A telling omission by Real Climate

The MSM should out and out acknowledge that RC is merely the mouthpiece for these fraudsters. In the 90″s (Y2K) we had a name for people preaching the “end of the world as we know it!” We named them “Doomers”.
I think that we should go back to that appelation for these hucksters. And RC is Doomer Central.

Fenton Communications has a history of being at the root of many junk science scares. Surf over to http://junkscience.com/archlinks.html and search on “Fenton Communications” for some eye-opening history.

Link to PDF file RCWiki-121909 is returning ERROR-404.

Heads up: Connolley is on twice?

Look on the bright side. In a totalitarian state the names on that list would’ve been sent to eco re-education camps. ^_^

What also seems relevant with the production of this list is a recognition by RC that there is another side to their argument. They are implicitly saying that there are at least 75 people of sufficient stature (many of whom are highly respected scientists) who are prepared to argue the skeptic case. This must then mean that they (RC) agree the science is not settled.

One of the interesting things about Mann’s mess is that you don’t even need Ross and Steve to debunk it (other than Ross’ description of what Mann did). Mann wrote his own code rather than use one of the commercially prepared (already debugged) stats packages. Nobody does that. It’s incompetent.
And instead of using standard measures of statistical significance, he made up his own. Of course, M&M eventually found proof that he had computed standard measures and he had flunked.
So if you want to avoid all the arguments about the details (which M&M win easily), just focus on the ridiculous amateurish software and stats. Because there isn’t any argument about whether he did both.

There is nothing new under the sun .. all the RC guys probably started off genuinely believing what they said but along the way they went the way of many human beings. Don’t be too hard on them, they are wrong but they are just being human.
Leo Tolstoy had it all worked out and he died in 1910…
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910)
Its as if he were alive today and describing Hansen, Schmidt etc .. Yes?

Yes indeed, thanks to the still-free alternative-media we know RC are a crock.
But it’s just getting worse. They’re digging themselves in deep, they really are.
Chinese saying: when in sh*t, stop digging.
And here’s Al Gore – from Saturday – spouting lie after fatuous lie on a ‘news program’, which tries to appear like a debate…
I know it’s hard to watch Al Gore for eight minutes, but, if you want to, here’s the link:

Warning: once he gets into his stride it’s a real torrent of lies and Bad Science – it may make you angry…

Re: Richard Goodley (11:44:20) :
“There is nothing new under the sun ..
Leo Tolstoy had it all worked out and he died in 1910…
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth…”.
“Its as if he were alive today and describing Hansen, Schmidt etc .. Yes?
__________
OK! Yes.

Jimmy Haigh (11:42:27),

I still like the raging sun at full blown solar maximum on the Real Climate website banner…

Ironic isn’t it? Seeing as they completely ignore any effects of that enormous burning ball in the sky.

Jimmy Haigh (11:42:27) :
I still like the raging sun at full blown solar maximum on the Real Climate website banner…
————————-
Yes, absolutely, if it’s ‘Real Climate’, why don’t they have a real-time image of the sun as their banner. As the this post is further exposing – pure propaganda.

I should add that David Fenton’s past gives every indication that the end justifies the means. The scam of AGW is well within his past core ideals.

Nothing surprises me these days. That’s in sharp contrast to when I first started Reading WUWT. I think I’ve become numb to the Team’s lies and deception.
I feel the end is in sight now. The house of cards is falling and not a moment too soon.

More on Fenton Comm. and RC.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/the_warmist_pr_con_job.html

You are so right Mr. Watts; the perpetrators do not want to call attention to the people who can call them on the carpet with the authority of correct information and analysis. A perhaps even more glaring example of this is Michael Mann’s recent editorial in the Washington Post in which he takes on Sarah Palin (!) rather than Steve McIntyre or Ross McKittrick or anyone else with the knowledge fight back.

This article from the same source as tucker’s is a good overview of Environmental Media Services, the communications arm of Fenton Communications, as well as the registering entity of RealClimate. Another interesting factoid — Betsy Ensley, the individual who registered the RealClimate domain on behalf of EMS was also the founder of Bush Green Watch.org and Women against Bush. Not sticking up for Bush, but clearly Ms. Ensley isn’t an objective individual.

This is fascinating. And what a day to discover this on RC’s Wiki… when we can surely use it to turn tables… now we know whose bios need repatriating. And now we know to make special mention of the two who are still evidently NAMELESS here.

working climate scientists
I can almost see the crux of the biscuit.

I guess everybody’s seen this by now: Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor in the National Post.

Uh, “And instead of … his own.” should have been blockquoted.
Mark

Until I logged on to the RC wiki site today, I was unaware that John Cook, a serial commenter on my website, was part of the current RC hit squad. I feel honored that he feels I am a threat.

Does thie presence of this list make it into the “investigation” being undertaken by Penn State? I hope they do a thorough job although I know how these investigations of self tend to end up: “…there were some unseemly statements made but there is nothing to indicate any fraud in the science…. we would recommend a code of conduct in communications…” or some other whitewash.

It’s interesting, isn’t it? I noticed just a few days ago that Steve M was missing from that list. And Lucy: Did you see they use Tamino’s lame response (with the airport in Barrow as “proof”…) to your Arctic post against you?

PaulH (11:19:57) :
It is not just Fenton Communications – The Tide Foundation and Tide Corporation are also involved in “leveraging” the PR budget …
http://extrinsic.blog.com/2009/12/03/climategate-behind-the-screen/

Soon after ClimateGate appeared, when RC opened up their commenting to just about everyone (for a very short time). I was finally able to post a few comments over there and began asking a few questions. Someone had made mention about the Fenton Communications link to RC, and another mentioned the George Soros connection. Gavin Schmidt submitted a directly pointed comment completely denouncing any ties to George Soros. I then tried to take advantage of their new, but short-lived, “open door policy”. I compiled a rather lengthy and very comprehensive comment illustrating all of the ties of RC to Fenton, others, and finally Soros. Funny, their “open door policy” sure slammed closed on me quite suddenly. My comment was not allowed, and I was thenceforth summarily dismissed and ignored. No further comments from me were considered.
I found it quite telling.

Fenton Communications has mastered the art of “Astroturfing”. Astroturfing is where you create artificial “grass roots” movements (Astroturf is artificial grass). It began with the Alar apple scare. They called a meeting of “activists” from around the country and got together a plan where instead of creating a single large organization, it would be better to create several small organizations with different names. It would make it appear more like a spontaneous appearance of people in different places opposed to the same thing. Rather than having a list of one organization, they would have a list of dozens of smaller organizations they could point to in order to make that brand of activism appear more popular than it actually is.
Fenton then acts as trainer and coordinator. The coach people on how to get interviews, how to control the interview, they keep the various organizations “on message” and take a catchy phrase, e.g. “speak truth to power” , and spread it across the various groups. They prevent the groups from making cross-invalidating statements, keep them “on message” and working toward their goals.
Fenton Communications was the PR agent for Larry Johnson who heckled Donald Rumsfeld in a press conference and was within 48 hours on all the talking head shows getting out the anti-Iraq war message.
Fenton creates press packages for issues. They manage a journalists experience at a protest. A journalist can simply write the article from the press package provided by Fenton and Fenton makes a big deal of having “friendly” journalists at many major media outlets eager to get out the “progressive” message.
Win Without Wars, Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, Larry Johnson, Cindy Sheehan … all clients of Fenton Communications and there are dozens more. When they decide to get involved in an issue, the first thing they do is go out and create a bunch of “grass roots” organiztions that they manage.
Funding for these groups often comes from the Tides Foundation. Tides Foundation is interesting because it is designed to hide an individual donor’s contribution to any specific group. You can donate to Tides and earmark your donation to a specific group. Tides then takes your donation, mixes it with others also earmarking donations to that group, and makes one bulk donation to the target organization. The organization shows “Tides” as a donor. Tides shows the individuals as donors to Tides but is not required to keep track of who donated to what. It is “donation laundering”. That way donors can be kept distanced from the organizations they donate to and their backing can be kept secret.
Whenever I see Fenton connected to something, I know it is bogus and politically oriented. Fenton’s mission is to advance the “progressive” movement. They don’t give a rat’s pair of hips about tne environment beyond how they can leverage it to advance their political cause.

If you’re interested in raw GHCN land data(15Gb) and straight-forward analyses, drop by http://justdata.wordpress.com I’m still trying to find a warming trend, other than the 30-year PDO cycle. Anyone with ideas on where the trend is hiding, feel free to post a comment/suggestion. I have downloaded the raw ocean data(45Gb), and hope to plow through it over the holiday.

RC has taken the wiki down…hmmm

They’ve ripped the whole website down!

Your Tax Dollars At Work:

If the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) current grant process serves as any indicator of how this funding scheme will work, then it is quite likely that many radical environmental groups will get religion in order to get the dollars. Partnerships between such prominent groups as the Sierra Club and the National Council of Churches evidence that common cause can be made between radical greens and the religious in service of environmental ideology. Many of the most radical environmental groups in the United States currently receive funding from the federal government, via the EPA grant process. Interestingly, many of these grants are non-competitive, but even those that are competitive are awarded to groups with agendas that should give taxpayers some pause.
A report issued by the Cato Institute shows that between 1995 and 1999 the EPA gave more than $6 million to activist groups whose purpose is to work against the development of new roads and homebuilding. Specifically, hundreds of thousands of dollars went to the Environmental Defense Fund, an activist group known for its campaign against McDonalds over its packaging and its crusade against “urban sprawl.” 2
And this is just the start.
Between 1996 and 2001, the EPA provided $4.6 million to the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC). The NRDC is known for its extreme positions and alarmist rhetoric. A good example of NRDC’s tactics is its “Give Swordfish a Break!” campaign, launched to protect the Atlantic Swordfish from over-fishing and extinction. NRDC raised a good deal of money and generated a great deal of publicity with this campaign, despite the fact that the National Marine Fisheries Service had made it very clear the Atlantic Swordfish was not in jeopardy.
The EPA also granted $3.2 million to the Tides Foundation and the Tides Center over an eight-year period. The Tides Foundation and Center are not themselves activist organizations; rather, they serve as grant-making bodies to a variety of radical environmental activist groups. It seems that the Tides Foundation and Center receive grants and collect money from individuals, foundations, and government sources. They then distribute funds in the form of grants to groups like Greenpeace and the Ruckus Society.
This arrangement is indicative of a widespread practice among radical environmental groups of shifting funds among themselves. Such schemes make it nearly impossible to follow the money trail or to determine the size and scope of many activist groups. While such practices may not be illegal or technically unethical, they do constitute a lack of financial transparency and accountability.
Another illustration of this kind of opaque funding arrangement is Health Care Without Harm (HCWH). It too is a nebulous, large organization that has only recently acquired independent tax status. In the past it has operated out of the infrastructure provided by other radical environmental groups and is driven by a Greenpeace-sponsored agenda to eliminate the use of poly vinyl chloride (PVC) plastics from medical use. 4 Its issues include replacing PVC tubing with non-PVC plastics, and advocating the use of alternative non-PVC polymers based on dubious emerging science. One close HCWH associate, Carol Galligan of the Sustainable Hospitals Project, has even indicated support for the use of glass bottles instead of PVC plastic bags to store blood. 5 Since money moves seamlessly between HCWH sponsoring agencies and is rarely used exclusively for the reasons specified in the grant, it is difficult to determine how much federal money makes its way to HCWH’s coffers.
Outside of the large grants made to radical environmental groups, the EPA does make many small and visible grants – like a $16,000 grant made in 2000 to the Oregon Center for Environmental Health to fund that state’s Health Care Without Harm Campaign. 6 By and large, we know that taxpayer money is used to sponsor radical activism even if it is difficult to determine where the money trail ends.

By giving to Tides Foundation, EPA can send US tax dollars to various radical enviro/political organizations and keep the exact targeting of their donations a secret.

Whats up with RC? It just says “It works”

climateaudit.org as a blog was not started until January 2005 – AFTER realclimate.org.
I had placed posts up at a website. These were transcribed to climateaudit.org with the date of posting at the website preserved. But the blog didn’t start until 2005.

How did Michael Crichton escape their list? Even though Hollywood wouldn’t touch “State of Fear”, this ongoing e-mail scandal would put “The Insider” (1999) with Russell Crowe to shame. I could imagine the pitch – A global conspiracy replete with villains, billions of dollars at stake, and lies, lies, lies.
As an aside, a few days ago an old friend who’s a professor at UCSF told me Venus’s temperature was proof of an incredible greenhouse effect (he didn’t think about the adiabatic lapse rate) and angrily sent me a link in an e-mail titled “Here, from the reds (or is it greens?) at Wiki.”
Given the Connelly affair, I’m having sooo much fun with that now. 😀
Heck, if 35 W/m^2 at Venus surface, with largely open IR windows from 1 to 2 microns and 6 to 9 microns, can directly produce 900 degrees F, then the sun-room addition at Hardee’s restaurant with twenty times the radiant influx and far better IR blocking should certainly be able to melt titanium. That’s why I don’t sit in it. It’s hard to enjoy a salad when the steel fork melts in your hand.

John A, I think that you’re recalling an article by Esper who cited Regalado (2005) rather than cite M&M – another instance of strange conduct – by someone not even at CRU.

Assuming that Mann et. al. are Fentons puppets, i wouldn’t expect them to give up. More money will be flowing, they will get the order to sit out ClimateGate. They’ve been defending crooked science for 10 years, they’ll have the order to perpetuate that. I don’t think reputation is important for a hired hand.
Soros once won billions by speculating against the pound. If he’s behind it, he might this time speculate against the US Dollar; that would be the logical next step.
But maybe i’m only paranoid.

Well what has happened on the RC website? It seems to be out of commission. All I get is “It works!”

It’s a real pitty that the likes of Anthony, LucySkywalker, M&M etc., should be doing most of the investigative work. Where are all the science journalists? If they did their work there would be no need for so many sceptical blogs, leaked emails / data, accusations, focus on weather cooling / heating events etc.
There is a Pulitzer Prize waiting for any journalist with guts. Bloggers have guts, what about you?

I think the best comment on thermageddonists vs skeptics is a line from “The Second Coming” by William Butler Yeats:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

I stopped giving RC traffic a long time ago. Never had a comment blocked at WUWT.

Slightly OT. Every skeptic here should go over to Washington Post and upvote the skeptics’ comments and add your own voice in response to Michael Mann’s shameful editorial. It seems that the AGW fanatics have started a campaign to upvote their own comments. WAPO must not be allowed to get away with giving Michael Mann a bully pulpit to spread his lies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682_Comments.html

Here is the bigger picture, it’s so big no one has seen it…….
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

“Doomers is a great name. I have been calling them Gloom and Doomers. I would like to see something catchy, like “The Magnificent Seven”, “The Dirty Dozen”, “Oceans Eleven”, or something. Maybe “The Nasty Nine”, or “Hansen’s Hoods”, or “The Crazy Climate Guys” would sound right.” – BoB
It’s not mine, but I rather liked “The Motley CRU”… 🙂

Correction:
Is it because of blogs lik[e] WUWT?

Mapou (14:19:33) :
Slightly OT. Every skeptic here should go over to Washington Post and upvote the skeptics’ comments and add your own voice in response to Michael Mann’s shameful editorial. It seems that the AGW fanatics have started a campaign to upvote their own comments. WAPO must not be allowed to get away with giving Michael Mann a bully pulpit to spread his lies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682_Comments.html
You can vote as many times as you want if you delete your cookies and do a screen refresh after each time you vote. Just sayin ….

“You can vote as many times as you want if you delete your cookies and do a screen refresh after each time you vote.”
That sounds like the kind of “voting” the other side engages in. No thanks.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6958 entry on Fenton Communications includes the following:
Fenton Communications (FC) is the leading advertising and public relations firm for advocacy groups on the political left
Among the clients and projects that FC has worked for are Marxist-Leninist regimes in Central America and Africa, environmental groups, labor unions, and anti-war organizations.
Throughout the 1980s, FC represented a number of Marxist governments and their supporters. Most prominent among these was the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, which the firm defended against foreign criticism while casting its internal opponents — the Contra guerrillas — as “death squads.” David Fenton acknowledged earning $100,000 annually for three years from contracts with Sandinista authorities.
FC also conducted publicity campaigns on behalf of Grenada’s Marxist dictator Maurice Bishop and El Salvador’s Marxist-Leninist guerrilla organization, the FMLN.
there’s more too.

[snip] Polite comments are welcome. That one was not.

Mark_K
Except Mann can prove what he said. Can you prove your bile?

Should have been “replicate (and validate) your results”

I just noticed that Nir Shaviv and Henrik Svensmark are also missing?
Regards Kristin

Shadow Step (15:01:59) :
Mark_K
Except Mann can prove what he said.

No he can’t, he just uses circular reasoning:
I am correct because I am correct so therefore I must be correct. Q.E.D.
Now you prove that proxies are correct…

I may have been directly affected by the activities of the pro global warming crowd. In the late 1990s I was interested in getting the daily temperatures from a chosen site from each of the 50 States in the US. My research had nothing to do with climate change. I found all the data I needed at NOAA and downloaded all I wanted, some going back to the late 19th century, if I remember correctly. A year or two later I wanted to update the data but I was no longer able to access the raw data, it was not there. My guess is that by that stage the climate guys had decided to restrict access so nobody could check with the raw data. Any body know for sure?

Steve Oregon (14:40:56) :
Thankyou for mentioning the post on RealClimate on the 15th Dec, about which Eric Steig boasted:
“There’s a simple reason none of the skeptical blogs have taken issue with what we did: they know we’re right. Indeed, the fact they are ignoring it tells you something, doesn’t it?”
Well I’ll take issue:
The post took 65 stations at random and compared the raw version of the data from these stations, against the adjusted version, and they found little difference.
Well here’s a clue as to why that was. When choosing the stations the criteria were:
“the length of record should be ~100 years or longer, and the standard reference period 1961–1990 (used to calculate SAT anomalies) must contain no more than 4 missing values.”
No wonder the raw data for the 65 stations chosen were the same as the adjusted data. It’s the stations WITHOUT ‘perfect’ records that are subject to more ‘creative’ adjustments that the whole issue of homogenization techniques is about.

Loved one phrase used on the WAPO comments by a sceptic, calling Mann et al “Crimatologists”!

To link this, a previous article, and climategate all together:
William Connelley part of “internal peer review process at RC”
From 1139504822.txt:
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: paper in this Friday’s Science
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 12:07:02 -0500
Reply-to: mann@psu.edu
Cc: k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
Guys,
A final revised version attached. I’m expecting the embargo to lift at
midnight east coast U.S., but let me know if you hear otherwise. I will
make sure the science website has posted the paper before posting myself…
mike
Tim Osborn wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> thanks for putting this together, Mike. It is a nice summary plus
> drawing out of the important strands etc. I especially like “might be
> likened in shape to a certain implement used in a popular North
> American winter sport” – Keith thinks you must mean a “ski”?
>
> The only negative thing I have to say is that you get in a couple of
> “digs” at the sceptics which might unnecessarily rankle readers. e.g.
> *astronomers* Soon and Baliunas; *unbridled* cherry picking. Still,
> it’s your name that’s attached to this piece, so it’s up to you to dig
> if you want.
>
> Cheers and thanks again
>
> Tim
>
> At 13:42 09/02/2006, Michael E. Mann wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>> Maybe Science can still fix (at least, the online version?). I
>> wouldn’t lose sleep over this though. As typos go, its relatively minor.
>>
>> I must confess that I scavanged a figure off your page proofs. As the
>> piece won’t go online until after the article goes up on Science’s
>> website, shouldn’t matter what the source was though…
>>
>> I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
>> but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good
>> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer
>> review” process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
>> know if any comments…
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Mike

“Yet RC’s world view of Climategate and M&M’s vindication in the emails revealed is to say “it doesn’t matter”, it doesn’t change the conclusions of climate science.” Yeah right, just keep singing that tune.”
Cop-15 was the culmination of a 20 plus year effort to
push forward an agenda, whatever it was. Their failure
to provide the cove will not go unnoticed. If I were them,
I’d be looking for a nice place to hide.

Because Gavin and Mike and the other Team members know that M&M is right, and they don’t want to draw any attention to it themselves, particularly now.
Firstly, the wiki is a supplement to the RealClimate site, and as is the nature of wikis, edited by readers rather than the site’s proprietors.
Secondly, the null hypothesis seems to be that RC have conceded that their disagreement over the M&M criticisms have no merit and are attempting to avoid coverage of this fact.
Yet, these posts remain available to all readers
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick”
On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
Dummies guide to the latest “Hockey Stick” controversy
The missing piece at the Wegman hearing
etc ….
And, just recently, in the wake of the Yamal business (what happened there, btw?)
You can’t generally get away with imprecise suggestions that something might matter for the bigger picture without actually showing that it does. It does matter whether something ‘matters’, otherwise you might as well be correcting spelling mistakes for all the impact it will have.
So go on Steve, surprise us
Hardly consistent with the picture of a cowed ‘Team’ conceding that McIntyre has won any kind of argument is it? Hypothesis is falsified.

Really OT, almost
ScienceDaily

Carbon and Oxygen in Tree Rings Can Reveal Past Climate Information
ScienceDaily (Dec. 4, 2009) — The analysis of carbon and oxygen isotopes embedded in tree rings may shed new light on past climate events in the Mackenzie Delta region of northern Canada.

“The tree ring record goes back almost a thousand years in this area, but it’s never been used for a temperature reconstruction. This is a really exciting time to work in climate research, especially for a young student,” he says adding, “This is a hot topic.”

And BTW, why not call the Team “Team Fenton” from now on ? 😉

Inarguably, McIntyre and McKitrick are now the two most well known skeptics on the planet, and they are about to become even more well known with a Fox News special tonight.
I would suggest the Christopher Monckton and Chris Horner of CEI have done a very good job of explaining the skeptic position – especially on TV.

Hannity is normally what would be there in that time slot, however this is a special and Hannity won’t be on and your planner hasn’t updated with the change.
John in NZ (13:03:52) :
“Can someone please tell me what the Fox News Special about Climate change is called. I want to record it but cannot find it. I should be at 3pm Monday NZ time but my TV planner says that is a Hannity time slot.”

To me this Wiki looks like the ideal fallback position for William Conolly to work from now he has “stood aside” from Wikipedia. As for the list of sceptics, we can speculate on its logic till the cows come home, a bit pointless really.

The green tears at the Guardian are encapsulated by the next paragraph.
My response which will not see the light of day there hopefully will shine here.
“John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: “The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport.”
Stacey says:-
The crimes are the salaries green peace directors pay themselves.
Global warming is man made up, move on take the paid beggars of greenpeace off the streets of London on £4 per hour whilst the Directors get £100 per hour.
Capitalism is alive and kicking in the green corridors of the sanctimonious hypocrites?
Trick or Cheat.
Comment is free if you agree but of course this will be posted elsewhere. Where freedom of expression prevails.

Judging from all the comments at WaPo, there is a great deal of anger with Mann et al, or at least dismissive disgust. I think the fraud resonates far more powerfully than an uptick in a manipulated graph.
I think Shakespeare put it best when Hamlet said:
To cheat, or not to cheat, – that is the question: –
Whether ‘tis easier in science to create
The graphs and charts by manipulation,
and make fake warming from all too flat data,
So by amending trend it? – To lie, to cheat, –
What’s more, and by a cheat to say we use
A trick, aye, and the thousand clever tweaks
Our code is there for, – toward a conclusion
Devoutly to be wish’d. To lie, to cheat; –
To cheat, perchance to scheme: – ay, there’s the rub;
For from those peaking temps what schemes may come,
When we have shuffled all this data just
To serve a cause: Raise the prospect
That makes calamity of a long life,
For who would bear the higher temps in time,
The oppressive heat, the planet’s undoing?
Harangues our global gov: “this end – delay!”
Doth not the British Met office daily warn
This gradient cannot be sustained?
So what man would speak bare truths
When he himself might the planet save
With a bare fibbing? Who would these taxes bear,
To grunt and sweat under onerous rates,
But that the dread of planetary death,
The predicted future, for whose doom
No taxpayer yearns, – will foot the bill,
And makes us rather feed the till this day
Than wait for the costs that we know naught of?
Thus the science does make patsies of us all;
And thus the native dose of common sense
Is shouted o’er with the pretense of science;
And many countries of great wealth and fortune
Will then collapse, their currencies awry,
And lose the name of nations. But e-mails
Our plot hath exposed! Now, in editorials
Be all our sins considered.
Well, maybe Hamlet didn’t exactly phrase it that way, but I adjusted the text to account for errors in the original folios, applying standard statistical techniques well-established in peer-reviewed Shakespeare journals.

What? I’m not on the list! Where do I apply. lol.

I posted on RealClimate when Gavin was expounding on the precautionary principle. I said that there can be occasions when you may have what you deem as knowledge but it is best not to act. I gave the Bush administration’s rationale for WMDs in Iraq justifying a ‘preemptive strike’, its juvenile and puerile justification of torture yielding life-saving intelligence, as examples. My post was deleted.
Ironically, warmist comments using similar examples to derive the very opposite conclusions were allowed.
To the constant stream of self-unaware commenters who kept thanking Gavin for such hard work and tireless effort on his part disseminating climate truisms and fending off the hordes, I posted that they pause a moment to thank the person who leaked the emails and data thereby giving Gavin et al the very opportunity to expend his energies. Post deleted. Not once but twice.
To requests of data from Scafetta and West, I posted that asking data from other scientists when your own clique has stonewalled and refused data to polite requests over years smacks of outright hypocrisy. Have they ever asked data from skeptics before? Post deleted.
Ray Ladbury (Bradley?) and Gavin Schmidt will shout down, and indulge in casual smearing of anyone who accidentally wanders into RealClimate. They are past masters at this game – they play the same game with their scientific peers, with their journalist friends and common laymen.

RC is a comedy of errors. I hope they keep it up a while longer to prove to the world how foolish they look.

Gavin Schmidt is such a dunce to think he can really hide them.

Anand, at the rate this scandal is unfolding we’ll get to see how well they play it with federal prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges – wink wink.
Perhaps abusing the ability to control all aspects of debate on their blog is what gave them the idea that they could control all the data generated by mother nature and collected at taxpayer’s expense.
My take on the situation, quite common judging from comments, is that if the data actually supported their case then they wouldn’t spend so much time committing fraud to change it or violating the law to delete it, kind of like asserting your innocence to the public the day after your estranged ex-wife disappeared and you’ve been caught wiping down the inside of the trunk of your car with bleach. Nobody buys it.
As Hamlet said:
To cheat, or not to cheat, – that is the question: –
Whether ‘tis easier in science to create
The graphs and charts by manipulation,
and make fake warming from all too flat data,
So by amending trend it? – To lie, to cheat, –
What’s more, and by a cheat to say we use
A trick, aye, and the thousand clever tweaks
Our code is there for, – toward a conclusion
Devoutly to be wish’d. To lie, to cheat; –
To cheat, perchance to scheme: – ay, there’s the rub;
For from those peaking temps what schemes may come,
When we have shuffled all this data just
To serve a cause: Raise the prospect
That makes calamity of a long life,
For who would bear the higher temps in time,
The oppressive heat, the planet’s undoing?
Harangues our global gov: “this end – delay!”
Doth not the British Met office daily warn
This gradient cannot be sustained?
So what man would speak bare truths
When he himself might the planet save
With naked fibbing? Who would these taxes bear,
To grunt and sweat under onerous rates,
But that the dread of planetary death,
The predicted future, for whose doom
No taxpayer yearns, – will foot the bill,
And makes us rather feed the till this day
Than wait for the costs that we know naught of?
Thus the science does make patsies of us all;
And thus the native dose of common sense
Is shouted o’er with the pretense of science;
And many countries of great wealth and fortune
Will then collapse, their currencies awry,
And lose the name of nations. But e-mails
Our plot hath exposed! Now, in editorials
Be all our sins considered.
Well, it didn’t actually say that in the folios, but I applied a standard statistical model well accepted in the peer-reviewed Shakespeare literature to adjust for transcription errors, creating a more accurate and meaningful quote from the raw passage, which I unfortunately deleted when I moved from the halfway house to my double-wide because my trailer didn’t have enough room to store it. Nevertheless, it’s quite clear even in the small fragments of the raw play that are still available that Hamlet was a play about climate change, such as:
Claudius: How is it that the clouds still hang on you?
Hamlet: Not so my lord; I am too much i’ the sun
This exchange serves as a proxy for most of Act I, and extrapolating from this one example it’s easy to infer the trend the rest of the play takes.
To sum up, you know something is wrong when literary criticism seems like a hard science compared to thermodynamics.

My two cents for what it is worth:
I have asked a few questions on Realclimate – and got some answers – probably for some fairly dumb and/or annoying questions from an expert’s perspective. I have asked questions on another AGW-type site and seen some pretty rude and unhelpful answers. On Realclimate I got answers outside normal US working hours – so I don’t think that the tax payer is necessarily funding the operation to any great extent.
I have just been trying to find out the facts since climategate broke (as I suspect have very many people). I have to say that the best and most straightforward information that I have seen is on CA and WUWT. That doesn’t mean that AGW doesn’t exist. It is just my observation that if I want to find a reasonable review of e.g. what models tell us about climate, what a ‘trick’ in climate science is, etc. I find it on CA or WUWT, and not on AGW-type sites or by asking questions on those sites.
The information on the AGW-type sites is way too jargon filled, defensive, and hard to follow. It seems that various terms have been redefined, e.g. in climate science model doesn’t necessarily mean something that can make predictions(?!), (and if you ask about that you are not treated gently!).
The information on CA and WUWT is very much more open and logical. There is generally a spirit of – if you can make the logic or conclusions better – go ahead and tell us – we’re trying to find out what is really happening.
So – I would agree with the sentiment that obfuscation and attacking people doesn’t work in this field. Focusing on information and information analysis is the way to go.
Now – I am off to watch Fox (not my favorite channel) to see if I can see Steve M.

Nice, Explaining the Hockey stick origins and nice graphics.

Steve Oregon (17:09:11) :
To Ray Bradbury (If he’s reading):
Criticism is the mirror in which we see everything but ourselves

Just ignore Real Climate. To give them any serious attention at all is to give them a legitimacy that they don’t deserve.
At this point, Gavin Schmidt is as tainted by Climategate as Mann, Jones, Wigley, et al. And his actions at RC simply mirror the unprofessional, tribal behavior we’ve seen displayed in the CRU e-mails. If people want to get angry, they should be examining why a government employee like Schmidt is doing any kind of blogging on work time (what government charge code are you using for RC, Gavin?)…of course, does anyone think alerting his boss would do any good?

Five cold things …

The second largest snowfall… since RECORDS began in 1884.
And I though the snowfall in Copenhagen was significant.

You should see what is happening in Northern France. Due to heavy snow there is a buildup of snow on the undersides of the trains. When the trains enter the “Chunnel”, the snow begins to melt, the water seeps into electronic compartments and disables the trains. Trains are due to be idle another day while more snow is forecast. Mind you, all of this is with only 4 inches of snow so far but more is forecast.

The Fox Channel Story on Global Warming was very balanced. They let everyone talk and didn’t cut anyone off like other networks have done. M&M were very impressive in their explanations and in their mien. Lomborg was also measured and gave many people plenty to think about. Wow we need more mainstream reporting exactly like that. Nice to see some light shined on the dark recesses of the incestuous CAGW community.

Notice they also omit Idso from the list.
Some folks are just too hot to handle. For all those above wondering how to get onto the list, just think — maybe you’ve already done better: You’ve been “excluded”!
I notice RC tends not to link to skeptics sites, even cautions in comments against doing so too liberally. They sure don’t like to debate openly or let their audience see unspun versions of skeptical arguments. I occasionally visit over there, but don’t have the stomach for much of it. What an echo chamber! The best spin money can buy.

Since the topic is omission and there have been several posts detailing how the commenter’s post at RC were deleted (omitted?), then perhaps a thread containing screenshots of these deleted posts would provided information (and some entertainment) of how RC wants to control (spin) their message.
It would seem to me that such a thread would provide a record (dataset?) that could show bias – something I think shouldn’t be present when funded by taxpayers.
Lastly – Frankly I’m getting tired of being called a “loonie” because I don’t have faith in their religion – I prefer infidel

George Turner (17:58:59) :
Thanks – Marvellous post.

Graeme From Melbourne (20:13:49) : Wrote
“I wonder if when conversing amongst themselves at RC do they literally refer to the two M&Ms as … ” they who must not be named “… in hushed tones.
And when the accidentally do speak their names, do they throw salt over their left shoulder…”
That’s exactly what I noticed that I was going to write about. I already knew everything they explained to me in the special report except for that.
Did those creepy climate scientist walk around the cubicals in their offices and refer to McKitrick & McIntyre as M&M as a joke often?
Apparently so.

Paul Vaughan (12:24:21) :
“Inspired by this article, I just went over to RC, clicked on the first link that caught my interest and found this:
“Skeptic Argument”: “Models are unreliable”
“What the Science Says”: “While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have successfully predicted future climate change.” (my emphasis)
I think everyone here will agree with me when I say: [snip]?”
Indeed [snip], Paul! It is indeed baffling.
What an outrageous and JUVENILE jump in logic.
How ******* stupid do they [RC] think the people who are reading this, really are??
Or are we giving them too much credit??
I think, maybe….we are.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Sorry….I was just going on the *** acronymn because it had been previously published above….and thus previously screened by a moderator and ALLOWED…in Paul’s post.
Now I see Paul’s has been sanitized, too.
That is a little legalistic, and Newspeak for my tastes.
Regardless….for those of you who wonder what the [snip] was for, suffice it to say it id the 1950s June Cleaver equivalent of:
WITW “What In The World!”
or
LSHCTB “Land Sakes, How Could This Be!”
Please stop being so legalistic here, mods. This site is a goldmine and has an edge to it, and there is no reason you should take the testosterone out of the content of the post just because there is a little edge to the acronyms.
Former Big Brother John Ashcroft is not monitoring the words of your site.
Or is he????
LOL (that translates to Laugh Out Loud)
But I can’t say LMAO as everyone knows what that means and it might indicate something of “baser” taste [whatever that is].
The Puritan Ethic still haunts our souls here in the good ole’ US of A!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

George Turner (17:02:12) :
🙂 thanks for the laugh
worth a repeat:

I think Shakespeare put it best when Hamlet said:
To cheat, or not to cheat, – that is the question: –
Whether ‘tis easier in science to create
The graphs and charts by manipulation,
and make fake warming from all too flat data,
So by amending trend it? – To lie, to cheat, –
What’s more, and by a cheat to say we use
A trick, aye, and the thousand clever tweaks
Our code is there for, – toward a conclusion
Devoutly to be wish’d. To lie, to cheat; –
To cheat, perchance to scheme: – ay, there’s the rub;
For from those peaking temps what schemes may come,
When we have shuffled all this data just
To serve a cause: Raise the prospect
That makes calamity of a long life,
For who would bear the higher temps in time,
The oppressive heat, the planet’s undoing?
Harangues our global gov: “this end – delay!”
Doth not the British Met office daily warn
This gradient cannot be sustained?
So what man would speak bare truths
When he himself might the planet save
With a bare fibbing? Who would these taxes bear,
To grunt and sweat under onerous rates,
But that the dread of planetary death,
The predicted future, for whose doom
No taxpayer yearns, – will foot the bill,
And makes us rather feed the till this day
Than wait for the costs that we know naught of?
Thus the science does make patsies of us all;
And thus the native dose of common sense
Is shouted o’er with the pretense of science;
And many countries of great wealth and fortune
Will then collapse, their currencies awry,
And lose the name of nations. But e-mails
Our plot hath exposed! Now, in editorials
Be all our sins considered.
Well, maybe Hamlet didn’t exactly phrase it that way, but I adjusted the text to account for errors in the original folios, applying standard statistical techniques well-established in peer-reviewed Shakespeare journals.

Whenever you hear a discussion of the global temperature pronouncements from GISS, CRU, NASA, NOAA, etc., you might want this reference at hand:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
This is the key word searchable database for the leaked East Anglia CRU e-mails.
OT. You’ll probably need the link when you call up “climate change” or global
warming on Wikipedia too.

“I wish someone would pull together a “follow the money” article. ”
I wish someone would investigate grants that agencies such as EPA makes. Maybe a FOIA request to find out exactly who they have granted money to, were any of those funds earmarked, what were they earmarked for. I would also want to see legislation that prevent donations to groups that are politically active. Science is fine, donations to partisan organizations is not.

ho! I forgot to mention why I posted the previous message here: I didn’t see any mention of Steve nor Ross!
but I have to admit, I didn’t read in details yet, just used the “search function” after reading about half. It is not always reliable method….

Maybe you should have a post on here ‘Comments Rejected by Real Climate’ and allow people to repost their comments in your comment section.

Wake-up call for independent scientists:
No need to stay silent anymore in order to not block anything at Copenhagen.
Where the West with Obama/Merkel/Brown has acted like silly kids.
Prepared the stage for the worst of world’s dictators – and promised them billions of taxpayer’s money.
Now look at the perverted
– peer review process
– look at the Fenton Communication subsidiaries called
– RealClimate.com and
– Wikipedia
– realize how climate criminals have undergone FOIA rules
– look at the data
– and look at the people behind both parties.
Now make a decision finally and declare your independence from the doomers.

[snip] Way off topic. ~dbs, mod.

Inarguably, McIntyre and McKitrick are now the two most well known skeptics on the planet
McIntyre skeptic–of what? He says he’s a global warming believer. He is skeptical of the Hockey Stick though.

RE: ann riley (21:45:21)
RE: crosspatch (00:07:38)
Anyone else want to follow the money?
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/

More gold from Real Climate… Now Ben Santer is an independant voice….
I note with interest that:-
Lord Haw Haw was an independant voice for the Nazi’s… he was English!!!!
And there are three commentaries by “experts” not associated with Real Climate. Namely:-
Ben Santer
Ben Santer (Again)
Myles Allen

Sorry for the double (triple) post……

Marcellus: “Something was rotten in the state of Denmark”.
Horatio: “Steven did correct it”.