In some recent posts, I’ve observed that Carvin made a couple of astonishing gaffes in his oral argument. In today’s post, I’ll comment on the worst one. First, I’ll report the exchange without context. I presume that 99.99% of Climate Audit readers will spot the gaffe immediately. Read and react to Carvin’s words before reading my comments below the fold, where I’ll give my take on Carvin’s goof.
The first part of Carvin’s rebuttal was spent wiping the egg off his face for an earlier gaffe arising from Carvin’s total misunderstanding of the word “falsification” as it is used in codes of research misconduct, an incident that I’ll return to. In that cringeworthy exchange, the judges’ attention had been drawn to the NSF Inspector General report which listed the four (“synthesized”) issues supposedly addressed by the Penn State Inquiry Committee.
The second item on this list pertained to Mann’s direct or…
View original post 1,717 more words