Skeptical Science has a nice article on how Pat Michaels and his Sancho Panza, Chip Knappenberger like to copy and paste figures and statements of others, adding, shall Eli say, a bit of the taste of their own garlic to the sauce. An early example of this saga, in which Eli had a bit of a role, was the good Dr. Michaels editing Hansen's 1988 predictions of global temperature anomaly changes based on three emission scenarios. In order to convince others that Hansen was not close, Patty managed to erase the lower two scenarios and insist that the highest one was the one that Hansen claimed most likely, before Congress no less.
Dana181 over at SkS discusses this and several other inconvenient eraser jobs emanating from the desks of Michaels and Knappenberger (good Chip bad Pat not being a game the bunnies play) and this brought Dr. Knappenberger out of the woodwork to discuss how they "adapted" a figure from Gillett et al. to erase some inconvenient data (somewhat smile making considering how Steve M and friends go on about how Phil Jones, Mike Mann and others are hiding the data). Chip wrote
The caption associated with our graphic showing the results of Gillett et al. included the following:So let Eli take a look at the original graph
"(figure adapted from Gillet et al., 2012: note the original figure included additional data not relevant to this discussion)."
Dana181 pointed out that this was not what Pat Michaels had shown
But once again, the data projecting larger future global warming was inconvenient for Patrick Michaels' narrative, so he simply deleted it.
The dashed lines in the horizontal direction are the projections from the unconstrained climate model for the three emissions scenarios (the RCPs). The solid vertical lines are the model projections using the 1851-2010 data, and the dotted vertical lines (deleted by Michaels) are the model projections using the 1901-2000 data.
and Eli said something along the lines of
The figure was not adapted from Gillett, et al., it was copied and altered without permission in a [- snip- ] way.and the word dishonest got snipped.
Moderator Response: [Rob P] You're going to have re-phrase your comment here - the snipped portion is a breach of the comments policy.
If you think that ain't dishonest, Eli has fine, but underperforming football player to sell you, bids start at $10 million on Ebay.