This seems to be the first one by McIntyre himself:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?
Anthony Watts claims to know the identity of the mole, calls him/her "Deep Cool"
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Then a few days later on CA:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?
And on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
That's as far as I got. Kind of gives new resonance to the concept of whack-a-mole, doesn't it?
Posts
4 comments:
Both Steve and I were having a little fun with readers. There was no "mole", but simply that CRU was so incompetant that they left a data files (one that Steve had been seeking) on a public FTP Server.
Steve shared the file and story with me and others. He started the mole meme just for fun. CRU then started erasing data to deal with the imagined threat.
But you didn't read that far:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6654
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6673
And here Steve explains. "No Mole, no hacker"
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/an-accident/
But go ahead, spin your theories, it's fun watching.
I am publishing this comment, but next time, use a real name -- thanks
So, if WattLiesUpWithThat changes his tune, he's just being funny. He's not "fudging" the data or or "hiding the decline to speak the truth," he's just... funny.
And if Mclientyr does the same, he's also just being... funny. It's not a conspiracy though we know all about the conspiracy to discredit client science going back almost two decades, about payments from Exxon, et al., that the denialists denied their own scientists (NYTimes).
Since the only unequivocal evidence of fraud, lying and propaganda has been from the denialists' side, we're supposed to suspenc disbelief and accept they are just being... funny.
Watts, you are a shill... or a fool. Don't much care which.
No need to be polite on my blog when commenting on the denialist shills -- go for it!
Post a Comment