the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Scientists Begin To Tell the Story

Posted by Jeff Id on November 27, 2009

First, VonStorch then Zorita and now from a comment at an article here Skewed science. Advocate scientists from Real Climate are alleged to have threatened this mans job if he published a study inconsistent with the consensus. Read the third reply too. Apparently EH Moran just now felt comfortable telling his story.

Noconsensus – I picked the right URL.

Thanks to reader Eric from calling this to our attention.

by ehmoran


Nov 26 2009
8:40 PM
Amazing!The data (e-mails) are right in Man-made global warming supporters face and they still refuse to see the evidence.


These same scientists threatened my job as a scientist with the US Geological Survey because I tried to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were completely natural caused solely by Earth’s physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not even discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally attack me and my family.

I always knew that when man-made global climate change was showed to be insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word “FAITH”, in science. But this event and exposure is way worse for the science community as a whole. Remember: “Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)”.

Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. But no outcry and defense for those scientists?

IF you can’t see any problem with this and you don’t wonder if there’s been some misleading of the public by these scientists, then you definitely are not scientists, you’re in denial and would buy any bill of goods sold, and you have no moral principles to stand on.

On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on concerning this matter. That website obviously refused to post my comments because they know me, which is another attempt to silence objective parties on this subject and since they were the ones that threatened my job…..

Now, think about this. Al Gore PUBLICLY states that the Earth’s Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn’t even have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can’t, because if they do, the gig is up…….

40 Responses to “Scientists Begin To Tell the Story”

  1. Getting Hot in Here said

    At what point can we stop calling them scientists?

  2. Charlie said

    E H Moran did manage to get a comment posted at Real Climate in Dec 2008.

    It appears to be an abstract for a session at a conference.

    Gavin’s inline comment: “[Response: Wow. I will confidently predict that this is based on nothing more than statistical fits of decadal scale periods and that no mechanisms will be apparent. – gavin]”

  3. Viv Evans said

    I’ve stopped calling them ‘scientists’ when Climategate broke.

  4. Charlie said

    Here’s a pdf link to to the Ted Moran and James Tindall paper, “MAGNETIC INTENSITY AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES: A STRONG CORRELATION”

    Click to access TempPaperv1n22007.pdf

    It appears that Ted Moran works in hydrology. It seems that hydrologists tend to be skeptics. Hurst of Nile River flow history and fractal/red statistics fame was a hydrologist. So is the Koutsoyiannis, D, who has some very readable papers on Hurst phenomena and fractional gaussian noise.

  5. Eric said


    First time posting on this site. I have always had a somewhat “skeptical” view of the AGW crowd, especially since they continue to say: “there is no room for debate!” and “the science is settled!” Science by definition is hardly ever settled. Someone should always be searching for new answers.

    Anyway, I have been reading the blogs and news alot since I first saw this break on the 20th. I first read “ehmoran” posting on another blog either yesterday or the dau before. I just did a search this morning for his name, appears to be Ted or Edward Moran who works for the USGS.

    He had a posting on RealClimate back in 2007 and it looks like they were threatening him and his co author. The link is here and the first comment I see referencing him is @264…it just gets more interesting after that.

  6. Getting Hot in Here said


    I know what you mean. Those kinds of statements got me wondering, as well (although I have always been a bit skeptical due to it being a complex system and a relatively new science). Right now I am doing my Ph.D. in Chemistry and I would have debates with everyone here. In general they would just defer and say that they were experts in their field and that I should not question them. They would send me crap from magazines where the editors would echo the views that the science was settled so get in line. But, reading Climate Audit and some of the other sites, I could see that something wasn’t quite right. I haven’t brought up the subject with my colleagues yet, though. I’m waiting for them to bring it up first.

  7. Bryan said

    You have another first time poster. As both an automotive engineer and AGW skeptic I have been lumped into the denier crowd for quite some time and will happy when that is no longer the case, I have been waiting for evidence in either direction for quite some time, now we have it. The code released is actually the most fascinating for myself being that I spent my summers in my college years as a fortran programmer in the magnetically contained fusion field, which turned me off to pursuing a career in academia (mainly the never ending need to justify grant funding).

    We think of Ockham’s razor regularly in science, which to paraphrase, is when you hold all things are equivalent usually the simplest explanation is the right one. It doesn’t take much to realize this concept has a close parallel: the “path of least resistance”. The path of least resistance when you think of the scientists instead of the science we end up with perverted consensus. All too frequently scientific consensus confuses easy for the scientist with easy of the science. For example:

    Time Period: ~
    The Problem: The shape of the earth
    The Consensus: The earth is flat
    The Reality: The earth is a sphere
    The Hero: Ptolemy (Columbus – accidental)

    Time Period: 1500s
    The Problem: Movement of the Heavens
    The Consensus: The sun and planets move about the earth in a complex dance
    The Reality: The planets (including earth) revolve about the sun
    The Hero: Nicolaus Copernicus

    Time Period: 1880s
    The Problem: Disease
    The Consensus: Spontaneous Generation
    The Reality: Microbiology
    The Hero: Pasteur, Koch, Lister

    Time Period: 1900s
    The Problem: Unexplainable fossil record and mineralogy
    The Consensus: The world is the way it is.
    The Reality: Plate techtonics
    The Hero: Alfred Wegener

    Time Period: 1980s
    The Problem: Peptic Ulcers
    The Consensus: “Stress”
    The Reality: H. Pylori, NSAIDs
    The Hero: Barry Marshall

    Time Period: 2000s
    The Problem: Global Warming
    The Consensus: Human Pollution
    The Reality: Natural Variation
    The Hero: TBD

    The above are simply off the top of my head, I’m sure others here could quite easily expand the list out but to continue on to explaining my thesis. The explanations of those items already proven are simple yes but at the time nobody would conclude they were. the focus was placed on the “easy” solution instead, despite the complexity of keeping the theory from breaking down under its own weight, on the correct solution.

    Each of the solutions to a problem during the time was convenient to the community for a time (a flat earth is easier to put on paper) until such time the theory no longer seems to work the way it should (long distance navigation). There has not been much of human history in which science is actually separated from the various high priesthoods of the time. Perhaps we have seen ourselves go full circle and our scientists are our priesthood?

    Will it be easy modeling the sun’s variation and the earth’s response? (Newton’s 3rd law anybody?). I think not. But will we conclude it to be simplest (and right) in the future? I have no doubt.

  8. P Gosselin said

    EH Moran ought to pursue this in the friendly media and take legal steps as well.
    Russian TV has many videos posted on CLIMATEGATE

  9. #6 Getting Hot In Here:

    Hang on in there, just follow where your truth leads you. The true virginal Science is still beautiful, as you can see here. But she is chained by the monster of Scientism. I was warned I would lose many friends when I did a U-turn and so it was. I was an ardent warmist but dug and dug and suddenly the dams collapsed. Even today I posted a friendly post on the Transition Towns forum (entitled ClimateGate) saying I’d willingly come and talk about Climate Science because I’d love to work with these people once again – only to have it stripped off and a note posted to me as a “Climate Change Denier”, saying that they were only interested in solutions and there were plenty of other places to go talk about Climate Science.

    Fascists! Yet claiming tolerance and inclusion!

    So be warned, gentle friend.

  10. John M said

    “They can’t, because if they do, the gig is up…….”

    You know, that’s even better than “the jig is up”, which is I think what he meant.

  11. dean said

    Eric (#5),

    It’s good to see that RC doesn’t stoop to Ad Hominem attacks…


  12. Jeff btw, congrats on the idea of collecting the confessions and revelations. There’s a book in there 🙂

    #1 GHIT please don’t call any more names than is necessary. Many people who believe they are doing good science have been duped and misled and seduced by “Group Think”, even if not attacked and frightened. I want to continue calling scientists scientists as far as possible. I don’t want to create any unnecessary opposition. In fact, I would like to see the fraudulent scientists serving term by being demoted to work for the legit scientists whom they have ousted. They can do their own dirty work and straighten the records. That would be win-win. After all, a lot of heads need to roll… and I’d like them put to good use.

    Well, Al Gore can polish WalMart floors…

  13. Feedback said

    Lucy Skywalker:
    “I was an ardent warmist but dug and dug and suddenly the dams collapsed.”

    Well OK I know that ClimateGate really doesn’t falsify the AGW-thing and all that, yes I know, that’s going a bridge too far, yes I know, it’s probably “piling on”, yes I know… but hey, it’s Friday night where I am and I’ve been working hard and want some beer and some fun and some lightheartedness, so please don’t take this reworked lyrics of the old Monkees song “I’m a Believer” all too literally… and after all, yes, something seems to have changed during the last week or so…

    I’m a Denier

    I thought Global Warming was a “settled” thing
    That “contrarians” were wrong, was guaranteed
    Climate change was coming
    Sure to flood the seas
    “Now we must act at greatest speed”

    Then I saw the mails, now I’m a denier
    There’s not a trace of fear in my mind.
    I’ve changed my mind, I’m a denier!
    I couldn’t get higher if I tried

    I thought science had been thoroughly discussed
    It all seemed so “remarkably robust”.
    But it was all “adjusted”
    And now it’s busted
    – an artificial artifact construct.

    But when I saw the mails, now I’m a denier
    There’s not a trace of fear in my mind.
    Now I’m free, I’m a denier!
    I couldn’t get higher if I tried

    – A nice weekend to everybody.

  14. curious said

    Lucy – sympathy. I think you have done great stuff on making the arctic temperature records accessible. Science is science and one has to follow the data and the evidence rather than fabricate it. C

  15. Bad Andrew said

    Well done (re: I’m a Denier), Feedback! Well done! 🙂


  16. Phillip Bratby said

    Good to see the number of non-believers is rising like a hockey stick. “Climategate” is up to nearly 11million on google now.

  17. […] Science; Scientists who have been silenced by CRU start to speak out here Air Vent comment here. […]

  18. Jeff

    Another cracking story here. You might like to run it. Courtillot has another picture of global temperatures assembled independently of CRU etc… CRU refused to supply their data… Courtillot did a rather more precise analysis from a few stations he could get records from direct, and linked these to geomagnetic readings… I’d like to see even more!

  19. Carmen S said

    It may be worth reading the RealClimate thread and comments by E H Moran, just to add a little perspective. (from#229)

  20. Vinny Burgoo said

    Eric: ‘He had a posting on RealClimate back in 2007 and it looks like they were threatening him and his co author.’

    E. H. Moran had a posting? He tried to hijack a thread about something else, *probably using multiple aliases* (hint). I got bored trying to isolate the threat to his job and identify which of ‘these same scientists’ dunnit, so I suppose the job-threat comments might be there somewhere, but the most immediate impression was that Moran is a self-advertising nutjob.

    (And another thing… That Financial Post article … Oh, never mind.)

  21. crosspatch said

    I am wondering if Penn State has any comment on allowing a Mann study to be published that again uses the Tiljander sediment series inverted?

    What does Penn State have to say on the matter? I am very interested to know. If the scientists can not be held responsible for producing junk, then maybe the institutions and the journals that enable it can be swayed by shining light on the problem and holding their feet to the fire for not seriously looking at what these people are publishing. It is as if they take an attitude of “if it comes from Mann, it must be good!”.

  22. jcspe said

    I can foresee some alternate scenarios for the unfolding of events to come. A couple of them (greatly simplified) are:

    Scenario 1 – the McIntyre / Mosher Direction with Evolutionary Adaptations

    A significant enough portion of the population can be led to tell the media, the IPCC, and various governments that these people have lost their “Trust Me” rights, but still retain their “Show Me” rights.

    A hippie-like chant of “free the data, free the metadata, free the code, replicate, replicate, replicate” is repeated ad naseum.

    The media cannot decide what to do. Someone suggests they help with the open source reconstruction of the historical databases, after all — the temperatures were all published in their papers weren’t they? Given something positive to do to contribute, 3 of them actually do it, 11,643 watch and criticize. No matter, eventually an open source environment is constructed with all data, all adjustments (presuming any are actually needed, but that is a different topic) and AGW is confirmed, or not.

    Scenario 2 – the Personality Driven Direction with Evolutionary Adaptations

    The defenders of the orthodoxy manage to convert this whole discussion into one of personalities. Someone, be it Mann, Jones, or similar is thrown under the bus to satisfy the bloodthirsty crowd. Then the diversions begin.

    Someone like Moran (whom I know absolutely nothing about and am not suggesting even for a moment that I do – it is only an example for this exercise) gets elevated to a position beyond where they can defend themself and then their head is systematically sawn off.

    The whole argument will get transformed into hanging on the case built around a single person or small group. Then the press will set in. We will read a plethora of stories, each one more salacious and demeaning than the last. His dog once had ugly puppies. His 2nd cousin twice removed tried crack in college. He voted for Sarah Palin, or least thought about it. He is a “disgruntled former employee.” Yada yada blah blah. He personally killed Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha. And, he is not a nice guy.

    In scenario 2, the question of science will be quickly lost through manipulation. Scenario 2 plays on the home court of those who should have lost their “trust me” privileges a long time ago.

    Sorry reality about this comment. I know the real issue is these jerks were gatekeeping the literature. I know finding 40 authors that were screwed by the system would illustrate that. Unfortunately, it take the focus off of whether anyone should have “trust me” privileges on matters as important as these.

  23. Eric said


    I just looked up his name after I saw this posting here. I saw the link to RealClimate and read page 6 and 7 with Moran and Tindall’s comments and then copied the link here for others to read. I did not back track to see what the original topic was on.

  24. Nick Stokes said

    Eric #5
    I agree with Vinny. I went to the thread that you linked, and got down to ehmoran #278:

    I’m going to send a copy of this page, the New Science page, and a log file from and my firewall program to several interested parties, since you have threatened me in everyway.

    and then #289:

    Everything that has happened on this site has been seen by many of my colleagues. They know me and what I do and what I’ve done. I will continue no more, You have posted threatening statements towards me and my family. Soon I will demand a written apology from this WEBSITE and I just might take it further.

    I think there’s a high level of threat sensitivity here. I couldn’t see any threats myself.

  25. Brian B said

    It took me about five minutes to see several instances of people at RC wondering about Mr. Moran’s employer, whether what he did was allowed by his employer and whether his employer should be notified as to what he was doing.
    I think mr. Moran was hardly being highly sensitive to what were clearly job related threats.
    The references to his psycho pathologies and him being a nut job were merely the usual RC ad hom icing on the cake, to which we are now treated here at this blog.
    You’d think after the last few days folks like Vinny and Nick would get a clue about this kind of behavior but I guess Kipling had it about right regarding leopards and spots.

  26. Phaedrus said

    In 1942 8 aircraft were forced to land on the ice in Greenland. Fifty years later a team had to dig down 250ft of ice and snow to recover one of those planes.

  27. Neil Fisher said

    These people have no shame. I’ve posted the following at CA and emailed RPJr about it.

    Check out New Scientist magazine, 28th November 2009, page 11, article titled “Hacked archive provides fodder for climate sceptics” where they report Mann told them that “… the ‘trick’ was simply a published device to extend to the present a graph of temperatures derived from the analysis of tree ring data. This is done using real thermometer data.” Just how this can be reconciled with Mann’s claim that “no-one, to our knowledge, has ever done this” is an exercise I leave for others.

  28. BarryW said

    We may be seeing a sea change. Many researchers may have been cowed by the bullying threats to their careers from these thugs. Now that they’ve been exposed they may feel emboldened to speak out about the threats they have received to keep their mouths shut about what has been going on and to suppress data that casts doubt on CAGW. One can only hope.

  29. Nick Stokes said

    Brian B #25
    It’s a long RC thread, and I couldn’t find those threats which produced such an extreme response from ehmoran. Would you like to quote some?

    I think this post’s reliance on ehmoran’s allegation of USGS threads is on shaky ground.

  30. Brian B said

    Nick #29,

    In posts #245 and #264 Dr. Tindall and Moran are warned that their dalliance in climate science runs afoul of USGS employment guidelines. Hard to read it as anything other than a threat to their livelihood.
    Their paper may very well be junk; haven’t read it. Don’t care.
    The issue is the all too common practice of relentless ad hom attacks on people who dissent. It was only after Dr. Tindall set a few facts straight in post #300 that any semblance of civility was displayed by the RC regulars.

  31. Nick Stokes said

    Brian B
    Pointing out a possible breach of a guideline is hardly a threat, let alone “to me and my family”.

    Most of the criticisms were not based on the paper, but on ehmoran’s blatant sock-puppeting. For example, post #235 has “Ted Fulton” saying:
    The senior author is a very well known modeler in complex dynamic physical systems while the co author, Dr. Tindall is very well known author having wrote what is called the text book in unsaturated zone flow and works as a scientist for the National Research Program of the USGS, while the senior author also works for the same agency. Thus, I would consider these individuals extremely well qualified scientists and not fruits.

    while post #236 has “Michael Simons” saying
    The senior author is a well known and respected modeler in complex dynamic physical systems while the co author, Dr. Tindall is also a well known author, having wrote what is called the text book in unsaturated zone flow and works as a scientist for the National Research Program of the USGS, while the senior author also works for the same agency. Thus, I would consider these individuals extremely well qualified scientists and not “nut jobs” as stated by Ray Ladbury.

    The “senior author” is of course ehmoran. That sort of thing will get you attacked (or laughed at) anywhere, sceptic or no.

  32. Kon Dealer said

    Phaedrus, Oh be sensible, it is obvious that the plane sunk through the melting ice until it got stuck!

  33. Brian B said

    –Brian B
    Pointing out a possible breach of a guideline is hardly a threat, let alone “to me and my family”.–

    Threatening to point it out to one’s supervisors is certainly one.
    But of course anyone predisposed to think a “trick” to “hide a decline” really means an effort to show things in plain sight is predisposed to see, hear and speak no evil, at least on their side of the balance sheet.

  34. Hoi Polloi said

    Brian B, it’s useless to go into discussion with poeple who believe in faith.

    zealot [ˈzɛlət]
    an immoderate, fanatical, or extremely zealous adherent to a cause, esp a religious one
    [from Late Latin zēlōtēs, from Greek, from zēloun to be zealous, from zēlos zeal]

  35. Layman Lurker said

    Looks like some sock puppeting at RC to be sure. It certainly doesn’t bolster his case. However if we are going to consider questions about credibility wrt dishonesty and misrepresentation on the internet then RC is no angel.

  36. Brian B said

    –Looks like some sock puppeting at RC to be sure.–

    Very likely. And I’m highly dubious of the science as well.
    The proper response however, especially for a blog as vigorously moderated as RC, would be to snip the offending posts, not allow cheerleaders to threaten the guy for moonlighting. Especially on a place the proprietor of which spends a good deal of his NASA payday snarking at dissenters.

  37. Richard Henry Lee said

    Edward Moran was attacked by the folks who blog at RC for supposedly working on outside projects on the taxpayers’ dime (when he did not) yet those same bloggers ignore the fact that Gavin Schmidt himself spends a ton of time moderating and commenting at RC at the taxpayers’ expense.

    In a related matter, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has stated they plan to sue NASA for their failure to turn over documents under the Freedom of Information Act related to Gavin’s extensive posting at RC while working at NASA’s GISS.

  38. Nick Stokes said

    OK, so what do we have here? This post started out:
    Scientists Begin To Tell the Story
    and Advocate scientists from Real Climate are alleged to have threatened this mans job if he published a study inconsistent with the consensus.

    And what are the facts? 2+ years ago there was a public discussion at RC. Some commenter said that publishing this paper (already published) indicated moonlighting in breach of a USGS reg. There’s an implied threat to tell USGS. Some threat! Publishing papers under your own name is scarcely a secret activity.

    And “Apparently EH Moran just now felt comfortable telling his story.“. Really? He’d been keeping it a secret?

  39. Some Guy said

    #3 viv is right. They’re not scientists, they’re fraudsters who may have been scientists at one time, before they developed their lust for attention. The epithet I see going around is “the hockey team”, and that’s what I’ll be using to refer to them from now on.

  40. Dave said

    @Nick Stokes-

    You could make a lot of money in politics.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: