American Morning is aired live every weekday morning from 6 to 9 am EST on CNN.
At 7:30 AM EST Friday 12/11 Steve McIntyre will appear at the invitation of John Roberts. Be sure to watch.
American Morning is aired live every weekday morning from 6 to 9 am EST on CNN.
At 7:30 AM EST Friday 12/11 Steve McIntyre will appear at the invitation of John Roberts. Be sure to watch.
Anthony, will he reveal the nefarious activities of Macavity?
I’m a tunin mah DVR!!!!!
That wouldn’t happen to be 4:30 am California time would it?
🙁
It makes you wonder how totally incompetant the senior management of MSM organisations are. Surely, you would think, there would be at least a few senior managers who understand the scale and scope of Climategate ?
After all…. imaging you are a senior manager at a struggline news organisation like the NYT or NBC, and you order your journalists to give climategate the full exposure it deserves. By doing that, you will start an avalanche throughout the media, and you will go down in history as the people who exposed to the masses, the biggest news story since 9/11. Maybe the biggest news story of ALL TIME.
You would think there would be at least few senior managers in the MSM who grasp what this could do their careers/fame/wealth.
I actually dont think it`s ideology at their level that’s stopping them (like it is with their journalists). I think it`s total and utter incompetance. They obviously have absultely no clue. No wonder the MSM (except FOX) are all going down. They are being managed by morons.
I’ll look for the YouTube video of it after work tomorrow. Or the WUWT post of it.
🙂
photon:
According to my calculations it would be
Gave my 4th Presentation on “Atmospheric Physics” tonight Steve!
It went over well. One AWG “Believer” who learned a lot. One person on the line
who said, “I take it you don’t BELIEVE in Global Warming”.
My standard reply, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, His Only Son, Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints..” (The Apostle’s Creed.)
I then explain I deal with OBJECTIVE FACTS.
Why am I writing this. Steve, remember you need to be the ALPHA DOG in this fight. When your “opposition” rears it’s ugly head, JUMP ON THEM. When they use the term “WE” tell them, “Ah, sorry, I can’t work with you on this. I use the term ME, I, my research, what I have found. I don’t use the term “we” and I don’t respond to it. If you wish to use this language I will consider this discussion over.”
You’d be surprised at what happens.
In my “Atmospheric Physics” talks I START with the “classic” Meteorology work by Fleagle, Elsasser, Plazz, etc. I review the mathematics of “grey gas” radiation heat transfer. I cite specific numerical examples.
I intentionally start with DATA, numbers, derivations, etc. Once I have set this foundation, when we get to discussion, I quickly point out when people “go general”. I tell them, “I’m a very DULL engineer. Very linear thinking. I cannot work with “general concepts”. If you can come up with a specific example…”
AND then as in years ago when I used to speak on nuclear power for the power companies I worked for, I KNOW ALL THEIR ARGUMENTS. And I’m ready to POUNCE with counters.
“Kilomanjaro is losing its ice cap…!” Answer: Yes it is, the ice cap is above the freeze line, it’s losing it to sublimation and lack of snow. Deforestation of the windward side due to logging.”
“The polar ice cap is melting”. I pull out the satellite observed ice cover. Show how it is increasing every year of the last 6 or so. And ask, “Just how much lower than this 1979 to current “mean” does it have to be to be significant?”
“Greenland’s ice sheet is melting!” Pictures of the DEW line stations, 1965 to the present time. Showing the build up of snow/ice around them.
The statement: “You can’t deny…” I counter with, “What do you want for evidence?” (That throws them off!) If they give me something, I say, “If you accept this as evidence, I will “deny” this. The evidence will deny it. Will that be me, or the evidence? Do you wish to ARGUE with me, or examine evidence?”
I’m highly DISLIKED by the “emotional” AWG side. But I find that being very “Spock like” is hard for them to handle.
Keep these factors in mind. CONTROL THE GAME! Tell them, if you need to, “That question is rhetorical or leading. I will not answer it.”
You may get some less invites, but DON’T BE PASSIVE! They are the WOLVES, and you have to let them know – – – You are the HUNTER and they are in your gun sites.
Before the ranting begins,
Short Bio: Steven McIntyre (DOC)
” The facts of the e-mails barely matter any more. It has always been hard to persuade the public that invisible gases could somehow warm the planet, and that they had to make sacrifices to prevent that from happening. It seemed, on the verge of Copenhagen, as if that might be about to be achieved.
But he says all that ended on Nov. 20. “The e-mails represented a seminal moment in the climate debate of the last five years, and it was a moment that broke decisively against us. I think the CRU leak is nothing less than catastrophic.””
Climategate: Anatomy of
a Public Relations Disaster
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2221
Steve’s post tonight on IPCC and the trick is reporting that is wothy of Mike Wallace 40 years ago. I think the main TV talent today is to have a pretty face.
To paraphrase one of the climategate emails, I think if we spend a couple of 30 minute sessions with John Roberts in front of the computer screen, we might be able to show him who we are dealing with.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/
To JK:
I am quite sure that all newsmedia have certain trusted reporters digging in this AWG mess since a few weeks. It will take some time and careful cooperation with true science sources before they publish their findings however. And the political climate must get some warming first… That may never happen or it may take å few years. But they sure are making preparations and are outlining the AGW orbituary just as they do with every celebrity.
Perhaps the AAM sympathetic MSM took a good hard look at their ratings plummet and decided that their biased one sided blind obedience to the AAM narrative was causing viewers to switch to channels that were covering events from both sides?
CNN like the BBC has shown incredible bias on the AAM issue, its major sponsors being from the ‘green technologies’ outfits like Suzlon and Vestas who have grown fat from massive artificial subsidies, most people just want impartial news and start to migrate to where that news can be found, the actual tiny minority of believers out there are no viewer base for a big MSM company, they would barely keep a small mid western town setup going.
How many “scientists” does CNN have lined up to ambush him on three different sides?
Watch for them to pepper in words like conspiracy, broad consensus, etc.
Frankly, I think CNN is inviting McvIntyre because they think they can make him look aloof and ineffective. I hope they are wrong.
OT, but on Channel 10 news tonight, reports of “summer snow” in parts of Victoria (Sorry, didn’t get the name of the area) and in New South Wales, Katoomba got to -2c last night.
Poptech, maybe convert that Word file to HTML and post it somewhere. I, for one, won’t open a Word file from an unknown source.
My poor Mac based DVR has been going non stop! Too much information too fast. Don’t even have time to scan it all there is so much going on in the press and blog sphere and in understanding the material of the scientists who are speaking out.
It really is fantastic to see the paradigm shift that it’s NOW OK to debate and question the alleged science of ManN (et. al.) made Global Warming Climate Change Hypotheses (it’s more than one hypothesis if you hadn’t noticed).
CNN can finally take up the challenge of questioning the science without appearing to be nut jobs themselves. The paradigm shifted not just for the scientists but also for the journalists!
Nice to see a self correcting paradigm shift in operation now! Maybe some actual science progress, out in the open this time, can get done. Maybe some falsifications of the AGW Hypothesis will take hold biting deep.
Steven you were great the last time on CNN. Panels are difficult even when well managed as that one was since you only get sound bites.
Evidence open and verifiable. More eyes on the problem. More eyes checking the math, the assumptions, the tiny weeny steps along the way, the conclusions.
It’s not just about science, it’s also about showing how the science is correct or not.
It’s about educating the public about the science with actual evidence not just platitudes and “trust us”.
Counter evidence must be dealt with in a proper full measure of discourse preferably based upon experiments and observations. This is why it’s critical that counter views be published in peer reviewed journals. They are not just for the one sided “truth” they are also for the counters to the “truth”.
The paradigm has shifted. Falsification is now possible to take hold.
“Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is “falsifiable” does not mean it is false; rather, that if it is false, then this can be shown by observation or experiment. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The term “testability” is related but more specific; it means that an assertion can be falsified through experimentation alone.
The term was made popular by Karl Popper. Popper asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.
For example, “all men are mortal” is unfalsifiable, since no finite amount of observation could ever demonstrate its falsehood: that one or more men can live forever. “All men are immortal,” by contrast, is falsifiable, by the presentation of just one dead man. Not all statements that are falsifiable in principle are falsifiable in practice. For example, “it will be raining here in one million years” is theoretically falsifiable, but not practical.
Popper stressed that unfalsifiable statements are still very important for science and are often contained in scientific theories as unfalsifiable consequences. For example, while “all men are mortal” is unfalsifiable, it is still contained as a consequence of the falsifiable theory that “every man dies before he reaches the age of 150 years”. Similarly, the ancient metaphysical idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. Popper invented the notion of metaphysical research programs to name such ideas.
In contrast to Positivism, which held that statements are senseless if they cannot be verified or falsified, Popper denied that falsifiability somehow makes scientific theories special. According to Popper, falsifiability is merely a special case of the much more general notion of criticizability, even though he admitted that falsification is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized.
Two types of statements: observational and categorical
In work beginning in the 1930s, Popper gave falsifiability a renewed emphasis as a criterion of empirical statements in science.
Popper noticed that two types of statements are of particular value to scientists.
The first are statements of observations, such as “this is a white swan”. Logicians call these statements singular existential statements, since they assert the existence of some particular thing. They can be parsed in the form: There is an x that is a swan, and x is white.
The second are statements that categorize all instances of something, such as “all swans are white”. Logicians call these statements universal. They are usually parsed in the form: For all x, if x is a swan, then x is white. Scientific laws are commonly supposed to be of this type. One difficult question in the methodology of science is: How does one move from observations to laws? How can one validly infer a universal statement from any number of existential statements?
Inductivist methodology supposed that one can somehow move from a series of singular existential statements to a universal statement. That is, that one can move from ‘this is a white swan’, ‘that is a white swan’, and so on, to a universal statement such as ‘all swans are white’. This method is clearly deductively invalid, since it is always possible that there may be a non-white swan that has eluded observation (and, in fact, the discovery of the Australian black swan demonstrated the deductive invalidity of this particular statement).
…
Kuhn and Lakatos
Whereas Popper was concerned in the main with the logic of science, Thomas Kuhn’s influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions examined in detail the history of science. Kuhn argued that scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that strongly influences the way in which they see data. Scientists will go to great length to defend their paradigm against falsification, by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses to existing theories. Changing a ‘paradigm’ is difficult, as it requires an individual scientist to break with his or her peers and defend a heterodox theory.
Some falsificationists saw Kuhn’s work as a vindication, since it provided historical evidence that science progressed by rejecting inadequate theories, and that it is the decision, on the part of the scientist, to accept or reject a theory that is the crucial element of falsificationism. Foremost amongst these was Imre Lakatos.
Lakatos attempted to explain Kuhn’s work by arguing that science progresses by the falsification of research programs rather than the more specific universal statements of naïve falsification. In Lakatos’ approach, a scientist works within a research program that corresponds roughly with Kuhn’s ‘paradigm’. Whereas Popper rejected the use of ad hoc hypotheses as unscientific, Lakatos accepted their place in the development of new theories.
Some philosophers of science, such as Paul Feyerabend, take Kuhn’s work as showing that social factors, rather than adherence to a purely rational method, decide which scientific theories gain general acceptance. Many other philosophers of science dispute such a view, such as Alan Sokal and Kuhn himself.
Paul Feyerabend examined the history of science with a more critical eye, and ultimately rejected any prescriptive methodology at all. He rejected Lakatos’ argument for ad hoc hypothesis, arguing that science would not have progressed without making use of any and all available methods to support new theories. He rejected any reliance on a scientific method, along with any special authority for science that might derive from such a method. Rather, he claimed that if one is keen to have a universally valid methodological rule, epistemological anarchism or anything goes would be the only candidate. For Feyerabend, any special status that science might have derives from the social and physical value of the results of science rather than its method.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Well as Climategate verified anything goes was the way of things to support the multitude of AGW hypotheses. Very fortunately the paradigm has sifted and now scientists can make some real progress.
Good. It will be good to see Steve present the statistics on the problems he has with Mann’s Hockey stick and Briffa’s yamal series…. It will be up to everyone else to understand the implications….
Let’s hope that the penny drops for the interviewers about things like splicing modern temp records onto tree ring proxies when the proxies start inconveniently diverging from the AGW hypothesis…. or using 13 cherrypicked trees to make a temperature history…. etc.
Good luck Professor McIntyre, remain the studious scientist.
1st John Christy on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer; now Steve McIntyre on American Morning. The MSM print and video dam on ClimateGate has still not fully broken, but multiple major ”leaks” are in evidence. And when CNN starts following FoxNEWS even a little bit on this story, you know we’re getting somewhere.
Here’s hoping for a few more MSM guest spots like this by McIntyre, Christy, Lindzen, Singer, Willie Soon, Lord Monckton, etcetera. . .
In this sort of thing, for each statement, you have to quickly decide whether to build up a convincing argument or just give a fast, summarizing broadside. Usually you only get time for the broadside. If you’re lucky, you can add another supporting fact or two before they cut you off. Your argument often has to be presented upside-down. Think Journalism 101.
And most important, always wait until the mike is turned off before you say, “What an #$%@#%!”
You know, I think John Roberts is beginning to ‘see’ the light a bit. Maybe. A little. His first report (that I saw) was an interview he did with the new head of CRU. One came away thinking these poor guys have been so put upon.
I of course haven’t seen every segment Roberts has been involved in but the next one I saw he asked good questions and let the skeptic get in a very powerful last word. May only have been timing for the last bit but it felt good.
Today, though, with Gore? Gore claimed (again–how stupid does he think we are?) that the emails were ten years old. John Roberts actually corrected him.
Gore’s face was not to the camera but I noticed a little movment while Roberts was looking straight at Gore. Something flashed across Robert’s face–can’t define it–but if it were a flash over my face I’d define it as a realization that Gore was lying and knew it.
Or it may be my imagination which is running overtime these days I guess because I was flipping channels and landed on Olberman who had Chris forgot-his-name from the Nation laughing at Sarah Palin for ‘being so illogical and stupid’. Sigh.
But what Olberman said threw me. He asked if they have a Plan B, Chris says ‘huh?’. Olberman says a Plan B in case this global warming thing isn’t true.
I dropped my cigarette!
How rude, I’m sorry. Congrats to Steve — again! The beautiful thing about Steve, beyond the issues, is that he is soft spoken and not a bomb thrower. He isn’t the horrible monster that the CRU crew obviously despised. Speaks volumes about the crew, doesn’t it? Puts the authenticity squarely on Steve’s side.
prairiethoughts (22:33:34) :
It is not an unknown source, it is from Ross McKitrick’s website. If you have applied all updates to your version of Word (office), their is little fear of opening actual Word documents. Microsoft effectively stopped all the problems of office related infections years ago with security enhancements in their office products. So long as your version of Word (office) is updated and not outdated you have nothing to worry about. Which means Office 2000 or newer with all security patches applied. To be sure run Windows Update and install all the security updates + any for office. Office 2000 finally had supported ended in july of this year but is still effectively safe to use, Office 2003 is supported until 2014 ect…
The other problem was with .doc files that had hidden extensions such as word.doc.exe but the “.exe” was hidden. These are common with spam emails, not here.
Anyway it is safe to open the .doc file.
Paul Feyerabend examined the history of science with a more critical eye, and ultimately rejected any prescriptive methodology at all. He rejected Lakatos’ argument for ad hoc hypothesis, arguing that science would not have progressed without making use of any and all available methods to support new theories. He rejected any reliance on a scientific method, along with any special authority for science that might derive from such a method. Rather, he claimed that if one is keen to have a universally valid methodological rule, epistemological anarchism or anything goes would be the only candidate.
‘Against Method’ is one of the seminal books of the C20th IMO. However, you need to be careful summarizing it or Feyerabend’s ‘belief’. To me, he seems to be quite a playful thinker, and has his tongue in his cheek in quite a lot of his work. In any case , his analysis is acutely relevant when looking at the way science has been led by the nose through the abuse of trust evidenced by the secretive and disingenuous activities of those exposed by the CRUtape letters.
If you haven’t read ‘Against Method’ get it.
Did anyone else see James Hansen on Letterman Thursday night? I didn’t realize that Letterman was a devout believer…I wonder what HIS carbon footprint is and what he’s done to reduce CO2 emissions.
Hansen was actually pretty reasonable – at least he’s against the Copenhagen treaty and cap-and-trade too (even if it is for different reasons than mine!).
@max Hugoson (21:37:58) :
“Gave my 4th Presentation on “Atmospheric Physics” tonight Steve!
It went over well. One AWG “Believer” who learned a lot. One person on the line who said, “I take it you don’t BELIEVE in Global Warming”.
My standard reply, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, His Only Son, Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints..” (The Apostle’s Creed.)…”
Max,
I have already written an appropriate creed for use in these circumstances. All warmists should use it, unless they wish to be accused of heresy. I reproduce it below:
AGW Creed.
I believe in Global Warming,
which will destroy heaven and earth unless we change our ways.
I believe in Al Gore,
Who conceived the Internet
and the hockey-stick graph, born of Professor Mann.
It suffered under McIntyre and McKitrick,
was crucified, disproven, and was buried.
It was cast on the reject pile.
On the third day It rose again.
It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
and is displayed in a prominent position in all IPCC literature.
It will apply again as soon as global temperatures start rising.
I believe in the CO2 tipping point,
the IPCC Assessment Reports,
a CO2 sensitivity figure of over 4 C/W,
the accuracy of GCMS,
an anthropic cause for all climate variation after 1970,
and grants everlasting. AMEN.
Update on non-warming in Copenhagen: As emergency AGW conference continues, it is perhaps ironic to study some weather information readily available on the internet. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at weatheronline.co.uk. Anyone can check my calculations, which took about 20 minutes and were not taxpayer funded.
In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest December temperature in Copenhagen was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C.
First day of Copenhagen: a high of 7 C, exactly the same as the average of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years.
Second day: a high of 7 C, the same.
Third day: a high of 6 C, 5 degrees cooler than the December high of the last 28 years.
Fourth day: a high of 6 C
Can someone please point this out to the eminent delegates?
Speaking of TV personalities – is it just my Englishness that finds Mr Morano so OTT – even when he’s being quite restrained he doesn’t fill me with confidence.
We simply don’t have many types like that on our TV.
Good news – the BBC’s Radio 5 [rolling 24 news/sport] just had a phone-in about whether it was ‘okay to be a climate change denier’. James Delingpole and the ubiquitous Bob Ward were on and did their usual.
The callers were on the whole very articulate, had facts about global temperature declines/ice sheets at their finger tips/MWP [cue bewildered presenter], as well as others who simply said – the Earth has been here for millions of years so what is all the fuss about.
For this national station to run this is a real breakthrough. They are usually very responsive to their listeners when it’s clear that the party line has broken.
I also heard a programme on BBC Radio 4 which was pretty even-handed [but ignored the code] – it was clear from the contributors [eminent scientist types] that they mainly thought AGW was still sound, but that the CRU had behaved disgracefully on peer-review/FOI/data loss.
It felt like big-time rowing away from UEA by their peers.
We’ve issued a recall for AGW burgers and fries due to salmonella poisoning. But we believe most of the meat & potatoes are still good, so we’re throwing out the moldy-looking stuff and repackaging for a big 99 cent sale. AGW Refried Burgers: where we let you out to pasture.
Bill Jamison (01:34:46) :
Perhaps James Hansen can show how well he really means:
California has passed it’s own version of Cap & Trade, falling for Ken Lay’s Energy Trading rat trap for the 2nd time. Sacramento Sapsuckers bamboozled again. Arnold is loading up his Hummer to get out of town before the whole place gets too close to the Carbon Singularity.
Anyways, Jim can make a trip to Sacramento and deliver his opposition to Californias’ latest tomfoolery.
Jasper Kirby over at CERN needs to get in front of a microphone as well. The world needs to hear from Scientists that figured this out long ago but kept silent for all the reasons already discussed.
NickB. (21:29:29) :
According to my calculations it would be
I know your trick—you subtracted three! Am I smart as Steve M ?
incompetent Mccracken
Ahhhhh–they played the cigarette card
Only caught the end of it but right after they had Steve on the next story mentioned is about Bernie Madoff. Does someone have a sense of humor at CNN?
Maccracken doesn’t present evidence that it’s manmande warming, but instead deduces it because he says he can’t find any other reason
is that science?
Did anyone see the new John Stossel Show on Fox Business? His first show was dedicated to AGW. I was somewhat disappointed but I had hoped to find it covered here today. Perhaps later in the day???
Please, someone over there, Youtube it for us old worlders !
John Roberts played soft pitch with Michael MacCrackenan and did not challenge him.
But he played hard ball with Steve McIntyre with the cigarette comparison.
McIntyre did a poor job on CNN. Similar to a recent performance by Christie. When asked by Roberts about whether his work had implications for the broader case for global warming McIntyre said no, he was just interested in a certain technical area of data analysis. He made no challenge to a pro-global warming guest who said that there were no other explanations for the “recent warming” than man-made CO2.
With spokesmen like Christie and McIntyre our side is toast. They need to read the wonderful post above by Max Hugoson.
As I look at the bio of Michael MacCrackenan I see he is a climate modeller in government funded agencies.
Climate modeller, government funding, now I understand him.
http://www.climate.org/about/maccracken-bio.html
Max Hugoson (21:37:58)
What he said.
Missed Steve on CNN. Where’s Fox?
Gotta get Anthony on these shows.
/Mr Lynn
Have anyone seen the program?
BTW, The Washington Post has made up for running an op-ed by Sarah Palin, by publishing a rabid pro-warming screed by the head of the AAAS:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/09/AR2009120903860.html
It includes this quote:
I fired off a letter to the editor, which begins,
“It is truly appalling to hear the CEO of the AAAS, Alan I. Leshner, claim that the “millions” of scientists he purports to represent all agree with him that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is gospel truth. . .”
I’ll post the rest when they don’t run it.
Rational scientists: When you get on TV across the table from an Alarmist and a clueless anchor(ette), you have to do what Max Hugoson (21:37:58) does: Remain Spock-like, calm but forceful, and say: “Where is the evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere affects global temperature? There is none. It’s all hypothetical. And the hypothesis has been disproved. Here’s the evidence against it. . .” Keep asking, “Where’s the evidence?”
/Mr Lynn
Mr Lynn
You lose with that. CO2 absorbs and radiates solar energy, so it necessarily affects the global temperature by some amount.
The question is how much, how to quantify that, and to what probability.
Then what portion is from humans vs nature?
Key arguments:
1) The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming argument is based on correlations with little causation, denying most geological evidence.
2) IPCC’s climate models rely on arguments from ignorance – it must be human because we don’t know what else it could be.
3) The NIPCC documents numerous other causes ignored by the IPCC.
I watched this interview on CNN.
I have seen Mr McIntyre twice now on CNN and am very disappointed in the way he comes across on the screen. Either he is camera shy or he’s unsure of his position on this hoax.
CNN so rarely gives the skeptics any airtime and we need some credibility.
We need someone more eloquent and confidant in his position.
Sorry. MB
Saw the CNN piece this morning. It’s unfortunate that Steve is not a good public speaker. Great statistician, but lousy presenter. He really did not do a good job of stating what he so eloquently describes in his writings. Nevertheless, the point that there is now a debate at all is the take away message for most viewers. That’s a healthy start.
I saw this session this morning. I am pleasantly surprised that Steve was given such a large percentage of the time. Typically, the skeptics are given only a few words during the general beating. However, I am a bit concerned with Steve’s effectiveness. He has a powerful and compelling story which is getting lost.
With utmost respect, I have a few comments for Steve and any others planning on doing these quick “interviews”. Pick just a few points to argue, and prepare to argue them in common terminology. Stick with the good work you have been doing so far. In Steve’s case, his ongoing efforts to get the raw data. For example:
– The rules of science demand that data and methods used to analyze the data is made public so other scientists can confirm those conclusions are valid.
– Key climate scientists have not only not shared their data willingly, they have fought FOIA requests to get the data.
– The e-mails show there is active intent to not provide the data and possible illegal activity by suggesting data be destroyed. (this would get you invites for future interviews.)
– There is evidence there has been intentional manipulation of data to guarantee a specific outcome, contrary to the rules of science.
– Instead of calling for an “engineering” review, call for a public and transparent audit of the data and methodologies by independent reviewers.
Just some possible suggestions. Please choose your own talking points. The point is to be focused, be specific, be tenacious. Make statements that either they won’t respond to, or you know what their response will be and be ready to decimate those responses. While the science is important, PR is what will drive good science.
Keep up the good fight everyone.
Maybe I am the only one who has read ClimateAudit and seen McIntyre interviewed before but I am not sure what people are expecting? The people complaining seem to think McIntyre is Lord Monckton, he is not and never will be.
I just read the post on Climateaudit.
Then:
With spokesmen like Christie and McIntyre our side is toast. They need to read the wonderful post above by Max Hugoson
After coming here, it seems this week all the arguments have become more simple, explicit and hard to deny.
The CRU crew is circling the wagons. They hope to be validated by some nasty initiatives coming from Copenhagen.
It seems the IPCC is fraud seeking like they were in oil and food iniatives. I suspect the volcanic eruption from the EPA this week will drag this into court. In court, we can listen to “dull” testimony that to the bottom line will show they can’t connect a causal relationship between CO2 levels and warming/non warming.
Marty Ball writes: “I watched this interview on CNN. I have seen Mr McIntyre twice now on CNN and am very disappointed in the way he comes across on the screen. Either he is camera shy or he’s unsure of his position on this hoax.”
The third option is that he is waiting until the case is fully made. Although, that said, I too was a bit bewildered that none of the more salient issues regarding the deficiencies in the current science were mentioned. Perhaps Steve M. will comment later on this.
Marty,
Steve can certainly speak for himself, but he has never made any bones about where he is coming from: Steve’s issues are not with AGW per se but with bad scientific practices of certain cliamte scientists such as Mann et al. He has never tried to represent himself as anti-AGW. Anthony is far more unabashedly anti-AGW as is John Christie. I am not sure I understand why you do not know this – unless, of course, you have not regularly followed Steve’s analysis at Climate Audit. IMHO, Steve’s position on this actually makes him a more potent critic of the Hockey Stick gang.
Sorry, but I agree with Marty Ball’s analysis. SM need a message! He is winging it and does not have the experience to make a cogent point in an ad hoc environment.
SM, get a message!! Stick to it and enhance it with examples. Study the counter arguments and have answers so to challenge. Your lunch is being eaten on these interviews.
This seems to be the tactic of the media now. Get Steven McIntyre on, and ask him this question:
“Do these e-mails invalidate all of climate science, all of the work done to show manmade global warming?”
Steve, god bless him, is an honest man, and answers this question correctly. So correctly in fact that he uses up all the time they wanted to have him speaking answering this one question and then they change the subject to something like policymaking.
This is highly dishonest reporting. There are implications to what steve found that while they may not *invalidate* everything, they do throw a major wrench into everything, particularly the political side.
The MSM is now using Steve and his honesty to whitewash the entire thing. So sad.
photon without a Higgs (04:40:46) :Maccracken doesn’t present evidence that it’s manmande warming, but instead deduces it because he says he can’t find any other reason is that science?
Um, no. LOL That’s an appeal to ignorance. Logical fallacy. Someone should have called him on it.
Keep up the good work, guys!
Kay
@Marty Ball:
Steve’s a math guy, not a TV personality. If you want some smooth talker on TV that’s going to present dumbed down talking points that move the argument no where, that’s fine. I’m sure political types would think it’s necessary. I prefer to have real people on that actually tell the truth.
Transscript:
ROBERTS: The contentious debate over global warming on the front burner after those stolen e-mails from a climate change lab. Skeptics say they cast doubt on the science behind climate change, but supporters say it’s just a bunch of noise.
Joining me now to talk about the implications of the e-mails and whether in fact there is global warming, Stephen McIntyre, editor of the blog climateaudit.org. He was mentioned in many of those stolen e-mails. And Dr. Michael McCracken, chief scientist at the Climate Change Program at the Climate Institute.
Gentlemen, good to talk to you. Stephen, let me start with you. You’ve written extensively about these hacked e-mails on climateaudit.org. Do they cast suspicion on the entire science of global warming or just one particular set of temperature data?
STEPHEN MCINTYRE, EDITOR, CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG: There’s only one set of data that is in question. This is a technical area, but an important technical area, and it’s as though this is one expert element in a large prosecution case and I’ve argued against that technical aspect of the argument.
ROBERTS: Right. But does it suggest to you that the whole case for man-made global warming is a fraud?
MCINTYRE: No, it doesn’t. It suggests that in this one particular technical area scientists have, I believe, overstated the case, but this has nothing to do with other aspects of the argument.
ROBERTS: OK. Michael McCracken, can you say from your standpoint with absolute certainty that the global warming that we are seeing these days, the climate change that we’re experiencing, is in fact due to man-made factors?
MICHAEL MACCRACKEN, CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAM,CLIMATE INSTITUTE: Well, no scientist really can talk in terms of absolute certainty, but we look at a lot of different aspects of it and there’s really no other explanation for the kinds of things that are happening. So there’s a possibility there could be something we’re missing, but it’s very, very small.
We look at changes in solar radiation and they can’t explain it. We look at changes in volcanic eruptions. They can’t explain it. There’s a question about whether there could be some poorly understood natural variations that could cause a little bit of it, but mainly it has to be human activities. There just isn’t any other way to explain what’s happening.
ROBERTS: And Stephen McIntyre, do you have another cause that you know of besides a human component?
MCINTYRE: The issue that I have is whether there has been a proper engineering quality analysis of the other explanations. I’m fairly conventional in my view points and I assume that scientists do a sensible job at what they’re doing, notwithstanding the fact that the scientists in the particular area that I’ve studied have, in my opinion, done a very unprofessional job.
I think it would be very healthy to have an outside engineering quality examination of the very best climate model to reassure the public, as well as policy makers.
ROBERTS: Right.
MCINTYRE: Having said that, policy makers make decisions under uncertainty all the time, and I think that policymakers are entitled to make decisions.
ROBERTS: Michael MacCracken, when we look at the temperature record over the last I guess 100 or so years, there appears to be an up tick in and around 1960 to 1970. That continued until 1998 when temperatures actually started dropping. Many global warming skeptics say that’s reason to believe that maybe this is just part of a natural cycle, that the temperature is not going to continue to go up. What do you say to that?
MACCRACKEN: Well, there are some natural variations that go on. There are also needs to keep looking at the record. There’s an up tick, for example, during the years particularly of World War II and it’s being realized now that that may be because particular ship records that were taken when they were changing the measurement technique may have measured a little bit high.
But there’s always going to be some variation going on over the short term. Over the long term, which is what we’re talking about for climate change, what you see is we’ve come from a quite cool, industrial period in the 18th and 19th centuries to much, much warmer conditions now.
ROBERTS: Stephen McIntyre, Allen Leshner, who is the CEO of the American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences is, also the executive editor of the “Journal of Science,” had an op-ed in the “Washington Post” yesterday. He said that the science on this is clear. He wrote, “don’t be fooled about climate science. In April 1994, long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking, seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.”
What do you say to the charge that skeptics may be so whetted to the negative financial impact of curbing greenhouse gases that they’re willing to ignore science?
MCINTYRE: Well, I for one am not particularly whetted to any position. I don’t think that analogies to the tobacco case are very helpful because certainly for someone like myself I don’t smoke. I don’t have any interest in the tobacco situation, and any concerns that I have are ones that are honestly felt.
So I think that rather than criticizing past issues like the tobacco industry that scientists would be better to look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they are doing the most effective possible job of explaining their case to the educated public.
ROBERTS: All right. One more week to go in the Copenhagen conference and this is the part where the leaders will, in fact, factor into it. So we’ll be watching that very closely.
Stephen McIntyre, Michael MacCracken, thanks for being with us this morning. Good to see you.
MCINTYRE: Thank you, John.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/11/ltm.02.html
WRT comments regarding how McIntyre (and before that Christy on another thread) weren’t assertive enough and/or didn’t focus on the right points, etcetera:
Trying to effectively explain a complex subject within the limits of that sound-bite environment is difficult at best. The fact that they got national (and international) major media exposure for even those few minutes is a major plus, and I still say that overall McIntyre and Christy came across well; as calm, rational, and professional scientists that were experts on the subject matter. And while it’s always possible to improve what amounts to a very short summary of a science lecture, overall plenty good enough, IMO.
BTW: Where in prior comment on this thread I said:
”Here’s hoping for a few more MSM guest spots like this by McIntyre, Christy, Lindzen, Singer, Willie Soon, Lord Monckton, etcetera. .”
And Anthony Watts, of course. A science blog that is fast closing in on 30 million hits clearly deserves some notice by the MSM. ;-]
My larger point is that there are more than enough professional scientists with impecable scientific credentials in the skeptic camp to effectively and persuasively tell the story; if they can just get a fair time slice in the print and video MSM. And while there is a long way to go, at least it’s starting to happen; which is a big improvement over the previous MSM stonewall.
“Truth of Trick”
Has anyone else notice the new CNN graphic when bringing up the topic of global warming? It’s a green rotating cube with the text “Truth of Trick.”
I didn’t see the interview. But the comments here pretty much confirm what I expected.
McCackan (sp?) was definitely more Steve’s speed, it almost seemed like we had two real scientists on instead of one (Steve M, Christie) vs, Gores-in-training (Schmidt, Oppenheimer, Mann). Steve was calm and steady and got his point across (i.e. it’s the science stupid), McCracken gave the standard lack of a better explanation is apparently scientificaly valid proof these days.
Score this one for Steve!
While I consider myself neither a “skeptic” or “believer”, I have been reading this website and others on the topic of AGW for a couple of years. Steve and others have made some excellent critiques of the existing science. Both before and after the material from CRU was placed online. Perhaps I am in the minority here to be somewhat peeved that Steve M., a seemingly gracious man and meticulous man of science, got derailed into a discussion on smoking cigarettes. Perhaps, though, I am being unreasonable and it is Steve who is exhibiting prudence and waiting for a more bullet-proof case to develop before speaking of the various data “anomalies”. I reckon he is worried about his professional credibility if he jumps the gun. I just thought the developments regarding the Tanzania connection, the splicing of proxy data, etc. warranted at least a mention. Some feedback on this would be greatly appreciated!
Want a Global Warming showdown? Sunday, 9AM EST, FOX News Sunday – Chris Wallace will have Rep. Ed Markey vs. Sen. James Inhofe on to wrestle over US politics, CapnTax and AGW. This should be a significant confrontation on a much bigger venue. Wallace’s should then be rebroadcast on FNC at 2 & 6PM EST Sunday.
May I suggest sending some encouragement Inhofe’s way – no matter where you live. He has really been carrying the load combating AGW in Congress.
It is far more important that Steve be honest. He was asked loaded questions, for which he gave honest answers. Best leave the spin to spinners. I can see a lot of folks looking up Steve’s site thanks to these two interviews with CNN. That is a good thing, and CNN should be commended for having put him (and Dr. Spencer) on.
We can become exausted by expressing arguments against these theories of global warming/climate change or whatever and that is not the point, neither their goal. We all know their goal is global government and they have already implemented several international institutions many years ago and they are working, from FAO to the WHO, and many NGO, etc.
Copenhagen “jamboree” it´s a goal in itself, it is a gathering of people well paid by them who represent the formation of a “convenient” “nomenklatura” or “soviet”, call it as you like it: That is why hosts have prepared everything to please and fulfill any wish from the attendants, from the “nevertastedbythembefore” caviar to free “companions”.
What we must do, instead, is write down their names and do not forget who they are.
Didn’t see it yet, but here’s the inventory on CNN’s American Morning video site (5 videos per line, top line latest):
Line one: The Halls: Al Gore’s poem
Line two: Gore speaks of climate crisis
Line three: Climate skeptics challenged
Line four: Cloud over climate summit
Line five: How skeptics battle climate change
Line six: Climate change questioned
It’s like using a bullet proof vest, absorb and spread the impact energy, then shoot back.
Only two things will change the policy momentum IMHO, colder and colder temps (snow in June, or glaciers wiping out a town), and when the lights go out 4-6 hours per day because power demand eclipses dwindling supply (maybe some people freeze to death because of it too). That’s the only data they CAN understand.
I think Steve did fine because and for this reason: If you can’t believe the messenger then you can’t believe the message. If the data is falsified then the story is false. Climate”gate” is just that. The politics have taken over the science.
Because of this attention the public is seeing the details of both the story and the solutions consequences. The public is clearly not buying the story that world is going to fail and isn’t willing to give up much to try and stop something that is viewed as weather not climate.
It’s come down to man caused or natural variation. Clouds and water vapor seem to be the key since 98% of greenhouse gases are water vapor and the earth is 70% water. Forcing = fudge factors. The modelers are proving true the old adage GIGO but we are learning something.
Poptech (06:08:24) :
Steve said there was only one point of error (paraphrase) in the ClimateGate emails.
I never thought Steve McIntyre, of all people, would be so far off beam. He must have misunderstood what John Roberts asked.
So now I’m starting to think I only want Monckton or Ian Plimer in these interviews.
——————————-
Gentlemen, good to talk to you. Stephen, let me start with you. You’ve written extensively about these hacked e-mails on climateaudit.org. Do they cast suspicion on the entire science of global warming or just one particular set of temperature data?
STEPHEN MCINTYRE, EDITOR, CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG: There’s only one set of data that is in question.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/11/ltm.02.html
Just tripped across this http://video.tiscali.it/canali/truveo/1235225618.html
Much more hard-hitting stuff and quoting emails that haven’t had attention so far.
TBH I find Monckton a bit OTT, wish he’d turn the volume down to 7 rather than InfoWars 11.
He really knows his stuff and doesn’t need to resort to hyperbole.
Either he is camera shy or he’s unsure of his position on this hoax.
His position on ClimateAudit has always been one of reserved skepticism. The same comes through in his interviews. That’s fine. Just not certain that’s what we need right now.
JonesII writes: “That is why hosts have prepared everything to please and fulfill any wish from the attendants, from the “nevertastedbythembefore” caviar to free “companions”.”
—————————————–
They were nice enough to ban Christmas trees in Copenhagen this year for some reason too. lol.
Source: Telegraph
Corey (06:36:05) :
Based on your transcript of procedings in the interview I can only suggest that what Steve Mcintyre could have additionally done is on being asked the question “But does it suggest to you that the whole case for man-made global warming is a fraud?” is for him to suggest that CNN invite a panel of top sceptics active within climate science to present the scientific sceptic case.
To date Steve has thoroughly fulfilled his role of climate reconstruction data auditor and advisor on best engineering practice. But others in the climate field must be given fair opportunity to run with his findings by CNN and the rest of the mass media.
Doggy Geezer (02:16:02) :
I was rolling on the floor at your official creed for the AGW Faith, Doggy.
Thanks for that. I am going to save to pass along to friends if that is OK.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
JonesII, Jamboree ! What a great word, how aptly used.
S. Mcintyre is doing an excellent job. He is just being quite honest on the tv about his area of expertise . He cannot carry the entire non-agw science on his shoulders alone . We are badly in need of a list of other key non -AGW scientists, their area of expertise and their address for media contact. This could be posted here for others to use in their region . I did this for Canada and the media contacts picked up quickly
I wonder if the MSM likes to interview Steve and now Christy because they are so low-key. They’ve spent SO long trumpeting the warmists’ views that to bring on someone who can play their game of sound bites and one-liners would be anathema to them. I suspect we won’t be seeing Monckton or Lawson on CNN anytime soon but we will be getting our nauseous overdoses of Schmidt, Watson and Greenpeace.
The media is misusing Steve McIntyre. He’s an AUDITOR. They should be using him as an auditor not a spokesman.
For example, show a clip of Michael Mann describing “hide the decline” or “Mike’s Nature trick” then Show a clip of Steve auditing what they say. Not a panel discussion, but a clip of Steve, (with charts), explaining what’s wrong. Steve would fit better on “60 Minutes” rather than these sound byte shows.
I’m pretty relaxed that Copenhagen isnow a political nothing fudge and that the truth will out.
To keep the media interested, we need more red-meat, hopefully the strange data from Aus/Alaska et al will get more traction.
I keep hearing from AGWers that several Alaskan villages have fallen into the sea – is this the nonsense it seems to be?
Here is the start of such a list. Their area of expertise needs input from them
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html
I found the position of unassailable Mcintyre. There is no natural explanation for why the AGW hypothesis has been little investigated. Difficult to refute. I found the comments here a little frustrated. I see no reason. What do you think Anthony?
The important point surely is that Steve shows himself, in the CNN program here as well as in his blog, to be fair and reluctant to go beyond a solid interpretation of the facts. This makes him a tremendous resource to the Lord Monckton’s of the world.
“proper engineering quality analysis” That would be refreshing. Let have some more professional handling of the data and the models by people mindful of things like accuracy and honest presentation of issues. Instead of people motivated to do things like hide their “divergence problem”.
The BBC programme which someone earlier referred to is available as a podcast
here
However, it will only be there for the next 7 days, and I am not sure if it is available from outside the UK (programmes on iPlayer usually aren’t, unless you use a UK based proxy). Someone on Bishop Hill’s site has put up the podcast somewhere that should be available outside the UK. Look for the entry “The Report” there.
This programme featured Bishop Hill and Steve, among others, and was pretty even-handed.
The warmists can be compared to Big Tobacco just as easily as the skeptics.
All molecules in the atmosphere absorb and radiate solar energy (some more than others). That’s theory. But how this actually works out in the turbulent Earth’s atmosphere is the question (“how much, how to quantify that, and to what probability” as you say), and here the evidence is lacking. It’s all theory, and that’s what goes into the warmist models.
Our friend the Goracle says that the effect of CO2 is “a law of physics, like gravity.” And so it is. Absent any other factors, the massive gravity of the Earth would pull all the molecules of the atmosphere down to the surface, where they would sit at 0ºK. But there is all this energy from the Sun (and a little from within the Earth), so instead the molecules are all bouncing around with thermal energy (some fly off into space), and then there’s water vapor and winds and clouds and precipitation, and boundary layers, etc., creating an immensely chaotic system.
Maybe Lindzen or someone has a handle on the actual, empirical (measured) contribution of CO2 to ‘global’ temperature (assuming there is any meaningful way of defining that), compared to the effects of water vapor, nitrogen, argon, et al., compounded by energy fluctuation (diurnal to start) and transfers (ocean to atmosphere to land, etc.)—but absent any such hard data, it’s all theory. After all, bumblebees can’t fly, can they? Physics says so.
Apologies for the amateur lecture, and if I’m wrong feel free to correct me. But that’s how I see the issue.
/Mr Lynn
Steve did just fine. He is very effective at saying only what he knows and not making assertions that he cannot back up. This is who he is. I think people are tired of the “talking points” and “slick presentation” — this is what has gotten us into this mess.
It seems CNN is still wanting to frame this issue as “conspiracy nuts vs. solid, dependable scientists”…
Then again, the seeds of doubt HAVE been planted, and more people are paying attention to dissenting voices. That alone is a good thing. For years “we” have been saying that people need to look at the science… the science is where the problem is… but the warmists are playing 3-card monte with the science.
From reading the transcript, it seems Steve did exactly what he needed to do, and I’m glad. The whole tobacco industry thing REALLY annoys me, because the anti-smokers HAVE been dishonest… however, as soon as you say that you are marginalized in any debate (Score another for massive, highly financed PR).
Why are certain people picked to be spokesmen and others not? Does anyone wonder? This script we are watching play out now seems reminiscent of the Dan Rather copies of the damning Bush background information that had exactly the opposite effect than its overt presentation indicated. Dan Rather played the part of the aggrieved reporter when nothing could be further from the truth. It’s a psychological bait and switch and it worked as planned. Could this be the “trick” to end the debate?
Have no trust in the media because rather than being independent researchers, they are part and parcel of the power structure. We are in the hen house – they are the foxes. The media does not work on the public’s behalf. How many times do these people get off the hook because they are “incompetent’? This get out of jail free pass seems to work over and over and over and not just with this particular issue. This blog and the posters deliver far more information than the fox…I mean reporters.
Steve is not the right person for the kind of interview CNN was looking for. They want someone who in a couple of sentences can say why AGW is a hoax. I doubt John Roberts has much understanding of any of the work that Steve does. They’re not looking for someone to explain the technical nuances of temperature reconstructions or how data has been incorrectly manipulated. Many of us who read blogs like this are interested in these things but the average CNN viewer is not and I don’t expect to ever see any such technical discussions there. I think what Steve does is terrific and he is an asset to us all but CNN is not the proper venue for him.
You are all missing the point. It is too early in the fight for the knockout punch. We will be in the “softening up” stage for a long time. Establishing credibility is crucial to these early stages.
Steve is credible.
Paul, if I watched the interview and was unaware of who Steve was, I would never have known of his work showing how he believes the “trick” to hide the decline was pulled off, who the principal players were behind it, and that there is a strong case made to re-evaluate this important piece of evidence.
HankHenry (07:36:51) :
JonesII, Jamboree ! What a great word, how aptly used
I am not the author of it but Lord Monckton (in a TV show). He was the author, also, of the expression: “Al, baby”.
I watched this interview on CNN.
I have seen Mr McIntyre twice now on CNN and am very disappointed in the way he comes across on the screen. Either he is camera shy or he’s unsure of his position on this hoax.
Sorry, but I agree with Marty Ball’s analysis. SM need a message! He is winging it and does not have the experience to make a cogent point in an ad hoc environment.
WRONG.
Steve’s message is his work, period. It won’t translate well on the talking heads shows, and it can’t, because his work is based in detail and is complex, and can’t easily be whittled down to a soundbite. It is what it is. And both Steve and John can’t say they think that AGW is a hoax, because they both have stated emphatically that their beef is with the process and methodologies, and not the theory itself. Do you really want one of the talking heads to be able to show Steve or John to be liars by bringing up previous quotes stating they don’t disagrees with the theory of AGW? Talk about suicidal.
OT, I know. But I get a real kick out of hitting the warm-monger google ads knowing WUWT is getting something ($). I especially enjoy the irony of the PBS ad – funded predominantly by donations from liberals.
“Steve’s message is his work, period. It won’t translate well on the talking heads shows, and it can’t, because his work is based in detail and is complex, and can’t easily be whittled down to a soundbite”
Why then he appears on TV shows? His writing on the blog is much clearer and then his TV appearances. It seems that he is very careful to avoid on TV any final conclusions that are otherwise obvious: eg. that CRu temp data destruction is a scientific scandal of first order, that manipulating the data in paleo studies is obvious from those emails, that they openly discuss how to falsify mid century temp in order to present AGW more serious than it is etc. All that you can read on hi s blog, but cannot here from him on TV. Why? I don’t know but suppose that has something to do with politics and with his panic to distance himself from “skeptics”. He will rather end up “constructively criticizing” fraudsters than being perceived as a “right-wing” skeptic group, with the people like Lindzen, Spencer or Singer. I think that Steve is rather rare beast – an honest liberal. He is devoted to left-wing policy, but unlike most of climate-scientists activists, he is not ready to manipulate the science for political reasons. He did not master that kind of cynical post-normal science kind of philosophy that most of them mastered. He is still, in an old fashioned way, conventional science analyst who considers data, method and results as objective and replicable element of the scientific discourse. He wants to check the science behind the policy he likes. He despises the corruption of Hansen, Jones, Mann and others, in the similar way Lenin despised “bad guys from our camp”.
McIntyre’s ludicrous assumption that policy makers should act by and large as if nothing had happened just reflects this cognitive dissonance.
I listened to the interview on Sirius radio (no video). Paraphrasing the interviewer, Steve was asked if the emails called into question the basis of AGW theory. His response will be intrepreted by those who don’t follow the topic as a “NO”. What am I missing here? Steve has just about proven beyond reasonable doubt that the global gurus of paleo climate use sloppy methods and fudged (selectively biased) data. Steve, to his credit, called their behavior “unprofessional”, but, if , as he has demonstrated, the warmist analysis of the pre 1850 period doesn’t stand up, why couldn’t he take the next step and simply state that, therfore, a key element of the AGW alarmist logic train falls apart, i.e. current warming is unprecidented. Pointing that out doesn’t require one take sides in the AGW debate , it’s simply articulating the implications of Steve’s work. Pull that leg out of the AGW stool, it starts to look just a bit wobbly.
Haven’t seen the segment but just read the transcript. I think Steve did fine. McCracken went beyond the data just like Gavin did. Steve doesn’t need to denounce or declaim, these people are undermining their own credibility quite nicely.
Well of course,when you are ready to pound the message into everyman’s skull,you need to unleash the Morano
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=GdaG6U8z8z
Looking at a video linked in one of the posts here where Mann is explaining the “trick” of “hiding the decline” an analogy came to me.
It would appear that if Jones et al. had the front end of a Ford motor car,but no back end and also had a similar car with a non-functioning front end,they would consider it acceptable to weld the orphaned front end of the first car onto the functioning rear of the second and sell it as a single vehicle.
Here in the U.K. the law takes a dim view of that sort of thing.
SonicFrog says:
“Do you really want one of the talking heads to be able to show Steve or John to be liars by bringing up previous quotes stating they don’t disagrees with the theory of AGW? Talk about suicidal.”
Steve and John appeared alongside adamant proponents of global warming who forcefully put forward their pro-AGW views. What I do want is someone on those shows who DOES disagree with AGW who can and will articulate their position. I want someone on who can move opinion away from disastrous public policies needlessly keeping us from using and developing our carbon-based energy sources.
If Steve and John do not disagree with the theory of AGW they should not allow themselves to be put opposite a proponent of AGW as “balancing” the opinion of the other pro-AGW guest. They should recommend another professional who truly is opposed to the AGW viewpoint such as Lindzen, Soon, etc.
They may be allowing themselves to be cast in a role (anti-AGW advocate) that they do not really espouse.
Paul (08:30:02) :
Steve did just fine. He is very effective at saying only what he knows and not making assertions that he cannot back up. This is who he is. I think people are tired of the “talking points” and “slick presentation” — this is what has gotten us into this mess.
This comment holds more truth than is first apparent. I have not done any analysis of comments from a wide variety of people, I have simply spoken with many different people about AGW, the Government here in the UK, the EU and other contentious topics.
Without exception everyone I have spoken with has said, some politely, others in much earthier terms, that they are sick and tired of being given nonsensical sound-bites by the MSM, politicians and so-called ‘experts’. They all wanted to watch and hear a reasoned debate, admittedly not of too great a duration, so that they could start to make up their own minds. I think that the presumption by the MSM that the general public want nothing but sound-bites of a curtailed length to match their allegedly limited attention span is starting to become somewhat tattered.
Very many people have had enough of being patronised and spoken down to. They have realised that there are some serious things going on ‘out there’ and they want to be involved. This all comes down to the fact that the mythical Joe Public has woken up to the fact that the trilions of pounds and dollars being shuffled around on various negotiating tables like so many poker chips are going to come out of HIS pocket. This is what has focused his attention, not any alleged doom and gloom fantasies.
Let’s face it. McIntyre is human, and he enjoys the attention and recognition. Like anyone would.
He is, as a careful scientist, genuinely offended by some the actions taken by the Hockey Team.
He is also, as a political liberal, somewhere between agnostic and sympathetic to the policy implications of AGW.
It’s not helpful that the media wants to portray this Climategate thing as “AGW: Fact? or Hoax?” Because, frankly, it’s neither.
Steve M. is the quintessential Canadian and his approach is reflective of his personality and his work. He should NOT change one bit. As mentioned elsewhere, Moncton and Morano can lead the PR campaigns on the truth about AGW.
By the way, if not already noted above, John Roberts is a Canadian as well – and his demeanor and approach to reporting has a place as well. Let Mark Stossel, Rex Murphy, Glenn Beck, Jon Stewart and others do the necessary dirty work. (Yeah, Maelstrom Murphy is a Canadian too, but Newfoundland is to Canada as Texas is to the United States)
RE: dbleader61 (13:45:38) :
Yeah, Maelstrom Murphy is a Canadian too, but Newfoundland is to Canada as Texas is to the United States
________________________________
You say that like it’s a bad thing 😛
I think some of you guys who are criticising McIntyre and Christy for their cautious views are wearing underwear about three sizes too small.
Relax a little bit.
Its very tempting to try to use the email scandal and the resulting coverage as an opportunity to tear down all of the foundations of the AGW at once. While I strongly sympathize with the sentiment, when skeptics like Steve McIntyre make sweeping accusations or declarations they fall into exactly the same trap as the pro-AGW chorus – that is, turning science into advocacy and politics. The public smelled the bullshit in the air already long before the emails broke.
Make no mistake. The damage from the emails is done; and its deep. The cracks in the scientific foundation of AGW are growing. Whats important is that now that the media recognize they have been misled, it forms a new avenue of reporting for them. Scientific scandal trumps climate catastrophism, especially if it ain’t happening.
So relax. Give it time. Let Mann, Scmidt, Santer, Gore and the other gurus slowly hang themselves. Their days of publishing advocacy disguised as research, uncontested, are over. Transparency, reproducibility and democracy are slowly reasserting themselves. And, judging by the happenings of Copenhagen, their money is about to rapidly dry up.
Steve McIntyre did a good job. Congratulations.
O’Reilly Factor (Laura Ingraham) tearing into the eco-loon – great to see the journos not letting the sweeping assertions go unchallenged
Poptech:
“Maybe I am the only one who has read ClimateAudit and seen McIntyre interviewed before but I am not sure what people are expecting?”
I’d kind of expect him to use what he has so clearly proved: the MBH denied the global Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age by using questionable strip pine proxies and invalid data processing algorithms, and that they attempted to hide these facts by denying access to raw data and computer programs, and that the Crutape Letters and code strongly confirm these facts.
If SM does not want to pursue the implications of restoring the historical understanding of MWP and LIA, that’s fine with me; I think others will have no trouble connecting the dots. But his success here is, to me at least, foundational for understanding the need for transparency and due diligence across the board.
Wow, that’s quite the contradiction.
One thing seems clear to me: different people respond differently to different media styles. Just looking at the comments in this thread alone is an indicator of this.
Some like SM’s quiet style. Others prefer something more dramatic such as Monckton or Morano.
Fortunately, we have the choice of both.
And to those who don’t like the way things are being done, you also have a choice. You can choose to do something about it yourself, if it’s important enough to you.
Yes, different people respond to different styles of presentation. Some like Steve or John or Roy; some like Monckton or Morano.
However, the fact is (and it is fact based on lots of media/ influence research) that people with styles like Monckton and Morano convince more people of their views than people with styles like Steve/ John/ Roy.
The problem we have is that Monckton and Morano are not publishing climate scientists. We need published climate scientists who do not agree AGW is proven who are strong presenters — Lindzen is the only one I’ve seen, and that’s not enough.
Who else is there? How can they be sponsored to spend more time informing the public? NOW is the time to get on this… DO NOT imagine that “facts” (CRU info) sell themselves; they do not.
“NOW is the time to get on this…”
I agree. Climategate, as a story, will peter out. Not much there. Steve said so. (twice). On to Crap & Tax.
Jeff Alberts (18:52:44) :
My standard reply, “I believe in God the Father Almighty, His Only Son, Jesus Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints..” (The Apostle’s Creed.)
I then explain I deal with OBJECTIVE FACTS.
Wow, that’s quite the contradiction.
No, he’s separating religion/belief-and-faith from objectivity regarding facts and science.
And suggesting that everyone alleging to do Science should be doing the same thing.
Just had a quick scan on Youube but couldn’t find anything – is there a version online anywhere Anthony for your “international” visitors?
re media coverage
http://www.cashill.com/twa800/climategate.htm
I saw both McIntyre and Christie and thought both were fine. One point I would like to see more emphasis on. Both of these two have had their work available for others to review and criticize. As far as I know everything Steve McIntyre has been on his website and open to all matter of critics. The other side can’t say the same thing.
Has this interview been recorded? I can’t find it anywhere. Anyone have a link please?
My jaw dropped when I saw this;
Has the world really gone mad, without me noticing it?
Is it a joke, like many other things you find on the net, or is it real? ;
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118659
Kwik,
Just follow the money. Tata stand to gain $2b dollars in climate credits by closing down the Corus steel plant in the UK (which it bought a few years back). The UK is effectively paying Tata to export jobs back to India.
I predict the madness won’t end until half the UK’s jobs have been exported all it’s wealth shaken out by the carbon moguls who are holding the country upside down by the ankles. By that time the great moron Brown will have disappeared into the sunset and will be living very nicely on his taxpayer funded pension, thank you very much.
The irony is that the sheeple are “hoping” for a strong and effective treaty in Copenhagen to fight “climate change” and it is they who will be the victims of this shakedown. Such madness can scarcely be imagined. By comparison the witch hunters of the 17th century seem rational.
This scares me. I dont think the Brits have understood yet that the have signed a law that give them few options;
1) Build many nuclear reactors (Will 10 be enough?)
or
2) Build tens of thousands of windmills …will never suffice…
or
3) Immediate laws where you can win the right to have a child
Typo — change to “wedded” in:
“MCINTYRE: Well, I for one am not particularly whetted to any position.”
Steve, circled wagon teams run out of ammunition. Congratulations on keeping your powder dry.
It is so vitally important at this stage of development to avoid making any hint of a statement that can be seized upon and turned against you.
Some bloggers here think you should have executed a coup de grace on the interview. They are impatient; it was not the time or place; and it is not your function as an auditor.
I would not like playing you at chess, you think too far ahead. (I don’t play your squash, but I guess your success there is largely from strategic thinking also).
brian0707 (14:51:18) :
I think some of you guys who are criticising McIntyre and Christy for their cautious views are wearing underwear about three sizes too small.
——————————————————————————–
Exactly. The AGW wall has been nearly 30 years in the making. It’s going to have be taken apart brick by brick. The people who have the ability to do that cannot over-state the case. Let’s be frank: no one knows if humans are having or will have a catastrophic affect on the planet’s climate. If for one am dubious. But, it’s going to take another 30 more years of study and data observation for that to be determined. Maybe longer. So for now, you find the weaknesses in the science and you expose them– brick by brick.
McIntyre and Christy are among the few people who have the integrity to persuade people that some things are amiss in climatology. If they show up ranting and raving on CNN, they are not going to convince anyone. It’s becoming clear to me that Warmists have been over-stating the case for decades. McIntyre, Christy et al should not fall into the same trap.