the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion


Posted by Jeff Id on December 5, 2009

Alright, now that we’ve established that Jeff Id is not anti-science (again) not a denier (again) we can discuss a bit of what’s happened these past two weeks. I’m feeling a little reflective this Saturday and pretty well stunned by what has happened.

The Air Vent started at the tail end of July 2008. This little blog has grown continually since that time as I and the amazing guest posts became interested in one paper after another. JeffC, RyanO, NicL, Tony Brown, Dr. Weinstien, DeWitt, Lucy and many others. The time has been entertaining as we have gradually been exposed to more and more science here. Mistakes have been made and admitted to, differences of opinion have been argued to the ends of their points. I have learned continually because of the commenters as well as the papers.

I’ve been vocal and demanding of scientists here at this little blog. Demanding Dr. Steig release his Antarctic code and data – even publicly calling him a liar when he claimed it was available. I’ve shown Mann’s absolutely corrupt papers on hockeysticks, pointed out that I believe it was intentionally bad. I’ve basically screamed at a scientist who claimed that, of the 40% shrinkage in average fish size from some rivers this century, he was able to detect that 2% of the shrinkage was due to global warming. I emailed him personally to tell him he was a L@#%. How about the time when Steve McIntyre found Mann used data upside down, Yamal hockeysticization by Dr. Briffa at CA or Steig et al warming of the Antarctic is just temperature smearing.

This blog is only a year and a few months old – end of July 08. The Air Vent has grown steadily over that time. The blog was well known enough that climate science blogs like Real Climate wouldn’t allow any comments from me through. What’s more, all comments deriding tAV stopped at RC. In fact any mention of the Air Vent vanished from both Foster’s blog and RC for several months. Probably because I’m a denier, a non supporter of the agenda, a non-advocate. What’s worse, the Id is a conservative.

TAV has been a lot of work. My thanks to you who provided plenty of support. Just to let you know, my wife is not pleased with the time it takes.

Then the most unusual thing happened two weeks ago, Climategate broke right here. Ground zero!!

Today, on reflection of the past year, even understanding that Mann has recently faked the hockey sticks which passed unmolested through peer review, I’m absolutely shaken by the content of the emails. The meaning has taken a long time to set in. We finally have proof that the collusion to block peer review. We have proof that data was manipulated openly in emials. We have proof of intent to manipulate the IPCC process and PROOF that the FOIA’s were illegally blocked through collusion by government employees.

We knew these things already but now we have the proof!!

While the scientists scramble to both sides, they have been caught, red handed, doing exactly what politicians do. Advocacy under the guise of science.

The angry vitriol from RC and Tamino make perfect sense now that context has been given from the emails. In the past, if you had any disagreement or discussion of extremist warming predictions you were deemed a ‘denier’. Any decrease from alarmist positions was denial. Any mention that sea ice might not be melting as badly as some represent and you cannot even post at RC – denier!! I was personally snipped at Deep Climate blog last year for mentioning that it appeared some used data filters which ‘hide the decline’, as though these people have brilliance such that our words should be censored.

Now we have multiple instances of hide the decline in dozens of fashions. It’s real. It’s amazingly, astoundingly, stunningly real.

Despite the fact that reasonable open minded outsiders knew this is what was happening, even we are shocked by these emails. It’s what you know is happening yet seeing it sets you right back in your chair. We will never see these expert scientists in the same light. We will never believe them to their same face value. We must see all data and code, we deserve to know.

I am truly shaken, there’s no other word for it. I’ve been pushed too far by this and am nearly to the point of denying the whole thing- I’m science minded and have no proof but the intentional manipulation, the fraud .. and it was fraud (we don’t use the f-bomb here) the browbeating of senior scientists in less powerful positions. The IPCC is corrupted and thoroughly implicated. It’s ugly and it is REAL!!

I don’t know, more reflection, some time away from blogland, a nice weekend with my family. It’s simply too much to endure the lies, and then to see Gavin Shmidt prostrate himself for a corrupt group like American Progress. I actually liked the pompous ass. Just wow….

The science of power has bled green on the data and we are the worse for it.


I’m reflective so there are many people to whom we all owe a great thanks. I’ll assume they already know for now though.

89 Responses to “Shaken”

  1. Alan S. Blue said

    The Urban Heat Island adjustment is quite possibly another disaster-in-waiting.

  2. And IMO the Ice Hockey Stick (supposed CO2 records) is another.

  3. telecorder said

    Jeff –
    It’s the people like you that seek to find the truth in life that sometimes, unknowingly, wind up making a big difference in the lives of others. Permit me, if you will, to opine on how one little ‘thread’ being unraveled might just be leading to a much larger revelation…

    Apologies if the following is a bit long and on the political side of ClimateGate’s science ramifications but, IMHO, the recently revealed Whistle Blower’s thread is exposing, and quickly unraveling, a lot of the possibly heretofore concealed interwoven fabric… Is it a stretch to connect some of the possible dots?

    [quote]”I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

    James Madison

    The deeper one looks into how we got here, it seemingly gets even worse —

    [b]The First Global Revolution – A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome – 1991[/b]
    Page 86 of 184
    [quote][b]The common enemy of humanity is man.
    In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.

    …But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes.[/b][/quote]

    The 1991 report is an interesting, and sobering – cautionary, read. It makes one wonder if it’s in the ‘Book of Secrets’ for all incoming presidents and heads of state. I imagine that one’s innate perspective of life going into its reading will dictate what they take away from it.

    If one is an optimist, they might gear their governance policies toward ensuring expansion of science, personal freedoms and ‘growing the pie’; if one’s perspective is of a pessimist and feels prosperity and abundance is a zero-sum game, I’d imagine one would one steer towards trying to ‘share/spreading the finite wealth and mitigate the perceived subsequent, but inevitable pain’. (And minimize/delay the impact on one’s nation)

    Sadly, it would appear that, in most cases, its the latter. After all, if it’s a ‘zero-sum game’, what better way to achieve the agenda than to seize the ultimate political power — Tax the sources of wealth that got us here – individual freedoms, open science, carbon-based energy and… the air we breathe. For the ‘developed countries’, it will require the lowering of their ‘standards of life’, yielding of political power and transferring their accumulated wealth; For the ‘developing countries’, its a time for reparations and implementing new, ongoing, sources of wealth — treasure, political power, intellectual property and technology achieved by others.

    Fast forward to today — Read the proposals and alternatives that are being bartered/haggled over by the intelligentsia and political powers… can anyone doubt that the UN/UNFCC is the lead in to establishing a [b]Supreme Body[/b] aka — a ‘One World Order/Government’?

    [b]UNFCCC – Framework Convention on Climate Change[/b]
    Page 125 of 181
    [quote]5. To ensure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention … [b]the COP shall operationalize an effective financial mechanism under the Convention, under its authority and governance,[/b] in accordance with article 11.1 and 11.2 of the Convention and [b]in fulfillment of its functions as its Supreme Body,[/b] as mandated under Article 7.2 (h) of the Convention. [/quote]

    Page 127 of 181
    [quote]Alternative 2:
    Fully transparent, fair, feasible, efficient and effective, and appropriately balanced
    representation of all Parties [shall][should] be ensured;
    [b](b) …Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources and transfer technology to developing country Parties to make full and effective repayment of climate debt, including adaptation debt, taking responsibility for their historical cumulative emissions and current high per capita emissions.[/b] Developing country Parties will, in pursuing economic development and poverty eradication, take proactive measures to adapt to and mitigate climate change; [/quote]

    Page 135 of 181
    [quote]Option 6
    Alternative 1:
    [b]A share of the proceeds, [an appropriate level to be determined by the COP] [2][3–5] per cent on the CDM and extend the share of the proceeds of [2] [4] [8] [10] [12] per cent on joint implementation and emissions trading[/b] and extend share of poceeds (sic) to new sectoral market mechanisms, extended to other carbon market transactions and other compliance-linked carbon market mechanisms.

    Alternative 2:
    [b]A share of the proceeds of [2][3–5] per cent on CDM and [2][4][8][10] [12] per cent on [joint
    implementation and emissions trading][market-based mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol]. [/b][/quote]

    [quote]Option 7
    [b]A [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties. [/b][/quote]

    [quote]Alternative 3:
    A mechanism for financing mitigation actions whereby a certain proportion of the total number of emission allowances under the Copenhagen Agreement is held back in a set-aside reserve.

    [b]The financial mechanism shall fund the following:
    (a) The agreed full costs for the preparation of national communications of developing
    country Parties; [/b]
    (b) The agreed [b]full incremental costs incurred by developing country Parties [/b]of
    implementing measures covered by Article 4.1 of the Convention, [b]including [/b]for the
    transfer of technology, for, inter alia, the following:
    (i) Mitigation;
    (ii) The deployment and diffusion of low-carbon and environmentally sound
    technologies (ESTs);
    (iii) The research and development of technologies;
    (iv) Capacity-building for mitigation and adaptation actions;
    (v) The preparation of national action plans and their implementation;
    [b](vi) Patents; [/b]
    (vii) Adaptation in accordance with Article 4.4 and 4.9 of the Convention;
    [b](viii) Any other funding decisions as may be determined by the COP. [/b][/quote]

    I submit that what’s been revealed in the Whistle Blower’s ClimateGate missives is a minor, but critically symptomatic, part of where we find ourselves and what the ‘end game’ might be.

    How much and, if so, to what extent has the UNFCCC/IPCC efforts been influenced/guided by the Club of Rome? How much, and, if so, to what extent has the UNFCCC/Club of Rome been influenced by the earlier Cloward-Piven Strategy to possibly create the ‘climate’ needed to embark on such a radical remaking of the World’s societies and governments?

    [quote]The “Cloward-Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into [b]crisis and economic collapse.[/b]
    May 2, 1966
    How can the poor be organized to press for relief from poverty? How can a broad-based movement be developed and the current disarray of activist forces be halted? These questions confront, and confound, activists today. It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.

    Won’t mandated taxes and restrictions of up to 95% of carbon-based energy by the year 2050 imposed by a UNFCCC [b]”Supreme Body”[/b] with sovereignty over all political bodies and peoples of the World result in a ‘few’ unintended/unforeseen consequences and/or a global [b]crisis and economic collapse?[/b]

    To me, it’s the height of presumption and arrogance that the UNFCCC and our political representatives are even considering a complete restructuring of the World’s sovereign governmental structures and forced reapportionment of every individual’s wealth and opportunities based on ideological and unproven [b][i]’consensual science’.[/i][/b]

    Call me a skeptic but lets not be so presumptuous or arrogant to assume that we fully comprehend and understand one of the most dynamic, complex, inter-related and (most likely) self-regulating planetary biospheres known and that we can, currently, conclusively predict, much less model to ANY degree of certainty of it. Gads, we haven’t even been fully able to measure/understand the [b][i]historical[/i][/b] record of ‘Climate Change’ available much less measure/model/understand/predict the current and/or future of it.

    Yes, there is a huge disparity amongst individuals and nations;
    Yes, Humanity is confronted with many bleak, but surmountable, challenges;
    Yes, Climate Change is real;
    Yes, Mankind is affecting our environment;
    Yes, it may be past time for a Global town hall series of meetings to discuss and achieve a possible consensus for a path forward.

    But one that all vested stake holders –
    –are a part of,
    –are given a voice in and
    –are given access to the facts, and all known possible consequences, in the light of day [b]BEFORE[/b] legally-binding deals are made that will so severely impact every facet of an individuals’ political, social and economic stature.

    Just, please, not in the smoky back rooms of international, politically connected/funded think tanks & conferences.

    Yes, we may all soon be witness to [b]The First Global Revolution[/b] — Hopefully, just not with the intelligentsia’s currently envisaged structured, mandated approaches and outcomes…

  4. Mike said

    Here in UK now the ‘media’ is softening us up for the climategate ‘denial’ so that Jones et al can be rehabilitated and the red faces can once more feel in the pink. There is too much money at stake, let alone elitist pride.

    We (AGW denialists)have all taken those emails ‘out of context blah blah…..’ (‘cos truth now is whatever you can get joe public to believe, and as someone once said “the bigger the lie, the more easily people believe it”)

    We can predict the outcome of the IPCC investigation – BAU – we’re still all gonna die if we don’t pay more taxes

  5. Jeff C. said

    It is unnerving to see your worst fears confirmed. I had really hoped it was simply sloppiness and incompetence, as the thought of collusion abetted by the academic community, political entities, and the world’s media enters the realm of conspiracy-theorist nuttiness.

    I have recently been rereading Robert Conquest’s excellent “Reflections on a Ravaged Century”. He dissects in gory-detail the inner workings of the Soviet propaganda machine and its ultimate failure. There is a sentence that started many Pravda articles which loosely-translated reads, “It is a well-known and established fact that…” followed by the latest lie put forward as truth. There was no discussion, dissention, or honest attempts at persuasion, it simply was. Compare that to the tactics of the “consensus science” crowd. The parallels are striking as is the ultimate goal; more centralized government power, less power for the individual.

    Fortunately, there are three factors that greatly increase the odds that the truth will win out; the ability to freely exchange ideas, the ability to “vote the bums out”, and the great common sense of the average American.

    The former gatekeepers of information are impotent thanks to the internet. It is mankind’s crowning achievement in its ability to enable democracy and hold those in power accountable. Notice too how many politicians are starting to backtrack now that they realize the public is increasingly skeptical. The dumping of the Liberal leader in Australia over ETS was a thing of beauty. John McCain now calls cap and trade fatally flawed after campaigning as an AGW alarmist last year. Speaking of public skepticism, the recent Rasmussen poll indicated 59% of Americans agree that it is at least somewhat likely that climate scientists have manipulated their data to agree with preconceived notions. This has happened despite (or possibly due to) the lofty claims of peer review and the rabid denunciations of those that question the science. Abe Lincoln had it right about fooling all of the people all of the time.

    These are heady days. The whole stinking edifice will come crashing down with a few more good kicks.

  6. Arn Riewe said

    I think you left one element out in your commentary:

    “Now we have multiple instances of hide the decline in dozens of fashions. It’s real. It’s amazingly, astoundingly, stunningly real.” … and it’s worse than we thought!

  7. Nancy said

    I’m just an average American woman who knew in my heart and soul that the AGW almarmists were propagandists of the worst sort. I am LOVING these revelations. LOVING them. I hate that science has become (or perhaps always has been to some degree) this corrupt. What I don’t understand is the willing accomplices in the media. When did they become what Rush refers to as “repeaters” rather than reporters? I ask and ask and I still don’t get answers. When and why? Even Fox News is still leading with the non-story of Tiger Woods. Who cares? It has zero effect on any lives, except his and his family’s. Oh well, good work everyone and God Bless the whistleblower(s)!

  8. TonyB said

    Supposed sea level rises are another highly contentious area. Chapter 5 of Tar 4 admits the data is largely made up-sorry I meant scientifically interpolated 🙂

    Another area of extreme concern are the co2 records dating from 1830, many of which stand serious scrutiny and show levels similar to today. Ice cores are extremely complex-why use them when we have actual readngs of co2 taken at the time by Nobel winners?


  9. 40 Shades of Green said

    I believe that the blogosphere has missed something very important in Climategate. That is the fact that the only evidence that CO2 is likely to cause catastrophic global warming are the forecasts of the climate models. There is plenty of evidence out there that the world is warming, but in the absence of the famed tropical hotspot signature, the only evidence that says it was Doctor CO2 in the driveway with the family car, are these self same models. And the reason we are supposed to believe their forecasting power, is their abilitiy to “hindcast” the global temperature record. That is their ability to hindcast the now fatally torpedoed HADCRUT temperature record of the University of East Anglia.

    For anyone knew to the debate, the models are wickedly complex computer programmes that attempt to model the climate system. The modellers feed in forcings such as solar irradiance and volcanic emissions, and indeed CO2, and variously predict two to six degrees of warming per doubling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Many sceptics have issues with the very concept of attempting to model a chaotic and barely understood system such as the global climate. Others have pointed out that the software code underpinning the models is secret and written by graduate students as opposed to professional software developers and likely to be full of bugs.

    But let us for a moment assume that the concept of modelling is reasonable and that graduate students can write good software. Then according to believers, the reason we should believe the models is the following. The modellers have run the model from 1850 to the present day, and put in all the known forcing such as solar irradiance, volcanos, man made pollution and so forth. What they have found is that if they run them without manmade CO2 as a forcing, they cannot replicate the historical temperature record. If they put in manmade CO2 as a forcing, they can replicate it almost exactly.

    And what historical temperature record are they mimicking, why HADCRUT. The temperature record created by the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia. The temperature record that the famous HARRY_READ_ME.txt file essentially calls a load of crap. For anyone new to the debate, this file details the three year attempt of a programmer to make head of tail of it. Here are Harry’s own words.

    “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. .  .  . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. .  .  . Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!! . ”

    Today, December 5th, the UK Times reports that the MET office has decided to throw out the current version of HADCRUT and start again.

    So back to the culprit being Doctor CO2 in the garage with the family car. The evidence linking CO2 to the warming is the models. We should believe the models because they can successfully hindcast HADCRUT. Harry has blown the lid off HADCRUT and the Met office has just thrown it out. So the evidence linking CO2 to the warming is … gone?

    PS, I know people will say that the models can hindcast the NASA GISS temperature record too, but given the documented fiddling here, an audit of NASA GISS and its sister record should be the next order of business.

  10. jcspe said

    I have been an avid reader of climate blogs for several years. I know a lot of very smart people have very detailed opinions about a lot of interesting math, science, and statistics issues.

    BUT …

    At some point in the very near future, it will be very important to provide at least one avenue to deliver a very simple message. Otherwise, the media spin experts will destroy everything that has been gained by the public exposure of the CRU mess.

    Unfortunately, as long as complication is involved, those who must be opposed will be able to rely on confusion, poor education, and laziness within the media and general public to continue unabated in their behavior.

    Simple messages — simple enough to chant like a bunch of 1960’s hippy protesters are needed now. Those chants will have to be repeated until the media can no longer pretend they don’t hear them. When the media finally asks for someone to elaborate on the chant, then tightly packaged messages must be delivered or the spin machine will take over.

    With a h/t to Steve Mosher, the first chant could be: “free the data, free the metadata, free the code.” A second chant could be: “replication — not peer review.”

    If asked to elaborate on a chant, one tightly packaged message could be: “no one has ‘trust me’ privileges anymore.” A second could be: “replication must be independent and complete to have any validity.” A third could be: “Steve McIntyre doesn’t get ‘trust me’ privileges either, but convincing him will be a great start on convincing me.” Other quick, pre-packaged responses will be needed as well. The key is they all need to be disciplined, focused, and stay on message.

    Politicians has attempted to take over science. To defend science, a political war must be waged. Repetition of tightly packaged messages is a mandatory weapon in that war. With enough discipline, the war to free science from the politicians can be won.

    If any of you are as determined as I am to see a victorious end of the politician’s war on science, I hope you will consider these thoughts.

  11. boballab said

    Try Correlation doesn’t mean Causation!

  12. Atomic Hairdryer said

    I’d just like to say thank you for the effort you and other ‘sceptics’ and ‘deniers’ have put in to explaining what the issues are. This also includes the folks that comment and engage in rational debate.

    I’m a sceptic and proud of it. My bullshit detector went off some time ago when I got the feeling the consensus was being oversold. I’ve a bit of a classical education and am an engineer by trade. As a kid, I found a love of the Norse sagas (especially the 2 berserkers competing for a lady’s affection and knocking lumps out of Iceland) and also the Roman times. So I was puzzled when I found out the MWP and previous climate changes didn’t exist. I also became older, wiser, and lived through the .com snake oil sales pitch. I nearly bought a large chunk of ex-Enron assets (mostly nice US woodland to hunt in) and had been sceptical about their climate futures plans and the novel way they regulated the energy market for profit.

    I think my turning point was Crichton’s book and the references. I started looking and I didn’t like what I saw.. But fortunately the ‘net came to the rescue with sites like this, WattsUp, CA, Lucia and more providing a variety of viewpoints that weren’t reflected in the mainstream. I even looked at RC, but got the feeling that demonstrates why you should use professional PR people.

    Initially, I didn’t get the hockey stick. CA has some heavy maths, your and other sites helped simplify it. Now I can follow those arguments better. Same with Lucia, and the differences a trend make, or Bishop Hill for the political shenanigans used to reinforce the hockey stick, or Pielke pater et fils for the land use, or TonyB for the history. Over the last few years I’ve learned a lot of fascinating things, and why the science isn’t settled. Still not entirely sure why speleotherms work as thermometers though 🙂

    It’s been an interesting journey, and it’s not over yet!

  13. tarpon said

    Measuring CO2 on volcanoes is another nice touch, don’t you think?

  14. mondo said

    TonyB mentions problems with the sea level rising issue. I agree entirely.

    Recently The Australian newspaper published a map showing claimed sea level rise around the country. Sites in Eastern Australia showed rise of 1.5mm per year, while sites in Western Australia showed rises of over 8mm per year.

    Now simple logic says that if AGW is causing sea level rise, the increase will be more or less similar everywhere. So why don’t people (particularly jounalists) ask the simple and obvious question – why are the rises so different from place to place?

    And of course, the answer is that the land mass itself is moving up and down in many places. Subsidence is recognised, well known and reported at sites such as Adelaide and sites in WA. Conversely, there are locations where the land mass is rising, perhaps as ‘rebound’ after the Little Ice Age.

    Even the ‘august’ CSIRO has published national averages of sea level rise in Australia WITHOUT even mentioning subsidence or emergence issues. Yet other CSIRO data provides such evidence, as google will demonstrate.

    Finally, Nils-Axel Morner has published a wonderful letter to the President of the Maldives explaining the good news that the evidence shows that the Maldives will not be swamped by rising sea levels.

  15. DougT said

    First, thanks for all the hard work which appears to be paying off.
    Second, your efforts, the efforts of similar blogs and the commentors on those blogs demonstrate the power of the internet to break down the elite gatekeeper function which can previously could, to some extent, decide what views are “acceptable” and widely disseminated and which are not. Rising educational standards means that many of the general public can understand, assess and contribute to debates on complex issues. This is, without the slightest exageration, revolutionary.
    Third, I think a growing scandal will be carbon offsets. These depend on the ability to say what would have happened without the offset. That is that the money from the offsets reduced carbon emissions in practice, not in theory. This is extremely difficult to prove because what would have happened in the absense of the credits in hypothetical.

  16. De Vivar. said

    Having read the DT, the Telegraph (UK), which used to have a frank and open minded editorial, I am just aghast.
    Same c**p with the Times.
    The DT wrote in its editorial and I paraphrase;
    “yes we all know about the emails and that not all people believe in man-made emissions = global warming and sceptics voices should be heard” they averred pompously.

    But then, they proceeded to lay out all the old S**T and that;
    “we all have a duty to save the planet”, blahblahblah.
    And that the POLITICIANS ARE CORRECT (dunno if you know much about politics in England but this government are the biggest liars [and this is not me with an axe to grind] the country [or any other nation for that matter] has ever known).
    This from the Daily Telegraph, a right wing rag (and my paper).
    This was it for me, the MSM in Britain has been nobbled by the political establishment in collusion with big business and the EU.
    I want to puke.
    Brown calling sceptics flat earthers and now my paper treating me as a parent would treat a troublesome and petulant child.
    “Boy! stop your nonsense! and listen to your betters and masters!!”
    And for what?
    A load of old codswallop, as you said up at the top, yeah its gotten warmer, that’s good ain’t it?
    Climate Change – huh! I studied Geology to degree level and yeah climate changes.
    CO2 is the most valuable gas and I love it nearly as much as O2!
    As we say in Britain, f*** me, we are travelling to hell in a handcart and its the damn politicians fault hand-in-glove with their scientific yes men and flunkies and the media are playing ball, conspiracy? You bet!!

  17. I fear we are also seeing a *wiki-whitewash* from that oracle of half-truths- their page entitled *climategate* looks like it was put together by Phil Jones and James Hansen. There are very determined propagandists at work here : /

  18. Kev said


    If it is any small consolation to Mrs Jeff, there are two pluses in your fine efforts:

    1. YOU are making a real difference simply by dint of your own efforts hammering away at home on the computer – and you enjoy the respect of a lot of people as a consequence. and

    2. At least Mrs Jeff isn’t a golf widow – and now there’s a hobby fraught with marital challenges these days 😉

  19. Marlene Anderson said

    Over and over and over again the media kept saying there was consensus and the debate was over. But I could not reconcile the official party line of the mainstream media with what I knew to be true: there were vast numbers of scientists refuting AGW. I give credit to the many scientists who doggedly kept pushing the truth forward. And, credit to the many private citizens who listened and kept presenting the skeptics point of view in every newspaper article discussing climate.

    So many ordinary people took the time to read and understand the truth on climate change and then withstood the constant stream of personal attacks and insults by posting the truth in the comments section of every article on climate. They wrote with the hope that a few people with an open mind might start to investigate for themselves. The skeptics have never been afraid of showing the science supporting their positions. In fact, they invited everyone to look. But they were turned away, ignored and insulted.

    For the hundreds of thousands of hours, more likely in the millions of hours, put in by people who have fought for truth in science, these bloggers and scientists should be Time Magazine’s Persons of the Year. Maybe not this year, as the AGW machine is still chugging away and many of the faithful hold tenaciously to their beliefs, but maybe next.

  20. C3H Editor said


    I believe there are many more on the anti-science side who are truly “shaken” by the thought that Climategate emails/data has widely exposed their political agenda. We have them on the run and you can take a lot of credit for that (tell your wife you’ve saved the U.S. economy as she knows it. That’s what I keep telling my dearest. Or, tell her a local supporter will take you both out to ‘Claras’ on Rt. 53 for all the great work you’ve done – my treat).

    Keep up the good fight, and we’ll be there to keep getting your pro-science message out!

    C3H Editor,

  21. Jimi Bostcok said

    Your post brought a tear to my eye.

    Like you, but so very much less worthy of any praise, I have been at the coalface. It has been a long and lonely road. Family, friends, strangers, work collegues, turned their eyes to the sky, pity for me as the poor fool.

    From the early days of TAV, I have sought refuge here. Surrounded by the mocking, I would slink into my little room, turn on my computer, and soak in the company of those that also knew.

    And such a small community, the same names, day after day, working away, putting the pieces together. All in the faith that one day, one perfect day, the world will want to hear it all, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    So, to the very bottom of my heart, the tips of my toes, the infinate depth of my soul, I thank you. I thank you for every second. Most of all, I thank your wife and your family for letting you have that every second.

    You have done a most profound service for humanity.

    May your christmas be filled with the joy of a heretic vindicated. May your family wrap their arms around you and, in silent ways, say a deep thank you.

    We can soon take a bigger rest but let us regroup soon and continue the campaign. I will keep doing my work over the next two weeks, my silent and sweet work.

  22. Eric Steig said


    I do think you are crazy and deluded, I’m sorry.
    I don’t think you are dishonest though, and I’ve never accused you of that.
    I’m disappointed that you have continued to repeat the “steig won’t release his code” thing, which was always bogus, and you know it.


  23. Jeff C. said

    Perhaps Jeff can confirm the authenticity of #19 before folks respond.

  24. Peter said

    Dr. Steig, Being called crazy and deluded is a compliment, when coming from someone who would prostitute their reputation by consorting with Mike Mann. Shame on you.

  25. Layman Lurker said

    Dr. Steig, maybe Jeff was refering to what went on prior to your email exchanges. I don’t recall any such accusations from Jeff since that time.

  26. Peter said

    Dr. Steig,

    By the way, if you run my last post through RegEM, to fill in the spaces between the words and then let Mike run it through his PCA meatgrinder, it reassembles into a hockey stick.

  27. Eric Steig said

    Hey, how do you know I wasn’t complimenting him?

    Jeff has done some nice work on the Antarctic temperatures. I’ve said so directly to him and his collaborators, and have encouraged them to submit it for publication. It would be nice if he would make it a little more clear publicly that his results basically agree with mine, but at least he hasn’t hidden that fact.

    I do think that he has said lots of very stupid, inflammatory things, including about me, and yet I’ve remained amused rather than angry and willing to engage with him.

    I also still think he is deluded, both politically and scientifically. For the record, my reference to him as crazy was entirely regarding politics, and specifically the idea that ‘global warming’ is a conspiracy designed to create world government. That is crazy!

    None of this means Jeff and I wouldn’t get along over a beer.

  28. Jeff C. said

    Dr. Steig – thanks for replying back, it makes me more confident you aren’t a troll masquerading for kicks. I don’t mean to speak for Jeff Id, but you made the statement:

    “I’m disappointed that you have continued to repeat the “steig won’t release his code” thing, which was always bogus, and you know it.”

    If you follow the link below, you will find a flow chart I pieced together describing the methodology you used for the AVHRR recon. As far as I know, the only “code” you released was pointing to Schneider’s RegEM. In the flow chart, RegEM is one small box near the end of the process. Surely the rest wasn’t done by hand and included multiple scripts. Don’t you consider this code?

  29. Layman Lurker said

    Jeff is one among thousands with a unique political view of AGW. No more deluded than the “big oil” stuff spouted by Mann and others. I’m glad to here that you recognize his efforts on Antarctic temps. In the end it is the science that matters and I’m sure you would agree.

    BTW, why don’t you join us for discussion (if time) once the blog starts getting back to science?

  30. hengav said


    How do you feel that your “simmilar” results have been turned into a worst case scenario for melting in the Antarctic? Do you realize that policy is being made as a result of your work? WAS THAT YOUR GOAL? We all would be interested in an honest response to these questions.

    Ad hom attacks are really not appreciated, play nicely, please.

  31. hengav said

    Jeff C.

    You are a gearhead! It took me a few minutes to get through it, but your point is well made. I see 4 parts of the flow diagram that replication would be next to impossible without knowing precisely how the algorithms were constructed. The REGem “code” is a semantic argument: He used a shotgun, we just don’t know what gauge.

  32. Jeff C. said

    Talk about bad timing. Jeff works on this every night for over a year, finally takes a night off, and Dr. Steig shows up. Jeff’s probably out putting the finishing touches on the bunker for when “the real heavy shit comes down”. Either that, or he caught a movie.

  33. denise may said

    Merry Christmas everyone!

  34. Jeff C. said

    #28 Thanks Hengav. I’m a typical obsessive-compulsive engineer and was immersed in this stuff from January to May until my wife finally read me the riot act. From Jeff’s missive above, it sounds like his better-half might have similar thoughts.

    Pointing to RegEM as “the code” was pretty dodgy. Yeah, that was the tool they used, but it says little about the overall methodology. We were able to figure out the process through trial and error, and some lucky wild guesses.

    I appreciate Dr. Steig stopping by as he does seem like a decent guy. Unlike many of the others in climatology, it appears he spends a lot more time in the field than in an office running simulations. I think he fell in with a bad crowd over at RC.

  35. Sera said


  36. nukemhill said

    There is a sentence that started many Pravda articles which loosely-translated reads, “It is a well-known and established fact that…” followed by the latest lie put forward as truth.

    Having just reread Atlas Shrugged for the first time in over 20 years, I got a chill when I read this. Rand used this language rather effectively as a weapon for the Moochers. I always chalked it up to her usual hysteria-based attempts to paint the bad guys in absolutely the worst light possible. Seeing that quote having an historical basis is shocking.

  37. kavustock said

    #15 I fear you are correct about Wikipedia, probably Gavin’s work. He is one Slick Willy. Harry Read Me excerpts conspicuously absent. They can spin the emails, but the sub-standard code and painfully honest code comments underscore a very serious issue. That is an important part of the story and should be part of that wiki entry.

  38. hengav said

    Jeff C.

    I think Id is probably working on the same issues as you had from January to May. When you show your wife your latest overlay of UAH versus rate of CO2 change… well you know THAT’s not her idea of sharing.

  39. DeWitt Payne said

    Climategate is so going to be a chapter in my book (like I’ll ever get around to writing a book) on the fundamental law of human history: Irony Increases. Murphy’s Law, the Law of Unintended Consequences and probably the Peter Principle are all corollaries of this law.

    Pielke, Jr. has an interesting post by Professor von Storch at his blog.

  40. Jeff Id said

    #19, I hoped we were going to continue the reasonable discussion yet see us not just referred to but linked to as the “crazies”. It was the first comment about tAV I’m aware of in months and obviously intended to catch my attention. It honestly doesn’t bother me though, bloggers have thick skin and I feel no offense from that.

    As you know, we had requested the implementation code for RegEM which had a lot of details we were forced to guess at – for months. I publicly accepted your explanations that the code was not in a fit state for sharing, and even shut down the thread to stop comments on the issue. I never even mentioned your actual explanation on line until I am forced to right now. For my efforts, at least six readers emailed me to explain my complete idiocy (not always in such nice words).

    Don’t worry too much though, I will say the same thing for the rest of my life. Just so people understand, I don’t believe Eric Steig’s paper had any fraudulent or intentionally exaggerated elements whatsoever. It was an incredibly entertaining and clever paper in my opinion and by the end of very detailed study, I actually know now how much warming the Antarctic is experiencing. That’s all I was interested in anyway. There IS good science being done in climate.

    After this event though, the world will trust nothing from climate science, and rightfully so.

    I’m shaken at the leadership in global warming science. It’s as bad as anything I had imagined. Seeing your compatriots working with American Progress (to defend what was revealed) disgusted me to my core, and I was glad to see you didn’t join them.

    BTW: You can let Michael Mann know his latest paper is nothing but signalmatic hockeysticization and is going to receive the same treatment as the last when time permits. Seeing this fart sail through peer review as the last did is the kind of thing that makes us into crazies.

    Honesty, must be returned to climate science.

  41. DeWitt Payne said

    Barrow, AK and the South Pole CO2 site aren’t on volcanoes and they show the same trend. Mauna Loa only samples when they are upwind of the crater, which is most of the time since they are in the trade wind belt.

    The old CO2 measurements compiled by Beck have far worse siting issues than modern measurements.

  42. boballab said

    Hmm I saw on one site a picture of a tombstone with the Incription of:


    Son of HockeyStick

    I guess it’s time to engrave Grandson of Hockeystick on it.

    Now what was that reference about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result about?

  43. Molon Labe said

    24 Eric Steig: My take is that you are an honest scientist. In 10 or 15 years time when you reflect on this ordeal I think you will see that your affiliation with Michael Mann was a mistake.

  44. Bob Kendall said

    To all of you who actually understand all of the details of this and make it understandable to us layman, I, and hopefully the American public, will be eternally grateful. I am a truck driver and read as much as possible on this subject so My understanding of the details is elementary. This planet is incredibly complex and seems to be in a constant state of flux and change as evidenced by previous ice ages and thaws. To think that we can predict let alone completely understand what will happen in 100 or even 20 years with our climate is the complete arrogance on our part. Thank you for doing the hard work and helping us understand. Thanks also for your honesty in research that allows you to come to conclusions that may not always agree with preconceptions. You all have my utmost gratitude. Sincerely,

    Bob Kendall

  45. David said

    Meteorologist Art Horn: “The theory of global warming is lying on the canvas bloodied and dying.”

    (IPCC models fail yet again.)

  46. DeWitt Payne said

    Bob Kendall,

    Modeling the climate is simple compared to the economic inputs needed to drive the models for the next century. Those are nearly pure guesswork. Which is why the IPCC summaries call them scenarios not forecasts. So even if the models were useful, which I seriously doubt, the scenarios of future climate are still unconvincing. Useful is used in the sense that “all models are wrong but some of them are useful.”

  47. Tonyb said

    Mondo said
    December 5, 2009 at 8:03 pm
    “TonyB mentions problems with the sea level rising issue. I agree entirely.”

    It is astonishing to think how we just accept modern sea level pronouncements as being accurate (huge satellite inaccuracy issues of 8-80mm) when the base levels for modern sea level records are to all intents and purposes derived from three very heavily interpolated tidal gauges, all situated in close proximity in the Northern Hempsiphere. To me it is as scandalous as the Hockey stick that the huge assumptions made by the IPCC are not challenged.

    As regards Co2 siting issues mentioned by DeWitt Payne, yes there are some of course, but equally those are pretty well identified by Beck and when he originally presented the data he did mention many caveats.

    From a historic view point taking co2 measurements was a regular feature of 19th Century life, and from 1830 the techniques for doing do became increasingly refined. The UK introduced a factories act in 1889 to control co2 levels -particularly in cotton factories-and they knew the effects that even a single lit gas light might have on readings. The UK Parliament had been discussing Co2 concerns for at least twenty years before that date, so it was a mainstream issue which primarily had been highlighted by Florence Nightingale who talked of ‘miasma’ through failing to open windows in Hospitals.

    The Ancient Greeks also knew of miasma and had ways to clear it from their mines, so awareness of co2 is hardly a new issue-nor is its reading.

    It is evident when looking through GS Callendars archives-who in effect gave Keeling the base figures for co2 from 1900-that he selected Historic co2 records from the low side of the spectrum. 330/340 would have been a perfectly reasonable figure to use.

    It would be great to se a guest post from Beck here, which I might be able to organise if anyone was interested and Jeff felt it appropriate. Becks findings do of course bring into question the accuracy of ice cores -another proxy that I am not happy with.


  48. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    You know maybe Eric is posting HERE because the TEAM’S ship is sinking!

    I NEVER saw the code and ALL of it yet…….

    Eric Steig said
    December 5, 2009 at 11:44 pm


    I do think you are crazy and deluded, I’m sorry.
    I don’t think you are dishonest though, and I’ve never accused you of that.
    I’m disappointed that you have continued to repeat the “steig won’t release his code” thing, which was always bogus, and you know it.


    Eric Steig said
    December 6, 2009 at 12:08 am

    Hey, how do you know I wasn’t complimenting him?>>>>>> there is no comps in your a crazy MF <<<<<<<

    Jeff has done some nice work on the Antarctic temperatures. I’ve said so directly to him and his collaborators, and have encouraged them to submit it for publication. It would be nice if he would make it a little more clear publicly that his results basically agree with mine, but at least he hasn’t hidden that fact.

    I do think that he has said lots of very stupid, inflammatory things, including about me, and yet I’ve remained amused rather than angry and willing to engage with him.

    I also still think he is deluded, both politically and scientifically. For the record, my reference to him as crazy was entirely regarding politics, and specifically the idea that ‘global warming’ is a conspiracy designed to create world government. That is crazy!

    None of this means Jeff and I wouldn’t get along over a beer.

  49. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    None of this means Jeff and I wouldn’t get along over a beer

  50. David said

    Consensus? What consensus?

    Apparently, there was a revolt last July in the American Chemical Society over AGW.

  51. P Gosselin said

    What good is proof without justice?

  52. P Gosselin said

    Does anyone seriously believe there’s going to be reform at the CRU, GISS, IPCC and western governments as a result?
    That’d be something to find under the Christmas tree, now wouldn’t it?
    Don’t count on it – this system is too corrupt to correct itself.

  53. Jean Demesure said

    It’s funny to see Dr Steig convening Jeff to publish through a peer-review he perfectly knows is thoroughly corrupted by the hockey-stick clique.
    Err, Dr Steig, we know the team has rigged the game and we have now ample evidence for that.

  54. Jeff Id said

    #50, I think it’s important to note that the Antarctic work is being done by Ryan primarily with help from Nic and many of the regulars at CA. Honestly, I don’t hold any animosity towards Dr. Steig whatsoever, and we no longer have need of the code because through extensive guessing Ryan figured out the last step to near perfect replication. The guessing is an unnecessary irritation but has been resolved.

    Peer review is about to get a quality opportunity to be open minded. Imagine how different a specious rejection will look before Climategate vs after.

    We always hear writers and reporters say thanks to their audience, without whom this would not be possible. You try to just nod and smile because while it’s understandable, it seems so self gratifying. Now I find the same thoughts pushing forth. It really has nothing to do with this blog though, we all gather here from similar thoughts and it’s the huge and growing number of us which gives our words here strength. I’m thankful for that, but consider how disappointing the circumstances are which forced our acquaintance. It’s incredible to realize that due to the media blackout, we have made only a tiny edge of progress in exposing the politics behind the science and the exaggerations which are so obviously prevalent.

    The world is not going to die tomorrow or even in the next thousand years from global warming. Far greater threats exist, including the suppression of the very thing which has lifted humanity from the constant poverty of previous centuries — freedom and industry.

    This war on industry, discussed so openly by Mann, is the foolhardy dream of a sheltered child. I’m not sure what his original motivations were with the HS but in more recent times, it seems potentially defensive of his famous reconstruction. That peer review lets it through, may be due to the power he holds over his peers. The way he scolds people who disagree in open emails, knowing he won’t loose everyones support… I’ve learned a lot.

  55. babydylan said

    what I find amazing is that when the emails were first released, nobody could believe they were genuine! They were so much like the discussions in the blogs that everybody thought they were a hoax!

  56. Tonyb said

    Jeff your #54

    Such things as the constant concerns to all parts of the population such as fresh water, food, security, energy production, health etc, are being made subservient to the overarching juggernaut of the notion of man made catastrophic warming event.

    However personally I would be more concerned by another Carrington event of 1859 than AGE.


  57. Atomic Hairdryer said

    Please be gentle with Dr Steig.

    One outcome of the CRU saga should hopefully be understanding the dangers of polarising and politicising science, which includes trying to neatly box people into opposing camps. I, and I’m sure others simply want to understand the science and the more viewpoints, the better. Hopefully there’ll be some bridge building between sceptics and warmists instead of bridge burning, as RC’s comment and moderation policy helped achieve. I can understand the need to keep some kind of signal to noise ratio, but if the RC policy had perhaps been more moderate, it may not have alienated people.

    As for ice, I’m missing CA’s Sea Ice thread following the dramatic and rapid collapse of the CA server 😦

  58. boballab said


    I can still get into CA every now and then since now most people just pop over to the mirror site.

    As to RC if you have seen some of the crap they are pulling now it’s unbelievable. There is Dr. Pielke Jr. who is not a total Anti AGWer by a long shot but there is RC firing away at him since he just won’t toe their party line.

  59. mitchell porter said

    I would like to see the climate-skeptic blogosphere tackle the issue of the ice ages. James Hansen, for example, says that it’s the ice cores which demonstrate that a doubling of CO2 should produce about a 3-degree rise. The argument is that the temperature difference between interglacial and glacial maximum is much much greater than the orbital forcing can directly produce, so something must be amplifying it, and meanwhile you have carbon dioxide and methane levels going up and down during these transitions as well. It may even be that it’s the ice-age argument which is historically at the root of the confidence that CO2’s warming effect is as great as it is said to be.

  60. stan said

    Steig participated in a big PR release trumpeting how his study showed that the Antarctic was really warming. When the mistakes were finally sorted out (despite his refusal to help), the PR campaign Steig was part of was exposed as flat out wrong.

    Steig was either unaware he was being used by Mann et al for blatantly political purposes or he was a willing participant. But he was part of a publicity campaign that misled the world and he has made no effort to correct the misperceptions he helped propogate. Call me crazy if you want, but that makes him morally and ethically suspect in my book.

  61. boballab said


    First Hansen isn’t the best source to quote since he seems to have trouble differentiating between the months sometimes.

    Second that one is so easy to debunk. You remember that graph that Hansen’s buddy Al gore used in his propaganda film. It too was based on the Ice cores and guess what? The rise in CO2 lagged behind the rise in Temp by about 800 years, something Al baby didn’t mention in his film. Something that lags can not be the cause of the thing it follows. Its called Correlation not Causation and is explained here:

  62. stan said

    As for Jeff’s original point, the key in the end will be the demonstration of how incompetent so many of the hockey team are. “It’s the incompetence, stupid.”

    The siting of the temperature monitoring stations is an example of gross incompetence on a massive scale. But that’s just part of it. That no climate scientist ever thought to check the condition of the sites is mind blowing. Incompetent is inadequate a word to describe the “scientist” who never checks his instruments. This is stupidity on steroids.

    People need to read the whole story on Mann’s hockey stick. Rather than use commercially available software (tested and debugged) to run his Principal Component Analysis, he wrote his own from scratch. And in fortran! What kind of dumbass does that? And of course, he screwed it up. But the worst part of the incompetence was demonstrated by the “climate scientists” who never bothered to try to replicate his work. He completely overturns the accepted wisdom on the temperature history of the world and no one bothered to check his work. This is science?! They want to impose trillions of dollars in costs and wreck any chance that billions of the world’s poor can improve their lives, but they can’t be bothered to check ground-breaking studies using bizarre new methods?! What a bunch of reckless incompetents! The hubris is staggering.

    Look at the incompetence demonstrated by Rahmstorf and endorsed by Hansen et al, in the “worse than we thought” study which was proclaimed to the whole world in 2007. Not only was Rahmstorf exposed as flawed, it turned out that he didn’t even understand the basic statistics he had butchered. Of course, the alarmist crowd claimed that he had used a brilliant new technique.

    It’s the incompetence.

    Whether it’s his bogus UHI study or the CRU code, Jones’ work is finally being exposed as crap. Hansen’s GISS code is crap. No surprise, these guys are software amateurs. But their hubris kept them from using software pros to clean up their messes. Incompetence.

    Wegman pointed out that climate science would be better if they worked with stats experts. But the hockey team refused to seek help. And the world got abused by Rahmstorf’s amateurish mess and the hits keep on coming. These “scientists” aren’t experts in stats or software, yet they won’t seek the help they so obviously need. And they won’t let anyone check their work when they are done.

    It’s the incompetence.

    The emperor has no clothes. The world is getting a glimpse behind the curtain. And we are beginning to see why Biffra and Mann and Jones and Hansen and the rest of the clowns were desperate to keep anyone from looking at the details of their work. Sure, some of them were frauds. But the biggest scandal is the incompetence. Gross, mind-numbing, gobsmacking incompetence. From the hockey team and all the others in the science community who refused to insist on the scientific method. What kind of idiot claims that science doesn’t require replication? What negligent fool thought it was acceptable to let “study” after “study” become accepted wisdom without anyone having the ability to replicate the work? Answer — all the supposed “scientists” who are part of the so-called consensus on global warming.

    It’s the incompetence.

  63. boballab said

    Actually the whole argument in a way has and always will be the GCMs. Try talking the theory to any of the AGW and it will always end back on the GCM’s. To them the GCM is the Holy Grail, and inside the GSM it all hinges on one assumption: What is a positive or negative feedback to CO2. Ok here it is: according to AGW theory the rise in temp from CO2 by itself isn’t what causes the problem, becasue even they are not stupid enough to try and violate a basic law of physics that crudely. What they believe is that the minor increase in temp from CO2 will in turn cause in increase in Water Vapor in the air. Now as we all know Water Vapor is the big boy in the GHG block, however it is also part of cloud formation and here is were the AGW crowd actually hangs their hat on a WAG.

    You see the AGW crowd doesn’t really understand how clouds work, no one does (well at least until the completion of CERN’s experiment). So they looked at clouds and had a decision to make: are clouds a positive or negative feedback to the CO2 induced temp rise. If it is Negative temps would go down, if it was positive then temps go up so to “prove” their theory they went with the later since the former kills it right there. So they program the GCM’s with Clouds as a Positive feedback and ran their models and got their results that they are now running around scaring everyone with.

    Now however there is an experiment that has been done that so far shows clouds are a negative feedback. That is an experiment done by Dr. Spencer.

    One day something struck Dr. Spencer as funny in the data he was seeing in the Satellite readings and it made him go Hmm. Does a change in temp cause a change in low cloud cover or does a change in low cloud cover cause a change in temp. If its the former clouds are a positive feedback if the latter a negative one. Now I ain’t going to expalint he whole thing here I’ll just link it to Dr. Spencer’s blog where you can read it:

    The conclusion was that clouds are a negative feedback and he used real hard data from satellites in his experiment. That means observational data not just a GCM thought experiment. Dr. Spencer was suppose to turn the work in for review in Jan of 09. I wonder if it has seen the light of day since?

  64. Lady in Red said

    I teared a bit reading Steve McIntyre’s “Last Two Weeks” entry and this is touching, also. I am proud, awed of you all. It is difficult to predict where all this might lead and I am only cautiously optimistic: you must not let up. This, still, might take years to be exposed, unravel. Steve McIntyre is a horse for a long race. Do you others have the endurance for that?

    I would commend to you all the newest entry on this site:

    It is Climategate, with an interesting historical twist I’ve not seen elsewhere. There are many other incidents described about which I know little, except for two, and what I know to be accurate reflects the accounts on the blog.

    Many years ago, I researched, followed, the events surrounding Vince Foster’s death very closely. It was clearly a murder. (Hugh Sprunt was the Steve McIntyre then and you can still find Sprunt’s Citizen’s Independent Report on the web, I believe. It is wonderful witty writing, worthy of a Baker Street Irregular. Sprunt tired of the fight.) Foster’s murder has never been revealed.

    I also followed the writing of the London Telegraph’s Ambrose Evans-Pritchard regarding the Oklahoma City Bombing, clearly a government sting operation gone awry.
    (Timothy McVeigh was a bit player and the scandal leaked into MSM and, then, was — on numerous occasions — corked. A E-P wrote a book about it which is very readable, but David Hoffman’s turgid, 500-plus page Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror is the most authoritative… it was once downloadable on the web, also.)

    The rest? Probably. I don’t know for sure but The Government and MSM are not White Hats. And they have resources and time on their side.

    Back then, I experienced tremendous intellectual dissonance. How could this happen in America? I travelled to DC and had lunch with A E-P, a wonderful, soft-spoken and modest man who was convinced The Truth would be revealed in America – soon. He chuckled at my naïve dissonance. Although The Truth is still there, it is demonized and most uncritical, authority-accepting citizens accept the repeated mantra of MSM. Hell, this dates at least to the Warren Commission’s certification of “the magic lone bullet” that killed Kennedy….

    Whatever, I am confident the WhatReallyHappened blogger – who I had never heard of before (and needs an editor!) – will amuse you all in a thoughtful way.

    I do not mean to distract you from Climategate now, but an understanding of the context in which it is playing out is important for you – for us – to win.

  65. Viv Evans said

    First of all, thanks for all your work, JeffId, and thanks to all you science bloggers.

    I only came to this blog when climategate blew open, but have been reading here ever since.

    Thing is, as zoologist (ret’d), I never understood what the fuss about warming was all about. There have been so many well-documented periods of much warmer times on this planet, and of ice ages. There have been plate tectonics changing the physical environment.
    These times of changing climate, changing temperatures, changing environments, are what after all drove evolution.

    Only when the whole thing became more politics than science did I start reading up.

    The work done by McIntyre/McKittrick, by Watts, by their guest writers, was an eye-opener. I couldn’t believe the throroughly bad science done by the AGW team was actually ‘peer reviewed’.

    Then, as we all know, they got shriller and shriller the more their frauds were exposed.

    Your work, the work of those on your blog roll, have educated me no end, and I thank you all for that.

    I am still incredulous that such junk science was allowed to pass unchallenged by people who must have known better.

    But then, it always seemed to me that none of those famed, ‘world-renowned, peer-reviewed climate scientists’ has ever set foot outdoors, never mind having had some grounding in how to do field work in real, natural environments.

    Thanks to all you commentators as well – I very much enjoy reading what you have to say!

  66. timetochooseagain said

    59-Given that the orbital forcing is in different phases in different hemispheres, not only must it be amplified, it must have no role at all!

    Look, quite frankly the argument that Milankovitch is in sufficient does not understand that Milankovitch doesn’t work that well at all.

    HOWEVER! There is a potential solution. The effect of Milankovitch is to change the solar radiation distribution. Thus it will alter equator to pole heat fluxes. Now if you suppose that there is a strong negative feedback in the tropics, those changes in circulation will result in large changes in mean temperature.

  67. Don B said

    #52 Reform will happen, eventually. For example, in the USA there are national elections every two years, and climate will be a campaign issue in 2010, unless the Republicans have permanently lost their minds.

    On the issue of intimidation of non-consensus viewholders, Bishop Hill has a personal example. Some day, and maybe even soon, skeptical scientists will come out of the climate closet.

  68. American Power tracked-back with, ‘Global Warming Fraud an Attack on Humanity’.

  69. Sonicfrog said

    First, I want to thank Dr. Steig of replying to Jeff’s post in a sane manner… or even replying at all. The honest back-and-forth between the two is one example of how relations between the science side and the public side of this equation can be improved.

    Now to Jeff:

    My friend, I’ve been following Steve Mc and Anthony W since the launch of both their sites, and even contributed some Yosemite pics to I will post a decent climate based bit on Sonicfrog,net from time to time. Of all the people who have come on board to join our merry little band of bloggers, your immediate grasp of the subject, and then contributions to the harder, more technical / statistical aspects of this topic have been nothing short of astounding. Maybe that’s laying it on too thick, but you certainly hit the ground running, and we’re all the better for it.

    Now, that said, experience has shown us that, as soon as you try to take a few days off from blogging, some huge story will break and you will not be able to just sit there and say nothing while the storm rages. It happens every single time I declare I’m taking a week off from blogging, and no doubt it will happen to you too if you decide to do so.

    Again, thanks for your work.

    Mike Alexander, a.k.a Sonicfrog – the geology school drop-out.

  70. TerryMN said

    Doc Steig – good on you for checking in, and for a very reasonable explanation. For the record, I still think you were an ass on a few occasions – but would also probably have a very enjoyable conversation w/you over a beer. Cheers.

  71. Eric Barnes said

    Good luck Dr. Steig.
    Here’s to your science being free from politics and your politics supported by science.

  72. Tonyb said

    Eric Steig

    Your post #27

    With respect, it’s all very well smiling at the idea of a ‘conspiracy’ but the prime leaders on Climate change-politcally and financially- are the British Govt. They are quite clear what they want out of it-social change; altered behaviour and a one world govt brought about by fear of catastrophic climate change.

    It is in their own minutes in Parliament and from comments made by their own ministers.

    I wrote on this subject here a few months ago.

    “Article: Politics of climate change Author: Tony Brown
    Climate change has become highly politicised and the British Govt-long time leaders in funding research into the subject- were very heavily implicated in making it a political issue in order to promote their own agenda. An unsual subject for me, but very well referenced with numerous links and quotes from such bodies as the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons.

    If you can disprove what I have written then we can forget that it is a conspiracy-albeit one I am sure you are not involved in.

    I respectfully suggest you should be more aware of the politics involved here. Our govt is very well aware of the dictum of HL Mencken even if you do not appear to be.

    “H.L.Mencken wrote:The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

    Incidentally, as a footnote the adverts cited at the start of the linked article have received many complaints. They go to our advertising Standards Authority. Its Chair is none other than a UK Govt place man who is also head of the Environment Agenmcy-the UK’s premier agency involved in many asects of the environment.


  73. Have fun:

  74. per said

    “As you know, we had requested the implementation code for RegEM which had a lot of details we were forced to guess at – for months. I publicly accepted your explanations that the code was not in a fit state for sharing, and even shut down the thread to stop comments on the issue. I never even mentioned your actual explanation on line until I am forced to right now.”

    so can you confirm
    (a) that eric steig did not make his code available
    (b) that his explanation was that the code wasn’t fit for public consumption ?
    it is not entirely clear from the above, and it is quite a salient fact

  75. Jeff Id said

    #74, yes.

  76. DeWitt Payne said


    Contamination of the sample is always a problem for something that is ubiquitous like CO2. Try doing ultra-trace silicon analyses for example. It was once thought that leaded gasoline hadn’t caused an increase in environmental lead contamination because tests of museum samples showed ppm lead levels. It wasn’t until Patterson built a clean room for sample preparation that true lead levels were able to be determined. They turned out to be orders of magnitude lower than had been thought, ppb rather than ppm. Picking the lowest CO2 levels reported, assuming that the the test was properly performed, is only logical. The hypothesis would be that the range in reported values is solely to do contamination of the sample from local sources of CO2. This hypothesis is also supported by ice core data and by atmospheric analysis at many sites other than Mauna Loa.

  77. boballab said

    Something a little different, over on Roger Pielke Jr.s he has a post concerning the Andy revkin being threatned by the Alarmists with a Boycott if he keeps basically covering people like Pielke Sr. and Jr.

    As Dr. Pielke put it(paraphrased):

    You would think they would have learned something about trying stiffiling viewpoints.

  78. TerryMN said

    Hey Steig – way to quote mine on your Revkin/Pielke post, [snip] – too far.

  79. TerryMN said

    It was too far – sorry. Grumpy tonight.

  80. Jeff Id said

    #79 me too. — work stinks and it’s looking like a Monday already.

  81. Tonyb said


    Has Eric Steig left the building?

    I would very much like his comments on my #72 which is a direct response to his belief that there are no politics/conspiracy involved.


  82. Atomic Hairdryer said

    Apologies if o/t, but intrigued by Tonyb’s comment about the Carrington event. Not heard of that before, and it intrigues me. Wiki (yes, I know) mentions it’s speed was unusual because a previous event had ‘cleared it’s way’. How’s that work? Assuming the previous CME left a charged path so the subsequent CME could jump?

    And on a related note, anyone recommend a good text book on solar science?

  83. Tonyb said

    Atomic Hairdryer

    The wiki mention is quite good.

    Below is a short exchange between Leif and myself over at WUWT

    “TonyB (15:51:36) :
    What do you think is the likelihood of another Carrington event of 1859 occurring, and if one did happen would that have a dramatic impact on our modern-electronically dependent- world?”

    “Fairly large, and disastrous.”

    To me there are many things more important than AGW that will have a real impact on the world. Might an article on this subject highlight the fragility of our world and that we need to make provisions for likely natural disasters? Its not strictly speaking a climate event- although solar driven which might have an effect on climate- but such an event would be completely disastrous because of our utter dependance on Electrical devices.

    I understand it would be possible to Carrington proof key infrastructre but my brief investigation showed that nobody was doing so.

    I think that WUWT may have carried something on this, so its worth searching the site. I am sure Leif contributed, in which case he would be the man to answer your questions and recommend a good book on solar science.


  84. Ian said

    Not Being A scientist,but i did work with gases and know the make up of our atmostphere, maybe one of you guys maybe able to help,
    If CO2 is on the Increase as scientist and governments alike would like us to believe, would’nt this upset the atmostpheric balance (i.e) oxygen level?? which is made up from 21% and nitrogen,hydrogen,carbon,helium,methane,argon and other numerous gases making up the 79%.
    If this be the case and oxygen was to drop by just.. lets say (1% then surely would’nt we all start to feel dizzy or light headed?).
    Is there any substance to this i don’t know can maybe some one can answer this?

  85. boballab said


    You are mixing up % with total amount.

    first increased % of CO2 doesn’t mean there if less O2 in the atmosphere it just changes the % by a very, very, very small amount.

  86. Ian said

    Thanks Boballab,

  87. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    all so true!

    we all gather here from similar thoughts and it’s the huge and growing number of us which gives our words here strength. I’m thankful for that, but consider how disappointing the circumstances are which forced our acquaintance. It’s incredible to realize this due to the media blackout.

  88. Girma said

    The computer model projections of the IPCC are disproved.

    Who, really, is the denier?

  89. Jeff Id said

    #88 they are running statistically higher than measured temp. See Lucia’s latest post at the blackboard or Chad at treesfortheforest links on right. Does that prove models have failed? I would say that it’s pretty clear they run a bit high in relation to reality.

    I don’t know anything about the link you showed.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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: