With The Auditor (McIntyre) there is no 3rdchoice:

You're in real trouble now, Professor. You've come to the attention of The Auditor. He has asked you Questions. You now have two choices:-

(1) You could assume the questions are posed in good faith, The Auditor is genuinely interested in the knowing the answers, and will make constructive and reasonable use of the information. This would be a category error. It's like those email scams where if you respond the spammers know the address they've hit is real. Next thing you know there will be a second round of followup questions, and so on ad nauseum. Dr Gerald North writes:-

"This guy can just wear you out. He has started it with me but I just don’t bite. But there are some guys, Ben Santer comes to mind, who if they are questioned will take a lot of time to answer. He’s sincere and he just can’t leave these things along. If you get yourself in a back-and-forth with these guys it can be never ending, and basically they shut you down with requests. They want everything, all your computer programs. Then they send you back a comment saying, “I don’t understand this, can you explain it to me.” It’s never ending. And the first thing you know you’re spending all your time dealing with these guys.”

Do you really want that?

(2) You ignore the questions. This will lead to a post at the Audit weblog using words like 'stonewall', 'petulance', 'refusal'. You won't be directly accused of malpractice or fraud, naturally, however the comments will be a playground where those with a desire to speculate about 'What is Lewandowsky hiding?' will be given free rein. There will then be a short hiatus during which you may think your life is getting back to normal, but then the orchestrated FOI requests for any and all emails relating to the paper will start ...

Do you really want that?

There is no 3rd choice.
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=5&t=209&&n=159#674

Except that pjclarke got number 2 wrong, McIntyre doesn't hesitate with direct accusations. (Another DuKE sufferer)

Sorry for interrupting, people. I wasn't aware this was a 'reason-free' zone. (The QUT logo made me think it was for educated people.)

My mistake and apologies for the intrusion. You can get back to your crazy conspiracies now.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580&page=0

"Pull up a comfy chair and get some popcorn...this is gunna be fun."

Also, make sure you have plenty of tissues, drawn the curtains and wash your hands afterwards.

mhaze, please don't complain that Marcott et al didn't post their datasets, other people seem to have no trouble finding it. Your lack of understanding their methodology is not a reflection on them.

Jolly good show, Sou....."You can get back to your crazy conspiracies now."

Ain't that the truth!

You know, I think you're onto something there, except you've realised the futility a lot faster than I have.

Arguing with deniers is the most pointless task in the world - and for some unknown reason I've been doing it for yonks.

What do we get on OLO?

We get OLO's very own dedicated band of deniers.

We get links to Anthony Watts and links to Jo Nova...not to mention sundry other no science "skeptic" sites.

That's what you get....

...on OLO.

Clive had it right.

Bye

I'd beat a hasty retreat too Poirot. Who's your new colleague with the nickname Sou? He apparently thinks that an average can be higher than any one of the figures being averaged. I think that's what they call an #epicfail.

"I was right to withhold judgement until seeing the details, and my skeptical default position has been vindicated."

Of course it was Graham, of course it was.

I would have expected nothing less than complete reinforcement of your own views, after all that is what always happens.