the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Archive for December, 2011

Droppin’ in

Posted by Jeff Id on December 7, 2011

I do love a good entrance…

Yup, like always it is from WUWT, but even when repeated, it is still good to see Climategate 2.0″ on the other side of the blue marble.  Think of the carbon footprint!

The emails are far worse than the last time.  Many will see that as some kind of salesmanship, but it really is far worse.




Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Open Review of the ZOD IPCC Paleoclimate Chapter

Posted by Jeff Id on December 7, 2011

What you all have been waiting for.  The IPCC Paleoclimate Zero Order Draft for on line public review.

The excitement never ends.



The paper slid under the door crack.  How these things happen, I don’t know — but they do.

Posted in Uncategorized | 28 Comments »

Inside Job

Posted by Jeff Id on December 7, 2011

One thing which is abundantly clear from the emails is the incestuousness of the climate consensus.   Of course they fail to see the problem but that is what happens when you are blinded by the goal.  Below is a particularly honest statement by Hulme on Pachuri’s election to head the IPCC.  He is fully aware that the IPCC is not really about the science.  DEFRA’s (UK version of the EPA) support of Martin Parry is particularly interesting as you can find internet references of him sitting in front of DEFRA later on to make reports back.  So they put him in place and receive reports back on issues which are more about energy and money than science.

I suppose people will tell us that there is nothing wrong there.


cc: s.raper
date: Mon Apr 22 18:14:44 2002
from: Mike Hulme <>
subject: Re: [Fwd: SSI Alert: IPCC Chair Vote]
to: Phil Jones <>

I can’t quite see what all the fuss is about Watson – why should he be re-nominated anyway?  Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC?  One could argue the CC issue is more important for the South than for the North.  Watson has perhaps thrown his weight about too much in the past.  The science is well covered by Susan Solomon in WGI, so why not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science.
If the issue is that Exxon have lobbied and pressured Bush, then OK, this is regrettable but to be honest is anyone really surprised?  All these decisions about IPCC chairs and co-chairs are deeply political (witness DEFRA’s support of Martin Parry for getting the WGII nomination).

Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments »

The Center of CG 2.0

Posted by Jeff Id on December 6, 2011

One of the rare privileges of being a ‘technical’ climate blogger is that I am sometimes aware of what is coming.

There are some good people on the inside of the IPCC and we should all be thankful for those who put the mess in context. My suggestion is – read this post carefully.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Stop Them

Posted by Jeff Id on December 6, 2011

If you can’t stop the science, then you have to look elsewhere.



date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann” <>
subject: Re: Something not to pass on
to: Phil Jones <>


I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide. They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.

I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and  expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them.

Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to such matters,


Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments »

My Opinion

Posted by Jeff Id on December 6, 2011

It isn’t often that I have cause to agree with Nick lately but he has put a comment in another thread which I would like to copy here in the middle of climategate just to give some perspective on why I don’t fall in line with the IPCC.

Nick Stokes said

December 6, 2011 at 7:32 am e

My general position is, yes, AGW is happening and will change our world a lot. How bad a rise of 3-4C will be I don’t know, but it’s very likely to happen.

You can’t deny Arrhenius and RTE. What that comes down to is that the IPCC judgment, right at the front of the SPM, that AGW has caused a rise of about 2 W/m2 in incoming radiation, is sound. Then you get to the climate sensitivity, which is more controversial. But even 2C per CO2 doubling has a big effect.

The arithmetic that is very basic, often forgotten, is on total C. We’ve burnt overall about 350 gigatons, and about 200 of that is in the atmosphere now. Rough figures – it’s late night here. There’s at least another 3000 Gtons C we could easily dig up and burn. That puts arguments about whether we’ve only had about 0.7C rise so far in perspective. It’s more than the total C in the atmosphere and biosphere (what was there and what we’ve put there, about 1500-2000 Gtons), and doesn’t allow for unconventional carbon. It’s at least two doublings. And the real question is, can we burn it all? And if not, how will we stop ourselves?

I haven’t mentioned the temp record, or paleo. That’s not part of the case. It’s important because if by now we hadn’t seen a temp rise, there would be legitimate questions. But we have. It isn’t the proof of AGW, but it’s consistent with it. Paleo says that it’s beyond the normal expactation, but that’s even less essential to the basic case.

Now I can’t disagree with any of what Nick has written, this is different than fully agreeing but only because I don’t have as much confidence in his warming numbers.   So if Iam one of the bad-guy skeptics, where does that put the argument?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | 29 Comments »

Consensus Media

Posted by Jeff Id on December 5, 2011

I hope people realize that we have 5 times the emails of Climategate 1.0.  The reading required is extraordinary and the story is far from done.  I’ve got enough material for dozens of posts now and am working very hard to condense them into meaningful statements.  In the meantime, things like this email jump out at you which just remind you the size of the machine that the global warming movement is.

Often we here the mantra of skeptics having the ear of Right Wing media, oil funded and the like…. Well here is an email from a reply to Soon and Baliunas who had the gall to conclude something outside of the consensus.


We issued the press release at 3:40 p.m. EDT Monday, July 7. It was sent to 900 science
writers worldwide on our distribution list and posted on EurekAlert!, the AAAS web site
for science press releases.
Almost immediately, we received requests for the full article from The New York Times,
     USA Today, National Public Radio, Toronto Star, San Jose Mercury News, Cox Newspapers,
     Richmond Times-Dispatch, and four freelancers. It was too late for most Europeans to
receive the release Monday, so we expect additional requests Tuesday morning.
Thanks to all for your help.

Harvey Leifert
Public Information Manager
American Geophysical Union
2000 Florida Avenue, N.W.

And then:

At 09:45 AM 7/11/2003 -0400, Harvey Leifert wrote:

Mike and Phil,
Perhaps more relevant than which media have already carried the story, copies of your
Eos paper were distributed at a Senate briefing yesterday, and the minority (i.e.,
Democratic Party) staff is inviting Mike to appear at a hearing later in the month. (I
trust Mike got and responded to the message??)

I don’t remember anyone helping our reply to Steig et al..  which was a flawed work showing too much Antarctic warming and promoted in many hundreds of newspapers across the globe. Heck, I don’t recall any big media attention at all.

Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments »

Their Words

Posted by Jeff Id on December 4, 2011

They call us skeptics, deniers, fossil fuel funded, contrarians, anti-science, all because we criticize the IPCC, the hockey stick plots, temperature record quality, biased peer review, and the general politicizing that climate science has undergone. Don’t take it from me though, Climategate II explains the same things in the words of the scientists themselves.

In this post, I’ve posted a large number of quotes from the emails and other online sources which I have been gradually gathering for several days now. The consensus duma will say they are out-of-context so if you question that, check the numbers or links next to the comments. It is not possible that they could ALL be out-of-context but there are many  statements from climate science which leave me wondering. This post is started out with a quote from noted scientist Dr. Roy Spencer’s blog and it continues on with quotes from the consensus. All of whom are actual climate scientists.

Be sure that there are many more quotes in these emails. I am only one person and the documentation takes time. If there are more to add to the list (there are) just quote the email number and a few sentences below. No need to copy the whole email. Those interested enough will look it up anyway. I didn’t cover the FOIA and peer review issues here but hope to add them to this list in the future.


From the organization statement:

Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.

Roy Spencer -on his blog regarding the IPCC

Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | 72 Comments »

Warming Up

Posted by Jeff Id on December 4, 2011

You might think Climategate 2.0 is losing wind due to the light coverage by the media and the “out-of-context” dismissal by Real climate before anyone made any context.  In fact I believe the opposite is happening.  Several new articles are out today and more will be coming as the media begins to grasp that unlike stopping the use of fossil fuel, the story is financially viable. In the meantime, can someone tell the great communicators of climate science that you can’t state out-of-context before someone gives them context. Sometimes I really think that they would best serve their open advocacy by not writing anything at all.

This first article is from the Global Warming Policy Foundation.  It is very well written and a fun popular science style read of the story as we currently know it.

This second article is at the strata-sphere site and it features some of what I’ve written as well as a considerable amount of additional emails placed in context.

Just to give a flavor of what is being said by our unbiased media, here is a dismissal by Discover.  Read it at your own risk:

Climategate 2: More ado about nothing. Again.

However, it was clear to anyone familiar with how research is done that this was complete and utter bilge; the scientists were not trying to hide anything, were not trying to trick anyone, and were not trying to falsely exaggerate the dangers of climate change.

😀 published this dismissal disguised as reporting:

There’s nothing really new in a second massive cache of e-mails

Planetsave doesn’t do terribly well either and took the time to lie about the committee coverage in blogs. Good for them.

In each of these reports the CRU was found free of any wrong-doing, if maybe a little silly from time to time.

Unsurprisingly, none of that has been made known by those currently enjoying their second 2 minutes in the spotlight.

What is amazing is that these three dismissive articles all came within 1 day of the email release.  I’ve read these as diligently as anyone and even by Dec 4, am only through a fraction of the mess.

I have to add that I’m really not enjoying reading these emails.   It stinks that we have to piece together mountains of rubbish so that the public can understand the meaning of what is going on.  I would rather be a climate blogger than a climategate blogger but with this new context, I am happy to do any work which exposes the foul play.

This is going to keep growing for a while.

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

The Gaiamas Spirit

Posted by Jeff Id on December 3, 2011

Trenberth emials a progressives version of the first Noel made up  by a NCAR group incorporating the lead authors of the IPCC AR4.  It seems appropriate for the time of year.


Sung to tune of The first Noel

Our First Nobel

Our First Nobel, for the IPCC,
Goes to Beth, Bette, Bill, Jerry, Kathy and Guy.
Kevin, Linda, Paty, Re-to and so many more,
And we’re sharing the honor with Mister Al Gore.
Nobel, Nobel, a story to tell,
We hope our coworkers’ egos don’t swell.

The First Working Group said to sound the alarm,
Rising CO2 levels are causing great harm.
Temperatures and greenhouse gas are racing up neck and neck,
Soon the whole Earth will be hotter than heck.
Nobel, Nobel, the planet’s unwell,
This is the future the models foretell.

The Second Working Group said that change is assured,
>From the melting of glaciers to migration of birds.
>From loss of land and crops to habitats,
How can they make it much clearer than that?
Nobel, Nobel, the oceans swell,
Polar bears search for new places to dwell.

We must work to mitigate, tells us Working Group Three,
Change from fossil consumption to clean energy.
If we all do our share in reversing the trend,
Our children might have a clean Earth in the end.
Nobel, Nobel, sound the warning bell,
Let’s make a future where all can live well.

Nobel, Nobel, we are stars for a day,
Can an Oscar be far away?

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Real Science?

Posted by Jeff Id on December 2, 2011

WUWT (a.k.a. the center of the internet) has a post on Trenberth stating that a hurricane disaster non-believer should be fired.   We have to keep the free- thinking scientists in line with the message after all.

Here is a section of the post:

I responded to his earlier message in a fairly low key fashion. I think he
has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an openenough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting
hurricanes. I am quickly becoming outraged by this and I hope it backfires on
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, Martin Manning wrote:
> Dear Phil and Kevin
> Today Susan received a copy of some correspondence between Chris Landsea and Dr Pachauri regarding coverage of hurricanes and global warming by the IPCC. Although we were aware that Dr Landsea was raising the issue
> generally, we were not aware of the approach to Dr Pachauri and it is
> perhaps unfortunate that this was not referred to Susan.
> However, Susan would now like to consider a further appropriate response to
> Dr Landsea and she has asked me to ask you to wait for that before you
> consider any possible response of your own (assuming that you have seen the
> correspondence anyway?).
> Thanks
> Martin
> –
> Dr Martin R Manning

And a relevant graph by Ryan Maue below.  Note the lack of hurricane strength in recent years.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments »

I can’t hear you

Posted by Jeff Id on December 2, 2011

This email demonstrates again exactly why hockey stick temperature curves are all crap.

Bo Christiansen wrote an email (copy below)  on March 16 2009, stating in no uncertain terms, what I have written here dozens of times.  You can’t regress extremely noisy data on a short series (temperature range) and then project it 2000 years into the past.  When the noise approaches the level of (or in the case of paleowhackology, actually dominates over) the signal, you will have a loss of variance in the historic signal in comparison to the calibration range.   Loss of variance means, no big changes in historic temp.  It seems pretty obvious to me that this is what happens, but in the paleo world, it is nearly completely ignored.  The problem is so severe that Mann published a paper in 07 which attempts to cover it up.  I use the words, ‘cover it up’ with care as it is based on a lot of experiences and it is my true opinion. Unsurprisingly, he used artificial data which conveniently had the right kind of noise and as so often happens in paleoclimate – he just barely missed detecting the problem.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments »

Hide more decline

Posted by Jeff Id on December 1, 2011

The big news today seems to be Steve McIntyre’s recent discovery that the Briffa series in print has been chopped back in a Mann paper even further than advertised to hide “more” decline.  Amazingly, no mention was made of the radical surgery.

Steve Writes –

Had Mann and his 13 co-authors shown the Briffa reconstruction, without hiding the decline, one feels that von Storch (and others) might have given more consideration to Soon et al’s criticism of the serious problem arising from the large-population failure of tree ring widths and density to track temperature.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Swing and a Miss

Posted by Jeff Id on December 1, 2011

Well the NOAA almost got it right.  Actually, I’m not sure what this is in reference to other than some funding which should have been saved.


date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:05:58 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann” <>
subject: Re: talk
to: Keith Briffa

thanks a bunch Keith,
This sounds interesting–looking forward to hearing more about this latest analysis…
talk to you soon,
At 03:40 AM 6/24/2004, Keith Briffa wrote:

Well done Mike
in case you think I was slacking , I spent the last two days embroiled in Degree
scrutiny/committee (and evenings wining and dining external examiners!). Hope to send
some stuff on our reworking of the Esper et al.analysis for your opinion soon. What are
the real chances of a change of heart on the Palaeo stuff?
Very best wishes
At 22:46 23/06/2004, you wrote:

Hi Keith,
I think the talk went well received this morning. Thanks a bunch for your input. Peck,
Mark Cane, and I all spoke in the paleo session. Hopefully we might have make some
     progress in convincing NOAA not to cut paleo. Will have to see what happens…
Hope all is well w/ you. Talk to you again soon,

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »