View Article

Dear Mr. Morano,

On the official US senate minority web site you cite a blog that accuses me of scientific fraud.

(http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6)

You write:

"A critical analysis of the paper from December 21, 2008, accused the authors of the Antarctic study of making questionable data adjustments.

Updated below by Richard Courtney


(See: Scientist adjusts data -- presto, Antarctic cooling disappears - December 21, 2008) The analysis concluded; Looks like [study author] Steig 'got rid of' Antarctic cooling the same way [Michael] Mann got rid of medieval warming. Why not just look at the station data instead of 'adjusting' it (graph above)? It shows a 50-year cooling trend; the analysis concluded.

You do not comment on this, but simply cite it. However, you are clearly implying that you agree with it because you do not comment. Are you prepared to either remove this from the web site immediately, or to provide evidence that I have committed fraud? This is a very extreme accusation. Indeed, it seems rather like libel to me. I would like to request a formal apology from you, in writing.

I am cc:ing several journalists on this, so hopefully inaction of your part will be noticed.

In any case, the 'analysis' you cite is wrong. If you look at Figure 3.7 from the IPCC report

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-3-7.jpg

you will see that the average temperature trend for Antarctica was positive (warming) not negative (cooling). This figure shows the average of the Antarctic station data. This demonstrates that the statement that "the station data shows a 50-year cooling trend" is plainly wrong. In the interest of being honest with the American public, don't you think you should correct this?

Eric Steig
Professor, Department of Earth and Space Sciences
University of Washington

Professor Steig,

****************************************************

Thanks for writing.

The Senate EPW report in question simply reported on many reactions to your new Antarctic study.

See:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=fc7db6ad-802a-23ad-43d1-2651eb2297d6

The one you are objecting to was just one of several that I excerpted.

The quoted citation will not be removed from our site. But to be completely fair and accurate, I would be glad to publish your reaction to the blog excerpt and allow you to state your case and rebut it.

As you have read, our EPW report links to all sources referenced and allows the public a full counter balance to what much of the media reports on climate change issues.

I would suggest that you should be thanking EPW for providing such a needed public service, instead of displaying such hostility.

Please send me a brief statement I will happily post it right after the blog in question.

Or, if you choose, I can use key portions of the email you have already sent me.

Thank you,
Marc Morano

Updated by Richard Courtney

Dear Marc:

An email to you from Prof. Steig says;

Are you prepared to either remove this from the web site immediately, or to provide evidence that I have committed fraud? This is a very extreme accusation. Indeed, it seems rather like libel to me. I would like to request a formal apology from you, in writing.

In the words of Shakespeare, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much".

Steig's apparent umbrage is at a supposed defamation that is trivial when compared to the blatant lies and defamations of climate realists on e.g. DeSmogBlog.

Steig claims "fraud", "an extreme accusation", and "rather like libel" concerning comments on work he published in a British journal; viz. Nature. So, if he believes he has been defamed then he can sue under English law. Furthermore, his email complains at your accurate quote of the 'Heliogenic' blog. So, if there has been a defamation of him - which is far from clear when one reads the blog - then his case is not against you but is against the providers of that blog.

However, I am not surprised at Steig's behaviour that attempts to deflect attention from his paper and its content. I have written a letter to Nature complaining that Steig's paper contains a flaw so severe that Steig's paper should not have been published, and I suspect that others have written complaints to Nature concerning other errors in that paper, too.

Steig should put up or shut up.

All the best

Richard