A telling omission by Real Climate

We’ve all pretty much had it up to our keesters with the brusque and dismissive treatment that commenters who don’t agree with the RC world view get over there. This is why many of us have simply given up trying, there’s no point in attempting to have a relevant and open discussion there anymore.

It should be foremost on the minds of many that the RealClimate.org webserver domain is funded by Fenton Communications, an eco media group. Further, our tax dollars pay the salaries of people like Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS who has been (according to several post and comment times noted) using his taxpayer paid time at work to participate in that blog.

One of the missions of RC (Actually most of the mission, as it was setup as a response to the McIntyre and McKitrick paper in E&E, ENERGY &  ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 14 NUMBER 6, November 1st 2003) is to counter skeptical arguments. One of the ways they do this in to provide a list of people they disagree with, with links to rebuttals.

Long before RC went online, we have this 10/31/2003 email from Michael Mann, excerpt:

Lets let our supporters in higher places use our scientific response to push the broader case against MM. So I look forward to peoples attempts to revise the first part in particular.

Steve McIntyre started ClimateAudit on 10/26/2004. Here is his very first blog post.

RealClimate.org was registered November 19th, 2004 – see the WHOIS screencap.

Today, while searching for something else, I found myself looking at this list. It reads like a who’s who of climate skeptics, but for one telling and glaring omission…

Here’s the list at RCWiki done as a screencap below and to a PDF file , so that Gavin or Mike or some other team member can’t fix it fast and then claim I “simply didn’t see it”.

Note who is missing from this section of the list

Steve McIntyre is missing. Ross McKitrick is missing.

Why?

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. They don’t want RC to have a discussion on the faulty dendro and dubious statistical issues that are fairly presented in peer review by M&M, even though there has been a concerted effort by Team members and associates to stifle publication of dissenting views.

RC and in particular Mann, don’t want to focus on the data, statistical failures, or process, but instead on the “stolen emails” and how they “don’t change the conclusion”. It’s spin cycle science.

A way RC might try to spin this omission would be to say that they don’t consider the argument of M&M valid or prominent, but that won’t fly because they have dismissals listed there of arguments many lesser known skeptics, who have not published a peer reviewed paper, such as Lucy Skywalker. That’s nothing against you Lucy, just an example.

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.

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.

What Climategate shows more than anything is that the climate science process has been corrupted by a few people with influence, and RC is the centerpiece for showcasing the Team consensus of that corruption.

UPDATE: I made chronology typo in the original posting, fixed within minutes thanks to many commenters who pointed it out. – Anthony

Advertisements

230 thoughts on “A telling omission by Real Climate

  1. 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.

  2. While not quite in line with the subject here is the introductory email introducing RC to the “Team’

    Note: from inside email “We hope that you will find this a useful resource for your own outreach efforts.”

    Used to work on NASA programs, “outreach” means one thing, get the public interested so the money keeps coming, period

    From: Gavin Schmidt
    To: mprather@xxxx.edu, robert.berner@xxxxx.edu, p.jones@xxxxxx.uk, rjs@xxxxxxx.gov, jhansen@xxxxx.gov, dshindell@xxxxxxx.gov, rmiller@xxxxx.gov, drind@xxxxx.govjames.risbey, td@xxxxxx.gov, aclement@xxxxxxx.edu, james.white@xxxxxxxx.edu, hfd@xxxxxx.gov, wuebbles@xxxxx.edu, thompson.3@xxxxxx.edu, thompson.4@xxxxxxx.edu, juerg@xxxxx mhughes@ltrr.arizona.edu, jto@xxxx.edu, tcrowley@xxxx.edu, wigley@xxxx.edu, santer1@xxxx.gov, schrag@xxxx.edu, jlean@xxxx.navy.mil, weaver@xxxxx.ca, djt@vvvxxxx.ca, k.briffa@uxxxxx.uk, t.osborn@xxxxx.uk, peter.stott@xxxxxx.com, robock@xxxxxx.edu, trenbert@xxxxx.edu, mmaccrac@xxxxxxx.net, schlesin@xxxxxx.edu, dkaroly@xxxxxx.edu, omichael@xxxxx.EDU, shs@xxxxxx.edu, berger@xxxxxx.be, david@xxxxx.edu, drdendro@xxxxxx.edu, davet@axxxx.edu, mcane@lxxxxx.edu, meehl@xxxxx.edu, myles.allen@xxxxxx.uk, natasha@xxxxxx.edu, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxx.gov, m.manning@xxxxx.nz, nmantua@xxxxx.edu, Jeffrey.Park@xxxxx.edu, jseveringhaus@xxxx.edu, bengtsson@xxxxx.de, jcole@xxxxx.edu, juliebg@xxxxx.edu, rich@xxxxxx.edu, hegerl@xxxxx.edu, dcayan@xxxxx.edu, chris.folland@xxxxxx.com, masson@xxxxxxx.fr, goosse@xxxxx.uk, atimmermann@ifm.uni-kiel.de, ajb@xxxxx.gov, penner@xxxxx.edu, solomon@xxxxxx.gov, jmahlman@xxxxxx.edu, rbierbau@xxxxxx.edu
    Subject: RealClimate.org
    Date: 10 Dec 2004 08:56:42 -0500
    Cc: Mike Mann , Eric Steig , ammann@xxxxx.edu, rbradley@xxxxxx.edu, aclement@xxxxx.edu, rasmus.benestad@xxxxx.no, rahmstorf@xxxxx.de

    Colleagues,

    No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
    media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
    agenda-driven “commentary” on the Internet and in the opinion columns of
    newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
    educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and
    letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.

    In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
    have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’ website:
    RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:

    http://www.realclimate.org

    The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
    we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are
    doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
    events.

    Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting
    dis-information regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed
    ‘refutations’ of the science used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
    We have also posted more educational pieces relating to the
    interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason why the
    stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
    though at an accessible level.

    The blog format allows us to update postings frequently and clearly as
    new studies come along as well as maintaining a library of useful
    information (tutorials, FAQs, a glossary etc.) and past discussions. The
    site will be moderated to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio.

    We hope that you will find this a useful resource for your own outreach
    efforts. For those more inclined to join the fray, we extend an open
    invitation to participate, for instance, as an occasional guest
    contributor of commentaries in your specific domain, as a more regular
    contributor of more general pieces, or simply as a critical reader.
    Every time you explain a basic point of your science to a journalist
    covering a breaking story, think about sharing your explanation with
    wider community. RealClimate will hopefully make that easier. You can
    contact us personally or at contrib@realclimate.org for more
    information.

    This is a strictly volunteer/spare time/personal capacity project and
    obviously nothing we say there reflects any kind of ‘official’ position.
    We welcome any comments, criticisms or suggestions you may have, even if
    it is just to tell us to stop wasting our time! (hopefully not though).

    Thanks,

    Gavin Schmidt

    on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
    – Gavin Schmidt
    – Mike Mann
    – Eric Steig
    – William Connolley
    – Stefan Rahmstorf
    – Ray Bradley
    – Amy Clement
    – Rasmus Benestad
    – William Connolley
    – Caspar Ammann

  3. Their arrogance will be their undoing. They behave as though anyone not involved in “climate science” is stupid and cannot see through their deception. Those who are on “the list” should be very proud. They are in good company. In regards to the team, the term sociopath comes to mind. Admit you are wrong and we can all move forward. Please allow me my wishful thinking.

  4. It doesn’t detract from the main point, but I think the timeline has a problem. The Mann email looks like it was from 2003, not 2004. Otherwise good post, but the “contrarians” will jump on any inconsistency.

    REPLY: Thanks, I made a typo, and it is now fixed. -Anthony

  5. JimB in Canada,

    I have been trying to do exactly that. They just ignore me though :-( . I would really like to be mentioned on that list as well. I believe I have earned it, but alas I have given up as I have determined that it would be easier to get a Nobel Prize.

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

  7. 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.

  8. The first mistake that people make by going to RealClimate is that the discussion will be about real climate. The second mistake is that they are reading comments by real scientists who know what they are talking about. The third mistake is that the comments are apolitical that there is no hidden agenda. RealClimate is about real a real agenda to effect political and social change, aka: revolution. They don’t give a hang about the climate or the weather.

  9. 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.

  10. 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?

  11. 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…

  12. I have tried to post 3 comments on RealClimate.org in response to their postings. First two times my comments were in slight anger at their incomplete and skewed outlook, which I felt was purposefully deceptive. So, I figured they were not allowed by the moderator b/c of my tone.

    The third time, I was responding to a commentor who, clearly more angry and caustic in tone than I ever was, claimed that Lindzen was a hack who didn’t go to others’ original journal articles before making his claims (for example in his recent letter in the WSJ), which I found to be a complete rubbish statement b/c Dr. Lindzen is all about the basic science of climate, being foremost a physicist by training. Well, I tried to keep my comment polite and stated only that Dr. Lindzen is a well-respected professor at MIT. As you can guess, this very innocent and undeniable comment was not allowed by the moderator.

    The net effect of this experience is that I no longer expend energy to post at that site, which I am sure is the net effect on people who disagree with the party line (allusion to communist governments not unintentional) over there. The ultimate net effect is that RealClimate.org is a propaganda site!!

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. Kitefreak (11:45:59),

    I watched that video of the Uncle Al interview. I laughed. I am not angry about it at all. I think Al should speak more often as he helps to enlighten people to the real problem about AGW, it doesn’t exist! I love trying to anticipate where the next ridiculous statement is going to come from. I am starting an office pool and taking bets for his next gaffe.

  19. Jimmy Haigh (11:42:27) :
    I still like the raging sun at full blown solar maximum on the Real Climate website banner…

    I like this of the sun at both stages….

    Some Constant eh?

  20. 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.

  21. Regarding comment from George Turner (11:41:36) — you are aware of course we are periously close to that totalitarian state, what with Obummer making “enemies lists” and the Senate passing legislation it has not read, nor allowed to be read by Members and the public. Face it: This bunch in Washington, led by MAObama, are making actual banana republics look advanced. (Sen. Reid’s 1am vote on health insurance reform is a nice touch…yes?)

    Happily, however, we appear to have escaped any impact of consequence from Nopenhagen…and Cap & Tax appears to be dead. That’s good. Hope we can get it to stick.

  22. 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.

  23. Going through their list and clicking on names more or less at random, it’s almost like entering an echo chamber. Their “refutation” of these horrible people are virtually all opinion pieces on RC, DeSmog, Tomino, Joe Romm and the usual cast of “we are all about the science” AGW types.

    There may be some actual, you know, “Scientific” rebutals but I didn’t happen to pick one that had any.

  24. 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.

  25. “Jimmy Haigh (11:42:27),
    I still like the raging sun at full blown solar maximum on the Real Climate website banner…”

    That’s not the sun… It’s the RC view of earth with a fever…

  26. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
    The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    Joseph Goebbels

  27. stan (11:43:26) :

    Mann wrote his own code rather than use one of the commercially prepared (already debugged) stats packages. Nobody does that. It’s incompetent.

    That’s not true at all. I regularly write my own code since standard package algorithms may not always be implemented in the manner in which I use the algorithms.

    And instead of using standard measures of statistical significance, he made up his own.
    This, on the other hand… hehe.

    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

    Mann ain’t a very good coder, for sure. Ask about Jean S’ opinion on this. :) However, simply writing bad/amateurish code does not debunk his work. The details on which M&M focus are the only thing that can do that.

    Mark

  28. I’ve just connected with a new computer via BING and that initial headline graphic shocked me. Oh no! They’ve taken over! Now, I’ll settle down and read the article.

  29. 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.

  30. tucker (11:55:53),

    I have been trying to enlighten people to this for a while now. The thread goes much much deeper than Fenton and ultimately ends with Soros. I would encourage people interested in this subject to follow the chain, it is truly amazing stuff. You will be astonished to learn who really is driving RealClimate.org. You will further be left with no wonder why they are what they are.

    This LINK can get you started. From here, start Google searching various terms and players mentioned. You will discover a ton of information regarding the real roots of RC.

    And the alarmists talk about crap like “big oil” … give me a break.

  31. 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.

  32. Nopenhagen

    In terms of one letter substitution I think that’s great. Really funny.

    Hopenhagen, Nopenhagen. Hopenhagen, Nopenhagen.

    Hope they’re crying themselves to sleep. And have time to reflect on it over the xmas break. POLITICIANS INCLUDED!

  33. 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?

  34. 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]?

  35. My first post on the timing error evidently got dumped as redundant after the correction, which is fine, but the point I made in the later part of my comment still needs to be raised. The Mann email went out the day BEFORE M&M’s paper first appeared in print which indicates to me that, despite all the efforts to derogate it over the years, Mann realized how significant and dangerous the paper was to his work and how urgent the necessity of countering it quickly was.

  36. 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.

  37. “and RC is the centerpiece for showcasing the Team consensus of that corruption.”

    Most everyone who visits here knows of RC’s role in the Team’s advocacy of AGW and their participation in the greater fraud displayed by CRU-Leak.

    What’s happening now is as bad as any malfeasance to date.

    RC, soon after the CRU-leak, became the source and distribution point for the misrepresentation of the scandal and it’s meaning.

    Along with flat out misrepresentation by RC contributors and hosts is a primary method of delivering it. Call it value added disinformation. Long used by RC and particularly useful in misrepresenting the fallout over CRU-Leak.

    I have followed, read and engaged RC for a long time. Long after most would get disgusted and stop bothering.

    This value added disinformation, fraud, is a process where RC moderators, Gavin and Eric not only make sure they deliver the disinformation but they shape and censor the discussion to create a false appearance and impression of heavily lopsided substance.

    They rig conversations to appear open and frank.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The premiere example is the skeptic’s post which asks a reasonable question. One or more of the RC thugs such as Ray Ladbury would respond with a critique of the motivation behind the question while including a refutation of a supposed premise. In follow up the skeptic gets specific, provides a basis and asks again. The RC thug or thugs then pile on more mistreatment, dispute the premise they earlier created, and avoid the growing substance from the skeptic. This is where the value added moderator’s role (Gavin or Eric) comes in.

    Gavin or Eric will allow the discussion to grow to this point only.

    When the skeptic attempts to rebut the RC thugs, his more substantive post is blocked by Gavin or Eric.

    The entire discussion is then truncated by the thugs declaring that the skeptic left in defeat with nothing more to add.

    Gavin, having severed the skeptic’s participation, lets this stand.

    The exchange becomes a contrived demonstration for readers to be impressed with how little the skeptics have and how overwhelming the Team’s science is.

    The reason virtually all of the more damning substance is no where to be found on RC is it is prohibited. It’s been blocked, censored and distorted in cold blooded propagandizing by the Team.

    Again, this deceit has long been used by RC. It is particularly useful in misrepresenting the fallout over CRU-Leak and for providing the rank and file (and journalists) with fodder for dimissing the scandal.

    The most caustic RC contributor, Ray Ladbury works for NASA-GISS.
    http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/us/Ray.htm

  38. It’s interesting that realclimate, being run on taxpayer time by a taxpayer funded organization, engages in routine censorship of views simply because they disagree with those views.

  39. Niels A Nielsen (12:28:22) :

    “Lubos Motl and Lucia Liljegren are not there either.”

    It looks like it’s great to be on the list but even better not to be! If you are not on the list you are clearly a threat…

    Shakespeare said it first…

  40. After Climategate, RC also rushed to add a list of data sources. They omit to list the data whose release has been refused.

  41. 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.

  42. The Team thinks of themselves as omnipotent. The reality is that they a just a bunch of naive college professors who are waaaay out of their league. Fenton hoodwinked them into believing that they could control information through a modified Saul Alinsky PR strategy. I think the team is now realizing that this strategy has destroyed their careers might send some of them to jail. Mann has got to be in a full blown panic right now. In an attempt to save himself, he’s going to start throwing everyone under the bus including the good Doctor Schmidt.

    As for Fenton, they will simply move on and find a new set of convenient idiots.

    Consider it a life lesson Dr Mann.

  43. Anthony

    Climate Audit was setup in late February 2005, but the posts start in late 2004 because Steve had started climate2003.com (using his own knowledge of html) and I transferred those posts over to the new weblog Climate Audit, backdating them to 2004 when they were originally published.

    CA was setup (at my urgent prompting) because of the very slick presentation of falsehoods on RealClimate, which was getting prebuttal of MM05 in the blogosphere while Steve and Ross waited silently for publication in Geophysical Research Letters (remember when people did that?) and because climate2003.com looked so bad I feared people would confuse Steve’s html presentation skills for his statistical and scientific skills.

    Back then, the mere fact that McIntyre and McKitrick were even being published in GRL was itself big news because of the stranglehold on the literature being attempted by the Hockey Team (and now revealed in the Climategate letters)

    Certainly RealClimate was setup by Mann, Schmidt and Connelley to try and trash McIntyre and McKitrick and defend the “consensus” that we know was confabulated through smear and intimidation as the ClimateGate emails show.

    Up until very recently, Mann wouldn’t even mention the dread words “Steve McIntyre” and even resorted to citing the New York Times’ Antonio Regalado rather than cite “McIntyre and McKitrick (GRL, 2005)”, a classic fear response from someone who believed he could control reality.

    Realclimate was setup, as you say, by Fenton Communications but funding comes from the Environmental Defense Fund.

    It all feels like a long time ago. A lot has changed and the Climate of Fear isn’t what it was, but the wounded Beast that is Climate Alarmism won’t lie down quietly and die until governments, agencies and NGOs stop feeding it.

  44. 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.

  45. I am having problems getting on to RC.

    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.

    Thanks in advance

  46. Espen (12:23:22) : Lucy: Did you see they use Tamino’s lame response (with the airport in Barrow as “proof”…) to your Arctic post against you?

    No, I’m not even going to look until I need to!

    Also not mentioned: Ken Gregory, Alan Cheetham, Ole Humlum, Tom Segalstad, Jeff Id, RomanM,

    H*** no theyv’e just taken that page down! Just as I was gonna use it!

  47. 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.

  48. When someone originally told me about this site I was immediately suspicious just because of the NAME of the site. I’ve found that anyone who has to name their site “real truth” or “legitimate legal stuff” generally does so because there’s something illegitimate about it and they somehow think that using terms like “real” in the name will convince people that “hey, we’re the REAL people you should listen to.”

    The bits of one or two posts they read seemed to read something like “well some people say blabla, but every real scientist knows xyz. And it’s really complex so we can’t explain it all here but blablabla.” Somehow that qualifies as “debunking” sort of like constantly repeating stuff about “massive evidence” and “scientific consensus” without offering any hard proof at all.

  49. Oh cool – it looks like RealClimate is down. Their home page simply says It works and others return 404 (not found) errors.

    Rampant speculation time, but not from me.

  50. 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.

  51. 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. :-D

    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.

  52. I notice RC recently had a post lamenting the lack of data and method publication from Scafetta among a couple of others.

    I posted congratulating them on their desire for openness and asking when CRU’s station lists would be published.

    They deleted my post of course.

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. I’m on the list, and tomorrow night I’m hosting a dinner with three list members. Oh frabdous day!

  56. crosspatch (12:49:00) :
    Astroturfing is where you create artificial “grass roots” movements (Astroturf is artificial grass)

    Interviewer: Which do you prefer, grass or astroturf?

    NFL player: I dunno, I never tried to smoke astroturf…

  57. Paul Vaughan:

    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]?

    Perhaps they have a copy of Marty McFly’s almanac from the future?

    Or maybe by “successfully predicted” they mean that they succeeded in making a prediction, which admittedly isn’t much of a challenge except perhaps to squirrel monkeys and polar bears.

    I would play it safe and predict that the Earth will have a future temperature, whose measurement will continue to stump the thermodynamically impaired.

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

  59. Squidly (12:27:59) :

    I compiled a rather lengthy and very comprehensive comment illustrating all of the ties of RC to Fenton, others, and finally Soros.

    Any chance of you re-posting that here?

  60. 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?

  61. 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.

  62. Quoting:
    DavePrime (11:09:56) :

    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”.

    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.

    I think I have too much time on my hands.

  63. My view of Real Climate is simple: any scientist that publishes on that site is either unacceptably naive or morally corrupt since they are acquiesing to a regime of censorship and spin that grossly and disgustingly corrupts proper scientific discourse.

  64. “This must then mean that they (RC) agree the science is not settled.”

    We joke about the warmist catchphrase “It’s worse than we thought”. But it suddenly struck me today that every time one of them says that – or biased media like the BBC endlessly parrot it for them – what they’re actually saying is “Oops, there’s another bit of the science we didn’t actually understand”.

    And surely it would be stretching even Mannian statistics for every single error from unsettled science to be one that made things worse? :-/

  65. “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”… :-)

  66. The warmers must be so frustrated. Despite the near total (but crumbling) support from the MSM, Copenhagen failed and public opinion in the US and UK at least is turning INCREASINGLY sceptical.

    Is it because of the current cold weather?
    Is it because of flat global mean temps?
    Is it because of blogs lik WUWT?
    Is it because of leaked emails & data?
    Is it because of propaganda fatigue?
    Is it because of all or some of the above?

    Keep telling people in the developed countries they are going to die by heat while they struggle to pay their heating bills. Keep telling them about hot temps when they stay at home on their summer holidays only to be drenched by cool rain. Keep overstating your case and ultimatley fatigue sets in. :-)

    I know this is not robust science but neither is Gore, Briffa, RC, CRU, Mann!!

  67. This is how RC misleads their readers.

    RC moderator Eric Steig, “There’s a simple reason none of the skeptical blogs have taken issue with what we did: they know we’re right.”

    By RC modertor Eric Steig, Department of Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington

    http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2351

    [Response: I’m not “trying to prove” anything. I’m showing people how to take a look at the data for themselves and make an assessment about whether CRU is full of cheaters or the deniers are full of it. And CRU doesn’t need to do anything, since any fool can do the analysis we did. 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? I thought this post would actually be the end of the discussion, but evidently, I was naive.–eric]

  68. 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 ….

  69. I’m guessing the explanation as to why M&M aren’t there is because they are “not climate scientists.”

  70. “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.

  71. 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.

  72. Hey i got it! Remember Gordon “The science is settled… Flat-earthers” Gordon Brown? Soros must have threatened him: “Remember, i sank England once, i can do it again.” He must be on Soros’ payroll – that’s why he looked so distressed at COP15!

    This also explains why the boss of an already-broke country promotes handouts to even poorer countries. I didn’t understand that but now it all makes sense. This might also explain the major data-fudging at CRU – probably an order from the boss.

  73. Who pays the rent on the office space where the RC computer that Gavin uses is housed? Isn’t it in the same building as GISS (the Jerry Seinfeld restaurant building)? If it’s in the GISS offices, isn’t that a no-no?

  74. genezeien (13:03:35) :

    Visited your website. If you do indeed know what you are doing – Wow, JBW Wow!! Now if someone else can take the same data and, you know, as they do in real science, replicate your results it could be the end of Global Warming as we know it!!

  75. bloomberg has a very lengthy article, basically pushing for cap’n’tax…a MUST-READ:

    Carbon Capitalists
    Wall Street wants a leading role in the new carbon-trading market being designed in Washington. First, executives like JPMorgan’s Blythe Masters must convince skeptics this isn’t just a new trillion-dollar gamble on derivatives.

    http://bloomberg.com/news/marketsmag/mm_0110_story1.html

  76. The Pielke’s are missing too.

    How is it I’m persona non grata at RC, Tamino, and Dot Earth, but my name is nowhere on their list?

    They’re making a list,
    checking it twice,
    If you’re a skeptic,
    you better think twice,
    RC claws are coming for you!

    They’ll sleaze you on the Wiki,
    whatever it may take,
    Doesn’t matter if you’ve bad or good,
    the scandle will be fake,

    So you better watch out,
    better not cry,
    better not pout,
    I’m telling you why,
    RC Claws are coming for you!

  77. 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…

  78. 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?

  79. Prove what shadow step, that Mann is a fraud? That was done convincingly when Mann’s theories took a figurative hockey stick up the side a da’ head. Or maybe you’d like to talk about the way he’s been flipping data series upside down. (the notorious negative correlation is still positive claim) Or just leave that for the investigative board.

    Now as to proving who’s behind your sockpuppet, not enough evidence yet, but the personal insult you feel due to this thread is interesting.

  80. 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.

  81. I find it very revealing that Bjorn Lomborg is on the list.

    He will tell you he is NOT a skeptic. He accepts the IPCC conclusions. The only thing he objects to is the One World solution, which he calculates does not stand up to a cost/benefit analysis.

    His inclusion on the list implies that they are more about the politics than about the science.

  82. I find it weird that the moon units who wanted to push the CAGW view called the site Real Climate, when what they push is more like science fiction than fact.

    With the Climategate cat out of the bag and the last chance saloon Copenhagen conference a flop, the whole of the PR machine will start to wind down. There are signs of this happening already, as even the MSM start to query what’s going on.

    I think that’s why the IPCC cabal hid data and tried to stop debate – they knew that the hypothesis was wrong and that the coming cold period would expose the truth.

  83. By the way, I don’t believe for one minute that the raw data compares with the cooked version.

    What I know for sure is that this is not so for the US Historical Climate Network USHCN). Averaging all their 1221 stations, equally weighted, the raw data shows a 0.14C increase to 2006. The adjusted data shows a 0.59C increase.

    Same sort of deal appears to apply to NZ and Australia (and throw in the Russian cherrypick).

    So unless the story is different over the rest of the world, the adjusted data will turn out to show a significantly greater warming trend than the raw data.

  84. “evanmjones (15:37:57) :

    By the way, I don’t believe for one minute that the raw data compares with the cooked version.”

    I’m sure you’re right and that’s an issue in itself, but I was just amused that over at RealClimate they would waste their time trying to prove that a choice of stations with a ‘good’ history was a choice of stations that required little adjustments.

    Then again – maybe I’m not that surprised after all.

  85. 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

  86. Whoohoo the RC supporters are now collectively branding skeptics as supporters of “Anti-Science”. Oh the irony!

    Fenton might be clever but I don’t believe that even he will reverse the groundswell of public anger over the bad science, media manipulations and scientific journal bullying undertaken by the CRU and their cohorts.

  87. “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.

  88. Oh Come On Now!

    RC is back up, never been there before, and what are the lead stories?

    Example 1:
    Jim Hansen’s opinion
    Filed under:

    * Climate Science

    — eric @ 18 December 2009

    Several people have written saying that it would be useful to have an expert opinion on the state of the surface temperature data from someone other than RealClimate members.

    Here you go:
    TemperatureOfScience.pdf

    You don’t get more expert than Jim Hansen.

    Example 2:
    More independent views: Myles Allen and Ben Santer
    Filed under:

    * Climate Science

    — eric @ 18 December 2009

    Three more commentaries by experts not associated with RealClimate.

    Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
    Ben Santer again

    Myles Allen, University of Oxford

    It’s worth noting that Allen has published commentary that is critical of RealClimate.

    Hansen is neck deep in this fraudulent mess, I just read this American Thinker piece of how Santer is also in it, and they are being passed off as non-RC thus “independent” people?

    And who is Myles Allen? I can already tell I shouldn’t expect much of an “independent” viewpoint from him.

    (My apologies if this is somehow a double post as first time didn’t seem to take, “next stage” URL was “#comment-268316” but that’s not working right.)

  89. 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.

  90. Jimbo (14:26:57) :

    Your list needs an addition or two. One of them is none of the Doomers act like they think there really is a problem themselves. They all keep right on burning fossil fuels as fast or faster than anyone else. Every layperson can see that. (See you in Kyoto, Bali, Copenhagen, etc.)

    Mann is now at Pennstate. I’ll bet my next lunch he hasn’t spent two hours learning to live like the nearby Amish.

    If they want me to believe something is a crisis, the first step needs to be acting like they actually believe it.

  91. 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.”

  92. “Jabba the Cat (13:53:38) :

    Fascinating documentary from Ch4 17 years ago questioning the validity of the Global Warming scare.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010&hl=en#

    Thanks for that link! Just watched the entire thing, i didn’t even remember that the scaremongering has been going on for so long! Different faces, same story. They already mention the MWP… probably the MWP was well known before Fenton’s Team tried to make mankind forget about it…

  93. Kitefreak (11:45:59) :

    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…

    I find his views on nuclear power very interesting. He is not opposed to it, he claims, but he then lists all the reasons not to have it, including not allowing those who ‘we do not think should have it’ access to nuclear weapns technology.

    I am not confident that that is a powerful argument, because a power plant only provides the material (and I understand there are plants that do not?), not the technology. I also think it is more likely he does not like it because he does not have any investment in it. Whereas solar he does, and supports, yet the technology is so expensive it is far more costly than nuclear (as I understand it – that understanding may be limited, I accept).

  94. 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.

  95. 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.”

    I believe it’s titled “Global Warming or a Lot of Hot Air?”

  96. 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.”

  97. Well, I find it interesting that Marc Morano is not mentioned anywhere. Or is he just an accumulator who will debate?

  98. 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.

  99. Kitefreak (11:45:59) :

    “And here’s Al Gore – from Saturday – spouting lie after fatuous lie on a ‘news program’, which tries to appear like a debate…”

    What a pathetic piece of journalism. I wonder if Al wrote the script they had. John Roberts supposedly had spent “days” reviewing climategate and while Al described why “deniers” were off base because the the peer review process weeds out incorrect science, Roberts had no follow-up on the corruption of peer review process by the Motley CRU. Interestingly, Gore never used the words “peer review”.

  100. 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.

  101. 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.

  102. Slightly off topic, but I just noticed something in Tim O’s email, cited by Mr Mann in the link, that I think is quite telling. You know the business in which Mann et all keep saying that they needn’t give data out to those examining their results because it’s all in the public domain, and Steve M would reply that it was impossible to determine which trees (etc.) were actually used in the calculations?

    Tim admits as much, and the language he uses would seem to indicate that this was an intentional device to prevent duplication:

    Mike, you say that many of the trees were eliminated in the data they used. Have you concluded this because they entered “NA” for “Not
    available” in their appendix table? If so, then are you sure that “NA”
    means they did not use any data, rather than simply that they didn’t
    replace your data with an alternative (and hence in fact continued to use
    what Scott had supplied to them)? Or perhaps “NA” means they couldn’t
    find the PC time series published (of course!), but in fact could find the
    raw tree-ring chronologies and did their own PCA of those? How would
    they know which raw chronologies to use?

  103. @ AdderW (16:13:19)

    Found the original press release. So the Mackenzie Delta region was never tree-cored before for a temperature analysis? How many other places have never been done?

    The article sort of explains why they choose these slow-growing tiny trees, but given all the factors that can result in such stunted growth I have trouble seeing how temperature alone gets credited for the differences. Can’t they go core some gigantic ancient redwoods?

    The most troubling bit though is this:

    Isotope signals, on the other hand, are often very similar between trees. This means researchers can gather accurate data from three or four trees instead of the 20 they might need for tree ring width analysis.

    Wasn’t that part of Briffa’s problem, using only 3 or so trees? Besides, if isotope signals are so good they overcome the usual problems with rings, then those redwoods should be ideal. See article, they are using these tiny trees only because they are old and still standing. Well, so are the redwoods. Heck, I believe they have a few old large trees down in the Amazonian rain forest. Get them sampled as well. Let’s get lots of tree ring datasets, we need more and better data!

  104. You are all so hard on our Gav, look he and his little mates are asking, nay pleading for ideas. So stop being negative and come up with some constructive ideas.

    Just to help see this may help:-

    Dear Our Gav and his little mates:
    I think you should discuss systemic failure of the IPCC to control the conspiracy and fraud perpetrated by a small cohort of self named climate scientists at the centre of the decision making process. Also to discuss that both the IPCC and associated climate research organisations such as CRU, GISS and Nasa are not fit for purpose.

    Also to discuss that there be a federal investigation into public servants using government time to contribute to blogs.

    Censorship is a disease which infects the body politic. UnReal Climate unfortunately have an untreatable illness.

    Oh you make me so happy.

    Nadolig Llawen

  105. 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.

  106. Anyone can report potential fraud, waste or abuse using the following web. I’m sure that NASA has a specific site for just that purpose also. GSA will also investigate potential fraud. Perhaps someone who knows everyone activey involved with RC can pass one their suspicions that Government equipment is being used inappropriately and that Government employees are working on this website on Government time. It can be considered fraud.

    http://www.recovery.gov/Contact/ReportFraud/Pages/Report_Fraud.aspx

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

  108. Do stop piling on guys about RC. It’s not a warmist site at all. Be honest, how many here can hold their hand up and say; I used to be a warmist until I experienced Real Climate? I can and from what I’ve read many others have experienced that Damascean 180 moment that steered them in the right direction. Gawd bless you St gav and eric, not to mention the blessed Dhgoza and much lauded Ladbury, PBUH.
    Without prejudice, is it, or is not, the case that the Venerable Viscount and the POTUS have never been filmed together?
    I rest my case. Thank you Fenton and a Merry Xmas.

  109. 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.

  110. Didn’t read the post, just wanted to make a comment…

    From the weather is not climate front:

    Prior to this weeks win over the San Fransisco 49ers, the Philadelphia Eagles faced some adveristy…

    “The start of the game was pushed back three hours because the city was still recovering from the second-largest snowfall it has seen since records began in 1884. A total of 23.2 inches of snow fell in Philadelphia on Saturday.”

    The second largest snowfall… since RECORDS began in 1884.

    And I though the snowfall in Copenhagen was significant.

    Holy cow.

    -Dave

  111. 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.

  112. Steve Oregon (17:09:11) :

    To Ray Bradbury (If he’s reading):

    Criticism is the mirror in which we see everything but ourselves

  113. 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?

  114. Anand Rajan KD (17:21:42)

    “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.”

    thats what naughty little schoolboys do. Let them prove themselves better!

  115. 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.

  116. evanmjones:

    See this post by Warren Meyer

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/yet-more-stuff-we-always-suspected-but-its-nice-to-have-proof.html

    [excerpt]
    Many of us have argued for years that much of the measured surface temperature increase has actually been from manual adjustments made for opaque and largely undisclosed reasons by a few guys back in their offices.

    The US Historical Climate Network (USHCN) reports about a 0.6C temperature increase in the lower 48 states since about 1940. There are two steps to reporting these historic temperature numbers. First, actual measurements are taken. Second, adjustments are made after the fact by scientists to the data. Would you like to guess how much of the 0.6C temperature rise is from actual measured temperature increases and how much is due to adjustments of various levels of arbitrariness? Here it is, for the period from 1940 to present in the US:
    Actual Measured Temperature Increase: 0.3C
    Adjustments and Fudge Factors: 0.3C
    Total Reported Warming: 0.6C

    Yes, that is correct. About half the reported warming in the USHCN data base, which is used for nearly all global warming studies and models, is from human-added fudge factors, guesstimates, and corrections.

    I know what you are thinking – this is some weird skeptic’s urban legend. Well, actually it comes right from the NOAA web page which describes how they maintain the USHCN data set. Below is the key chart from that site showing the sum of all the plug factors and corrections they add to the raw USHCN measurements:
    [snip]

  117. 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.

  118. Give it some more time as the world cools some more and anyone still peddling the exaggerated global warming catastrophe will be laughed at like the fools they are. I’m still waiting for the so called climate models used by the IPCC to be retracted just like they retracted the infamous hockey stick. Once that happens they will have absolutely nothing left to stand on. Those who will laugh last will be the skeptcis and deniers, certainly won’t be the AGW believers.

  119. 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.

  120. “I find his views on nuclear power very interesting. He is not opposed to it, he claims, but he then lists all the reasons not to have it, including not allowing those who ‘we do not think should have it’ access to nuclear weapons technology.”

    There’s no such problem with sodium/thorium reactors, enthusiastically described in the just-out issue of Wired.

  121. When I find a follower in a comment log, rather than ignore realclimate I choose to use the term realclimate/CRU whenever either realclimate or CRU could be used. Since I believe that any data from realclimate/CRU that was provided or used after 1986 was maliciously corrupted then any papers that refer to that data directly or indirectly are worthless and amount to no more then a misinformed opinion.

    I stay out of the canned talking notes provided by realclimate/CRU for their followers, they seem to get confused and run back to the hive for reprogramming. When they come back with a talking note it is nice to be able to post the URL to the talking note and ask them if they are able to think for themselves, then I pity them.

    Some people are just meant to be followers.

  122. 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

  123. P Wilson (18:25:02)
    thats what naughty little schoolboys do. Let them prove themselves better!

    American Thinker has John Christy and David Douglass’ chronology of how the Team conspired and/or contributed to delay the publication of their paper all the while they were writing another paper as a rebuttal, which they ensured appeared in parallel. After having obtained the text of the Douglass et al paper through ‘private channels’.

    The exact same mentality and operational shenanigans that RealClimate runs on are on display.

    See here http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

    In the end I am only grateful for RC – for having opened my eyes to the current state of affairs in the AGW situation.

  124. As we post RC pulls more of their stunts.

    Up thread – here -Steve Oregon (12:31:10) :
    I described RC methods

    Later I checked RC by attempting a post on their new open thead.

    It was approved.

    I suggested that “RC engages fully and openly the topics and discussions at WUWT because with millions of visits per month WUWT is the premiere site for climate discussion with no exclusions for opposing viewpoints.

    RC regular Ray did not take kindly to my suggestion. I posted his nasty comment upthread here-Steve Oregon (17:09:11) :

    Since then, I responded to Ray’s disparaging of WUWT by suggesting he simply address some substance at WUWT.

    In that attempted RC post, I decided to provide Ray and RC with some WUWT substance to address.

    I used the “Historical video perspective: our current “unprecedented” global warming in the context of scale”

    It’s an exceptional demonstration.

    I saved these two attempted posts (below) which sat there for while awaiting moderation before being removed.

    Ray’s nasty remarks remain of course.

    This proves again that opposing substance is prohibited at RC.

    Removed at RC

    Howard S. says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    20 December 2009 at 8:05 PM
    To 79. Ray Ladbury — 20 December 2009 @ 6:34 PM
    You think I’m funny?
    I’ve followed RC for along time and you’re by far the funniest.
    Your caustic behavior is surpassed only by your affection for the comfort zone here.
    It’s easy for you to take pot shots here without addressing the substance because so little is allowed to appear. Never mind those you despise at WUWT.
    Take one item and respond.
    Here’s some good displaying the historical perspective and earth’s global temperature.
    You can pretend “worthwhile discussions” only happen here only as long as the discussion is crafted.
    Easy graphs to read and easy to grasp the missing temperature trend you’re so alarmed
    over.http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553
    Howard S. says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    20 December 2009 at 9:12 PM
    This is actually an easier way to see, understand and then hopefully respond to the Hockey Stick over time graphs.

  125. 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…

  126. Oh, I’m sure they do. How can they even claim to be a distorted side branch of science when they’re paranoid to the point of superstition about the dangerous, quasi-mystical powers of those who can actually do math as opposed to invoking it in a data-smearing incantation?

    Even incredibly stupid people can imagine themselves to be a select priesthood.

  127. 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.

  128. Back in 2007 I went to the web to try and get anwers on the global warming debate. My initial search enquiry led me to Real Climate. The slogan “Climate Sceince from Climate Scientists” had me thinking this is the site I’m after, no politics, great. After five minutes I realised the site was highly biased and I gave up in disgust. It wasn’t till in 2008 I heard about someone who has set up “Climate debate daily” and from that day on I have become quite addicted to the debates and information available on the web about climate change.

  129. 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

  130. DirkH (16:17:09) :
    ‘And BTW, why not call the Team “Team Fenton” from now on ? ;-)’

    I would call them “Fenton puppets”. Scientist who sold their souls for a piece of gold.

  131. 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

  132. I wish someone would pull together a “follow the money” article. There’s a WND article on Pachauri at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118659, showing how he is heavily tied to carbon trading companies. We’ve heard before about Gore’s carbon trading ties. Add to that this business about Tides, Fenton, the EPA, perhaps Soros. It would be very interesting to see how many of the people involved had hopes for big monetary returns.

  133. 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.

  134. I would suggest to initiate a leniency program to support those scientists with little dirt on their fingers and who seek a way out of this morass.

  135. 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.

  136. George Turner (17:02:12) :

    Brilliant! A truly wonderful adaptation …

    I can’t wait for the movie and the musical …

  137. “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.

  138. Hello Anthony

    cover story about global warming today in C&EN (quite long). You are in it, just before rebuttal by Mann (a geophysicist? I thought he was climatologist…), and picture of Orland, calif. station and Marysville, calif., as example of good and bad sites for measurements.

  139. 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….

  140. re: enough (11:18:05)

    I see William Connolley gets on the list twice.

    Brings to mind the bit from ‘Blazing Saddles’ where evil Hedley Lamarr is also recruiting desperadoes –

    Hedley Lamarr: Qualifications?
    Applicant: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
    Hedley Lamarr: You said rape twice.
    Applicant: I like rape.

  141. 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.

  142. Re Clawga (19:48:25) :

    “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.”

    There are two websites (that I am aware of) that provide repositories for comments rejected at RC and other climate sites. The first is http://www.rcrejects.wordpress.com. The second is http://aicomment.blogspot.com

    rcrejects has been operating just under a year, and has accumulated a large number of posts rejected at various sites, but mostly RC. rcrejects does not provide for screenshots, so posters are asked to keep a copy (cut and paste) of their post after it is posted, and if it isn’t posted, put it up at rcrejects.

    rcrejects also carries discussion on moderation policies at various blogs. There is a large amount of information there that deserves analysis and summarising at some point. However, it is very evident that RC in particular has (perhaps until recently) followed a draconian moderation policy, rejecting posts that do not support their particular POV. There are very few complaints regarding rejected posts at either CA or WUWT, although there are some examples. At both blogs if posts are seldom (if ever) rejected outright. Instead they are ‘snipped’ and the reason for the snip is usually explained.

    An Inconvenient Comment has developed a somewhat different approach, seeking to encourage posters who have had their posts rejected at a particular thread at RC, Climate Progress or other sites, to put their rejected posts up in a thread related to the relevant thread at the particular blogsite.
    AIC has been subject of a thread at William Connolley’s Stoat blog in recent days.

    rcrejects has noticed some posts relating to rejection at RC in the above thread, and these have already been posted.

  143. 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.

  144. Another convenient omission is found on the RC Wiki on Joanna Nova. While RC Wiki fails to even attempt to counter Joannas arguments, they are linking the readers to DeSmugBlog :-) where a PhD student is attempting to debunk JoNovas analysis of the Vostok ice cores but fails totally. DeSmug-student doesn’t even realize that by mentioning the Vostok ice cores he’s opening the Pandoras box every other alarmist keeps quite about.

    Take a look at JoNovas Vostok ice core analysis and the related discussion on the lag between rise of temperature and CO2 (yes in that order!) and be prepared for yet another no-man-made surprise.

  145. I commented a number of times on Mann’s WaPo article, and it was a hoot–negatives were running at least 10 to 1 against Mann. And supporting posts were pretty lame–full of all sorts of inuendo, liberal talking points, outright lies, and so forth. There were some pretty heavy hitters against Mann–some even recommending that he “lawyer up”. From what I hear, now the trial lawyers that took down Big Tobacco are digging into the treasure trove the whistleblower at East Anglia provided, and securities regulators are looking at the falsification of over 5,000 Wiki articles on AGW and how that has impacted investors’ decisions. These two groups are planning on litigation that will subpoena records and emails that have been kept from valid FOI and FOIA requests for years. I think the fun is just beginning.

  146. 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

  147. More gold from Real Climate… Now Ben Santer is an independant voice….

    There are three commentaries by “experts” not associated with Real Climate. Namely:-

    -Ben Santer
    -Ben Santer (Again)
    -Myles Allen

    My Father told me that opinions were like [self snip]…. everybody’s got one… apparently Ben Santer has two…. no wonder so much [self snip] pours from his body!!!!

  148. While finding out why climateprogress.org seems to be down at the moment, I discovered a few interesting facts.

    Tracing route to climateprogress.org [208.87.104.6]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:

    13 116 ms 115 ms 235 ms va-rt-1-gi1-0.techprogress.org [208.97.234.35]
    14 * * * Request timed out.

    Domain ID:D126435662-LROR
    Domain Name:TECHPROGRESS.ORG
    Created On:27-Jul-2006 19:59:47 UTC
    Last Updated On:05-Dec-2009 06:41:39 UTC
    Expiration Date:27-Jul-2011 19:59:47 UTC
    Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
    Registrant ID:CR32267838
    Registrant Name:Debbie Fine
    Registrant Organization:Center for American Progress

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_American_Progress
    Personnel:
    Fellows:
    * Tom Daschle, former Democratic Senator from South Dakota
    * Morton H. Halperin, Halperin is also Executive Director Open Society Policy Center [8]
    * Joseph Romm, former acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration, and blogger at climateprogress.org.

    http://www.soros.org/grants/research/detail.php?id=181
    Center for American Progress
    Year Awarded: 2006
    Amount Awarded: $3,000,000
    Grant Term: 3 yrs.
    Program: US Programs
    Purpose: To provide general support.

    So… Joe Romm is in the pay of Big Soros. Three million dollars eh? Not bad

    I wonder if George will be renewing the grant this Christmas and filling Joe’s stocking again. From the lack of service at his website at the moment, it looks like he needs a few coins for the meter :-)

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

  150. photon without a Higgs (03:17:14) :
    McIntyre skeptic–of what? He says he’s a global warming believer

    I saw the show and it really surprised me. He said he was not sure if there was warming or not!. Perhaps he is tired of battling against such a powerful enemy.

  151. Mapou (14:19:33) :

    Tried to comment on the Washington Post editorial by Mann, but comments were closed. There were over 650, and he took quite a drubbing.

  152. How much other science at our Universities funded by Federal Tax Dollars is as corrupted and awash with BullShit as this?

    All of it? Just a little? Is it ok to assume that all of it is, outside of the hard engineering stuff?

    Maybe just the obviously political stuff, perhaps…

  153. photon without a Higgs (03:17:14) :
    “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.

    He’s a scientist in the truest sense, and thus skeptical by definition. As far as believing in global warming, I found this from the Ottawa Citizen:

    “While McKitrick said he’s dubious about the threat of climate change, and thinks his research has helped cast doubt on such fears, McIntyre — despite the demonization of him by his opponents — said he really doesn’t know what to think.

    “I honestly don’t know whether it is a big problem, a little problem or a medium problem. And I don’t think the skeptics have proven that global warming is not a problem.””

    He’s definitely a believer in Mann-made warming, though.

  154. How pathetic.

    162.James MacDonald asks, “Why is it so hard to find a terse, cogent explanation of the CRU controversy?”

    Because providing context for anything takes more time and space than taking it out of context and constructing a lie in which to embed it. Because people would rather believe what they want to believe than confront reality. Put another way: Reality is more complicated and often more disturbing than bedtime stories.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 21 December 2009 @ 9:07 AM

  155. Bob:
    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.

    I think I have too much time on my hands.

    Me, too: East Anglia Jones and the temple of Doomers

  156. I agree with McIntyre in that we can’t tell if there is any unusual warming or not. Places like GISS and NOAA and CRU have so messed up the records with their “adjustments” we have no idea what is really going on.

  157. Is anyone else finding the antics of the fraudsters getting funny?

    The fraudsters have burned through somewhere around $30 billion in grant money the last 30 odd years trying to prove their hoax. Your tax dollars at work.

    I see what was done to peer review the most despicable of deeds.

  158. royfomr (17:57:34) :

    I agree that RC is not such a warmist site as it helps turn a lot of people towards being a sceptic. My position as a sceptic was helpfully created by both RC and Tamino’s “Open Mind”, which I find to be quite a strange name for the blog when you consider the contributing comments and Tamino’s comments.

  159. Mike Bryant (12:11:33) :

    “Jimmy Haigh (11:42:27),
    I still like the raging sun at full blown solar maximum on the Real Climate website banner…”

    ‘That’s not the sun… It’s the RC view of earth with a fever…’

    Aye, verily, as the Profit Gore saith, “The Earth’s mantle is millions of degrees.”

  160. Ottawa Citizen quoting McIntyre: “I honestly don’t know whether it is a big problem, a little problem or a medium problem. And I don’t think the skeptics have proven that global warming is not a problem.””

    First the AGWers must prove in a scientific manner that GW, regardless of cause or only resulting from CO2 “forcing”, is a net problem, which they haven’t done. My generous offer still stands wherein I will assemble a bunch of scientits who will “prove” GW will instead produce a near “Heaven on Earth” climate – for a mere $10 billion.

    [Fwiw, I don’t recall hearing SteveM’s second sentence in the Fox Special.]

Comments are closed.