the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Big Journalism Part II

Posted by Jeff Id on January 11, 2010

Patrick Courrielche of Big Journalism posted part II of climategate. Patrick, in a startlingly brash move, took the now unusual journalistic step of actually asking people what happened rather than just making it up. It probably took twice as much time as making it up would have. In addition, it’s probably more boring than fiction, but you actually get to hear a reasonably accurate account of the events which broke climategate. Call it a trade off.

Peer-to-Peer Review (Part II): How ‘Climategate’ Marks the Maturing of a New Science Movement

I think you’ll find the article interesting.

On a related point, Dr. Gavin Shmidt left a comment in the middle of the article which deserves a shot in the nuts. Gavin has a serious personality disorder – in case you didn’t know ;). The main difference between Gavin and God is that God doesn’t think he’s Gavin. It seems to be a contagious problem amongst the RC crowd.

Anyway, this is what Dr. way too smart for us had to say.

When I asked Gavin Schmidt about whether this group has had any impact on the science, he responded, “On the science? No.” He continued, “There is an old joke about a professor reading over one of his not-so-promising student’s work: ‘This paper contains much that is novel and correct.’ [the professor] continues, ‘Unfortunately, that which is novel is not correct, and that which is correct is not novel.’ It fits the bill here.”

Does that mean Gavin is soo much smarter than us, he can determine I’m not too promising as a student? Does that mean Gavin is qualified to determine McIntyre is not so promising? Is he smarter than Ryan, Jeff C, Dr. Weinstein, Eschenbach, Roman, Hu, Dr. Loehle, Lucia? Really, is he that amazingly smart? Perhaps he needs to be reminded of just how stupid his Scafetta replication error was but besides that, half the emails were about McIntyre, yet no – there’s been no impact. Well these jokes haven’t admitted that sorting proxy data to make a hockey stick is fraudulent, so perhaps he just means, we wont be changing our ways yet.

It makes you wonder who the deniers really are.

34 Responses to “Big Journalism Part II”

  1. NokTang said

    “It seems to be a contagious problem amongst the RC crowd.”

    And most of the AGW advocates, that’s why they have such a difficult times coping with the increasing skeptic attitude of the public, incl. the MSM. Until now people took their words for granted, now they have to answer awkward questions, a task to which they clearly cannot cope with. Besides, most of them are still in the denial phase of the Kübler-Ross cycle.

  2. Frank K. said

    I think it was quite evident from the CRU e-mails that GS and his cohorts had (have) enormous egos, to the point of viciously denigrating any of their peers who didn’t share their views.

    In any case, GS has probably enjoyed his “rock-star” status these days (giving interviews on CNN, traveling to Bali and Copenhagen, making press releases, blogging), which helps to inflate his ego all the more. Meanwhile, his cruddy climate code, Model E, sits as a monument to his inability to properly write/document scientific software…

  3. K said

    It disturbs me that Gavin spreads his propaganda while punched in on the time clock – if you are a U.S. tax payer, you are subsidizing his activity. I wouldn’t mind if he were simply trying to illuminate issues, but that is not what he is doing.

  4. geronimo said

    Jeff I think there might be a typo up there, you know Dr. Schidt. They are trying to bluster it out at the moment and I wouldn’t bet no them not getting away with it. There is a backing away from the Hockeystick by Mann, a sure sign he’s rattled, but the key man in all this is a retired civil servant called Sir Muir Russell. He’s been asked by the UEA to look into the CRU files and determine if there was/is malfeasance. It’s a daunting job, because anyone with half a brain can see there was malfeasance, but to point it out could bring the whole house of cards that’s AGW down. My bet is he won’t have the courage ( I wouldn’t) and will say they’ve been a bit naughty and ought to be good boys and clean up their act on FOIA. Then it’s back to the battlefield, only this time they will have to produce data and methods, which, given the science they’ve been doing will make refuting their biases easier.

    Gavin Schidt ehvery interetsting….

  5. geronimo said

    Oh and look for Phil Jones moving on from the CRU withing the next year or so.

  6. GT said

    Patrick Courrielche missed the reference to the famous Sidney Harris cartoon as the inspiration for the comment by the mysterious RC, “A miracle just happened.” The cartoon appears in McIntyre’s post and the word “Miracle” even is in the post title. It becomes obvious that RC has a sense of humor and comprehensive knowledge of the whole terrain. The question is, is RC the “leaker” or a middleman?

