the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Some Thoughts on Blog Moderation

Posted by Jeff Id on January 8, 2010

Today(as pointed out by several readers), a blog called fragilecologies put up a post titled SKEPTICS, SHOW US YOUR EMAILS: ‘turn-about’ is fair play.” Mickey Glantz, DAY 4 at COP 15. The post wasn’t that exciting for me, it went on about how climategate is no big deal because “skeptics do it too” basically. So why not just release all the ‘skeptic’ emails and make the advocates happy? Unfortunately for the advocates, my emails include every single comment at tAV, they include some business with Tiawan, some personal emails and a few other things unrelated to climate. The CRU whistleblowers took time to filter these sorts of things out. In the past year and a half, tAV has received 14,783 comments mixed in with all these emails. The correspondance with other bloggers is a very very small fraction of those, and the vast majority is right here in public. I actually considered it still but it wouldn’t have the same impact when you consider that the lack of ‘hide the rise’, would only mean my implied evil doings were sanitized before release. If you want the true impact, hack away.

It doesn’t matter though because this is an open blog, people trash bad work here faster than you could make it. Steve McIntyre once wrote that he appreciates disagreement, my reply on his thread was something like ‘screw up more, we’ll help you out’. The long time readers here know that unfortunately, I screw up fairly often. My saving grace is to finish with a respectable job of admitting it, even though like the rest of you, I don’t want to. The point isn’t to be perfect right out of the box, but rather to come to the right conclusion. Hell, I’ve got a CRU post from only a week ago which we still haven’t figured out what’s wrong.

So what’s the point of all this long winded self gratifying rubbish…


…..It’s NOT possible because everything is in the open!!

……..Go ahead, try it in the comments, be open with your math and see what Kenneth, Steve McIntyre, Steve Mosher, Roman, Ryan, Lurk, Nic, John, etc. on and on….do to you.

Everything is in public, my posts here cannot perform a “trick” to “hide the decline” or “hide the rise” and neither can the guest posts here. And I would bet anyone here that even the slickest among you could not convince Steve McIntyre to post bad math to “hide the rise”, decline or even tweak the result an unnoticeable microscopic bit. I’m still waiting to bust him screwing up! — Missed by only two hours on his Yamal work 😉 – BECAUSE HE FOUND IT HIMSELF FIRST!!

This is the relationship of skeptics.

So according to the title, we should talk about moderation. Even before becoming such a big fan of CA, tAV was unmoderated. It’s the only way to do science. Moderated blogs imply that things cannot be heard, very unscientific in my firm opinion. Real climate is such a blog and we know very well that they moderate to prove themselves right as much as anything.

A reporter once asked how this blog keeps such a good tone while anyone can comment unmoderated. Among other things, I told him graphs scare trolls – haha. In retrospect, the truth is that people who understand lurk here, and the community is quite willing to explain errors in thought to anyone here, including me (you guys could give a little room for the host). The point is, were this blog moderated, it would have no credibility whatsoever.

So after all that jabber, I left this comment at the blog linked above regarding the climategate emails. Not ironically — it’s currently in moderation….

Some people left comments at tAV so I thought it might be worth checking out your post. You’ve missed an important point.

I (like climate audit) do almost everything in public so when something is wrong, it’s challenged in moments. It’s simply impossible to eliminate points, make up fake data or hide the decline.

Try posting a bad equation or bit of code in the comments at CA and you’ll find out usually in under an hour about it. I know this first hand. Do you have any idea how long it would take for Steve M to be slaughtered if he did bad math in a post?

My last post had too much slope in the result for skeptics, I was told several times that it confirmed hadcrut – not a denial post. I didn’t agree because the grid weighting wasn’t fair to the SH which has far less warming, when it is though, it very well might confirm the replication of CRU but it’s a perfect illustration of the difference in thought process.

If it doesn’t match CRU because it has a mistake, I’m going to be tossed under the nearest set of tires by the readers faster than you can blink. Skeptics are pretty well skeptical of well…. everything. And rightly so.

The scientists were not honest in their presentation of fact. They were not open with their methods or data. They have been shown in some cases to have an agenda first mentality. All of this is impossible on an unmoderated blog — try it.

37 Responses to “Some Thoughts on Blog Moderation”

  1. HotRod said

    and he replied praising your post! quite rightly.

  2. Peter Pond said

    Hi Jeff

    I think there is an argument for moderation regarding language or libel, BUT as soon as one starts down the moderation path, you run into the age-old censorship question of where to draw the line. I am glad that I am not the one making the decision. Having said that, I find that bloggers at tAV are remarkably well behaved – probably too busy trying to get their heads around concepts and maths, etc.

    Thanks for the science-focussed straight shooting on this blog.

    BTW, as a fully-fledged pedant, I should point out that “ChiefIO” is misspelled in the Blogroll listing to the right.

  3. Jeff Id said

    #2 Second one to tell me about the spelling too. I’ll fix it.

  4. Jeff Id said

    #1 he had a nice response.

  5. Steve Fitzpatrick said


    For a smart guy, you are remarkably willing to admit error, discuss methods in detail, and consider alternative evaluations. Were these traits common in climate science, I doubt Global Warming would be half a contentious as it is.

  6. Jeff Id said

    #5 You are too kind. I hate being wrong. You guys give no choice.

  7. Steve Fitzpatrick said


    I do not know where you posted the above comment (“Some people left comments at tAV so I thought it might be worth checking out your post.”). If it was at RC, I think you are just wasting your time. If it shows up at all, it will probably be edited to make you look like a fool. RC is not a blog about climate science, it is a blog about political advocacy.

  8. Jeff Id said

    It was posted at the linked blog – link colors aren’t very bright in this format. You are right about RC. It took a while to figure it out because it’s not a Joe Romm clean example as some there are less willing to follow the pack.

  9. Andrew Rutherford said


    As I believe you have pointed out, blogs such as “The Air Vent” offer a form of “peer review” and critique that ensures declines cannot be easily hidden.

    Also, perhaps Mickey Glantz could provide us with some samples of what these emails would look like (if they existed) and who the senders and recipients would be? I’m sure all us “deniers” would love to know if we are part of a denial conspiracy, and I’m sure that if we were, the majority would not want it to be “hidden”. Regardless, as has been the case with the ClimateGate emails, I’m sure they would be a good read!

  10. C3 Editor said

    I’m not sure if I’m following the logic of “fragilecologies” since it was either a hacker or whistleblower who revealed emails that were on a government funded “climate science” email server. Is there a comparable skeptic e-mail server out there that no one knows about, which could be hacked or exposed by a whistleblower? And another thing, the Climategate email authors didn’t offer up their emails and data files to anyone. Why would it be “fair play” for others to offer their emails when not a single Climategate protaganist did so? What am I missing here?

    (For the record, I did exchange an email earlier this week with one of the most prominent skeptic bloggers. We physically met at last year’s Heartland conference during March, 2009. Ten months later, I finally contacted him via email asking if he was attending the 2010 Heartland conference. That’s it. Yep, it’s a big skeptic conspiracy.)

    Jim @ C3

  11. hi jeff, just read your blog and have to correct one thing: it was a big deal but more for the way science is done in the USA and UK, how peer review is not really done properly, how the IPCC is in dire need of revamping. i know some of the climategate guys but i don’t like things like gloating over the death of a skeptic, or using words like ‘hide’ or trick’. many still independent about global warming science were likely now questioning the science and are unsure which ones to believe. that will have a lasting impact but within the circle of wagons of the scientific community, they say it will blow over as no biggie. i don’t agree. i had many arguments with ipcc scientists and they are arrogant about this.

    by the way when i was fired from ncar in august 08 after 34 years there (most published and most outreached) some of the skeptics (like fred singer) came to my defense saying though we disagreed there was no excuse to fire me!

  12. John Norris said


    … and you are not on the team that is establishing the content of IPCC reports and in turn effecting the transition from spending billions on AGW to trillions. Far more important that they can be scrutinized then you. Unfortunately for the world they are not the team that posts everything, warts and all.

  13. Jeff Id said

    Wow, is there anywhere that you have posted your version of what happened (perhaps your blog)? It sounds like interesting reading.

  14. Lady in Red said

    There is an interesting recent blog on Mickey Glantz’ site illustrative of the pervasiveness of thinking in this mainstream community now:

    The blog discusses the branding of science and postulates that, if only the CRU email release had been called emailgate instead of climategate, all would be well today.

    There is a very revealing sentence about the importance of a “belief in the science of global warming.” Say what? I swallowed hard and posted this comment (which is awaiting moderation and who knows where it will go…). I thought it all deserved a broader audience.

    This is what I wrote:

    What a strange posting. Branding…?

    Although NCAR seems to have fallen into scientific and mental rubble of recent, it is hard to imagine your mentality there, say, 34 years ago and counting forward…

    Stolen/hacked CRU emails….? Not whistleblower…? Not a truth-seeker exposing a long-infected, corrupt, pseudo-scientific establishment which had years ago abandoned any pretense at honest, trial-and-error, believe-in-the-truth study? You didn’t see that?

    (Do you have any thoughts on the revelations inherent in the quality of the work exemplified in the programmer’s Harry_Read_Me files? )

    You write of “the non-believers in the science of global warming…?” What is that? Who are they? Those starting with the answer (belief in global warming) and backing their research into this pre-ordained “belief?”

    You really once worked at NCAR? In the olden days….when it did real science?

    Walter Orr Roberts gave me a tour of NCAR once (well he gave my husband a tour and I happened to be there). I couldn’t fathom the Crays, what they could do, why his eyes and those of my husband sparkled so. Both men believed in truth, in research and study, but certainly not in “the science of global warming.”

    (Matter of fact, Roberts studied “the greenhouse effect” for a bit. I found the intrigue of the international research behind “the Iron Curtain” heart-thumping and was disappointed when it went nowhere in Roberts’ estimation. Of course, Roberts was doing science, testing ideas and theories, which, apparently, is different than what you did during your time there, what passes for research and thinking there today.)

    I wonder what Walter Orr Roberts would think about the NCAR community having now swallowed a belief in “the science of global warming?”

  15. MrPete said

    This is great. EXACTLY the kind of thing I’m talking about in terms of multidisciplinary Open Science.

    We need to do all we can to encourage such openness, healthy skepticism, etc etc.

  16. AMac said

    My earlier post to Michael Glantz’s thread was allowed (it’s at #5 there). As comment #6, mglantz asked me, “I have to ask if you are really serious that skeptics’ emails are all out in the open? To me that is an incredible assertion, science aside.”

    My response is in moderation there, cross-posted here (Jeff Id, say if you don’t want bandwidth used in this way).

    Re: #6 by mglantz —

    You misunderstand. I don’t claim that “skeptics’ emails are all out in the open.” You have yet to meet the burden of showing that this might be an interesting issue, even hypothetically. The skeptics whose writings I am interested in are McIntyre, McKitrick, Jeff Id, Lucia, and some of their commenters–as far as insights they have to offer concerning the strengths and weaknesses of public understanding of climate science.

    What do you suppose these skeptics have written privately that would be more worthwhile than their blog postings, etc.?

    Here’s what I see, from the outside.

    Groups of like-minded scientists have published a series of articles in the peer-reviewed literature and established a consensus on paleoclimate, the instrumental temperature record, and similar things.

    Some people have challenged the science behind some of these assertions.

    The response of the climate-science community has been disdainful and at variance with the norms of science. In my opinion.

    The Climategate hack/whistleblowing offers direct evidence in support of that assertion. But there was plenty of other evidence to that effect, anyway.

    There are two issues.

    (1) Who’s right, in terms of the reality of paleoclimate, the interpretation of the instrumental record, the extent of direct and indirect temperature forcing by rising CO2, and other matters?

    I don’t take a position on that. I don’t know enough.

    (2) Who’s right, in terms of how science should be practiced, in terms of the philosophy of hypothesis-forming and testing, verification, replication of work, archiving of information, and handling of disputes, e.g. as far as access to data and computer codes? Who’s heeding the sorts of cautions that Karl Popper and even Richard Feynmann (cargo-cult science) wrote?

    That one’s easy. The leading lights of climatology are in the wrong, and the skeptics are in the right.

    The consensus AGW position has earned itself an epic Fail in its arrogant dismissal of skeptics.

    > I ask you to tell me what in theory might it take to get you to switch sides on the global warming issue? What evidence would you need? Answer that please.

    Mainstream climatology has to clean house so that its work can become evaluable. Perhaps it’s credible, perhaps it’s right. Under the present circumstances, who can say?

    — Make a committment to archive data, and make the archives freely and easily accessible. With the Web, this has become trivially easy.

    — Make the archived data interpretable by archiving metadata. E.g., tree ring widths associated with tree IDs, locations, pictures. E.g., average temperatures associated with station IDs, with mins and maxes, raw data given along with adjustments, rationales for direction and extent of adjustments.

    — The climate community takes the first steps to separate the practice of advocacy from that of science. Scientists quest after truth, not after unanimity that will drive the preferred social policy.

    — Fix peer review. Raise it from its present disgraceful level, so that it’s merely plagued with the same sorts of problems that are faced in other areas of the physical sciences.

    One prominent test case is Mann et al (PNAS, 2008)’s use of the Lake Korttajarvi (Tiljander) lakebed varve proxies. Mann inverted at least two of them. This highlights some very serious problems in their methodology and in their paleoclimate reconstructions. When called on this mistake by McIntyre and McKitrick, he denied it. What’s amazing is the complicity of the rest of the climate and paleoclimate community in this outrageous conduct by Mann and his co-authors.

    Name for me *one* prominent scientist who has publically challenged Mann et al. to correct their errors? Name for me *one* prominent scientist who’s pointed out that adherence to good practices and stated journal policy would allow others clear access to their data and methods, and thus enable replication?

    [Crickets chirping]

    You won’t. Because you can’t. Nobody has stepped forward.

    The woes of mainstream climate science aren’t the results of actions taken by skeptics (or, using the intentionally offensive term preferred by Mann, Jones, Schmidt, and others, “denialists”). The injuries are self-inflicted.

    By the way, I’ll cross-post this at “the Air Vent.” Too much experience with writing thoughtful on-topic remarks and having them sometimes fail moderation. It’s frustrating, and leads to a non-level playing field–as this only seems to befall skeptical comments submitted to pro-consensus blogs.

  17. HotRod said

    Lady In Red – that really is the oddest post you linked to. the idea that if it was called emailgate rather than climategate, it would be less of a big deal, I mean. I’ve posted there too as follows:

    Mickey – I can’t make you out. Was directed across here from tAV. This is the oddest post, for a scientist. Yes, presentation, branding etc all important, but Climategate is till pretty hush hush in the mainstream media, all things considered.

    My impression is that no-one in or around the climate community, from von Storch to McIntyre to Curry to Michaels to Pielke to Sonja B-C to Christy to hundreds of others of an independent or questioning mind, who had had anything to do with the Team and their crushing process, or who had observed their reaction to MM2003 or indeed any criticism, or had had much to do with the IPCC process, like you, is really, maybe with some hindsight, terribly surprised at the content.

    I think the point is more that it happened at some kind of tipping point, the frustration at being asked, no, told, to believe whatever they said, accept IPCC with its overblown alarmism led by the ridiculous Pachauri, and on occasion outright lies and exaggerations, the persistent refusal to accept any auditing, the desire/need to get rid of the MWP, it goes on.

    And the tipping point, as we saw from polls, was not confined to those ‘in the know’, but was widespread in the general public too.

    I don’t think it mattered what it was called. There was a pervasive feeling that these people had in the end made climate science ridiculous, and Climategate revealed exactly how, and gave some pretty good insights into why as well.

    An example, covered in the last couple of days on some blogs, has been the absurd record of the UK Met Office – whatever is actually going on they predict warming, year in, year out, and I think over the last ten years, in the UK at least, it has sunk in to anyone sentient that they are slaves to a belief set. they couldn’t forecast cold weather if it bit them in the leg – they’re not allowed to.

    I’m not a scientist, I’m a trader, I have little comment on the science, but i do understand facts, correlations, some stats, the perils of UHI, and I could feel I was being lied to, somewhere. And now I don’t even trust the Met Office/HADCRUT to tell me the temperature, because of their inherent bias, revealed horribly in the emails.

  18. Harold Vance said

    I don’t know about the rest of you guys — keep in mind that I’m an application/software developer by trade — but if someone asked me for my work product (notes, emails, code, etc.), I would be pretty flattered. And I would go way out of my way to bring that person making the inquiry up to speed on my work. I love to talk about my work. It would be a pleasure to discuss it.

    Why is it with public servants like Jones (funded with American taxpayer dollars) that they hate to divulge anything at all? I just don’t get it.

  19. Luvmy91stang said

    Was reading a piece by Clay Shirky and thought of Michael Mann and his fellow alchemists, aka The Team. I also thought it fit the theme of this blog post.

    “The Invisible College, the group of natural philosophers who drove the original revolution in chemistry in the mid-1600s, were strongly critical of the alchemists, their intellectual forebears, who for centuries had made only fitful progress. By contrast, the Invisible College put chemistry on a sound scientific footing in a matter of a couple of decades, one of the most important intellectual transitions in the history of science. In the 1600s, though, a chemist and an alchemist used the same tools and had access to the same background. What did the Invisible College have that the alchemists didn’t?

    They had a culture of sharing. The problem with the alchemists had wasn’t that they failed to turn lead into gold; the problem was that they failed uninformatively. Alchemists were obscurantists, recording their work by hand and rarely showing it to anyone but disciples. In contrast, members of the Invisible College shared their work, describing and disputing their methods and conclusions so that they all might benefit from both successes and failures, and build on each other’s work.”

  20. P Gosselin said

    But I’m surprised (yet not surprised) you haven’t commented on the ongoing CRU investigation.
    Being the blogger who broke the news in November, it is said you’ve been contacted by the Norfolk police. I do hope you’ve gotten good legal and PR council in the meantime. Seems like the focus of the investigation is not where it ought to be. A lot of thirsty hound out there.

  21. boballab said

    I haven’t went and read his blog but I believe it would be a safe bet that he hadn’t did an in depth look at what is on a “skeptic” Blog. You spend 5 minutes in the comments section on WUWT and watch the “Skeptics” go at each other over what role the Sun plays in the climate, or at CA or Lucia’s and watch equations fly back and forth, or here and CA where you get 2 screens worth of computer code. Better yet go over to such well known “skeptics” like the Dr.s Pielke’s sites. They defintely are trying to hide things by linking to peer reviewed papers. Lets not forget Dr. Spencer either: hiding the MSU data in plain sight and his up comming research papers on his blog. Don’t get me started on ChiefIO and his hidden work on the GISS code and his cleaned up version that he has hidden in a blog posting or his analysis of GHCN. How dare he show the link to the datasets and explain how you too can use it! Yep nothing but a vast Skeptic conspiracy to hide everything.

  22. Tom Forrester-Paton said

    Jeff, writing as a nonscientist as I do, I think by even entertaining the straw man of “sceptics’ email disclosure” you risk conceding an important point – that sceptics not only have nothing to hide; they don’t have anything to prove either! I posted this in response to a piece by George Monbiot wittering on about how the current deep freeze means the planet’s still heating up:

    “No, a brutally cold winter does not disprove AGW. But it does confound anyone who predicted a warm one, and before that a “barbeque summer”, etc. And if this series of unfulfilled prophesies comes from the same people that are urging us to accept their prediction of catastrophe, they have nobody but themselves to blame if we draw the conclusion that they are likely to be even less skilful at predicting climate than they are at their day job – predicting weather. By the same token, when we see Piers Corbyn repeatedly making successful predictions, we tend to give his climate predictions greater weight, no matter how strange his tonsure.

    George asks “What would it take to persuade you that manmade global warming is taking place?” Let me try and answer that. Firstly, don’t make the mistake made by so many alarmists (and too many lay sceptics), that is that it is the job of sceptics to present counter-theories to their own. It is not. What matters is whether AGW theory survives proper scrutiny, not whether those scrutinising it can do any better. It is up to the proponents of AGW to present their theories in the form of falsifiable argument. The Climategate emails and code reveal the excruciating efforts of the high priesthood of AGW to do just that, their continuing failure, and the lengths to which they went, or were prepared to go, to conceal their work, with all its inadequacies, from proper peer review.

    We were told for two decades that the “climate scientists” were developing ever more skilful “computer models”. It turns out, following Climategate, that what they were getting was “computer-and-man-with-keyboard-and-an-outcome-in-mind” models, which even you, in your early comments on the leak (or do you still prefer “hack”?) seem to have accepted is not quite the same thing.

    So here’s a helping hand:

    1. Remember Occam’s Razor – that the simplest explanation for all the known facts is preferable to other more complex ones, no matter that all may work.

    2. Remember Einstein ?No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.? Consensus in science, far from “settling” it, ought to inspire at least as much suspicion as it does confidence. So for sceptics, banging on about 90% or 95% just deepens our suspicions. Stop it.

    3. Remember Popper – produce your theories in a form that can be falsified by experiment repeatable by all. Even if you yourself cannot understand the experiments, be sure that both method and data are freely available to others who can.

    4. If someone objects that data they are using is proprietary and cannot be shared, reply politely that in that case it cannot possibly be used to justify expensive public policy, nor public funding – then move on.

    5. Lose the condescending, this-is-for-your-own-good tone of the priestly classes – it might give you and the choir you preach to a warm cuddly feeling inside, but it’s no substitute for scientific rigour, and it just makes you sound like latter-day druids.

    If within these constraints (all of which, except perhaps for the last, have served genuine science well for a long time) you can persuade us that the climate should worry us a jot more than, say, the problem of hip displasia in overbred spaniels, you can go back to being as smug, bombastic and condescending as you like – you will have earned it.

    Off you go. Best of luck.”

    I realise that as a scientist you are probably qualified to countertheorise, but as a sceptic you ought not readily to accept any obligation to do so.

  23. Lady in Red said

    Oooo! Lots of good (simple, straightforward…?) thinking here, of recent. Thank you Amac, Luvmy91stang and Tom Forrester-Paton. It’s good to know…

    My mind has been perking all night…. unfortunately. Id and Watts and McIntyre et al have amassed a cadre of “gentlemen scientists” similar, for example, to the rich boys who sailed around Cape Cod in the 1930’s taking water samples from daddy’s yacht. This modern day group of rag-tag pick-ups (only the greatest admiration for your energy, education and intellectual acumen) “do” it for the love of the game, the fun, the truth.

    Today, however, there is a vast establishment threatened: the journals, the publish/perish university researchers, etc. Is anyone going to get NSF funding to help Jeff Id find mistakes? Would it advance that person’s career? This science establishment is not, at all, about truth or science. It is about self-perpetuation. It is fighting for its life and, I suspect, many issues are cross-disciplinary.

    Pls read RealClimate. (sigh…?) Trenberth et al have a response to Lindzen/Choi 09 paper. The negativity is, somewhat, restrained, at first, a sort of “Nice try, old chap! Too bad about the sandtrap!” That moves to clucking about what the “deniers” are going to make of this awful, awful bad paper and whatever has happened to the quality of peer-review from the olden days?

    My mind marries the RealClimate eye-rolling with the recent BBC interview with the Met Office chief who sputtered in defense of his agency not catching the present UK “cold snap” much earlier than two days (!!!!!), his lament that getting seasonal predictions was The Hardest of the Hard, and his glowing confidence in the sturdiness of the Met Office’s ability to do Very Accurate Long Term Predictions (presumably confirmed, or not, long after he’s gone).

    All of which says to me: they don’t know what they’re doing. The systems are too complicated to attempt the problem – right now. Until we have an established track record of success predicting, at least, seasonal variations, who’s to believe any long term model?

    Here’s my thought:

    Can you folk prove that, systematically? That there are too many unknown variables to be able to calculate a correct – or even plausible? – answer? (Which doesn’t of course mean climate change is not happening, or that man’s not influencing something, but…. we *cannot* know today.) It seems to me that would be a worthy undertaking and, possibly, the beginning of a new way of doing approaching science: faster, less competitive, more honest.

    No one is going to let you in the hallowed halls today, but can you confirm that the emperor has no clothes? ….you just can’t get an answer from here?

    (I have another idea about fusion energy, when you’ve finished this. …smile.)
    ……Lady in Red

  24. Layman Lurker said

    Jeff, if anybody thinks you have an agenda or are not being open and up front, just point ’em to the “negative thermometer” thread. This stuff gets sorted out in “real time”.

  25. Jeff Id said


    Sometimes painfully.

  26. hunter said

    REF: ‘Show us your e-mails’

  27. dearieme said

    Can I just point out that it is unfair to criticise the Met Office for predicting a “barbecue summer” for 2009. My wife and I had two barbies in 2009 whereas we had none in 2008. Of course, they predicted a scorcher for 2008 too.

  28. bob said

    Good grief! After reading all the previous comments, mine on blog moderation seem trivial. I can’t quote Popper, Einstein, or even Obama. Maybe I can quote Janet Napalitano by saying, “The system works!”. It scares me that somebody might agree with that statement.

    Your idea of no moderation is exactly correct for the type of conversation you seek in a technical blog. If you have the stuff to participate, you can do it. If you don’t understand what’s going on, you are better advised to stay away.

    My expertise mathematical expertise pales in comparison with others’, but I enjoy the posts and the back and forth in the comments.

    I think you have the right recipe. Thanks for the interesting blog.

  29. Tony Hansen said

    Interesting that participants on an un-moderated blog show far better behaviour than those on heavily moderated blogs.

  30. johnh said

    I would offer the following.

    you are free to recruit a disenchanted member skeptic who has seen the light and now disapproves of the underhand methods, data manipulation, perversion of peer review.

    Once you have identified his individual he or she will be given access to all my emails for an 3 month period but can only compile emails relating to skeptic activities meeting the underhand methods etc etc.

    Think you will be safe on that one.

  31. Mike D. said

    I’m confused. Is tAV funded to the tune of tens of $millions by taxpayers? Jeff, do you draw a salary, benefits, pension paid for by public funds? Is tAV prepared on a govt computer in a govt office on the public’s dime?

    Most skeptics provide a FREE service, whereas the CRUcrew et al are drawing down the public treasury.

    If the public wants a peek at my emails, then the first thing is to supply me with a fat check every week, and cushy benefits, and a pension for life. Show me the money, and I will consider showing you my emails.

    Otherwise, take a hike. I can’t believe the grasping greedheads who want something for nothing. Mickey Glantz is a public employee!!!!! His snout is in buried in the trough. Tell you what, Mickey, if you want me to do your job, first give me your paycheck!!!!!!

  32. Harold Vance said

    Amen, Mike D (#31).

    The juxtaposition is just weird. Private citizens post their conversations in public but public servants keep their conversations private and then demand that private citizens reveal their already public work to the public.

    This is Monty Python on effing steroids. Long live the dead parrots and the shopkeepers who sell them.

    WTF are these guys thinking?

  33. Dr. DoOM said

    Lol – it was funny!
    Monty Python’s Black Knight has been minced but the lips are left to cry:
    “please hurt yourself because I haven’t got anything I can use”
    That’s an original twist as far as I can tell.

  34. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    Layman Lurker said
    January 9, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Jeff, if anybody thinks you have an agenda or are not being open and up front, just point ‘em to the “negative thermometer” thread. This stuff gets sorted out in “real time”.
    Jeff Id said
    January 9, 2010 at 12:26 pm


    Sometimes painfully.

    just watched Fahrenheit 451
    and it still “fits” maybe even more so than ever.
    dumb down everyone and drug them. if it’s not on state sponsored TV it is not right.
    do not read for your self, think, do, the government will do that for you, for your own good.

  35. AMac said

    Amusingly, in Comment #6 of the thread at his post, Mickey Glantz asked me two questions (I’d written Comment #5) —

    i have to ask if you are really serious that skeptics’ emails are all out in the open? to me that is an incredible assertion, science aside…

    i ask you to tell me what in theory might it take to get you to switch sides on the global warming issue? what evidence would you need? answer that please.

    My comment in response was submitted 1/9/10 at 12:10pm and cross-posted in this thread (tAV Comment #16, above).

    It failed moderation at, and the conversation there has proceeded.

    Perhaps those ideas would get wider exposure on pro-AGW-consensus sites if I sent them as an email to Jeff Id, then urged him to allow the hacking of his gmail account.

  36. Redy said
    A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people

  37. dear amac,

    it might surprise you that i agree with everything that you said. i was fired from ncar, a bastion of the climate science, for what i would all being objective and questioning model output (though i do believe in global warming). i am interested in good science as are you. i do believe that many in the climate science community including at nsf and the ipcc have chosen to ‘make a circle with the wagons” and lay low for a while the debate [one-sided really; no science responses to the issues of concern] passes over. they do not realize the deeper implications for science in general (peer review, different results from different statistical methods, etc). i do not like the word ‘deniers’, a relatively recent fabrication to paint opposing views in a certain way. it is ok to challenge the science in order to get better science.

    my concern about looking at other emails of say michaels , etc is meant to find out about their support for activities to challenge those “satanic gases”
    a review of history of comments by the so called skeptics shows that their arguments changed as new scientific information and observations appeared. i found that interesting.

    truth is i focus on climate variability and extremes in developing countries nad have done so for 40 years or so. i can assure you if people cannot cope with those aspects of climate today they will not be prepared to do so if the climate keeps on warming throughout the century.

    if you want insight into my view of a lone senior social scientist in a climate center see www, and click on “a perfect job in an impefect place”.

    thanks for the thoughtful assessment you wrote above. mickey

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: