the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Blog Traffic – Lucia

Posted by Jeff Id on January 13, 2010

It looks like the Air Vent has grown up.  Currently it’s about 10,000 views per day.  Thanks to the readers, commenters and contributors of course.

Climategate Blog Traffic Impact

13 January, 2010 (11:55) | politics Written by: lucia


69 Responses to “Blog Traffic – Lucia”

  1. Jeff Id said

    Lucia’s having trouble with her server host today. It might take some extra attempts to get her site to load.

  2. P Gosselin said

    Well, you were at ground-zero of this Climategate thing. It certainly has been an interesting and uplifting few weeks.

  3. mrpkw said

    Jeff, I for one began coming to your site when CA went down when ClimateGate began. I had read a lot of your comments at CA but didn’t know about Air Vent.

    GREAT SITE !!!

    WUWT,CA and Air Vent are my first three reads of the day.

  4. Ed Darrell said

    Let’s hope it grows up in science and history, too. I’m not liking what I’m seeing here for accuracy.

  5. #4: I don’t know where you get that idea from. I’ve been reading tAV since his first hockey stick posts, and as a mathmo I can tell you his understanding of statistics is far better than many bloggers – and perhaps even a few scientists – on the other side of the fence.

  6. twawki said

    You guys have also cracked the top 100,000 – well done – youre now listed on Alexa in detail!

  7. Tony Hansen said

    Ed Darrell.
    Any examples?

  8. ditmar said

    I agree with the comment above, this is one of the sites I visit daily. I am a cumbrian(uk)and due to heavy rain 2 bridges in my home town and thought I see how long it would take for the blame to be assigned to agw. And there it was 62mb of gold. What a day/week/month absolutely brilliant. Another thing for info. Cold weather paymennts of 25 pounds are triggered when the temp is below zero for 7 consequetive days. On my local news last night(bbc look east) they reported that these payments had been triggere in one post (zip) code but not the neighbouring one as they used a different thermometer location to record the temp. The location of the thermometer for the post code that did not qualify… Heathrow. I could try to find more details if you wish. Keep the faith.. No that’s not quite right is it.

  9. ditmar said

    That should be two bridges washed away

  10. ditmar said

    And the payments are from the government to the poor and vulnerable to help with heating bills. Need more practice at this lark.

  11. $4, Ed, what exactly don’t you like about the history and science? What specifically is inaccurate? I’m sure there are people on this blog who are ready to take that up in great detail, as long as it’s on the subject of AGW pro and con. You might want to read a bunch of posts and comments first.

    Reliability of data, interpetation of data, models, proxies–try it out.

    Generalities, though, when it comes to the hard-science threads, are generally ignored.

  12. Ed Darrell said

    Tony, Jon,

    My browsers picked up on these wildly inaccurate claims about DDT and EPA history:
    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/climate-audit-on-climategate/#comment-18000

  13. Kendra said

    Sorry, OT.

    PLEASE HELP.

    Can someone please help me with analyzing (subtext rebutting) David Archer’s Book, The Big Thaw. I finally have a chance to reach someone with influence but I won’t have any cred without it. I don’t want to buy the book, it will be out-of-date “science” and I am assuming propaganda as well, and even if I did buy it I can’t do this alone.

    Thanks.

    WUWT readers, you will see this there – sorry.

    Or, does anyone know kind of an info site for people like me?

  14. #12
    So you take issue with part of a comment that’s not even really related to the article above it, and from that you conclude that the blog isn’t much good?

    It may be common to censor posts you disagree with on the warmist blogs, but here in sceptic land we’re fairer than that. Hence, Jeff isn’t responsible for the accuracy or content of comments. If it’s not obscene he generally lets it through even if he considers it to be uninformed drivel. (After all, he lets my posts through, so he obviously isn’t doing quality control on comments!)

  15. Tonyb said

    Kendra

    David Archer has a site where you can try out various models and also watch his video lectures which cover every aspect of climate change.

    http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/models.html

    It can be difficult to load-I think they have server problems. It gives a lot of the background to his book so you can look at specfics. WUWT will then likely have threads covering each of the subjects Archer covers. You can search for those in the search box at WUWT.

    Tonyb

  16. Ed Darrell said

    #12 So you take issue with part of a comment that’s not even really related to the article above it, and from that you conclude that the blog isn’t much good?

    I noted a trend. Is it a common trend? I don’t know. Is it out of the ordinary here? Show me correct science on that issue that I know a fair deal about. I didn’t like what I’d seen. Didn’t find much else to contradict that impression. Got an example of rigorously accurate science? Show me.

    My experience is that people who are sloppy with science on one branch don’t get rigorously accurate in other branches. I wish that weren’t so, but it usually is.

    It may be common to censor posts you disagree with on the warmist blogs, but here in sceptic land we’re fairer than that.

    Where do you classify Anthony Watts? He censors with abandon. My experience is that censorship is almost exclusively the province of blogs dedicated to denying warming and human causation. Got a counter example? Look at Rabett Run, for example. Eli lets all comments stand. Truth wins in a fair fight, so where the fights aren’t fair, like WUWT, I suspect there is a perceived need to deny the facts.

    Does your mileage differ? Where?

    Hence, Jeff isn’t responsible for the accuracy or content of comments.

    Granted.

    Still, it’s troubling to see such a distortion of history and science in service of the viewpoint of the blog, and no one making any attempt to get things straight.

    If it’s not obscene he generally lets it through even if he considers it to be uninformed drivel. (After all, he lets my posts through, so he obviously isn’t doing quality control on comments!)-

    Perhaps someone running against the grain.

  17. Ed, that’s why I made it clear the basic subject, as you can see if you read enough past threads, is the science behind AGW, and whether that science is accurate or not. Everything else, as far as I’m concerned, is secondary. DDT, EPA–criticisms about remarks taken from one comment on these subjects really have nothing to do with the meat of the blog or whether it, as a whole, needs to “grow up.”

  18. Tonyb said

    ED

    It is very unreasonable to take Jeff to task for comments made by a third party blogger.

    Tonyb

  19. Ed Darrell said

    It is very unreasonable to take Jeff to task for comments made by a third party blogger.

    Uncharitable more than unreasonable, but perhaps unreasonable. Dissuade me.

    Ed, that’s why I made it clear the basic subject, as you can see if you read enough past threads, is the science behind AGW, and whether that science is accurate or not. Everything else, as far as I’m concerned, is secondary. DDT, EPA–criticisms about remarks taken from one comment on these subjects really have nothing to do with the meat of the blog or whether it, as a whole, needs to “grow up.”

    Hope so. Haven’t seen it yet. As I noted, succumbing to woo on one part of science doesn’t bode well for not succumbing to woo in another part. DDT and EPA criticisms are indeed part of the meat of denial of warming. EPA is one of our nation’s lead science agencies. They don’t function on whim or thin science. We have laws to make that certain. But here’s a guy demonizing EPA . . . let’s see: Where does this blog stand on EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases? Woo on DDT and woo on greenhouse gases?

    And how about the woo on climate science being a big cash cow? It’s a popular idea among people who have little experience and no particular yen to learn about how research really works.

    Uh oh:

    I don’t know what people expected a conspiracy to look like but in my experience they are typically very simple structures by friends with a common goal or incentive. First, before you claim what incentive, I have this link posted by Lubos demonstrating 22 million US dollars were distributed to phil jones since 1990. Twenty TWO million!! I’ve got to say, I could do a lot with that money and that sort of number will incent people to not mess up the story the money handlers want. Also, we shouldn’t skip the fact that these emails are chock full of expenses paid travel to exotic places, Bejing, Shanghai, Tahiti on and on.

    Are we supposed to think Phil Jones drives a Maserati with his $22 million in ill-gotten gains? I’ll wager that the money — if the total is accurate — went to research. I’ll wager it was overseen by his institution, with budget controls tighter than any climate denialist has to answer to.

    Worse, the blogger takes a discussion about how to preserve ethical responsibility in a key science journal, and the blogger here argues that it’s a “conspiracy!” Oh! Wow! It’s a conspiracy sorta like the Boy Scouts is a conspiracy to get people to hold to higher standards. Jail the Boy Scouts!

    Maybe you don’t want me poking around. Do I hear a censor’s footsteps? Hope not.

    And before you go off half-cocked, maybe you might want to look at a recent story on the real problems faced by researchers. No Maseratis, no old trucks, either:

    Canadian Arctic researchers left out in the cold

    The Arctic is one of the fastest-changing landscapes in the world: its glaciers, sea ice and animals are being radically affected by climate change, and the melting environment could in turn have huge impacts on rising temperatures. It is imperative that scientists continue to monitor these conditions. Yet Canadian scientists are finding it increasingly difficult to get out in the field to do their work, says John England in an Opinion piece. This is discussed further in an Editorial and with the author in the Nature Podcast, all free in Nature this week.

    Reality raises its ugly head again. If we’re concerned about getting to the truth, we’ll get the facts despite the ugliness.

  20. Ed Darrell said

    Odd. This link fell out of that previous post:
    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/3452/

    It’s the post at this blog that mentions Phil Jones’s research income. It was formatted correctly.

    Hmmmmm.

  21. Jeff Id said

    #19, Hey bud, blogger’s back. I know you’re new so you’re not used to the whole grumpy engineer thing but after all the drive by criticism deserves a shot back.

    Ya start out with this blanket criticism everyone assumes is related to the post on this blog.

    Let’s hope it grows up in science and history, too. I’m not liking what I’m seeing here for accuracy.

    Then when confronted you point to an essay someone left in the comment thread calling it a trend.

    I haven’t seen your name before so I doubt you’ve read these posts.

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/hockey-stick-posts/

    I bet also you haven’t read these:
    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/ghcn-antarctic-warming-eight-times-actual/

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/sea-ice-copenhagen-update/

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/bias-in-satellite-temperature-metrics/

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/tav-to-realclimate-you-can%e2%80%99t-get-there-from-here/

    There are a pile more like them too.

    Now the Phil Jones comment you make where you seem to think having your name attached to 22 million in grants makes no difference is a bit ridiculous to say the least. Are you seriously trying to sell the point that 22 million doesn’t affect your status in a company? Because of REGULATION?

    Are you sure that particular people with particular positions aren’t singled out for that money? Are you sure you’re being honest here?

    I think we’ve spotted the trend.

  22. Layman Lurker said

    Ed, try reading this post: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/24/nsidc-issues-corrections-to-webpage/

    Tell me if you spot any “trends” there.

  23. Jeff Id said

    “and no one making any attempt to get things straight.”

    Actually, it’s really difficult to keep up with everyone here. There are a lot of science professionals around and they usually stay out of it until something scientifically interesting shows up. The blog is a busy place and people moderate each other here. In the future, perhaps you should simply address the commenter rather than blanket the whole thing.

  24. Layman Lurker said

    “My experience is that censorship is almost exclusively the province of blogs dedicated to denying warming and human causation.”

    Ed, what is your opinion of RC’s moderation/censorship policy? Are you prepared to level the same criticism against them? I somehow doubt it but maybe I’m being presumptive. Here is a link to a post and discussion about RC wrt Jeff and Ryan O’s work on Antarctica:

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/rc-censors/#more-4758

  25. Jeff Id said

    #22 Lurk,

    This one hurts more.

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/auto-matic-correlation/

  26. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Ed Darrell January 13, 2010 at 8:20 pm,

    Obnoxious idiocy.

    What is your background, political science? Or some other fluffy non-sense subject? Fools are seldom suffered gladly here.

  27. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Ed Darrell:
    “EPA is one of our nation’s lead science agencies.”

    My dealings with the EPA (and they have been significant) suggest that they 50% left-wing crazies, mixed with 50% trial lawyers. Great combination for doing science.

  28. TerryMN said

    Ed Darrell: My experience is that censorship is almost exclusively the province of blogs dedicated to denying warming and human causation. Got a counter example?

    You just pegged the bullshit meter, Ed.

  29. Jeff Id said

    #28, Ya know Terry, you got that right.

    This isn’t a denier blog as many here will tell Ed. I almost am a Lukewarmer.

  30. Ed Darrell said

    Are you sure that particular people with particular positions aren’t singled out for that money? Are you sure you’re being honest here?

    Federal grants generally can’t be structured that way. Have you ever looked at the NSF or Energy Department guidelines for grants?

    Yeah, I’m sure I’m being accurate here.

  31. Ed Darrell said

    You just pegged the bullshit meter, Ed.

    Sorry, that was you. I asked for an example. You gave me pure, uncomposted bovine product.

    Got a counter example? I wasn’t asking because I didn’t want to know. I now know you can be rude. I wondered whether you can provide information. Delight me, can you?

  32. Ed Darrell said

    What is your background, political science? Or some other fluffy non-sense subject? Fools are seldom suffered gladly here.

    Utah Wilderness Committee, on the ranchers and oil drillers side. Maryland Beltwoods management committee. Environmental journalism, FOI committees in Maryland, Utah and national. Environmental law. Senate staff, Judiciary and Labor Committees — Labor, the committee that funds scientific research in most of these areas, and health care, radiation compensation, environmental health, health care funding, etc., etc. Reagan’s President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors, with Lamar Alexander. Education with Bennett. American Airlines, Ernst & Young consulting, tower siting and management with Verizon Wireless. Solo practice. Education.

    People with innocent questions aren’t welcomed, either, it appears. Is it because you don’t have answers, or is it just that you’re normally so embarrassingly rude?

  33. Ed Darrell said

    In the future, perhaps you should simply address the commenter rather than blanket the whole thing.

    I did that.

    Jon Rappoport took slight exception:

    Ed, that’s why I made it clear the basic subject, as you can see if you read enough past threads, is the science behind AGW, and whether that science is accurate or not. Everything else, as far as I’m concerned, is secondary. DDT, EPA–criticisms about remarks taken from one comment on these subjects really have nothing to do with the meat of the blog or whether it, as a whole, needs to “grow up.”

    Sound and Fury offered good natured comments, but hardly along the lines of “thanks for the corrections”:

    So you take issue with part of a comment that’s not even really related to the article above it, and from that you conclude that the blog isn’t much good?

    It may be common to censor posts you disagree with on the warmist blogs, but here in sceptic land we’re fairer than that. Hence, Jeff isn’t responsible for the accuracy or content of comments. If it’s not obscene he generally lets it through even if he considers it to be uninformed drivel. (After all, he lets my posts through, so he obviously isn’t doing quality control on comments!)

    You can talk a very good game, and maybe you can play that game. But that’s not what happened here. I noted some errors of history and science on a topic that looks tangential (but isn’t), and I got jumped on.

    How can you tell when you’re not living up to your goals?

  34. TerryMN said

    Ed: Sorry, that was you. I asked for an example. You gave me pure, uncomposted bovine product.

    Got a counter example? I wasn’t asking because I didn’t want to know. I now know you can be rude. I wondered whether you can provide information. Delight me, can you?

    Sorry to offend you, Ed. Sometimes things are so obvious and ridiculous it beggars belief that you’re really looking for an answer instead of just trolling.

    Are you familiar with realclimate.org?

    Are you familiar with “An Open Mind” ( tamino.wordpress.com )?

    There are 2 obvious counter examples. There are more, but I’ve still not decided if you’re trolling, very very new to the collection of climate blogs, or there is some other reason for that very odd assertion?

  35. Jeff Id said

    #30, yup, when you attract 22 million dollars there are no advantages because you are a govt. employee.

    Bull Ed. F,ing flat bull.

    You can lie to the others if you want, I’m not going to listen to it.

  36. Mark T said

    Ed is that German guy on the TV commercial “why am I always hungry?” Trolls are bottomless pits.

    Mark

  37. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    stop feeding the trolls!!! LOL

    I’m (gona make’m)a bumper sticker that says that! LMAO!!!!

    jeff keep at the data and don’t be distracted from the warmongers!!!!!

  38. Ed Darrell said

    Jeff Id said:

    #30, yup, when you attract 22 million dollars there are no advantages because you are a govt. employee.

    Bull Ed. F,ing flat bull.

    So, tell us: Where did the money go? Why do you claim there’s a problem?

  39. rcrejects said

    Not yet do we have to worry ’bout traffic congestion! We did have a hot day a while back when we got something like 200 hits! Wow! But it has settled back to about normal. At this rate I can afford to keep the ‘free’ wordpress.com site going for a while longer yet.

    And it it hits the bigtime, I am sure that the tip jar (not in place as yet) will cover the cost.

  40. Ed Darrell said

    Now the Phil Jones comment you make where you seem to think having your name attached to 22 million in grants makes no difference is a bit ridiculous to say the least. Are you seriously trying to sell the point that 22 million doesn’t affect your status in a company? Because of REGULATION?

    Are you sure that particular people with particular positions aren’t singled out for that money? Are you sure you’re being honest here?

    I think we’ve spotted the trend.

    $22 million (over how many years?) would mark one as a solid researcher with the ability to pull in research funds.

    You insinuate there is something wrong with that. Do you dispute that $22 million can be spent well researching climate? Do you claim it wasn’t spent researching climate? What is your claim, really, behind the insinuation.

    Yeah, we have a trend here. Here’s a snippet of information that hints at hard science being done, and you dance all around it implying there is some hanky-panky going on. But you don’t ever provide any evidence of anything wrong — and when questioned on it, you attack me instead.

    I see it all the time on creationist boards and birther boards. It’s an ugly trend. Maybe you’ve got the goods here, but with the exception of a couple of comments that pointed to other information, is there anything to suggest my concerns were not well advised, and wisely taken?

  41. P Gosselin said

    I like your straight-shooting style of telling it like it is without beatin around the bush.

  42. Geoff Sherrington said

    9.ditmar said
    January 13, 2010 at 6:12 pm
    That should be two bridges washed away

    What was the problem? Was it a bridge too far?

  43. Jeff Id said

    #40, Eddie, you try to go out and earn 22 million dollars big dog. Perhaps ten years of pro hockey would open your eyes to how difficult it is in comparison to having a grad student write a two page perl script or to blend in temp data to hide the decline.

    That kind of money doesn’t come easily. You can do your own research on the topic of how long and what for. It’s everywhere.

    What a joke.

    I wonder if you’re an industry isolated prof yourself and perhaps that’s why your pushin’ the bovine scatology that poor prof. salaries and light schedules are such small reward. In the real world people have to do something pretty unusual to get 22 million, even in the hard sciences.

    Phil Jones was willing to do or say anything to push the IPCC agenda, that much is clear. That’s why he was chosen to be chapter head for the IPCC. In exchange for that, the money came to his facility. Phil believes in taxation, commuhagen, global regulation and all the rest, and you won’t hear any denials from him or mann, shmidt, trenberth. Perhaps you suffer from that ideal as well.

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/globalis-warminitis/

  44. Ed Darrell said

    #40, Eddie, you try to go out and earn 22 million dollars big dog. Perhaps ten years of pro hockey would open your eyes to how difficult it is in comparison to having a grad student write a two page perl script or to blend in temp data to hide the decline.

    What I hear you saying is that you don’t know of any evidence of any hanky-panky with regard to that money, but you think researchers can’t spend that amount over whatever the time period is, and so you assume something must be wrong despite the evidence.

    Your response is insulting, but it does demonstrate that you haven’t thought it through. I’ve been involved in several projects over $22 million. It’s not that difficult to spend the money well, and fast.

    On the other hand, I’ve investigated projects under $100,000 which were clearly rife with graft.

    I get the feeling you’ve got something to hide, and so won’t point the way to evidence for the claims you’ve made. If you don’t have anything to hide, but don’t have the evidence, why not say so and preserve the image of honesty?

    Charges are cheap. In this case, your charges are probably libelous. My experience is that people who will make libel will fudge science without a qualm. Got any Girl Scouts or Boy Scouts on your team here?

  45. Jeff Id said

    #44 I get the feeling you have something to hide? – What would that be?

    What charges were made? It’s like you set up a fake libel and then demand I defend it. I made no accusation despite your attempts to characterize it that way.

    Perhaps you missed the point of that post. The IPCC has a structure which necessarily chooses scientists based on their views. If they put Roy Spencer in charge of a chapter, it would not generate as much money for them as Phil Jones b/c he’s not as much of an extremist in view. The methods for setting up a conspiracy to create a large government agency are quite simple.

    In 1988 the founders of the IPCC set up a system which had three branches. To garner continued funding and keep their jobs the branches needed to find global climate change, find it was dangerous and have an expensive fix. If any of the 3 items are answered in the negative it has a big impact on funding, the power of the people in each branch and the success of the IPCC. Therefore, by choosing the right people at the beginning, they naturally directed funding to like minded “right” researchers, who naturally support like minded others. It’s a very simple structure that self feeds and grows.

    What we’ve seen from climategate is that the emails themselves call into question the science behind historic natural variability as well as the bias of the researchers and governments WRT the issue of climate change. When you couple that with the two scams just being forced on us of cap and trade and commuhagen, it’s quite clear this is not about global warming any more. It’s about global socialist government and wealth redistribution.

    By the tone of your emails, and further blanket statements about honesty and something to hide, I doubt very much that you can be convinced of anything but that is the point of what I wrote above.

  46. Layman Lurker said

    Is Eddie a person that we can discuss and engage with? I doubt it. He asked for examples of honest science and then subsequently ignored the references. He charges wide spread censorship at WUWT but offers no proof. When invited to discuss censorship at RC – he ignores. He is deliberatly vague on your “cheap” charges – then levels a cheap shot of libel. His snarky remarks are pompous, condescending and self rightous rather than informative yet others are “rude” and “insulting”.

    Ed could have come here and raised his issues for discussion with an entirely different tone. He didn’t. There have been many thoughtful exchanges on this blog with differing opinions expressed in a respectful manner. I hope that continues. It won’t come from Ed though.

  47. Ed Darrell said

    What charges were made? It’s like you set up a fake libel and then demand I defend it. I made no accusation despite your attempts to characterize it that way.

    You were the one complaining! So what’s the problem with $22 million going to climate research? Who cares? You tell me what your gripe is about, please.

  48. Ed Darrell said

    He asked for examples of honest science and then subsequently ignored the references.

    Unwarranted conclusion. How long do you think it takes to check out a reference? Your merely posting a reference neither vouches for its veracity, nor, in a polite and truth-seeking discussion, would imply a need for immediate response.

    Scholarship and research don’t seem to be strong suites with some.

    He charges wide spread censorship at WUWT but offers no proof.

    No proof of censorship anywhere was offered by anyone. I commented I had different experience. Take it for what it is.

    When invited to discuss censorship at RC – he ignores.

    Not at all. I try to make it a habit not to pop off, to check things out. Generally, things are not always what they seem, and especially they are rarely what is portrayed (by anyone) in an unnecessarily heated discussion, like this one.

    I don’t like gotcha discussions. The basis of such a thing is stupid, almost never noble. If you don’t care to take time to check things out, don’t bother sending things my way. Of course, you’ll get a lot more posts like that wag who argued DDT is safe, or wasn’t banned, or some other thing absolutely contrary to the easily-checkable facts. And you’ll end up on the same side of the table as Christopher Monckton. That’s one way you know for sure you need to do more fact checking.

    He is deliberatly vague on your “cheap” charges – then levels a cheap shot of libel.

    I spent my years in journalism, with the lawyers, in federal investigation, with more lawyers, and in law school and in litigation. It’s an inexpensive observation of a libel committed, but not cheap in any way. It’s carefully considered, and since there have been at least four posts since then dancing around the issue unable to provide any hint of a justification, apparently on-target.

    His snarky remarks are pompous, condescending and self rightous rather than informative yet others are “rude” and “insulting”.

    Do you have a law degree? How about a journalism degree? Do you regularly practice in areas where libel is likely to be an issue? Have you ever been sued for libel by a former federal judge, a former attorney general, and had them walk away from the table agreeing with you instead?

    And yet you lecture me on libel? Who is pompous, condescending and self-righteous?

    Jeff provided a rational start of a complaint on the $22 million, backing away from any claims of anything illegal or ignoble. You haven’t done that.

    Ed could have come here and raised his issues for discussion with an entirely different tone. He didn’t.

    Tone doesn’t travel well on the internet. You’re assuming a lot that I did not say. You’re assuming a lot where there is no evidence.

    There have been many thoughtful exchanges on this blog with differing opinions expressed in a respectful manner. I hope that continues. It won’t come from Ed though.

    Nor will examples of such discussions come from you. ::sigh::

    He asked for examples of honest science and then subsequently ignored the references.

    Unwarranted conclusion. How long do you think it takes to check out a reference? Your merely posting a reference neither vouches for its veracity, nor, in a polite and truth-seeking discussion, would imply a need for immediate response.

    Scholarship and research don’t seem to be strong suites with some.

    He charges wide spread censorship at WUWT but offers no proof.

    No proof of censorship anywhere was offered by anyone. I commented I had different experience. Take it for what it is.

    When invited to discuss censorship at RC – he ignores.

    Not at all. I try to make it a habit not to pop off, to check things out. Generally, things are not always what they seem, and especially they are rarely what is portrayed (by anyone) in an unnecessarily heated discussion, like this one.

    I don’t like gotcha discussions. The basis of such a thing is stupid, almost never noble. If you don’t care to take time to check things out, don’t bother sending things my way. Of course, you’ll get a lot more posts like that wag who argued DDT is safe, or wasn’t banned, or some other thing absolutely contrary to the easily-checkable facts. And you’ll end up on the same side of the table as Christopher Monckton. That’s one way you know for sure you need to do more fact checking.

    He is deliberatly vague on your “cheap” charges – then levels a cheap shot of libel.

    I spent my years in journalism, with the lawyers, in federal investigation, with more lawyers, and in law school and in litigation. It’s an inexpensive observation of a libel committed, but not cheap in any way. It’s carefully considered, and since there have been at least four posts since then dancing around the issue unable to provide any hint of a justification, apparently on-target.

    His snarky remarks are pompous, condescending and self rightous rather than informative yet others are “rude” and “insulting”.

    Do you have a law degree? How about a journalism degree? Do you regularly practice in areas where libel is likely to be an issue? Have you ever been sued for libel by a former federal judge, a former attorney general, and had them walk away from the table agreeing with you instead?

    And yet you lecture me on libel? Who is pompous, condescending and self-righteous?

    Jeff provided a rational start of a complaint on the $22 million, backing away from any claims of anything illegal or ignoble. You haven’t done that.

    Ed could have come here and raised his issues for discussion with an entirely different tone. He didn’t.

    Tone doesn’t travel well on the internet. You’re assuming a lot that I did not say. You’re assuming a lot where there is no evidence.

    There have been many thoughtful exchanges on this blog with differing opinions expressed in a respectful manner. I hope that continues. It won’t come from Ed though.

    Nor will examples of such discussions come from you. ::sigh::

  49. GORE LIED said

    Congrats on your success!

    For the record, I read tAV before it was cool.

  50. Jeff Id said

    backing away from any claims of anything illegal or ignoble.

    Please read carefully

  51. Ed Darrell said

    [45] Perhaps you missed the point of that post. The IPCC has a structure which necessarily chooses scientists based on their views. If they put Roy Spencer in charge of a chapter, it would not generate as much money for them as Phil Jones b/c he’s not as much of an extremist in view. The methods for setting up a conspiracy to create a large government agency are quite simple.

    In 1988 the founders of the IPCC set up a system which had three branches. To garner continued funding and keep their jobs the branches needed to find global climate change, find it was dangerous and have an expensive fix. If any of the 3 items are answered in the negative it has a big impact on funding, the power of the people in each branch and the success of the IPCC. Therefore, by choosing the right people at the beginning, they naturally directed funding to like minded “right” researchers, who naturally support like minded others. It’s a very simple structure that self feeds and grows.

    I had a half-hour this afternoon and I checked out the history of IPCC. I don’t see the three branch setup you mention, and especially, I don’t see anything that would suggest that there is funding only if warming is found. The idea is to find out what is happening, any way the chips fall, and recommend any action to mitigate damage or take advantage of the changes, no matter which way the thermometer moves. In fact, I’d read the resolution from the General Assembly legislatively, and it requires quite the opposite of one view: The UN General Assembly demanded accuracy and good science.

    . . . 5. Endorses the action of the World Meteorological Organization and the
    United Nations Environment Programme in jointly establishing an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to provide internationally co-ordinated scientific assessments of the magnitude, timing and potential environmental and socio-economic impact of climate change and realistic
    response strategies, and expresses appreciation for the work already initiated by the Panel;
    . . .

    Obviously I’m not looking at the same documents you are. What are you looking at?

  52. Ed Darrell said

    Jeff said:

    What charges were made? It’s like you set up a fake libel and then demand I defend it. I made no accusation despite your attempts to characterize it that way.

    I asked:

    You were the one complaining! So what’s the problem with $22 million going to climate research? Who cares? You tell me what your gripe is about, please.

    Later I took notice of what Jeff had said and not said:

    . . . backing away from any claims of anything illegal or ignoble.

    Jeff said:

    Please read carefully.

    Once again I ask, please explain.

  53. Jeff Id said

    #51,

    http://www.ipcc.ch/

    Three working groups, one formed to address whether man made change is real, one formed to address change causes problems and one formed for what do we do about it. When these groups were formed there was no consensus. Obviously if group 1 says change is not real, — close case no job, no money, find a new employer. If group 2 says the change causes no problems or minimal problems – no big money no big job – case closed. If group 3 finds that fixing the problems of group 2 is cheap and easy, problem solved – no money no big job – case closed.

    The result was guaranteed by the structure. This is worth far more than a half hour of your time.

  54. Ed Darrell said

    Except that none of the three groups is employed by the UN. This is work taken on in addition to their day jobs. In fact, many of these scientists got nothing in monetary compensation for their work on the IPCC.

    If group one determines that the physical causes are all natural, that poses questions about whether anything can be done, in addition to the question about whether anything should be done and whether any mitigation might be just “fooling with nature” with cataclysmic consequences. There’s lots of work either way.

    If group two determines there are no impacts from whatever the climate is or is not doing, everybody goes home happy, China keeps pumping out pollution, Texas insurance rates go down, hardening of the world’s major harbors doesn’t need to proceed so frantically, we look for non-climate-related causes for bee declines, polar bear threats, coral bleachings, fish stock depletions (this goes on anyway), etc. Maybe most critically, the scientists go back to scrapping for grants or trying to set up businesses on the side to compete with Mark Eubanks.

    If group two reports no mitigation necessary, group three can get back to trying to make the Green Revolution work and eliminating malaria without the complicating factors warming throws in — both of them full-time jobs anyway.

    I still fail to see your reasoning in saying the results are guaranteed by structure. Doesn’t look that way to me.

    I remind you I spent more than a decade in funding these sorts of projects. It’s not just a half-hour of my time, it’s a half-hour trying to check up on the stuff you claimed I should know and could easily find, which I now find is not in the documents. The charter, the previous two treaties, the proposed treaties, the resolution and the meetings, none of them correspond with the charge that this group is foreordained to determine warming happens and something must be done. You’ve alleged these guys get paid from the UN, but I can’t find anything to support that claim — let alone the deeper claim you need to make, that it’s a significant part of their income and that their income would decline precipitously if they determined the opposite.

    I’m not finding your claims well backed by these documents. Is there something else you’ve got?

  55. Jeff Id said

    #54, Not in addition to, in replacement of. Their work is funded by govt. including funds from other branches of the UN. Something like 28 billion directed by the UN alone now I think. It’s quite a network, which has simple and obvious roots. I wonder what the chapter heads receive for compensation if anything but it’s the heads of heads that set up the structure and guess who they work for and guess who they prefer gets which money.

    Are you sure that 28 billion dollars wouldn’t game the system? If you can’t see the obvious, there isn’t much hope of continuing this discussion.

    Which branches did you fund and what sorts of projects?

  56. Ed Darrell said

    I can’t find anything like a $28 billion appropriation from the UN. Got a citation?

    Remember, all of those expenses must be laid out to the oversight committees in the U.S. Congress. It’s been hell there for the UN for 20 years. If Demint and Inhofe let that slide by, they are incompetent at being trolls.

  57. Ed Darrell said

    This document says 100 million Swiss francs, 1988-2008. At today’s exchange rate, that’s about $100 million dollars, or about $4 million a year.

    That’s less than 0.4% of $28 billion.

    May I assume a similar error margin for other figures here? 😉

  58. Jeff Id said

    #57, This is annoying. Read the very first paragraph of the document.

    “The budget presented in this document relates to the IPCC Trust Fund only. It should be noted that there are other resources available to the IPCC, notably support services provided by WMO and UNEP, generous contributions by the Governments of Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States of America which are supporting Technical Support Units (TSUs), and support from all those Governments and organizations which host IPCC meetings and make experts available to the IPCC.”

    I suppose it would be fair to apply your wisecrack to yourself then eh?

    Look into the other resources. It was over a year ago when I did the work and I don’t have time to help you realize that 4 million a year probably wouldn’t even pay for their office space. This also doesn’t relate to the research budget directed toward global warming’s other branches.

    Why are you wasting my time with stupid stuff?

  59. Ed Darrell said

    Look into the other resources. It was over a year ago when I did the work and I don’t have time to help you realize that 4 million a year probably wouldn’t even pay for their office space.

    I was working with your assurance that you’re not blowing hot air. I was curious.

    I’m getting a lot of hot air, and not much information. $28 billion would be difficult to hide, and yet you don’t have much an idea where it goes, nor where it comes from, nor whether it passes any common sense tests.

    This also doesn’t relate to the research budget directed toward global warming’s other branches.

    Of course, there is no research budget in the UN, for climate research. That was the purpose of the IPCC, to coordinate gathering together data generated from other sources.

    So, by my count, we’re short of accounting for $27.96 billion in your claim of excessive spending.

    Why are you wasting my time with stupid stuff?

    Largely because you all snarked at me, and it’s obvious to anyone familiar with science, research, research budgeting, governmental processes and international organizations that you don’t have a good grasp of what you’re talking about. Quite apart from the science, you make wild and reckless claims about what goes on. When I ask questions, politely, you attack me personally. So far, on every question I’ve been able to track down, your numbers and claims just don’t hold up.

    Why are you bothering to spread disinformation? If you’re not sure of this stuff, you’re acting the Fifth Column. You’re riding with Osama.

    Don’t spit at my, our flag and expect not to be “bothered.”

    I’ve heard the claims of profiteering and huge budgets from many people. You’re not the only one completely unable to back up the claims.

    But for heaven’s sake, don’t you have a duty to work for at least being in the ballpark on accuracy?

  60. Jeff Id said

    I’m particularly pissed off tonight Edddie. It’s not my job to teach fools. You have got to be an idiot or an advocate to believe that 4 million is the IPCC budget. The IPCC uses other branches of the UN to distribute the funding. The other branches control about 28 billion per year, I believe it was an 08 number but frankly don’t care if you won’t look up the research funding paths for yourself. You are a sophist, nothing more. It might even be on this very blog somewhere.

    Don’t spit at my, our flag and expect not to be “bothered.” – EDIT, I don’t care what you say to me Ed. You have little credibility after the 4 million claim. I may look it up later, but please don’t insult me tonight like this. I just learned that Mann got a half million dollars for his false work, and I don’t really give a fuck what you have to say right now.

    BTW, I rarely cuss.

  61. Ed Darrell said

    It’s not my job to teach fools.

    Make it your job not to model being a fool, too, will you?

    You’ve never run an agency? You’ve never coordinated a pool of people from different agencies? It can be done very cheaply. What in the world does IPCC do other than publish a report periodically? Look at the charter, look at the resolution. If you think they can’t do that cheaply, you’re fooling yourself. If you haven’t thought that deeply about it, you’ve been foolish.

    Now it’s time to get your game on, if your serious. UN doesn’t have “other branches” to distribute funding. You can’t trace the money, because it’s not there.

    Insult you? I can’t improve on what you’ve got here.

    You just learned Mann got $500,000? That’s a pittance for research — and you can’t lay your hands on any data to justify a claim of “false work.” You don’t have the numbers to make any case at all against these guys. You don’t know what a case would look like. Think about this, hard. What nefarious purpose could be accomplished by cleaning the air and reducing dependence of the industrialized world on fossil fuels? Even were Mann wrong, it would be good for us to pursue those goals.

    So, think hard again: Who wins if there is no climate agreement? China. India to a lesser extent. Russia.

    Not Europe. Not Canada. Not the U.S.

    Whose side are you on?

  62. Jeff Id said

    You just learned Mann got $500,000? That’s a pittance for research

    I’ll run a hundred MV regressions for half that. You claim such knowledge of government funding, tell me what’s the going price for a mash of climate data? Why do you have such a distorted perspective of the value of money? I’ll mash these variables together with better accuracy, less bias and more opennes for 1/5th of that.

    “and you can’t lay your hands on any data to justify a claim of “false work.” ”

    Wow, look at the blog man, try the link to hockey stick posts at the top. I’ve laid it all out so anyone with an interest can work the numbers. Turnkey code, layman explanations, full disclosure, all data, admission of error, what is wrong with you.

    “Who wins if there is no climate agreement?”

    The world.

  63. Jeff Id said

    Here you go Ed. I thought it might be already on this blog.

    https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/climate-change-a-manufactured-consensus-follow-the-money-baby/

    Welcome to the Air Vent

  64. Jeff Id said

    Even Quebec got 1.2 billion from other govt. sources.

    http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/changements/plan_action/bilan1-en.pdf

    Why pretend that for the largest climatescam dot org in the world, you can only find 4 million ed?

  65. twawki said

    Gee Ed youre posting over at my site that air vent is censoring you – doesnt look like censorship to me, just looks like youre abusive – as Ive told you before!

    http://twawki.com/2010/01/15/you-know-youre-on-a-warmaholic-website-when/

  66. […] by The Diatribe Guy on January 15, 2010 I read the happy note from Jeff at The Air Vent, regarding his blog traffic and congratulate him on having taken his blog from a little-known entity to a must-read for […]

  67. Ed Darrell said

    Gee Ed youre posting over at my site that air vent is censoring you

    So, you don’t know the difference between censorship and disagreement, either?

    I said nothing about censorship.

  68. SkipSmith said

    Obvious troll is obvious. Let’s move on, please.

  69. DeWitt Payne said

    Re: SkipSmith (Jan 18 02:24),

    The killfile script for Greasemonkey works here. One click will hide an individual comment or hide all comments on a thread from an individual. You may even be able to permanently killfile someone, but I haven’t figured out how to do that yet.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: