#openproblem

rw, padding his concession with some NIPCC handwaving.

My sense was that my audience at Climate Audit had placed me on “one side” of what they saw as a “two sided debate,” and held me responsible for everything “my side” had ever said. That kind of refusal to allow a conversation partner to define the responsibilities she is willing to undertake is unlikely to lead to a productive discussion. In this particular case, I think the demands for to defend things we hadn’t said occluded possible areas of agreement about what we did say.

Nick owes no constant room service on CA, more so considering the reception he constantly gets. This leads to a Procrustean bed: slimed if Nick comments, slimed if he doesn't. Since you allow yourself not to say what you think from time to time, the more Omertà "trick" on CA may very well be suboptimal. *** Here are some instances with commitments you have yet to fulfill. You still have not declared having read Sicre at the time of writing. No response to [Fabio Gennaretti][1] has been forthcoming. For more than a year now, you failed to respond to [Robert Way][2] regarding your use of his private correspondence. In this very thread, you have yet to opine on Nic's exhortations:

The paper is methodologically unsound and provides spurious results. No useful, valid inferences can be drawn from it. I believe that the authors should withdraw the paper.

Neither have you endorsed Gordon Hughes' comment:

All this paper demonstrates is that climate scientists should take some basic courses in statistics and Nature should get some competent referees.

[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.

[**Neal J. King discovers that conflict and stress are tied up around the Auditor's quest**.] I spent an hour last December talking with Steve McIntyre at the AGU meeting in SF; quite civil. But his main topic was his struggles to get data out of Michael Mann about the hockeystick – the main events of which took place years ago. I stopped him, and asked:

Steve, I’m really not that interested in this – this was years ago. I’m more interested in knowing, What does Stephen McIntyre want his life to be about now?