Over at Climate Audit, McIntyre has a post on a line from one of the EA emails. It’s all about the Y2K correction and the comment that someone should “hide” the article by Hansen “”.
Here is the quote:
Jim, please check if everything is fine.
Robert, please move to the CU site and hide this after Jim checks it.
Darnell, please send it out to Jim’s email list. Jim said if I don’t want to, you should do, but it is not a matter of what I WANT TO or NOT WANT TO. I don’t know how to.
Much ado about the word “hide” — in fact, 4,562 words or 18 pages dedicated to one word.
McI is really trying to dig up dirt isn’t he?
It’s another passive-aggressive post — claiming he can’t really do something (we don’t know what he meant) and then doing it anyway — more speculation.
Here’s the quote:
Obviously we don’t know the answers. But it’s not hard to speculate on why Hansen chose to publish the article at his “personal” website. NASA has policies and regulations on the dissemination of NASA information – see a CA discussion from late 2007 here). Would Lights Out Upstairs – with its whiny and juvenile tone – comply with NASA peer review procedures? Seems pretty unlikely to me. And I’m sure that Hansen was as aware of this as anyone. [my emphasis]
Speaking of juvenile terms, he then compares Gavin Schmidt to the eye of Saruman from LOTR…
Someone notes in comments that had McIntyre really been all about the science, he would have sent a private email to Hansen and noted the error so that NASA would have the chance to correct it and do so in a face-saving manner — something I would expect from any colleague who noticed a mistake I made in a government-funded document or publication. Instead, he posts the mistake on his public blog, which is very heavily read and only the next day sends an email to NASA.
Of course, the chorus chimes in to defend Steve, pointing the figure of blame to NASA.
McIntyre posts this in response:
You’re assuming that I wrote the blog post to stake a priority claim or that I was seeking some sort of recognition for this. [No shit, Sherlock...] Maybe those are other people’s motives, but they weren’t mine. I was working on a puzzle – and had been doing so for some time as a review of prior posts shows. I was initially diarizing progress on the puzzle.[my comment]
Ah, yes, the honorable puzzle solver just diarizing progress on the puzzle.
I believe him. That’s why he spends so much time dissecting the emails in search of deep meaning — just because he likes puzzles.
There is even a move by a couple of posters to urge people to submit FOI requests for the computer logs of workers there so they can find out how much time people spend working on RC.I’m really liking his recent posts.
You can file a FOIA request to get the computer logs of government employees. I’ve seen TV news reports on this type of thing where they get proof of govt workers downloading p-rn or whatever on taxpayer time. You can even get the URLs of the sites they visited in certain cases.
With some imagination you might even be able to make a FOIA request that reveals how much time NASA employees spent doing unauthorized activities during regular business hours. The fun part about this is the subject of the investigation has no authority to screen the data before its release as was the case with various components of Climate Gate where they had to be consulted to make sure no “state secrets” were revealed… and started hiding things.
- Re: LMB (Jan 23 02:50),
This is The Judicial watch FOIA handbook;
FOIA Letter Generator:
Instructions on How to File an FOIA Request are here:
Really puts it all out there for us folks to see. Who needs to speculate about skeptic motives?