Monday, May 06, 2013

The great David Rose con no. 9234: The hard proof that finally shows that he makes stuff up.

I know that in this context, late is probably little better than never, but the Daily Lies has now corrected Rose's fabrication concerning my opinions.

The modified article no longer has the offending content, and at the bottom they have added:
An earlier version of this article said climate scientist James Annan was predicting the true rate of global warming as about half that predicted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007. In fact the UN’s prediction was a probable warming range of 2°C- 4.5°C if CO2 levels double, with a most likely figure of 3°C. Dr Annan now predicts a range of 2°C- 4°C with 2.5°C most likely. We are happy to set the record straight.
Which is good enough for me.

9 comments:

John Russell said...

James; are you sure that the word 'now' in the second to last sentence can't be read as if you've changed your mind since reading Rose's article?

I would suggest the sentence would appear to more accurately reflect your position with the 'now' either qualified or left out.

James Annan said...

Well, yeah, I didn't actually write the correction but was busy when I had to make a decision over it. It is good enough for me.

Richard Lawson said...

The UK Press Complaints Commission is still deliberating on a six point complaint that I put in, as a result of which Myles Allen told them he had been misrepresented by Rose. Cautiously optimistic that the Commission will give the Mail a light tap on the back of the hand.

Paul Matthews said...

So, David Rose misinterprets your comment that "A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5."

You respond using the words 'con', 'lies' and 'fabrication'.

James Annan said...

"Con" was, of course, just quoting Rose back at himself, though the other words are my own choice. But I think it's a fair characterisation of his behaviour. If it had been his first mistake I might have been more charitable, but it must be hard to maintain the belief that his "misinterpretation" is just accidental.

Paul Matthews said...

One of the main problems in this debate is that each side over-reacts to what the other does. As well as over-stating their side of the case.

David Young said...

I'm glad you got your correction, James. However, I still contend its not that big a deal compared to the illustrious history of the yellow press on both sides of the Pond. What would be libel of private citizens is common for public figures in the US.

James Annan said...

Well I agree it's not that big a deal - I've blogged about it and asked for a correction, but I didn't sue for libel.

However, I did recently hear something about someone senior and influential presenting it (the original misrepresentation) so as to show me in a negative light, apparently unaware of the circumstances. I haven't chased this up any further, but scientists rely heavily on their reputation and I don't get a lot of press coverage, so it's not entirely insignificant to me if these things happen.

David Young said...

Sure, I understand. It's good that he did correct the record.