So, Gavin, having learned all of this from Steve’s investigation, then also looked at Harry and did a bit more to identify the problem involved Gil. This is not finding the problem independently. It’s not even finding the Harry/Gil problem independently. Gavin’s was motivated to do this because Steve had already conceived of the notion that there might be problems, investigated and confirmed there were problems. Moreover, he’d reported the problem involved Gil.

At best, Gavin could say he followed up on Steve’s idea and identified some details. But that’s not what Gavin did.

All the word parsing in the world will not make Gavin’s claim of finding anything independently of SteveM true. Trying to parse words to convince people the finding was independent is the strategy being used to deny SteveM credit for coming up with the idea to check the data, and to check it in a way that uncovered problems associated with Harry specifically.

#42 a
Whether I am “impressed” or not with McIntyre’s “publication record” is beside the point. The fact is that McIntyre has published only one peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal (GRL in 2005). I’ll take your response as indication that you concede that point.

#42 b
You have not addressed my argument that your “Texas-Oklahoma” (Gill-Harry) analogy was highly misleading. But I can see why you would want to move on and I’m happy to do so.

#40 – You (an anonymous blog commenter) are not impressed with SM’s work and publication record, fair enough.

#41 – I address this argument in an email to Gavin, in a subsequent post:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/a-formal-response-to-gavin-schmidt-4936#comment-11889

The fact that Gavin has decided, appropriately, to share credit with McIntyre makes all of this moot now, doesn’t it? It should. Whether Gavin’s actions were right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, are a matter of opinion that has been fully aired here, so, time to move on?

But Gavin Schmidt made it very clear that he discovered and reported the Gill-Harry splicing to BAS on *Feb. 1*, well before any mention of Gill (not “Gil”) on CA. So by your own logic the analogy does not hold. The implication of your Texas-Oklahoma analogy that Schmidt “stole” the discovery of the Gill-Harry connection from McIntyre simply does not hold up.

No, a 250 word online letter does not count as a peer-reviewed article, as it was not of article length, nor was it peer-reviewed.

The point is you claimed that McIntyre was arguably “inside scientific circles” and “was regularly published in the peer-reviewed literature.” But he has only published *one* peer-reviewed article in a recognized scientific journal.

What else do you claim counts among McIntyre’s output of peer-reviewed scientific articles? I’ll make it easy for you. This page includes Ross McKitrick’s list of “Peer Reviewed Science Journal Articles”, including seven pieces jointly authored with McIntyre.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/papers.html

I still maintain that the only one of these seven that properly fits that description is the GRL 2005 article (#7 on the list).

Do I infer correctly that GS’s “suggestion” was somewhere in the e-correspondence between Roger & GS? (of which GS refuses to make his public)?

If so, this is chutzpah on a scale . . . well, it’s really off the scale. The pointer’s hit the peg so hard & so often it must be mangled & on the bottom of the meter somewhere.

Schmidt & Co., via RealClimate, have clearly been NASA/GISS’s mouthpiece, despite claims of being just a bunch of concerned scientists running a completely independent website in their spare time. Institutional backing indeed.

The big question now is, how long will NASA continue to tolerate the embarrassments known as Hansen, Schmidt & Mann? And if NASA doesn’t care, how long before someone higher up the food chain demands an investigation?

Climate Audit is a voluntary site. Real Climate is a funded advocacy site with a government employee as the main spokesperson. As noted several times on the CA blog, the contributions are important. So much so, Steve, on several occasions, has referred to his blog as a “certain product”. He has done this pointing out why certain moderation has occurred, and also why he approaches the write-ups with a certain style and most importantly, thoroghness.

Perhaps Gavin was not familiar with this. However, the evidence is that he reads not only what Steve has written, but what other posters have. In that, the respective blogs can be considered to be in competition for some of the same audience, Gavin’s conduct could be seen as an unfair practice.

Further, since the funding is different for the two blogs, and he “took” from Steve’s product, his actions are unethical as a government employee or as an advocate.

Even if he distances himself from either government or the advocacy roles, as a competitor in the climate blog arena, he still has acted unethically.

There is a colorful description of this in books on the Watergate scandal. It was not only considered unethical, it was considered illegal. Interestingly, the pursuit of this lead is one that lead to Nixon’s eventual resignation.

Leon Jaworski’s “The Right and the Power” is an excellent read IMO with aspects of ethics and failed cover-ups that seem relevant today. Somehow .