "you don't want your views to go unquestioned. Another shame".

You are perfectly entitled to question my views. I just felt, for
reasons I stated above, that they were being ignored.

Best regards,

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Schwarzwald <> wrote:
> Iain,
> Oh, give me a break. If you mistyped, that's one thing, but it's not like I
> took you drastically out of proportion here (and considering the context of
> the discussion, the reaction is amusing). And the suggestion that what went
> on with these emails can be explained away as "typos" is an eye-roller at
> best.
> But you know what? Yes, Iain, I do suggest you think before you type, even
> if your correspondence is private. And if you (or any other scientist)
> attempt to do something unethical, like collude to manipulate a research
> journal or influence the editorial process to block out others whose papers
> you dislike, may it be exposed, and may it bite the appropriate parties
> right on the metaphorical ass.
> Further: So it was the first of a number of examples listed, therefore it's
> clearly the most damning bit of evidence. Quite a crystal ball you have
> there. This coming from a guy who just griped at me for supposedly
> misreading him owing to a typo.
> My comments here were measured and respectful, Iain. That you took them
> otherwise is a shame. But I don't think the problem is that I'm not prepared
> to listen, so much as you don't want your views to go unquestioned. Another
> shame.

Non timeo sed caveo
To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 26 04:05:32 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 26 2009 - 04:05:35 EST