  7. Thanks Jeff for this. Cracking good article. I’ve got one for you… in about a week.

  8. Jeff Id said

    #7 I look forward to it.

  9. Jeff Id said

    It’s funny that tAV is described as a little blog, it is little but maybe not so little. The link above sent them 522 people since posting this morning while big journalism sent back 122.

  10. I believe reporters and, more importantly, editors are now reading blogs more than ever, including the comments sections. At the very least, they are noticing the numbers of comments, because they (print media) are going down the toilet. They desperately need more readers. If they can run stories that lean a little more in the direction of the viewpoints of “skeptic blogs,” they will. They are hurting. Their politics are getting them nowhere, in terms of the bottom line.

  11. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Jeff ID, as usual I have to say: who cares what Gavin Schmidt or RC says? In fact what they say is so predictable that they do not even have to say it – for my ears.

    Whoa Nelly, I did not realize Steve Mosher’s involvement. When did he know it and how did he know it? I breathlessly await the next story out of Big Journalism on this matter.

  12. greg2213 said

    Nothing like a little link love (and publicity) from major sites, hmmm? 🙂 I hope this gives your traffic a very nice shot on the arm (beyond what you already mentioned.)

    Nice article, though I’m at the point, I’m afraid, where I glance past blurbs by Schmidt, Mann, etc. Or read them as comic relief. Kindof like if they were trying to justify that light blob being a UFO.

  13. RB said

    If I were Steve Mosher and somehow involved in editing the emails released, I would hold some back and wait for the response. I wonder, hmmm ….

  14. Curt said

    Gavin doesn’t even get the gibe quite right. It sounds much better as, “In this work, there is much that is true and much that is new. Unfortunately, that which is true is not new, and that which is new is not true.”

    The funny thing for me is that I have often thought of this wisecrack in reference to the Team’s paleoclimatology and the defenses of it. That which is true (warming from the 17th century) is not new, and that which is new (no MWP) is not true. Many of the so-called defenses of the Team’s work (such as the NAS report) are actually defending the former case.

  15. […] Big Journalism, Who is Steven Mosher?, […]

  16. vsaluki said

    I do have to say that there has been a difference in the moderating at RC in the past month and a half. About 95% of the comments I give them are put through. This is way better than before. Of course I still get all of the personal attacks from the regulars and even from Gavin, but that doesn’t bother me in the least. For the most part I get to make my points now. None of the regulars are convinced of course. But anyone from outside the cabal that is reading RC can at least get some competing view points. I urge any of the people here to go to RC and try your luck – assuming that you don’t have a thin skin.

    Absolutely nothing has changed at Tamino’s and Romm’s places, however. Same old victory by censorship.

  17. TerryMN said

    On a related point, Dr. Gavin Shidt left a comment in the middle of the article which deserves a shot in the nuts.

    Best line I’ve read all day… Thanks Jeff!

  18. BarryW said

    “Piled Higher and Deeper” certainly fits when it comes to Dr Shidt.

  19. PeterS said

    The fact is although one can fool all the people some/most of the time, one can not fool all the people all the time. As time goes on, more and more people are seeing through the AGW hoax and fraud. The leaders may still get their way and introduce new taxing schemes to bleed us of more money and put it to waste but the majority will recognize this and mistrust the political leaders more than ever. It’s a natural process that repeats all through history. Meanwhile, let’s enjoy the ride and laugh at AGW alarmists be it at RC or anywhere else who appear to have limited intelligence to understand any of this.

  20. PeterS said

    Someone is finally speaking my language:

    It’s about time for these fraudsters to either put up or shut up. Their time is up. Either they produce the real evidence that supports their thesis or they shut up. If they do neither then Monckton’s approach should be implemented ASAP.

  21. Fred said

    “RB said
    January 11, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    If I were Steve Mosher and somehow involved in editing the emails released, I would hold some back and wait for the response. I wonder, hmmm ….”

    Steve comments over at Bishop Hill

    part of the problem is that when I briefed patrick for the article there were some things I wasnt sure I could talk about. I’ve just got permission to talk about them so they went into the book last night.

    WRT my legal issues. I have none, but I did want to check on some issues relatve to information that was passed to me through another party about a party at CRU. hows that for obscure.

    the party at CRU did not pass me the file. full stop.

    WRT safety issues. I’m well protected.
    January 12, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterSteven Mosher’

  22. DJA said

    Thanks Jeff for Dr Schidt. Says it all really, or was it just a typo?
    Has Mosher got more? Can’t wait.

