the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Truth Will Out

Posted by Jeff Id on December 3, 2009

Time on the Air Vent.

Not as good a topic as Michael Mann’s tossing of data which doesn’t meet his pre-determined warming but ya know, I’ll take it.

Jeff Id, editor of the Air Vent, referred to the East Anglia scientists as “a pile of leftists with an agenda and an already determined conclusion who don’t believe they should have to reveal their data or methods in full openness.”

H/T and kind thanks to Sera.


20 Responses to “Truth Will Out”

  1. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    wow!!! lisa abend
    not a real name i bet… lol

    they do not get it do they……

  2. hpx83 said

    Woa, sounds like you don’t give much for leftists with an agenda there Jeff🙂 This whole thing really shows that the blind faith people have in media and politicians these days (ehrm, well, most of people at least) needs to be questioned. The AGW theory really reaked of agenda-driven nonsense for politicians to mold into their favourite redistribution project from the beginning.

    Never trust the state.

  3. Raven said

    Jeff,
    Your post got a cameo on CBC news:
    http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/ID=1348863654

  4. Sera said

    I was OTFR when I first read that. I started thinking about other statements you have made in the past- others just as good. How about “People wouldn’t read the Air Vent if it weren’t about honesty. So I’ll be honest to Vice Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies — LIAR!!”

  5. mrpkw said

    Great comment !!!!!!!!!!!
    Spot on !

  6. Ryan O said

    Oh, snap. 😀

  7. Ryan O said

    Hey . . . one of these days . . . cause you have like all kinds of free time and stuff . . . you ought to put together a “best of the Id” post. Collect all the best one-liners in one spot. I would enjoy that. 😀

  8. stevemcintyre said

    She interviewed me, but I didn’t make the cut, I guess.

  9. timetochooseagain said

    You’ve arrived, Jeff.

  10. Jeff Id said

    #9Where?

    #8 Steve, you probably just said something like – well the data doesn’t correlate significantly with gridded temperature, especially when autocorrelation factors are taken into account. 😀

    They didn’t bother to interview me.

  11. boballab said

    THe UEA has released this statement on who is heading the “independent” investigation:
    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/dec/homepagenews/CRUreview

  12. KevinM said

    From the first paragraphs of Time:
    “But one thing hasn’t been questioned: the essential conviction that global warming is real and that it is caused by human activity… Faced with nearly universal consensus on the issue, climate-change deniers are apparently adopting ever-more creative tactics to discredit the science behind global warming.”

    Unbelievable. I do not understand who subscribes to these things, they are so insipid and closedminded. At least go through the motions of a discovery process before announcing a conclusion.

  13. Retired Engineer said

    When they start throwing rocks at you, at least they are paying some attention. So you have made a difference. Fox reports that Christopher Horner of CEI has (may) threaten to sue NASA over an ignored FOI request for raw climate data.

    Your work, Anthony Watts, Steve M, Lord Monckton, and others just may be making some cracks in the wall.

    There is a glimmer of hope.

  14. AJStrata said

    Jeff, I think the skeptics (or heretics if you like) need to focus media attention on what has to be the clearest case of falsifying data to arise from the CRU data and emails. That is hiding the ‘1940’s blip’. We have emails from Wgley at UCAR adjusting the SST temps to hide it, we have graphs of CRU data runs from 2005 and 2008 showing the warm period that spanned the 1930’s and 1940’s in land measurements from all over the globe, and we have that ‘fudge factor’ code that was used to push down those station temps in the 1930’s/1940’s and push up the recent temps.

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11685

    Add to this the GISS issue of hiding the period:

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11689

    And you have a compelling case.

    This is evidence even the lame stream media can grasp. We need one example to break this scandal wide open, and IMHP this is it. Your thoughts?

  15. Official scientists came into being one second after the scientific method was discovered, and their consensus replaced the method.

  16. Yes, those reporters are always looking for the pithy one-liners.

    In his *’abundant free time’*, perhaps Steve might create a few punchy ‘flash-card’ phrases for deployment at his next media interaction.

    A writer/performer of ‘Texas Swing’ (country) music once told me that the key is to only use short words; mostly 1 and only few multi-syllable words.
    (and then sing them as separated syllables)…

    So, for Steve McI:

    Significantly @5 is already off the scale,
    ‘autocorrelation’ @ 6 ,
    Heterogeneity @7

    and
    Heteroskedasticity @8?

    fuh ge duh bou dit.

    BTW, Ross McK on (BBC?) TV4;
    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/hacked+emails+revive+climate+debate/3447647

    he’s in the lower Video thingie called ‘data debate’…
    TL

  17. Jon von Briesen said

    Time is calling the water vapor issuing from the pictured cooling towers “Exhaust plumes.” Perhaps the EPA has declared water vapor a pollutant. It sure seems that TIME wants to suggest vast amts. of pollutants entering the atmosphere at this power plant.

  18. R Dunn said

    And in the following sentence, we also learn that Judith Curry is a contributor to the skeptical website Climate Audit.

    I’ll venture that the way that was phrased in this context may rub her the wrong way.

  19. OT

    More Hearings;
    Holdren Holding Forth; ‘Tricks’ means ‘clever’

  20. Mark T said

    The argument about using the word “trick” is a nifty red herring that many so-called skeptics are falling for. Whether you want to call it “clever” or a “trick” is quite immaterial. The fact of the matter is that the “trick” or “clever algorithm” was designed for one purpose: to hide the actual results. Heck, Jones could have said “Mike’s nice method for hiding the decline” and it would have been equally revealing.

    Mark

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

 
%d bloggers like this: