The Trickery Tricks of the Team

There is no end to the tricks, deceits and duplicity of the Team when they are out to protect their lavish funding and to keep any critique against their incompetent frauds and tricks out of the scientific literature. We have recently seen two events where the typical pattern emerges.

First we have the reconciliatory meeting in lovely Lisbon, attended among other by the indomitable Steve McIntyre and the great peacemaker Judith Curry. The latter was very pleased to be awarded a T-shirt depicting a garbage can with "Climate Science" written on it:

But nobody from the Team turned up to this reconciliatory meeting intended to create friendship, understanding, trust, openness, confidence, good faith, mutual respect and appreciation and peaceful harmony between the different sides of the climate controversy. The Team had also used their powers of intimidation to prevent other climate researchers from attending. Yes, the Team returned this noble offer of peace and forgiveness, this olive branch from the innocent to the wicked, with a slap in the face. But it doesn’t stop there. Gavin Schmidt, the evil arch genius, declined by an email in which he very cleverly pretended to say that “the science is settled.” In an act of the noblest reconciliatory spirit and greatest openness and transparency, one of the organizers, the distinguished climate realist blogger Tallbloke, showed this email to Fred Pearce, who wrote about it in New Scientist. So far no surprises. But then Gavin Schmidt started screaming like a donkey when somebody steps on its toes, and claimed that he had said no such thing. And indeed, if one carefully reads Schmidt’s duplicitous response, he does not say so explicitly. It is rather hinted between the lines; this trick is apparent to any skillful interpreter of interpretations. Obviously, this was a trap set by Schmidt to make Tallbloke look stupid and dishonest. A most disgraceful act by Schmidt! A trick! A trick!

Then we have the sordid affair with the paper by O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre which proved that the infamous paper about Antarctic warming was wrong. They used better methods and demonstrated that the alleged warming had a somewhat different pattern. This affair is becoming as great as Climategate:

• One of the reviewers was Eric Steig, notorious team member and first author of the paper that was being criticized. He used his position as reviewer to delay the publication of the article by coming with a lot of objections and recommendations. As expert interpreter of interpretations and peer review process authority James Delingpole writes: 'Even in the monstrously corrupt world of “climate science” this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he’d written himself.'
• In his first review, Steig wrote 88 pages of objections, while the original paper had only 8 pages! This is utter madness!
• Steig also made it appear as if his three reviews were in total 88 pages long, when in reality he wrote only 24 pages, and O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre wrote 64 pages in responses. Normally, a review for a scientific journal is a few lines (I have heard). Like “Good job, old boy”. Blog science is much superior: one can get hundreds of well-informed comments in just a couple of days. And their original submission was 45 pages (not 8). Shame on you, Steig! A trick! 
• Steig suggested in his reviews that O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre should use a method (iridge) which he later criticized in a blog post. Well, at least he didn’t sufficiently warn them against the dangers of using such a method. It is clear that Steig planned this so he could ciriticize the paper.Shame on you again, Steig! A trick!
• Finally, when O’Donnell in a reconciliatory spirit published the reviews and revealed that Steig was “Reviewer A” (as the latter had stupidly admitted it in a private exchange), he gets criticized for breaking the confidentiality of the review process. Are they not ashamed to try to hide their clandestine behavior behind a questionable notion of “confidentiality”? And then the Team tries to use this against O’Donnell! How dare they insinuate that O’Donnell has behaved disgracefully? What bottomless hypocrisy! What a nasty, evil trick!

It is obvious that Steig did everything he could to delay and corrupt the article by O’Donnell, Condon and McIntyre. This proves that the peer review system has been corrupted by the Team! But we climate realists must continue to strive for reconciliation which these duplicitous fools and trickery knaves! They spin and spin and trick and trick and the mad dance of the Team never ends! Mark my words: this is the final nail into the rotten coffin of the climate fraud!

Update: I just came up with the following excellent counter-argument to the claim that O'Donnell behaved unethically when he exposed Steig as Reviewer A. Imagine that islamic terrorists have hidden an atomic bomb in New York. They have revealed the location of the bomb and the code needed to disarm it in a review of one of your papers. You have previously told them that you will not expose their identity. What would you do? Respect "the confidentiality of the reviewing process" and do nothing and let millions of people die? Or tell the FBI about the location and code, and the identity of the evil terrorists? The global warming alarmists who support Steig would apparently have done the former. After all, to them nothing is more important than "the confidentiality of the reviewing process". To a true patriot, like O'Donnell and Jack Bauer, the second course of action would be obvious!