  23. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    u for got the c,m.

    Dr Shidtcm

  24. AJ Abrams said

    I posted this on Bishop Hills blog as well. It seems Steven wants us to sleuth.

    Direct from Steven Mosher on big

    On November 19th around 11:33 Am I found the comment on Jeffids site.
    I didnt download the file pointed to in the comment.
    I didnt have to, I already had the files

    1. what date did I get them? date and time revealed in the book. Human source as well.
    2. in the form of the FOIAzip? yes.
    3. Server in turkey? Nope.
    4. answers in the book? yes.

    people who like this sort of thing love Climateaudit. they like figuring things out for themselves. Some people will just wait for the whole thing to be revealed, others will join in and take a shot at figuring it out.”

    I’d say this points to Steven knowing exactly how the files ended up out there and whom put them there. That doesn’t mean there still isn’t a mystery.

    My theory is pretty simple. The files were accidentally or on purpose posted on an insecure ftp at CRU. Someone yanked them off before CRU figured out what happened and notified Steven as they knew he was the man to talk to. It is either that, or the person that put together the zip file contacted him but that seems too simple.

  25. Hey there, I’m a long time lurker, and I can’t really find a suitable thread for this, so I’ll post it here.

    I’ve been doing some statistical analyses of the CRU temperature series, both on its own and in connection with data on sunspot numbers. The datasets I’m using go back to 1850 (if anyone has better ones to suggest, I’d be happy to do them too).
    The details are in these articles on my site: — Autocorrelogram of HadCRUT reveals 60-year cycles dominate the record — Cross-correlation shows a small but definite influence of sunspots on temperature, with a time lag of 2-3 years — Explanation and validation of the method

    If anyone wants me to analyse any other series for them with this method, maybe write a guest post for them (nudge, nudge), just ask.

  26. JAE said

    “Dr. Gavin Shidt ”

    Best typo of the year??????

  27. Fred2 said

    Making fun of people’s names “marks the maturing of a new science movement”? You guys are too funny.

    REPLY, Fred I fixed the typo, which was hilarious. You happy now?

  28. vsaluki said

    I’ve attacked Gavin Schmidt for the fraudulent way that he conducted his site in the past on my own blog. So in one sense, I agree with the sentiment. But Jeff and the other commenters are not doing this site any good by resorting to name calling. Jeff has some talents that can serve the skeptics cause well. But resorting to name calling will severely undermine the seriousness with which this blog is viewed. Jeff, if you don’t take my word, then ask Steve M. or Anthony W. People like Gavin will use such posts of yours to discredit you; so that when you say something valuable it will not be heard. We need your help! In fact, I could use your help in figuring out the algorithm that Thompson used to produce ENSO corrected surface temperature data. I have a corrected set that goes to April 09, but I could use an update. I can code it myself if I have the algorithm, but I don’t understand all of Thompson’s math. Speaking of – I asked Gavin for the algorithm – since he reproduced it. But you can guess where that got me.

    I need the ENSO corrections for posts like this one:

    Still under construction.

  29. ruhroh said

    Hey Jeff;

    I am probably not the only person who missed the CRU Mole posts at CA in July.

    That would seem to be highly relevant to the whole ‘hacker-vs-leaker’ debate.

    I assume that Part III will make at least some reference to that matter; either way, I hope you will redundantly bring it to our attention.

    I did read all the way to the last comment to see that CRU did not take Steve Mc up on his offer to return the data if they would contact him.

    Not everyone would know to do that.
    Just another ~ idea.

  30. P Gosselin said

    Why is it that I get the feeling that Jeff, Steve Mosher, etc. all know how this came about.
    Why don’t you just post what you know. This leading us around by the nose is bugging the crap out of me.

  31. P Gosselin said

    Anyone want to play: Let’s-predict-the-sea-ice this-winter?
    I say it’ll max at 13.85 million sq km.

  32. Jeff Id said

    #29, I don’t have any idea who released the files and have published everything – except for the recent police questioning.

  33. vsaluki said

    “Why don’t you just post what you know. This leading us around by the nose is bugging the crap out of me.”

    I don’t mind if Steve Mosher wants to make a few bucks selling his book. I wish him luck. I may even buy the book.

  34. […] Big Journalism Part II Patrick Courrielche of Big Journalism posted part II of climategate. Patrick, in a startlingly brash move, took the now […] […]

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: