the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

I Apologize

Posted by Jeff Id on July 16, 2010

This morning, I listened to the whole 98 minute ‘thing’ from the guardian.  I’ve read several takes on the ‘thing’ and my impression is that my opinions were horribly underrepresented –again.  On the whole I was quite disappointed with the endless efforts to portray climategate as some reasonable ‘thing’ which, being reasonable itself, has the ability to be disputed and discussed by reasonable people with different points of view.

Fortunately,  I have a blog with smart readers who don’t require ‘committees’ to think for themselves.

The whole process of listening to the ‘thing’ was a torturous nightmare.  It was a combination of agreement on ‘doing something’ for climate change, and claims of climate panels having exonerated UEA or innuendo of perhaps not completing the job satisfactorily.

Of course there were a few bright spots provided by Steve McIntyre who was the only one to get to the heart of the problem but he only carried a fraction of the time so in all, it was not enough information and therefore not fun..  Perhaps, I just prefer to read, rather than listen to the limited information that can be presented by talking in a forum like this.

In the end, some dumbass said that skeptics who said CRU did something wrong owe  a huge apology to the world for OUR  misleading of THEM.

I have SEEN the LIGHT!!!

I see now what they mean.

Clipping data points is important to the message, Kelly not presenting the recent disagreeing one’s is part of public education.

Systematically clipping proxy data which disagrees IS a valid method and hiding results which disagree with CO2 is as important as discrediting those who are skeptical.

I was wrong, I have been wrong all along.

Therefore, in all sincerity,

I offer my apology to ALL climate scientists I have ever criticized, even the fish shrinking guy.

I apologize to the review committees which were of high quality, transparently open, and free of bias.

I accept all of the conclusions of the high quality review committees, and their recommendations.

I accept that it was not necessary for the committees to talk with critics to understand their complaints.

I accept that hide the decline was simply a tricky statistically valid technique, employed by undergrads in labs across the world.

I accept the view that we should do something about climate change immediately, regardless of the magnitude.

I realize that the deletion of ‘loads of emails’ was a facetious comment meaning something else.

I accept that blocking of peer review is just a standard procedure to keep out those who cannot understand.

I accept that emails stating ‘redefinition of peer review’ are a sometimes necessary method to protect the science.

I recognize that FOI does not apply to climate scientists.

I now accept that warming is greater than any time in 2000 years.

I believe that the sea ice is going away because of man.

I believe glaciers are going away because of man.

I know in my heart that the Amazon is going to die from climate change.

I now see coal transport as ‘death trains’.

I see now that Phil Jones did provide the temperature data, it was there all along.

Phil Jones was, in fact, bound by international confidentiality agreements, which further bound him not to disclose them.

I see the Antarctic ice is melting due to temperature rise, at an ever increasing rate.

I now understand that urban heat islands don’t exist and cannot affect the temperature record.

I believe we need to act now to save the world.

I believe Man is causing sea levels to rise and is responsible for the water rising even before CO2 was emitted.

I believe in accelerating global warming, it’s just a matter of time for the data to catch up to models.

Climate skepticism was my fault in part and I apologize to all the people of the world.

I recognize my foolishness in recommending not using green energy.

I recognize the promise of biofuel and wind power.

I recognize the solution is taxation and limitation of energy usage.

I recognize the need for more of our high quality governments.

They were right, all of them, I am a fool, a science denier, unable to comprehend.

I now understand that the climategate emails were just scientists politely discussing the best presentation of data.

I’m sorry for the calculations here, they all had errors.

I’m sorry that I intentionally misled the public with facts.

I’m sorry that I let uncertainty in feedbacks creep into my thinking on climate.

I’m sorry.



The Air Vent is now unnecessary and therefore closed………

36 Responses to “I Apologize”

  1. Barry Woods said

    Jeff it was a very GOOD debate..

    I was there second row, behind the Time correspondent, saying he was SHOCKED that the Muir Russell had NOT met Phil Jones, after the panel had formed.. Trevor Davis, had it dragged out of him that was the case – by George Monbiot!!!

    They had to cut a lot of Doug Keenan out, so THIS will SKEW your impresion (understandably as he accused Phil Jones out, with respect to scientific fraud, any paper would be advised by their legal tem to cut that)

    The audio, does not give the audience reaction well.

    Listen to the comments from people that were there, and saw the reaction…

    DOUG Keenan chatting to Bob Watson afterwards was a GOOD thing..

    Trevor Davis (UEA was a car crash, maybe you had to be there…

    Bob Watson (IPCC chair former) saying – I have only read a FEW emails, got a BIG laugh…

    Listen to the comments at Climate Audit aboutr it (lots of sceptics from Bishop Hill there – I might even get my own Josh cartoon 😉 )…

    And at Watts up..

  2. Jeff Id said

    The audio was disappointing.

  3. Barry Woods said

    My comment:

    Before anybody criticise me, I put a $100 into Climate audits Tip Jar, to help pay for Steve Mcintyres trip to LOndon… (so put up everybody, donate at watts up, Bishop Hill, or climate audit)

    The Guardian did not invite Steve as such (they all ready had Doug Keenan) it was the climate audit commentors, that invited him over by offering donations to pay for the trip… and the Guardian were pleased to have him, and surprised about the donations. Over 200, Steve Mcintyre told me on Wednesday in London.

    George Monbiot was actually a very good chair overall..
    And I have been VERY, very critical of George.

    You do really need to see listen to ALL of the audio, and unfortuanetly miss out a lot of Doug Keenan (the journalists seemed very impressed by him!) Just to witness how bad the UEA’s Trevor Davis was, especially how, the admission that PHil Jones was not seen by Muir Russell after the enquiry panel had formed, was dragged out of him…

    I think the Time journalist, asked for confirmation from Davis, whether Mcintyre account was correct, ie the head of the enquiry, had not the head of the department (Phil Jones) to be formally interviewed, after the panel had formed.

    George to his credit, did not allow Davis (UEA) to get away with anything, stonewalling after Steve Mcintyres, filleting of the enquiry, George pursued the question, with Davis, until after much note shuffling, not sures, mumbling, refering to notes, Davis eventually mumbled Phil Jones,- met Muir Russell in January, Steve Mcintyre said, ‘confirming’, BEFORE the panel had formed.

    Bob Watson’s admission, that he had only read a FEW emails was just laughable, given the debate…
    Bringing forth, from the audience. “Do you always forget to do your homework!”

    Fred Pearce did come across very well (Fred and George came across as journalists)

    Keenan was very concise and tough, maybe overstepped the mark, saying all climate science was rubbish (assuming man made kind)

    What may be lost because he said that, is he talked about the human ‘cost’ of it all, hundreds of millions of poor affected, because we ‘must’ do ‘something’ about AGW,even as the uncertainties get bigger for AR5.

    His other valid point, that struck a chord, was how there is no processes, for challenging academic fraud, incompetance, no way to hold anybody academic to account,(fraud/incompetance) Citing an example, (not climate science) that he was pursueing, where the university, said no method to do this.

    Keenan I think impressed the journalists, like Fred George Roger Harrabin, The Times, etc with his conciseness, and interest in accountability of academia, no ‘waffle’.

    Former IPCC man Bob Watson, could only keep repeating, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, 95% scientists agree, very superficial platitudes, that just did not work in a debate, where every one was knowledgable.

    Roger Harrabin (bbc) asked him a question from the audience, and the response from Bob was very poor, totally not answering the question, whijh I heard at least one of the journalists present, saying Bob did not answer the question.

    Fiona Fox asked a question, pretty much attacking the Guardian journalists, for being irresponsble for reporting about climategate.

    Fred Pearces reply was perfect, comparing to how reporting MP’s expenses was referred as attacking democarcy initially, but long term better fro democarcy (cf climate science)

    Fiona Fox,(director Science and Media ) sounded to be like a very strident ‘activist’, really need to hear it for yourself.. (which the other journalists, surely picked up on)

    Personally, it was good to finally meet people, Fred Pearce was very easy to talk to, glad to meet Roger Harabin, if only so that I could introduce him to ‘Josh’ and a couple of others.

    The journalists present could not fail to see, what the Muir Russell enquiry was really about, following UEA’s and Bob Watsons poor performance here

    George Monbiot, WAS a very good chair, overall…

    I had thought – oh huh, when he started of with the ‘Climate Change DENIAL community’, but it would be picky to highlight any detail.

    He fulfilled the role of chair correctly. (if only he’s stop denial stuff in his blog – that totally alienates me, annd many others,)

    He came across well, with a sense of humour saying:

    “He was the ideal chair, beacuse he had managed to alienate, everybody!”

    It was a good debate, with sceptic and pro AGW people chatting, getting to no one another, even I believe Bob Watson and Doug Keenan going to keep in touch..

    Piers Corbyn came across very badly,

    And again, Steve Mcintyre, came across as a courteous canadian gent, whose portayal as some sort of sceptical/denying big oilf funded deniar, by the ‘alarmists’ just now looks ludicrous…. AND the Journalists could see this, VERY well attended by journalists…

  4. TinyCO2 said

    My Mum always told me not to watch scary movies if they were going to upset me. Now I’m going to have to miss the Guardian ‘thing’ too.

  5. Jeff Id said

    I think I just needed to hear some stronger comments about what climategate really was. It’s not like the emails are a close call which can be reasonably interpreted to be scientific. They were misleading the public with intent, that’s it, it’s directly in context in the emails and even explicitly stated.

    Yet the committees find nothing?

    I wish I would have heard the clipped parts, maybe that would have helped.

  6. Chris in OZ said


    There is still someone out there who put their faith in The Air Vent and posted this.

    FOIA said
    November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm
    We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
    We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
    Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
    This is a limited time offer, download now:
    0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
    1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
    0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
    0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth
    0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
    1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
    1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
    1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
    0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
    0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
    0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
    0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
    0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
    0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
    1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
    1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
    1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
    1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
    1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
    1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4

    I saved it as a pdf, a bit of history for my grandchildren, I was on line when it happened.


  7. Gary said

    Jeff, you forgot to apologize for personally exhaling CO2.

  8. I enjoyed your message, Jeff, but caution you to be careful what you say to civil servants, consensus scientists and bureaucrats.

    They may completely fail to grasp your humor!

    Hang in there!
    Oliver K. Manuel

  9. kim said

    I saw the miracle posting at, ignored it, and went offline for a week. And what did my wondering eyes then behold?

  10. Barry Woods said

    Doug Keenan has put a link a transcript to his missing 6 minute opener at Bishop Hill. I’m mobile phone again

  11. papertiger said

    That’s a shame.

    I was really holding out hope you would take Steig’s RegEm method, apply it to North America, so we could pretend there were pre-Sputnik weather satellites.

    Ah well. Guess it doesn’t matter.

    REPLY: Still waiting for the favorable review on the Antarctic. It should be any day now.

  12. RomanM said

    Wow! Fastest conversion since Paul fell and struck his his head on the way to Damascus! I’m still wiping your crocodile tears from my screen.

    I don’t know why you are surprised. Credibility has never been a necessary component of the CAGW CCC credo and is a distinct drawback during alarmist propaganda efforts.

  13. Andrew said

    12-I always thought that Simon Peter and Andrew converted fastest-they dropped their nets at His word.

    Also, I had heard the theory that Paul had a seizure (which has several problems) but not that he hit his head! Interesting…

  14. kim said

    Robbed, beaten, and doesn’t remember it well.

  15. kim said

    Probably what happened to the whistleblowing leaker, too.

  16. Die Zauberflotist said

    “The Air Vent is now unnecessary and therefore closed………”

    Repent, O’ yea Sinful Denier!

    Mea culpas, Hail Gores and Our Father James Hansens should be posted on all Apostolic Climate Science sites starting with RC. Then, rather that shutting down your site… turn it into a force to save planet earth. Emulate Climate Progress…. and be Saved.

  17. Steve Fitzpatrick said


    I can understand your disappointment with both the Russell report and the ‘debate’, but I think you need to consider the political realities in the UK: support for government action to counter CAGW is overwhelming among UK politicians of all stripes. There was never going to be a truly critical analysis by the Russell group; the fix was in before they started. The single critique (failure to adequately reply to FOI requests) was inevitable, but it did serve as a fig leaf to hide the incredible deference given the principals by the Russell group. The most important issues (deletion of emails to avoid FOI requests, behind the scenes rigging of IPCC AR content, coordinated pressuring of journals to inhibit publication of “undesirable” papers) were not seriously considered by the Russell group… but did you really imagine they would be?

  18. Jeff Id said

    #17 No way I expected anything from the committees. So I do what any blogger would do and …

    mock them 😀

  19. Ed said

    On average world temperature is +15⁰C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33⁰C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18⁰C. The World and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.

    So just running the numbers:
    • Greenhouse Effect = 33.00⁰C
    • Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = + 31.35⁰C
    • Other Greenhouse Gasses GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65⁰C
    • CO2 is 75% of the effect of all GHGs = 1.24⁰C
    • Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural: Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = 0.087⁰C: so closing the whole world carbon economy could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable <1/10 ⁰C.

    As the temperature reduction that could be achieved by closing the whole of the World’s Carbon economies is less than 1/10 ⁰C, how can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 ⁰C?

    UK Man-made CO2 is about 2% or equal to 1738 millionths ⁰C: the impact on Global Temperatures that closing the whole UK Carbon economy could ever have.

    So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind. If this is really so, then the prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
    • concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
    • it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
    • if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
    • any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
    • a warmer climate, within current natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.

    However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades.

    Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
    • security of supply
    • increasing scarcity
    • rising costs
    • their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.

    In France and the results of the French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation).

    Even if one is concerned about CO2, it seems to pay off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world. So a wholehearted commitment to nuclear power, is the only thing to make good common sense.

  20. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    If you want to be cheered up a little, read over the thread at Roy Spencer’s blog on “revisiting Pinetubo cooling” ( ), where Roy shows how ERBE data combined with satellite temperatures tropospheric temperatures can be used to show that climate sensitivity must be quite low. In the comment thread, climatologist Dan Kirk-Davidoff ( arives to pooh-pooh Roy’s conclusions and claim that the climate sensitivity has to be MUCH higher because Roy ignores important ocean heat transfer issues (to paraphrase: “nothing to see here folks.. move along, move along”).

    Pehr Bjornbom (professor of chemical engineering, Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden) then accurately points out that Kirk-Davidoff is not just mistaken, but his argument is exactly the opposite of correct, and in fact shows that Roy was extremely conservative… the true climate sensitivity must be even lower than what Roy calculated. There follows a comical series of posts over several days where Kirk-Davidoff tells Bjornbom he is wrong, following the typical arguments used to discount any analysis that says sensitivity is low. But Pehr Bjornbom ignores all the condescending clap-trap and keeps pointing out that Kink-Davidoff is just factually wrong.

    After multiple explanations by Bjornbom, Kirk-Davidoff finally realizes what he has been arguing for days is utter non-sense, sputters a bit about confusing terminology, and then says Roy’s analysis is “fraught with uncertainty” due to high noise in the data (translation: if it shows the sensitivity is low, it just has to be wrong). Roy then points out to Kirk-Davidoff that the signal from Pinatubo was extremely strong… on the order of 2.5 watts per square meter, and it is nuts to imagine a stronger signal will ever be available to test the true climate sensitivity.

    Kirk-Davidoff then slinks off and does not return. Bjornbom finally reports his own similar analysis using well known temperature reconstructions (rather than satellite data) that show the sensitivity is even lower than Roy calculated.

    Is it any wonder that climate scientists will not engage “educated skeptics” on a technical level?

  21. Brian H said

    Re your apologia:
    You Rie Rike a Rug!


    thx muchly for the link and excellent précis.

  22. Laursaurus said

    I couldn’t manage to load it to my iPod, so I’ve spent the past hr and 1/2 streaming from the Guardian website. (Cleaned out the crevices in my keyboard). From what I’ve read over the past few days, it is clear that some of the most interesting content was excluded. Didn’t one of the panelists admit he didn’t read the emails? In the opening statements, it was pointed out that the messages made public were but a small fraction of the years of communication. So they presented the context without the key question?
    Jeff, it’s not April 1st, but I sure hope this post was TIC.
    I usually just lurk, but I certainly follow your blog closely. All of these public events draw out a few of the strident, preachy, panicky environmentalists who pretend to be asking a question so that once they get the mic, they make their polemic speech. Just wouldn’t be complete without it, ya know?
    Really, despite the editing, the overall tone came across as remarkably balanced. I personally think the skeptics prevailed, but admit to my strong bias. Otherwise, I’d be typing out an angry response to post on the Guardian’s site.These debate-style forums usually feel horribly shallow. I was extremely impressed by Monbiot. Every now and then, he actually brightens my day. Unlike Al Gore, he is a sincere environmentalist who actually “walks the walk” by his lifestyle.
    The climate blogosphere need tAV! Please tell me you’re just kidding about not blogging anymore.

  23. Steven Mosher said

    the debate blew dead bears

  24. intrepid_wanders said

    #20 – Steve Fitzpatrick

    While as I am unsure if you brighten Jeff’s day, but you did mine. Thanks for the thread. Reminded me of the Bart-VS days.

  25. Jeff Id said

    #24, he did actually but I don’t fully understand the nuance of the post yet. I’ve read it carefully more than once and am lacking some of the subtler details.

  26. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Intrepid #24,

    It brightened my day as well. The exchange was technical enough to require a couple of reads, but it was worth the effort. An experienced physical scientist (an engineer, at that!) explaining to a lightweight scientist (AKA climatologist) that he completely misunderstood the technical issues involved.

    Does it get any better than that? I don’t think so.

    And as I said, this is why the Gavins of the climate science world will not actually engage trained technical people on real issues related to “the science”. They have a very long way to go to reach “robust”.

  27. Jeff Id said

    #26, of all things in climate science, the ‘long way’ to the answer is most clear. It really really is.

  28. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    Jeff #25,

    Kirk-Davidoff simply misunderstood the physical basis of Roy’s analysis, and proceeded to make a total ass of himself… over several days. He completely missed the point. Sound familiar? A bit like much of ‘climate science’ perhaps?

    Here is the nub: If heat transfer from deeper levels of the ocean to the surface (as Kirk-Davidoff argued) slowed the rate of temperature change when Pinatubo reduced solar intensity, then this means that the apparent sensitivity was in fact artificially INCREASED, while Kirk-Davidoff claimed it meant the sensitivity was artificially REDUCED. Kirk-Davidoff was using arguments that have been used before to explain why the surface temperature has not responded rapidly to GHG forcing…. but he had it completely upside down in this case.

    The reality is that ocean heat content is used (along with aerosol effects) to explain why a highly sensitive climate has not moved much in temperature, in spite of 3+ watts per square meter of GHG forcing at present. Roy and Pehr showed this is nonsense.

  29. Steve Fitzpatrick said

    “Roy and Pehr showed this is nonsense.”
    That is, showed why claims of a highly sensitive climate are nonsense.

  30. papertiger said

    Steve Fitzpatrick said
    July 16, 2010 at 8:08 pm
    “Roy and Pehr showed this is nonsense.”
    That is, showed why claims of a highly sensitive climate are nonsense.>>

    Good thing they didn’t take to spraying sulfuric acid in the atmosphere.

  31. Barry Woods said

    Bob Watson: (former IPCC chair!)

    I only have read a few emails……

    Audience member:

    Do you always forget to do your homework!…

    Cue audience laughter, (is that on the audio?)

  32. Barry Woods said

    Actually I asked Sir John Houghton, last month. (IPCC co- chair 2001, the one with the ‘hockey stick in’

    Have you read the climategate emails..

    His answer NO!!!

    (I had a very interestin 15-20 minute ‘chat’ with him afterwards)

    At a church near me, he gave a talk, because of Transition Towns, and his brother lives there…

  33. Jeff Id said

    #32 Any wish to blog on it, I’ve got a forum.

  34. John Norris said

    Those of us that have been reading CA for a few years found that upon the release of the climate gate e-mails, pretty much everything bad that Steve McIntyre said about a particular subset of climate scientists was not only true, but now substantiated in their own e-mails. It is so clear to all of us that had the benefit of first getting a full dose of one witnesses story, and seeing the credibility of that witnessed challenged at RC, and then seeing pretty much everything corroborated by the opposing parties in their own e-mails, including many at RC.

    The reason Judith Curry got it? She reads CA, she met Steve, he visited and presented at Georgia Tech, she heard the witnesses testimony, she read the e-mails when they came out, and by gosh by golly, Steve’s story was true!

    The frustrating part is I guess you really have to be a CA geek to get the story. If you are not interested enough in the topic you probably just can’t bear to slog through the blogs to get the details of the issues. Of course we expect investigators to do that – so far they have failed the planet miserably.

    The one positive on this is that it is all out there on the record. Despite the attempts to minimize, eventually it will get through to the rest of the world.

  35. kim said

    Sing it, John.

  36. Jeff Id said

    for sure

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: