the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Id’s Out

Posted by Jeff Id on February 4, 2010

Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks

An article about the emails at the guardian where some guy Patrick Condon is featured. I received a surprise call at home from a reporter David Leigh asking for Patrick this weekend, and was told my info was easy to find. I tried to find it myself for a twenty minutes without success, so I at this point I don’t believe the reporter. I asked him to use Jeff, which is my middle name and the one I use, and also the one everyone knows me by. I thought it important just to limit the warminista nutjobs on my porch, but apparently my polite request was declined. So just about everything is known about me now and I do consider it a risk. My only comfort now is that the crazies out there typically aren’t as well armed as I, and they typically have a more even temper :D

The article linked above discusses why Paul Dennis would have leaked the emails. I don’t believe Paul’s work is as skeptical as described, the paper he sent was referencing Steig et al’s Antarctic warming study and heavy warming trends in the peninsula region. Again, there is no way Paul was the one who released the emails which were pre-collected in a group on a backup server. Paul, as a paleoclimatologist, would have known that at least this one file which was pointed out by the hacker/releaser wasn’t news. – “0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960″

The stopping of the series wasn’t news to climatologists. At least from what I can tell.

There is the usual misunderstanding of the Air Vent blog as well:

The scientist also had contact with Patrick Condon, an aeronautical engineer in Morris, Illinois, who runs a similar maths-oriented sceptic blog called Air Vent, and criticises “leftists” who promote global warming theories.

Actually, I criticize extremist leftists and exaggeration of global warming, not the promotion of global warming. Hell, I promote it, but it doesn’t worry me nearly as much as the insane fixes proposed.

Finally the quote at the end is out of context, although it could be my fault. I was referring to the placing of the files on the RC server with ‘then a miracle occurred’ on Climate Audit. I explained that it’s like a kid’s prank not an international secret operation which is what Sir King had stated. I don’t in any way see the release of the files themselves as a prank.

Anyway check it out,

…………and please don’t call.


83 Responses to “Id’s Out”

  1. Neven said

    Patrick, if this guy Paul Dennis turns out to have leaked the FOIA files, and he had contact with you and other skeptical bloggers, aren’t you worried that people might think you and those bloggers knew about the files before the links were placed on the various blogs? Might these people also think it’s a bit of a coincidence that you were out hunting while the link to the zipfile was placed on your blog?

  2. Jeff Id said

    Unless you’re a bank, please use Jeff.

    I don’t really care what they think, I didn’t have a thing to do with it. What I do care about is the fact that this reporter used my first name and has a couple of errors in his description. I don’t know his political history but it’s not my favorite article. I’ll send an email to him to ask for an explanation.

  3. Jimchip said

    I perceive some increase in risk. Looking on the positive side, the warmistas will be getting more tied up as time goes on while they are attempting to bail out their sinking ship. Pachy’s not going down with them but they don’t know that yet. Perhaps the worst thing would be that Connelly’s wiki cru will mistake your house for a wikipedia article and write grafitti all over it. Take a picture before you slop on the new paint.

    Now that Id’s out maybe try “Jeff Superego” and walk around like Hansen for awhile.

    Maybe be a little more alert, a brighter ‘condition yellow’ but it’s probably not a reason to worry. Maybe it’s like in Lethal Weapon… You get to start doing shaving ads and shit.

  4. lucia said

    Jeff–
    I know where you live now. I’m coming out there. I’m going to bring my cats, my sisters dogs and together they will wreck havoc!!!

  5. Jeff Id said

    Our cat’s will get along great. Mine will hide in a closet giving away his position by hissing when anyone walks by and yours will lay on the couch.

  6. John M said

    …they will wreck havoc!!!

    Ahh, bless Lucia and her spelling!

    I presume she means totaling one of these.

    http://www.sporttruck.com/eventcoverage/0809st_havasu_havoc_2008_truck_show/photo_08.html
    :)

  7. Jeff Id said

    There we go with the monster trucks again.

  8. GORE LIED said

    Jeff,

    I’d seen your real name somewhere on the Internet a few months ago, but I can’t recall where. But, yes, it was out there.

    BTW, make sure your fire insurance policy is up-to-date.

  9. Jeff Id said

    I let big government use my last name b/c we’ve submitted a publication and it’s going out there anyway.

  10. Greg F said

    Jeff now that your famous you need a stage name. How about Luke Skywarmer?

  11. Steve McIntyre said

    Out of all the emails that the police have had access to – over and above the Climategate emails – the only one that they’ve leaked (presuming that the police leaked the email to the Guardian reporter) is Paul Dennis’ email to me where he’s wondering about strange events at the university. And that he sent a paper on isotopes to Jeff.

    So what??

    What is the purpose in outing his contact with me? Or that he sent a paper to Jeff? Is Paul Dennis a retribution target? Or is there some more innocent explanation?

  12. Tom Fuller said

    Hi all,

    Steve, it’s curious that they don’t mention an email exchange between Dennis and myself. Nobody’s contacted me.

    Jeff, thanks for dropping by my part of town. Make sure Lucia brings cookies.

  13. Neven said

    Mr McIntyre, since when is there a problem with emails being leaked?

  14. stan said

    There are always errors. Read Crichton:

    http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-whyspeculate.html

    “Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

    Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

    In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

    That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

    But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.”

  15. timetochooseagain said

    Well, I’m still using Jeff. I already know what Pat (also a conservative blogger) and way too many Andrews. One of which is me, of course.

  16. Greg F said

    #13

    Neven,

    Where does Steve say he has a problem with the leaked emails? I think you reading more into what he wrote then is there.

  17. BarryW said

    #11

    Steve, they are trying to connect the dots from you back to whoever did the leaking. There is probably a working hypothesis that there was a conspiracy connected with the leaking and that you all are involved. Wouldn’t be surprised if one of the main players like Jones tried to finger you.

    There’s going to be a smear campaign (much more than already) coming, I’m sure of it.

  18. Jeff Id said

    #12 I read regularly and am a big fan of your honesty. I hope the book is receiving at least 1% of the attention it deserves b/c you shouldn’t have to work much more.

    For Steve, I think it’s time we welcomed him to his honorary citizenship in the US, my ancestors were from Canada after escaping the slaughter of the Irish by the Brit’s of the day and hockey is my sport so I’m always a fan of Canadians. Welcome across the invisible wall into illegal alienship – tax free, health insurance free, America.

    All three American bloggers, McIntyre, Condon and Watts, were initially sent links to the cache of CRU leaked material

    That is an interesting observation regarding the leaks of knowledge. Cop’s almost never leak info without purpose. The fact that Dr. Dennis wrote to the head of the department may have something to do with it.

    Dennis refused to sign a petition in support of Jones when the scandal broke. He told friends he was one of several staff unwilling to put their names to the Met Office-inspired statement in support of the global warming camp, because “science isn’t done by consensus”.

    University sources say the head of department, Professor Jacquie Burgess, received a letter from Dennis at the height of the email uproar, calling for more open release of data. He appears to have disapproved of the way Jones resisted FoI requests.

    If you stop back Steve, I wonder what your opinion is about the fact that this email was pointed out this way “0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960″. IMO it exonerates climate scientists and probably most grad students because of the fact that it’s well known in paleo. If a skeptic climate scientist sees that email, he might say, Briffa data before trimming or something but not ‘we usually stop the series’.

  19. Greg F said

    They are applying pressure on Dennis by putting him in the spotlight. If he was their prime suspect what purpose would that serve? Maybe they think He knows more than he is telling and they are trying to pressure him into talking.

  20. kuhnkat said

    Jeff,

    I would think you name change would be obvious.

    The WIZARD of ID!!!

  21. spectatorseat said

    OT? With respect to lo profiles, were is “bender”. His spot on smack downs at the various blogs is sorely missed. A talent that kept posters honest or they left.

    Are Jeff Id and bender one in the same?

  22. Jeff Id said

    I don’t have bender’s energy. Only one handle for me.

    I’m not Jeff C either!

  23. Jimchip said

    #19, Greg, I agree. It could be just the beginning but even less reason to worry. They pressure Dennis (obviously desperate for any diversion), tie in Steve Mc, then they say, “We need more people to make the conspiracy angle stick.”. Hmmmmm….”Let’s pick on Jeff”. A Brit, A Canadian, An American…international conspiracy and then it all just falls apart when the facts are reiterated.

    The facts of Jeff’s moderation of the email link was choice, you couldn’t make it up, but one comment I recall when Jeff was initially talking about it was something like “I could have saved those guys asses”.

    I am constantly amazed at how lame some people are at making up lies.

  24. MikeN said

    I don’t understand why you guys were cooperating with authorities in identifying the leaker.

  25. RomanM said

    #17

    There’s going to be a smear campaign (much more than already) coming, I’m sure of it.

    That is a distinct possibility. One of the questions the police asked me was whether I thought that CA was responsible for the leak. I told him “No”.

  26. Jeff Id said

    #24, It’s easy, I’ve got nothing to hide but a lot to protect, including my family and friends. The people that did this did not ask permission to leave it here on my blog. It’s a free unmoderated blog where I write my opinions. My first post said something like, everything in life has consequences except perhaps blogging to nobody. Well now that tAV has more visitors than most small town newspapers, what are my new responsibilities? Screw it, they are the same.

    Still I’m not that cold. The people who released the emails have done a great thing. As long as I have no damned idea who did it, they are safe and I hope to god they are smart enough to keep quiet for say 20 years. It was not my risk.

    In this big-brother world, our rights have been whittled to the point where we must follow any law we can to the Nth degree. I’ve told them what I know and offered things they didn’t ask because they don’t understand what they are looking for. Big spy’s, complex sophisticated hackers, super genius programmers, nope! Just some guys who got a hold of some files and had enough IT savvy to cover their tracks and did a great service to the world.

    So with all that said, I do think they are college students. I do think they have already bragged to a small group of friends and I do think that bragging was a big mistake.

    Shut up, don’t talk until you’re 50 and make sure your friends get that. You might be safe if the info comes out because of the publicity but don’t count on it – until you’re 50.

  27. PhilJourdan said

    I don’t understand why you guys were cooperating with authorities in identifying the leaker.

    Probably because when all is said and done, the leaker will be the only one that obeyed the law! (FOI).

  28. Greg F said

    #23 Jimchip,

    I don’t think conspiracy is what the police have in mind. People gravitate to other people who are of like mind. If your looking for leads, and nobody is talking, then pressure someone who you would reasonably expect to be in the same group as the perp. Small social groups that form within an organization tend to share frustrations that can’t be expressed openly. If there is someone that knows who the leakier is they are probably part of the same social group. The association with Steve and Jeff is just the lever they use to apply pressure.

  29. Neven said

    “In this big-brother world,”

    IMO hacking that server and stealing those mails – if this is what happened – is quite a big-brotherly thing to do. Especially as it didn’t change one iota of the theory of AGW.

    If it would have shown AGW to be a scam to be perpetrated on us the people to take away our freedom (which, according to my definition of freedom, has already been taken in large part and shall also be taken without the ‘help’ of AGW), it would have been the right thing to do. But this isn’t what has happened so far. All it showed was a small group of scientists who obstructed the release of 2% of data to people they didn’t trust because these people have implied for years or said outright that these scientists were committing fraud. It was wrong, and most of all stupid to do so.

    But I can assure you that if you let a group of warmers wade through Steve McIntyre’s or Anthony Watts’ mails of the last 12 years (or yours for that matter, Jeff) they would find plenty of stuff to take out of context and perhaps even worse. If this would lead to the exposure of for instance some substantial financial gain by McIntyre or Watts, in other words a scam to mislead the public on the issue of AGW, it would slightly justify the stealing of their e-mails. If it wouldn’t show this, stealing their e-mails would be a big-brotherly thing to do.

    REPLY: you’re wrong about my emails, 99% are on line

  30. Pat Frank said

    Not to worry too much, Jeff. After you publish your antarctic temperature analysis, your name and contact information will be publicly available anyway. Everyone will connect that paper to your blogged work, so there’s no hiding.

  31. Carrick said

    Neven:

    But I can assure you that if you let a group of warmers wade through Steve McIntyre’s or Anthony Watts’ mails of the last 12 years (or yours for that matter, Jeff) they would find plenty of stuff to take out of context and perhaps even worse.

    You guys keep saying that. For some reason this meme falls really flat. It must sound hollow even to you.

    These emails have harmed science, not just climate science. My job of communicating my work to the public has gotten harder, because some people didn’t know how to behave, and other people are still shilling for them and trying to excuse their poor behavior.

  32. Hal said

    # 29 Neven

    You sure have swallowed the kool-aid.

    McIntyre and Watts don’t have anything to hide, they don’t have an agenda to curtail energy use (=prosperity) of the world’s population.
    Note that neither of these guys ride a personal steam train like Princy Charly.
    You are a joke.

  33. Neven said

    “You guys keep saying that. For some reason this meme falls really flat. It must sound hollow even to you.”

    All cliches sound hollow, but most cliches happen to be true. Or do you really think nothing in those e-mails could be found that could be used to serve a purpose?

    “These emails have harmed science, not just climate science.”

    Just the e-mails, or also what has been made of these e-mails by certain people with certain motives? What would Anthony Watts’ e-mails or communication with people from the Heritage Foundation and SPPI harm?

    “My job of communicating my work to the public has gotten harder, because some people didn’t know how to behave, and other people are still shilling for them and trying to excuse their poor behavior.”

    I’m not trying to excuse their poor behaviour, as I have already pointed out that I find it very stupid. Just as you’re not trying to excuse all those people who en masse have concluded that AGW is a scam based on the stolen e-mails, I suppose.

    Your job of communicating your work to the public is also hard because some other people besides those scientists don’t know how to behave. In fact, if these people knew how to behave, chances are that those scientists would have behaved a tad better as well. It’s not so black and white, I’m afraid.

  34. Neven said

    “McIntyre and Watts don’t have anything to hide, they don’t have an agenda to curtail energy use (=prosperity) of the world’s population.”

    Really, show me their communications with other skeptics. I can assure you I will find plenty of stuff similar to the stuff in the FOIA zip-file. I’ll show you my communications and you’ll find plenty of stuff too.

    Will you find something that proves AGW is a scam? No chance. Can large groups of people be made to believe that there is proof that AGW is a scam? They sure can.

  35. Greg F said

    #33
    Neven,

    You accuse others of taking the climategate emails out of context. In #13 you accused Steve of having a problem with Dennis’s emails being leakied by the police when nothing in his post (#11) indicates he is bothered by it. Your projecting.

  36. Hal said

    Hey guys, Neven is probably a shill paid by Gavin’s sponsors to spread the meme de jour.

    No point in trying to reason with him.

  37. TGSG said

    Neven is being extremely rude too. Implications without proof are disgusting.

    In the leaked e-mails we see proof.

  38. Neven said

    “Neven is being extremely rude too. Implications without proof are disgusting.”

    Shall we play the semantics games some people like to play when they are accused of what you’re accusing me of?

    “In the leaked e-mails we see proof.”

    Proof of what? That the theory of AGW is a scam? I know everybody believes this, but is it true? Could proof that serves a certain purpose (for instance showing skeptics have a financial or ideological interest in making the public believe AGW is a scam) be found in the communications of prominent skeptics such as Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre? It wouldn’t necessarily have to be true, just a few sentences without proper context would do the trick. You put the sentences on your blog and the commenters and certain befriended parts of the media do the rest.

  39. Carrick said

    Neven:

    Just the e-mails, or also what has been made of these e-mails by certain people with certain motives? What would Anthony Watts’ e-mails or communication with people from the Heritage Foundation and SPPI harm?

    Watt’s isn’t a professor of standing at a university. It’s pointless talking to people like you who can’t make simple semantic distinctions like this.

  40. Viv Evans said

    Jeff, @ #26:
    Very well said indeed!

    Can I also thank you and the other [usual suspects] people like Steve McIntyre, Steven Mosher, Tom Fuller, Lucia, Anthony and all others, you know who you are, for the courage to take this AGW machine on, and to publish and run with the CRUTape letters.

  41. Neven said

    “Watt’s isn’t a professor of standing at a university.”

    And so his influence on how science is perceived is zero? Watts cannot be responsible for anything?

    In other words: Is the professor’s mistake worse than the non-professor exploiting the mistake to influence public perception? Is the mistake making science look bad, or is it the tenacity with which emphasis and hyperbole is laid on the mistake making science look bad?

    Who is Big Brother here?

  42. Carrick said

    Neven:

    Your job of communicating your work to the public is also hard because some other people besides those scientists don’t know how to behave. In fact, if these people knew how to behave, chances are that those scientists would have behaved a tad better as well. It’s not so black and white, I’m afraid.

    I know a lot more about communication than you perhaps believe. And I have had to handle that crowd in the past. Generally just having your name associated with a university, sound reasonable, and people will generally put large weight on your words.

    The real problem here has more to do with arrogance and land mines that the climate community set up for itself. “Things that can’t be spoke and so must be danced around.” Try to criticize anything Al Gore on RealClimate and see how long it takes to get banned.

    “Neven is being extremely rude too. Implications without proof are disgusting.”

    What I really love about people like Neven is how they waltz into other people’s blog and see how rude they can get before they get banned. I find it really humorous how they hide behind the safe walls of places like Real Climate, where they are free to make as many disparaging comments as they want (lacking any ability to make any substantive points), pissing on other people for actually trying to understand the data for themselves for example.

    Anybody ever seen a Steve Bloom comment that was any more intellectual than poking a finger in somebody’s eye? How about you Neven? When’s the last time you posted on radiative contributions to the lapse rate for example? Or do you feel you don’t need to ’cause it’s in the “bible” already?

    (No need to actually know anything if you have enough faith, right?)

  43. Jeff C. said

    If Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts were receiving millions in funding from the taxpayers, I’d want to see their emails too. They aren’t, they are supported by a freaking tip jar. Even if they did have something to hide, who cares? You are afraid of a couple of guys typing away in their rec rooms? I guess if they email each other it becomes a conspiracy.

    There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of bloggers out there. No one gives a rat’s ass about what 99.9% of them have to say. Are CA, WUWT and tAV so influential, because they trade emails? They have an audience because the climatology crowd advocates more control over our lives, yet act as if they are hiding something. Steve, Anthony, Jeff and others have pointed that out, backed up by original research and reporting. The case they make is compelling and ordinary folks have taken note of it. Their popularity has increased by word of mouth, not taxpayer-funded propaganda campaigns.

    Richard North at EU Referendum had this comment yesterday regarding the IPCC, but it’s applicable here:

    “The trouble is they don’t understand bloggers, don’t understand how they derive their power and, most of all, cannot conceive that a few dedicated people, motivated entirely by principle, can use the medium blogging affords and run circles round them.”

  44. Carrick said

    Neven:

    And so his influence on how science is perceived is zero? Watts cannot be responsible for anything?

    Professors have an obligation for a certain level of ethical behavior, by the fact of their position.

    Had you seen some of the things I’ve written in the past on the subject of Watts (especially that document with D’Aleo), you wouldn’t mistake more for one of Anthony’s most stalwart supports.

  45. Carrick said

    Jeff C:

    If Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts were receiving millions in funding from the taxpayers, I’d want to see their emails too. They aren’t, they are supported by a freaking tip jar. Even if they did have something to hide, who cares? You are afraid of a couple of guys typing away in their rec rooms? I guess if they email each other it becomes a conspiracy.

    I thought about that, but I was afraid that Neven wasn’t getting the point anyway. If you receive multi-million dollar grants, there is a trust you accept in return for that support.

    I will give Neven credit, he isn’t exactly trying to forgive some of the more execrable behavior seen in the emails. I think he’s just going way to far to conflate the behavior of people who are self-funded with people who received federal grants.

  46. Neven said

    “Had you seen some of the things I’ve written in the past on the subject of Watts (especially that document with D’Aleo), you wouldn’t mistake more for one of Anthony’s most stalwart supports.”

    Yes, I noticed recently you are not 100% denialist.

    “Anybody ever seen a Steve Bloom comment that was any more intellectual than poking a finger in somebody’s eye? How about you Neven? When’s the last time you posted on radiative contributions to the lapse rate for example? Or do you feel you don’t need to ’cause it’s in the “bible” already?”

    Let me put it this way: I worry that there might be an X% chance of serious global warming effects. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. 5% would already be too much for me.

    When people, for whatever reason, be it financial, ideological or personal vendetta, work hard to make the public believe that this chance is 0, or if this is accomplished as an indirect consequence of their actions, I want them to know that they are responsible. Just as responsible as the professors that screw up or the extremist enviro’s.

    “I think he’s just going way to far to conflate the behavior of people who are self-funded with people who received federal grants.”

    I don’t believe I am. It’s all about motives, transparency, and responsibility. On both sides of the PR war. No matter how you look at it, ClimateGate has dramatically increased the responsibility of people like Watts and McIntyre. The latter might be out on a personal vendetta, but the consequence of this is that a lot of people think Global Warming is either a scam or not a potential problem. If AGW turns out to be more problematic, McIntyre’s actions will have contributed to the paralyzing of action to do something about it beforehand, and I won’t even go into Anthony Watts’ responsibility.

    “Even if they did have something to hide, who cares?”

    I care! If they have ulterior motives or gains which they are not transparent about(and IMHO Watts for sure isn’t with his ‘commentary on puzzling things in life’) I want to know about it, just like skeptics want to know if scientists are committing fraud. The stakes are that high.

  47. papertiger said

    God am I the only one who uses his real name?

    Kidding.

    In my minds eye I always pictured Jeff as a second or third generation Japanese American.
    You know.
    Last name Id. As in Ido or something.

    Today I found out Jim Treacher isn’t really Jim Treacher’s name, because some government thug ran him over with a dot gov vehicle.

    It’s open season on any citizen who bucks the Donks in power.

    You be careful Jeff.

  48. Carrick said

    Neven:

    Yes, I noticed recently you are not 100% denialist.

    I am not a denialist about the basic climate science, but I am a denialist about accepting the rank-amateur political tactics used by some in the climate community. It affects me personally, so hopefully you can see why I take it personally. And I am a denialist about grossly exaggerated claims (shades of Y2K), and even WUWT plays a positive role in countering some of that. My only true sin is I despise the juvenile nature of the discourse on most of the advocacy websites (it wouldn’t be nearly as bad if the blog maintainers were as quick to snip ad hominems coming from the faithful as from the heretics).

    As it is right now, zero signal infinite noise…. and that I think is why blogs like Jeff’s are eclipsing them in terms of page views. (I noticed somebody on MTs blog thought the “denialists” were gaming the google search engine, it never occurred to them, it could just be the larger blog traffic.)

    Anyway, if people don’t want to be made to look ridiculous, they should stick to rational, believable claims that can be backed up by science.

    On that note, the IPCC is a political organization, it’s a UN organ, and it’s amazing that the ARs are as rational as they are, but the criticism of recent weeks draws attention to the question that maybe we need an organization outside of the UN running these things. How to do this without politics or final-outcome policy goals running the show is the real kicker…I have no idea how we could make that work.

    I would expect fewer references to flyers on shoe maintenance, but less equivocal speech on other matters (like sea level rise for example). I don’t think the denialists would be happy. Neither would the “polar city” nut jobs.

    In terms of taking action, I think you’ll find me agreeing with most of the recommendations of the IPCC. And I don’t agree that McIntyre or Watts are having much of a material influence on these questions. The undercutting of public trust by the CRU group and the continued /facepalms from the IPCC have done much more harm than that. And their unwillingness to separate themselves from supportive fruit bats, They should have known better.

    Hang out with fruit bats and you’re gonna be knee deep in guano sooner or later.

  49. RichardJ said

    Jeff,

    The linked article mentions again that sceptics bombarded the CRU with FOI requests. I asked on another site – is this true? Does anyone have any figures about how many FOI requests were made to the CRU?

    (Maybe I should put an FOI request to UEA to ask how many FOI requests CRU has received since the Act was introduced.)

    REPLY: I saw Fox news report 110 separate FOI’s. When Jones declined to release temperature info CA did a post and a bunch of people chose different groups of countries and FOI’d the temp data individually. This had to account for at least 30 of the FOI’s but really they were all just for the temp data.

    Id – the primitive instincts and energies in the unconscious mind that underlie all psychological impulses.

    REPLY: My Id made me do it

  50. Tonyb said

    Viv Evans said

    “Can I also thank you and the other [usual suspects] people like Steve McIntyre, Steven Mosher, Tom Fuller, Lucia, Anthony and all others, you know who you are, for the courage to take this AGW machine on, and to publish and run with the CRUTape letters.”

    The high profile people you named all deserve our respect and thanks for bringing a more nuanced view of AGW into greater public knowledge. They have helped to shine a light into the activities of some-but by no means all -of those promoting the AGW scare. In particular the spotlight has been turned on the IPCC, who have enjoyed a credibility far greater than they warrant, and have been clever in promoting the notion of tens of thousands of scientits producing peer reviewed infallible material which they-the IPCC -put into an objective and scientific package. In so doing they have managed to marginalise the critics until recent months.

    I tend to blog on the historic climate parallels between past ages and today. It is really very difficult to see anything out of the ordinary happening-we are fortunate to live in a benign period which has given us prosperity.

    With my posts I am following in the footsteps of those giants of Historical climate science, John Daly and Hubert Lamb-the first head of CRU-now both dead.

    The trouble is I don’t begin to fill their shoes and there are very few others out there who write on similar subjects, which allows the notion that we are seeing unprecedented climatic times to take hold.

    Tonyb

  51. Paul Dennis said

    Please excuse me for recycling a comment at BishopHill and also at Lucia’s. It sets the record straight.

    It’s very amusing to read the many conspiracy theories being put forward by readers on the many blogs and newspaper comment sites. So before we get too carried away let me set the facts straight:

    1) I did not leak any files, data, emails or any other material. I have no idea how the files were released or who was behind it.

    2) My first knowledge of anything untoward was a departmental email circular saying that emails and files were hacked from ENV (environmental sciences) and CRU (climatic research unit). My interest was piqued so I emailed Steve McIntyre to ask if he was aware of anything. Steve replied that he wasn’t and that if he did find out anything he’d let me know. It was apparently this email that I sent that confirmed to both Steves (McIntyre and Mosher) that the leaked files were authentic.

    3) The following day Steve emailed me a single url. It was to Jeff Id’s site. I clicked the link but couldn’t find anything and forgot about it.

    4) Next day all hell breaks loose as the files have gone wild.

    5) Now stepping back a few days. Prior to the leak, about a week or so, I had sent Jeff a paper I recently published in Geophysical Research Letters on a new study of the Gomez Glacier in Antarctica that had a 150 year isotope record that could be backed out as temperature. I thought Jeff might be interested in it as I knew he was working, along with others, on a new Antarctic paper in response to the Steig et al article in Nature that was published 12 months before.

    6) In December the police saw me twice. I described the interview here under the blog ‘Parsing the Police’ on January 9th. The police were perfectly civil and we talked about many things including my research. I showed them round my labs and they came to coffee with me and my research group.

    The police had copies of my email correspondence with Steve McIntyre and Jeff Id and a copy of my paper which kind of amused me. They said it was because I had sent the emails that they were interviewing me. I have absolutely no problems with that.

    7) Two weeks ago David Leigh of the Guardian interviewed Andrew and Andrew mentioned my name and my contribution to the blog. Fred Pearce emailed me and I directed him to the university press office. Leigh followed Pearce’s email with one of his own and I ignored it. He then emailed saying he was running the story and out of courtesy he wanted to chat about it. Our conversation was about palaoeclimate science, ice cores, speleothems, mass spectrometers and the hockey stick. I told Leigh about the email I had sent Steve McIntyre and the paper I had sent to Jeff. There’s no mysterious police leak here. I gave Leigh a copy of papers I had written on ice core, speleothems and a nice little article on a freshwater snail, Lymnaea peregra.

    8) That really is the end of the story. I reiterate that I have absolutely no knowledge as to who did what and their modus operandi. I’m as amused by all th theories, suggestions etc. and I am grateful that many have suggested that I deserve the nobel prize, or at the very least a knighthood but in all honesty I’ve done nothing to deserve either.

  52. dearieme said

    A nit-pick: “Sir David King” is formally referred to as “Sir David”, not “Sir King”. Truth to tell, hereabouts he’s often referred to informally as “That arse, King”.

  53. Jeff Id said

    David Leigh apologized and said he requested the name change but it got past the editor.

    #52, Sir King was my attempt at a tease having not been versed in the formal version ‘that arse’.

    #51 Paul,

    I wonder what your opinion is about the point I’ve made repeatedly that a professional paleoclimtologist wouldn’t find the series being stopped in 1960 anything new.

    “0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960″

    My opinion above and here is that it’s well known in at least the paleo community, independently of whether people agree with the practice. The guys who released the files were therefore not climate pro’s at all, but rather are somewhat versed amateurs.

  54. Jimchip said

    #28, Greg,

    I’ll buy what you say regarding the police, even NDET. Now, it’s the Guardian, and Jeff, politely, requested that he stay Jeff…

    So, one hypothesis is that the Guardian article provides the seed so that [pick who you don't like here] can then take that, use the Guardian as ‘peer-reviewed reference’ and the spinmeisters can start weaving the tangled web. It’s SOP, even with realclimate. Diversion, feint-and-wait, consensus, STRIKE. ‘The Warmanista Way’.

    I don’t think it will impact Jeff much. Maybe this is a setup to attack his paper when it comes out? They really put a lot of money, time, and effort into squelching ANY criticisms.

  55. AMac said

    Neven —

    Your comments make me think of throwing spaghetti at the refrigerator — maybe some will stick.

    If you won’t write carefully and provide links on key controversial assertions, why should I take the time to read you with care? Look again at Carrick #48.

    Example, you imply that McIntyre is pushing the “Denialist” idea that AGW is false. State that clearly and support it with a link.

    > I worry that there might be an X% chance of serious global warming effects. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. 5% would already be too much for me.

    Funny, at Lucia’s Blackboard yesterday, Michael Tobis came around to saying much the same thing, Comment#32107. Maybe if that’s the important point for the public to grok, then you should make that your message? Maybe even bite your respective tongues now and again as to gratuitous accusations and ad hominems?

    Here’s my suggested compromise on making emails public.

    * Supporters of the AGW Consensus (and their institutions) take FoI requests seriously, and comply with the letter and spirit of the regulations.

    * Those with criticisms of the AGW Consensus (and their institutions, if any) take FoI requests seriously, and comply with the letter and spirit of the regulations.

  56. PhilJourdan said

    Neven 41: And so his influence on how science is perceived is zero? Watts cannot be responsible for anything?

    You seem to have a disconnect between reality and dreams. Clearly Watt is using his expertise to point out errors is facts, logic, method and analysis. Anyone can do that, and the fact he is not a tenured fellow does not by itself mean a damn thing. Mann, Jones, Trenbeth and the rest are supposedly experts in their field whose word carries a lot of weight, but they are not gods. And they made mistakes. just because a “non-god” found them, does not make the mistake any less real.

    You would be better served by correcting the mistakes you made than trying to discredit the finder of them. They are now in the public domain, and no amount of PR is going to stuff the mistake back in the box.

  57. hswiseman said

    Travel Light and Pack Heavy.

  58. foo said

    @Niven:

    So let us find out what the chance really is. The point is that if science is no longer functioning or being hampered by political biases, we might never find out what the chance of climate doomsday really is (if any).

    In this regard, those who released the CRU files, and the blogs who have followed up, have done science a great service.

    As a sceptic, I would be more than happy to accept AGW if proof is produced through a credible and transparent process. As long as it isn’t, there is no reason to even consider it.

    Who wrote emails to who, and what if other emails were released? It doesn’t matter. In the end it is all about the science. Anything that advances science is well worth every calorie of effort. Anything that obstructs it must be exposed and removed.

    Then we have a real chance of seeing if it is really warming, how much and what the effects might be in the future.

  59. Layman Lurker said

    #51 Paul Dennis

    Paul, thanks for the comment.

    I have a request. When time allows, please join us in discussing the technical posts here and at CA – especially those relating to paleo and climate reconstructions. We get the odd chirp here and there from guy’s like Rob Wilson who drop by CA to tell us we don’t know what we are talking about and then they leave without elaborating.

  60. Jeff Id said

    If AGW turns out to be more problematic, McIntyre’s actions will have contributed to the paralyzing of action to do something about it beforehand, and I won’t even go into Anthony Watts’ responsibility. – neven

    This is wrong Neven. Just flat wrong. If the actions of McIntyre expose the truth and the truth turns out to be a bunch of dishonest brokerage, who in their right mind would blame anyone but the dishonest? It’s not McIntyre you should be mad at, it’s Jones, Briffa, Mann, and the rest who I don’t feel like listing. It’s the heads of the IPCC throughout the organization not just the top yet you come here to accuse skeptics of creating the problem? We just see the problem, we did not create it.

  61. Gorthaur said

    Don’t worry Jeff the the Fascist are too busy looking for rocks to hide under, keep up with the good work.

  62. Meanwhile, in other news, India backs away from IPCC, undercutting Patch-Patch, the romance novelist, to form its own climate agency monitoring glaciers, and the Netherlands corrects IPCC claim that half the country is below sea level. Boom.

  63. dearieme said

    I don’t think that the existence of AGW is, a priori, out of the question. I simply think that good evidence of substantial AGW is lacking. One powerful, if scarcely scientific, reason for betting against substantial AGW is that its proponents have clearly found it necessary to lie and cheat about it. If they had good evidence, why would they do that?

  64. mrpkw said

    “Morris, Illinois”???

    Well howdy doody from Aurora !!

    (Now I know where you are)
    Chuckle !!!!

  65. JeffM said

    Neven –

    Methinks you protest too much. Remember the meme: ‘the science is settled.’

    ‘Settled’ means it’s unshakeable, right? Try running with that.

    Glad to help.

  66. Jimchip said

    #64
    OK, mrpkw, ya got me started…

    I was married in La Salle County. I have a brother-in-law in Rockford. I’m starting to think if Jeff ever needs some muscle…

  67. Jimchip said

    #57

    hswiseman, this is a rule from Zombieland:

    “Don’t forget the double-tap. And don’t spare the bullets after.”

    It shows up in ~ the first five minutes even if you don’t like the movie. I liked the movie.

  68. ‘the science is settled.’

    Indeed. If it were so certain, there would be no need for so many inventive steps to be used in the proofs. There would be less concern about sharing the data. It is the very behavior of the scientists which gives away their conviction about their theories.

    It seems they are also in the ‘5% is a big enough risk’ school, only in their case, a 5% conviction that a theory could be proven is presented as a 95% conviction, to save the rest of humanity from themselves. It is as wearying as the amateurs who repeat that CO2 is a trace gas, and it ‘must’ be the sun.

  69. mrpkw said

    #66
    Not to worry, If Jeef needed muscle, I’d be there.

  70. BarryW said

    What is lacking in the AGW alarmists thinking is the chance that they are right about global warming but wrong about the cause (think land use changes). Consider what damage both ecologically and economically that will be done by CO2 mitigation if that is not the main cause. If the scientific analysis has been corrupted there is a much stronger possibility than that 5% that we may have wasted our efforts on the wrong thing.

    Consider the recent reversal on vaccines and autism and the damage that defective research caused if you think it’s not possible.

  71. [...] Update: As I said below, Jeff Id doesn’t think Dennis is the guy. Steve M.  in the link comments, seems to agree, speculating Dennis might be the target of retaliation. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Ron Paul And Alex Jones On Climategate, Healthcare And The Fed [...]

  72. mrpkw said

    #70
    Don’t leave out the fiasco with DDT and Junk Science!!!
    How many millions of people have died because of that???

  73. JW Moore said

    The Precautionary Principle needs a serious rethinking in light of these recent revelations. When environmentalists are now (apparently) embracing nuclear power (which I have long advocated) it makes one wonder whose bread is being buttered, and on which side…

  74. Lawrie Ayres said

    We in Australia still have a problem with the Labor Government which is still trying to introduce a cap and Trade (ETS). In the senate last Thursday they were still banging on about the loss of Himalayan glaciers by 2035, reduction of sea ice and deterioration of the Great Barrier Reef. Those three examples are the subject of recent revelations and papers pointing up the falseness of the claims. See Andrew Bolts Blog and Jo Nova.

    It is extremely frustrating when the govt continues to use outdated and proven false examples to shore up their argument for an ETS. Perhaps they can be held to account because they lied to the parliament. The politicians cover themselves by claiming they were “advised” by specialist scientists. Apparently in NZ as a result of good FOI laws, advisors must sign their advice so presumably they can be held to account. Pity the practise was not more widespread.

  75. Jimchip said

    #73

    The Precautionary Principle is inherently dependent on risk assessment. Alarmists have taken
    The Precautionary Principle to the extreme of “if there’s even the slightest, most minuscule, chance we can’t take the risk”. Sorta irrational, imo.

    There’s a lot of money in if there’s even the slightest, most minuscule, chance we can’t take the risk.

    Al Pacino in Heat: “You can get hit by a car walkin’ your doggie”

  76. hswiseman said

    Jimchip, just moved it to the top of my Netflix list. You ought to know not to stand by the window, someone might see you up there.

  77. Luke Skywarmer?

    I like it

  78. Whoever leaked the CRU files is a hero. If there’s a crime in exposing lies that could, if ignored, take civilization over the cliff, then the laws need to be changed. When science becomes a totalitarian enterprise, all bets are off. An open society makes laws to protect freedom. That is the basic contract. Violating it creates a situation where we have to re-establish the original vision. Exposing massive fraud is one line of attack. It is entirely legitimate.

  79. [...] Id’s Out Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks An article about the emails at the guardian where some [...] [...]

  80. David Hewison (my real name) said

    Neven,

    “Let me put it this way: I worry that there might be an X% chance of serious global warming effects. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. 5% would already be too much for me.

    When people, for whatever reason, be it financial, ideological or personal vendetta, work hard to make the public believe that this chance is 0, or if this is accomplished as an indirect consequence of their actions, I want them to know that they are responsible. Just as responsible as the professors that screw up or the extremist enviro’s.”

    I very much doubt you formed this view through a process of reasoned thought. If you had, there would be a high likely hood tht, given you considered the percentage chance of risk and as such we should act even for the wrong reasons.. you would also have considered the cost of that risk.. Is the altgernative worse, more expensive, unnecessary or impossible but don;’t tell the public that..

    There is no evidence that you have considered both sides of the argument.. even for the feeblist of minds, they always weigh up the risk.. even when we buy a car.. we consider the safety features of it as we know there is a risk of crashing..

    When we mindlessly repeat someone elses argument.. we miss crucual aspects that go to the core of credibility.

    How about you go do some reading, and consider boths sides and they way up the pro’s and cons.. then come back and you might experience real debate.

  81. Bernie H. said

    Regarding the “precautionary principle”, most of us have seen the phony 2×2 “dilemma” grid that is often advanced by global warming alarmists as though THEY have discovered a fundamental NEW truth – there’s even a video. That is, it is ASSUMED that either global warming is real (AND catastrophic) or it is not (two possibilities). The second assumption is that we can try to do something about it, or not (two possibilities). That’s four combinations for the 2×2 grid, and it is trivial to see that logic compels doing something, essentially Pascal’s Wager (Warmed! Over).

    But who mandated these strawman premises? What if: GW is “real” but only at most an inconvenience, and what if we can’t do anything about it no matter what (it is natural, or we can’t do anything as a practical (political, technical, or economic) matter?

    In this case (we can’t do anything about it) we should not act. Rather we expend our resources on mitigating problems and adapting. (Imagine trying to explain to an island dweller that we spent 20 trillion trying to prevent ocean rise, and he asks why we didn’t spend $20 for a few cement blocks.) It’s called: lost opportunity costs.

    The above, by the way, it not a fundamental new truth either.

  82. David Hewison said

    Bernie that’s a good point, the fact is it is a feeble argument used by those that are mimited in their capacity to dabate the issue because they are either:

    a) intellectually limited, or
    b) ruled by their faith

    And possibly another reason:

    c) personally profiting or gaining power through this fraud

    What is constant however is that they assume the masses are stupid.. Unfortunately you can’t fool all of the people all of the time as the saying goes.

    Thankfully the media is now beginning to report both sides albiet very early days. THey are slowly realising there may be a headline in anti alarmism… The masses are not stupid, they simply were never expossed to the opposing science.

  83. [...] Id's Out « the Air Vent [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers

%d bloggers like this: