The Air Vent closes shop

I’m dismayed to see this, but not at all surprised. People (like Jeff, like me) who own businesses and are self employed while trying to raise family have it tough in this economy. If I didn’t have guest posters, and help with moderation, I couldn’t keep WUWT alive. I also understand Jeff’s frustrations with unruly posters. My only saving grace is that I had 25 years experience in TV news dealing with the public and the inevitable emotional BS that comes with highly charged debate.

Jeff has made a powerful contribution to the climate discussion, the most important of which is the publishing of a solid rebuttal of the Steig et al paper which used mangled Mannian math to smear warming on the Antarctic peninsula all over the continent, giving a false impression of continent wide warming. Even Steig himself agrees with the rebuttal.

Let’s not forget the pivotal role TAV played in Climategate as well.

Please take a moment to wish Jeff well, and to thank him for his contribution here.

Jeff, the door at WUWT is always open to you. I give my sincerest wishes for health, happiness, and success to you and to your family. Enjoy your retirement.

– Anthony Watts

Here is his post:

Closed

Posted by Jeff Id on January 21, 2011

Update:

There is a lot more I could say about this group of people who have read and commented here.  I know of very few unmoderated blogs which have been able to maintain such a civil tone through such controversial subjects.  That says a lot about the quality of this group.  Of all things, I think that is what makes tAV special.  The world is a rough place and when I sat down one sunny Saturday morning to start this blog just over two years ago, I expected very little. In the end, tAV contributed more to the discussion on a truly global scale than I had ever imagined.

I may be back after some time off but it is better to let readers know where I’m at.

Best regards to all.

============================================

On the SOP thread we got into too heated a discussion.  I’ve had more than my fair share of the public lately and don’t know when tAV will be back.

Of all the elements of the periodic table stupididium is the most abundant.  The idiots pushed me over  the edge tonight.   I’ve had well enough of people who think they know — well anything — yet don’t have a clue.  The blog has been very much entertaining and I’ve appreciated the technical contributors very thoroughly.  I may continue someday in coming years but at this point… I’m done.

I’ve spent two years of my life in climate science, digging fairly deeply – I think you’ll agree.  My conclusion is that those who believe they know believe for unknowable reasons.  This includes BOTH sides.  In what I believe is the rarest of cases, the middle ground is the correct ground and that is where the climate battle lies.

I don’t know if I will post again here, it has been fun though.  Thanks to all who have been supportive and thanks to the guests.

Jeff Condon

Advertisements

110 thoughts on “The Air Vent closes shop

  1. A shame, but understandable if the blogosphere is intruding too much into the rest of Jeff’s life.
    As for the site, one word: Archive.

  2. Jeff, your mastery of statistics, programming, etc, leaves me in awe. I wish you well in your life’s endeavours.

  3. I’ve never spent much time at tAV, after catching up here, I don’t have enough time for much else. However, I’ve certainly been influenced and affected by tAV so it’s sad to see it shutdown/go on hiatus.
    Many thanks to Jeff and his (more sensible) readership. His contributions will have a lasting effect. I think the AGW “crisis maximum” is passed, so this is a good time to step down for now.

  4. You know Jeff, I work in a field that is also filled with ‘enthusiasts’ where enthusiasm is often the main qualification. I really, truly, feel empathy for you and support your decision. It is hard to know how great a contribution you can make until you try and you not only tried, you succeeded well. Good on ya!
    You are welcome back as you know. Anytime. I look forward to your considered participation in things climatic.
    If you want to save the world you have to leave home and leave it you did. You had a good innings and you have been beaned enough for one season.
    Thanks for your efforts to shine light into dark places. We all see better now.
    – Crispin

  5. I’ve only been a lurker there, but I’m gonna miss the place.
    Even though most of the technical subjects were waaaaaaay over my head, I enjoyed paging through the discussions and seeing how civil people were – and how quickly they helped one another refine (or reject!) their theories and hypotheses. It was being privy to seeing science, REAL science, in action. And I liked it.

  6. The lesson is pretty clear. There are a few blogs where the bloggers have actually made a difference.
    1. AirVent. ( jeffid– the steig paper)
    2 RankExploits ( Lucia–paper in progress with Annan)
    3 ClimateAudit , nuff said.
    4. WUWT. surface stations
    In all those cases you have a private individual, unfunded, working or overworking on their own time.
    More and more of their time is getting eaten up by tangential stupid fights. It doesn’t really matter whether the fight comes from alarmists or contrarians. People with less skin in the game can drive the dedicated few out of the business.
    Long ago at CA I used to get into fights just because it was fun. Until I realized that every minute Steve spent on feuds between commenters was a minute he could not spend with data. So Moshpit took a time out and I adopted a rule for myself that others might consider. Don’t comment if you haven’t read the science. Don’t comment
    if you haven’t looked at the data. Now I don’t follow that perfectly, but I do pretty good.
    Something for folks to think about. Put as much effort (timewise) into researching on your own ( primary sources) as you do into commenting. Writing a good blog post can take a few hours, even days. Put at least 30 minutes of good research in before you make a comment. try that for a couple weeks. Then you might be adding to the conversation rather than derailing it
    You can be sure that RC will be there when the dust settles. They will be there if blogging nonsense drives Lucia out or Steve out or Anthony out.

  7. Agree that it should be archived, but it would be nice if the thread in question (“SOP”) were restored first.
    Any indication of why that entire thread was deleted as opposed to simply closing comments?

  8. Steven
    May I tentatively add Bishop Hill to the list as a populiser. This is not in any way to play down the original contributions of others.

    You can be sure that RC will be there when the dust settles. They will be there if blogging nonsense drives Lucia out or Steve out or Anthony out.

    And why? Because they have your (I’m UK) tax dollars to keep them going! (Sorry if I sound bitter …)

  9. Wow, thanks Anthony. Steve Mosher listed the blogs which were most influential to my own experience.
    I’ll be around in the threads but again as Steve pointed out, a good technical post can take hours or even days of time.

  10. You can be sure that RC will be there when the dust settles. They will be there if blogging nonsense drives Lucia out or Steve out or Anthony out.
    ================================================
    Mosh, that was my first thought too………….

  11. Jeff, thanks for all you have done. I have never commented on your excellent mathematical/statistical work because I don’t have the proper background to do so, but I have done my best to follow it using the skills that I do have. You have been a voice of solidarity and moderation in this no rules global warming game. Before the game is over there is going to be need for level headed individuals such as yourself to lead the technical fight in the court cases that are coming.
    Tot ziens and au avoir

  12. Sarah Palin would call you a coward, since this is what she must live with each and every day.
    However, fully understand that people like me have learned to respect you and your choices. You must do what is best for your family.

  13. Jeff, you’ll be missed but you are the third blogger I know who has called it quits for a while. Best wishes to you and your family.
    Once again, I have to compliment Anthony. WUWT has the best moderation on the web.

  14. Jeff,
    You’ve helped move the online climate discussion forward as much as anyone. A job well done if you quit now. But I hope you’ll come back.
    I always thought The Air Vent was an early model of what the scientific discussion would look like in the future. Experts with an interest in the subject being civil with one another, no need for PHD’s or gate-keepers because the data speaks for itself.
    Now I’m unsure. Perhaps that system can work, but only if it is not resting on the shoulders of one individual.

  15. It’s a shame, because despite the occasional heated conversation over there, I felt they stayed on topic better than most climate science blogs. Perhaps I’m wrong and just didn’t visit there enough.

  16. Take care Jeff, I hope you get things sorted out and hope to see you return with tAV again even though you snip me, a skeptic there. Any way good luck and hope to see you back, ps. I didn’t post much there but liked to read your articles. Thanks!

  17. Jeff,
    Good luck to you. Your blog really showed that there are some brilliant people out there; an excellent counterpoint to the usual mindlessness that goes on in other echo chambers. You managed to contribute to a field whose gatekeepers would have us believe only certified “climate scientists” can understand. To me, your discussions exemplified what science was supposed to be about, back when I was first attracted to it.
    Even if you don’t return to your blog, I know this isn’t the end of your contribution to this topic.
    Enjoy the time with your family.

  18. There is little sanity left in the climate debate, with both sides now firmly entrenched and polarised by the politics of the situation.
    I’m sorry you’ve come to the end of your road Jeff, and had to pack it in – there are far to few voices of common sense left in climate science and yours will be missed. Hope to see you posting here a bit more, now the pressure is off.
    In the mean time climate will continue to change as it has done for millions of year; making a mockery the both the CAGW prophets and genuine scientists alike. Due to the deterministic chaos inherent in the system it’s future direction can never be known.

  19. Jeff Id is one of the big people in climate blog land and has made historic contributions to the science and to the debate. I read tAV daily most of the time several times a day. I miss him already.
    Jeff, chill out, chillax and come back real soon!

  20. Jeff, as one unregenerate blogger to another, my profound thanks for all of your work. Hope you move your contribution over here or the CA.
    My very best to you,
    w.

  21. I would very much support what has been said here and in particular Steven Mosher’s comment. The blogosphere has a huge potential for good. In many respects it can potentially throw the idea of the academic conference open where people close to and sometimes not so close to a given piece of research pitch in their ideas, ask the awkward questions and in so doing push the debate forward. The problem with the blogosphere is that too many just rant, vent their spleen and hurl insults. As Steven rightly says it is worth doing some of the basics, about doing some research and then, if appropriate making a comment. I also strongly dislike the shield of anonymity – I understand in the febrile world of climate science that it might be necessary for some to remain anonymous but it does seem to me that it is those who have something really worthwhile to say who are most prepared to put their name where their mouth is.

    • Thanks Bob,
      My view on all this from when I first started this blog is simply this:
      Anonymity breeds contempt

  22. Thank you for all the hard work, Jeff. You have made important contributions to the Climate Science debate and you can be proud of what you have accomplished.

  23. Jeff. while tAV was not an everyday stop for me, it was a weekly visit, mainly to catch up on the mathematics side of the debate. You always made the programming mathematics verbally easier to understand than a lot of other bloggers. As I was just getting up to speed myself at the same time you were, it was easier reading your blog than trying to wade through some of Steve MacIntyre’s without a roadmap. Thanks to you the Air Vent became my map to following Steve as he kept his eye on the climate pea.

  24. Sad! But other bloggers are appearing all the time. It’s a hard and lonely fight for sure with no government funding. The truth will out in the end, be patient all.

  25. Jeff,
    Although I did not spend a lot time at your place, links from WUWT occasionally took me there.
    Best of luck to you.
    See you on the flip side.
    John

  26. Steven Mosher says:
    January 21, 2011 at 12:20 pm
    Something for folks to think about. Put as much effort (timewise) into researching on your own ( primary sources) as you do into commenting.

    Steve,
    I understand where you are coming from, but is it not acceptable to comment on the political or economic side of this issue, regardless of my understanding of the science?
    While I’ve spent a fair amount of time studying politics and economics in general, not so the science of the global warming / climate crisis du jour issues. I’m barely scratching the surface, really.
    In any case, I’m just wondering if the political/economic side isn’t just as important as (if not more so than) the climate science. Seems to me there’d be little debate on this subject if statist politicians and their ilk weren’t trying to ram through sweeping regulatory changes in the name of saving the planet…

  27. “On the SOP thread we got into too heated a discussion. I’ve had more than my fair share of the public lately and don’t know when tAV will be back.
    Of all the elements of the periodic table stupididium is the most abundant. The idiots pushed me over the edge tonight. I’ve had well enough of people who think they know — well anything — yet don’t have a clue.”
    It would have been much better if Jeff did not let the idiots know that they had won. This will encourage know-nothings to foul up other blogs. An example of shooting first, aiming later, imo.
    Jeff let comments go through without moderation, which encourages idiots to comment. The National Review approach of moderating comments until you have proven yourself to be a mature commenter is a good approach. If shutting down tAV means that Jeff spends more time writing climate science papers, that would be great. I will be amazed if Jeff doesn’t resurrect tAV quite soon but even if he doesn’t he can always guest post at WUWT.

  28. Jeff, have a nice http://www.wee break. Your tiredness and shell-shock is clear but your contribution was priceless.
    You deserve a well-earned break and no one is able to predict how long it will last for. You’ve done your bit, you may even do more in future but that’s for the Gods to decide.
    Thank you Jeff, if only your detractors had a pound of your intellect or an ounce of your integrity then they’d be worth listening to.
    As much as they may be somewhat cheered by your current withdrawal they will be less happy that there are many others who will fill the gap.
    They will be further dismayed by the possibility that you may rejoin the affray in future.
    Once again, many thanks.

  29. Jeff,
    I never commented much over there, but I did pop by from time to time. It sad to see you go. Be sure and make some guest posts here or some other place. Your contributions to society are immeasurable.
    As to the rest of the stuff mentioned here, like the call for civility and more thoughtful posts, IDK, I’ve a different perspective. There are many skeptics and many different roles for skeptics. To be sure, without the contributions of Jeff, Anthony, Steve Mac, Mosh, Willis, and the like, we’d be in an entirely world right now. But, we should remember, this is an unseemly marriage between on-line discussion and scientific discussion. There are different norms for each. For instance, I cut my teeth on geek(computer science) chat room discussions. Comparatively, this is Sunday school. If you don’t believe me, go to one and make a statement of the superiority of MS Sequel over Oracle or the other way around. Its amazing how otherwise dispassionate people could have emotional attachments to the way data bits are arranged. I find myself, from time to time regressing to the more base form of on-line communication. It isn’t intentionally mean, in some places, the lack of aggressive assertions is seen as a sign of weakness in the argument. Also, as one would imagine, many of those people are quite clever with finding information. Anonymity is essential in those arenas. Not just for an on-line presence, but personally and professionally. As to looking at the data before opining; I used to try. It isn’t feasible to run down the data to every incredulous and wild assertion put forth by the alarmist crowd. There are just too many. More, I believe for some, to take seriously enough to dedicate more than a few minutes of snide sarcasm is to confer a bit of legitimacy to them where they have none due. The assertion behind this action would be a great example. We have different roles, and the roles change for different people. Norms are different and reasoning behind opposition to the alarmism is different. For example, I really don’t care if we’re warming or not. That isn’t why I’m here. I especially don’t care if the arctic melts or not. That isn’t why I’m here. And, it isn’t just me. There are thousands here for the same reason. The reason I’m here, quite simply is because I find the words of Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Nathanial Hale and the like to be truer than the words of Hansen, Mann, Jones and the like. There is no amount of heat, real or imagine, no amount of melting real or imagine, hurricanes or tornadoes, or whatever dire predictions coming from the never ceasing attack of the totalitarians that would convince me that acquiescing essential liberties would benefit mankind. While we are indebted to the people I’ve previously mentioned, so too, are they to the people such as myself.

  30. Arrhhhggg!!!! It doesn’t matter how many times a person reads his/her own post before posting.
    real or imagined

  31. While I don’t ever remember posting at Jeff”s A.V, I did visit it on a regular basis, It will be missed, all the best in the future Jeff and thank you for your time and effort.

  32. This may raise the ire of some, but this could be considered an opportunity to overcome human nature’s tendency toward tribalism.
    If someone at RealClimate ever declared an end to their blogging based on exchanges in a thread, and then deleted the entire thread (as opposed to closing comments), the motives for doing so would be examined and the action likely condemned.
    If we hold “our own” to a different (lower) standard than we hold the “other side” then we fall into the same traps that led the climate alarmists astray.
    It requires discipline to be objective when dealing with the tribulations of “a friend”, but we should realize that the climate alarmists feel the same way when they perceive one of their own to be under attack. If we expect them to rise above those feelings and advocate for honest and complete disclosure, we should expect the same from ourselves.

  33. You will not know what SOP was about gcapologist, because it was apparently deleted…
    REPLY: His house, his rules, his right to do so.

  34. I posted the following in another thread where I first saw that Jeff was leaving the front lines for a well deserved rest.
    INGSOC says:
    January 21, 2011 at 10:27 am
    I will join with others in wishing Jeff a pleasant well deserved break! I would leave him with this quote; “Any activity becomes creative when the doer cares about doing it right, or better.”
    Rest well.
    I would add a further hope that he keeps an eye on things, and puts an oar in from time to time. We can ill afford to lose him.

  35. I cut the SOP thread because wordpress had some rare technical problems, not because of the thread. I tried to do several things to edit and it wouldn’t allow them. After half an hour I simply deleted the otherwise inane post – wordpress allowed that. No important content was really lost. Was it a technical thread with useful stuff, it would still be there.
    Wordpress is the finest blog medium available in my opinion and blogspot isn’t even close, but WordPress isn’t perfect.
    REPLY: Jeff, you don’t need to explain anything. I’ve had WP posts go screwy on me too and had to start over. Sometimes copy/paste inserts code that renders the page inoperable in the editor. Now go enjoy your weekend or I’ll fly to Chicago and kick your butt. 😉 Anthony

  36. re: “his house, his rules, …” , I didn’t claim he had no right to do it, I claimed that if someone at RC had exercised their right to do something similar it would be justifiably criticized. I suspect everyone here knows this.
    My point is that lack of consistency in how such actions are viewed, depending on whether it is a “friend” or “foe” who does it, leads to (or is evidence of) tribalism.
    If we agree that tribalism is bad, we need to be on guard against perpetuating it ourselves. That’s harder and less comfortable than pointing it out in the “other side”, but perhaps more important.
    If we find it hard to question that decision by Jeff to delete the thread, how can we say that climate scientists should question actions by their colleagues?

  37. NikFromNYC says: January 21, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    The war has been won.

    I don’t believe this. Not yet. The advent of blogs of integrity and quality like tAV, and the miracle of Climategate, mark the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. Why just today my email from a natural medicines group is talking about the corruption that has happened over the last ten years in Science. But actually the roots are quite a lot older than that. Decay starts the moment one loses sight of the human beings and the sheer mystery and wonder at the centre of Science. Our world is changing fast and we need to change at depth ourselves, to meet those changes.
    Surely blogs are essentially the new journals that can practice both openness and accountability. But I still think the meaningful next step here will be to develop a wiki alternative to Wikipedia, where the science can actually be explored and distilled, unlike WP which has “No Original Research” in its core setup. IMHO it’s a big step for Science to take, to make science wikis workable as well as open – but it would also be a gift to the future and one’s grandchildren. Interest groups gradually constellating by subject, and distilling the real new knowledge. My Climate Wiki vision is still alive though currently hibernating – can be essential for the growth and rebirth of vision.

  38. Sorry to see / hear it. Didn’t participate there as much as I ought, but there is only one of me and I can only be spread so thin… which brings me to understanding ‘where he is comming from’.
    I’ve had folks berate me because their first post ever sat 3 hours in a moderation queue (when I was asleep and just waking up). I’ve had folks assert that I must be every sort of evil under the sun because I didn’t give them an open microphone (after giving them the same clear evidence to the same question 3 times…), I’ve had endless folks assert that I must be a brain-dead-idiot as I did not agree with them or was doing something other than what they thought right (and that attitude is no respecter of “sides” of the debate…) and I’ve sat up for 4 hours composing a well thought out and researched reply to someone tossing a “you idiot” bomb only to have the response be “That was too long so I didn’t read it and you are still an idiot” and from others at the same time “Nice posting but you left out {laundry list} that proves you are an idiot” along with “Great posting but you left out {laundry list} that proves you are a genius.”
    After a while, it does get wearing.
    For anyone wondering what it’s like, in mild frustration one night (while preparing to dump some rants that belonged in the SPAM queue and some that perhaps did not…) I made a posting examining the life of a BlogMeister…
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/carping-comments/
    I’m still not sure that in the end it is “worth it”.
    After a while you start to contemplate what you could do with an extra 5 or 6 hours a day … go skiing, make some money, cook a nice dinner, live in peace, read a good book… heck, even ‘mow the lawn’ can start to look good (though for me it’s “work in the garden” that keeps calling…)
    The simple fact is that being an unpaid volunteer (and slander about Oil Money to the contrary, that’s pretty much what the Skeptic side is made of) eventually drains you of your volunteer spirit … and you start to think about passing the torch to others… or just taking a week on the beach in Hawaii without a moderation queue in your face.
    So I understand.
    But that doesn’t make it any better.
    So “Hail and fare well” and may the wind be always at your back.
    Perhaps we’ll see you again when the winds turn and the trades send you home again…

  39. After spending hours every night fighting morons on AOL’s discussion boards in the late 90’s I realized that most of the arguments were tedious and repetive. That’s when I started limiting myself mostly to satirical comments. I still check your blog and WUWT every day to stay current on events. I will miss your blog but I know what it’s like to get tired of the arguments.

  40. Good luck with whatever you do and thank you for your efforts. I am an engineer but much of the science is a long way above my level of education. However, being from the Great White North, an interest in climate is a necessary part of life and engineering. Whether it has to do with cold temperature steel or the depth of frost penetration in soil or Heating/Cooling Degree Days or the design of a water or sewage treatment plant – or farming – climate/weather is important.
    Where others see problems, I often see benefits – all I have to do is look at Statistics Canada crop production information to see that things are getting better, not worse.
    Your insights have been most helpful and like you, I am firmly entrenched in the Middle Ground … where I think most people likely are. Yup, it is warmer than 1960, but not as warm as the late 40’s, there is more CO2 but I don’t know if that is good or bad. I am too old to know if I will be around to see temperatures drop “again” but I have been around to know that my “micro-climate” was both warmer and cooler in the past.
    Thanks to you and others of your ilk for keeping me educated.
    One last thing – my mother-in-law was a Grammar Teacher – and maybe you did this on purpose but she had a thing for this:
    You said: “Don’t comment if you haven’t looked at the data. Now I don’t follow that perfectly, but I do pretty good.” It should be: “I do pretty well.”
    That said: “I wish you well!”
    Wayne Delbeke, P.Eng.
    Faraway, Alberta, Canada

  41. Shoot, I meant to put a winky at the end:
    You said: “Don’t comment if you haven’t looked at the data. Now I don’t follow that perfectly, but I do pretty good.” It should be: “I do pretty well.” 😉
    Good Luck.

  42. I’m sorry. I didn’t ask to be contrary. The sign off seemed to imply that climate blog hostility might have REALLY run amok, so I was curious.
    My best wishes to Jeff Id. Really.
    … and to Anthony, you have my utmost respect.
    PS – I had to fight with the computer programs I use today, so I DO understand.

  43. Much gratitude and well wishes to Jeff. I run my own realist blogs, for nothing, at huge expense and time, and I can fully appreciate his decision.
    At the same time, it irks me deeply. The Alarmist Movement is so deep-pocketed it defies the imagination. Over $100 billion has been spent perping the Greatest Hoax in History, and that’s just in “science” grants. Possibly a $trillion or more has been funneled into various Enron-type scams, all extracted in one way or another from taxpayers and ratepayers.
    The motley crew of Climate Realists are virtually unfunded, battling a mega-money colossus bare-handed.
    And that’s just the Climate Hoax. Look at the myriad other enviro hoaxes from Let It Burn forest fires to phony endangered species to ozone holes to umpteen “Save the Earth” mendacities designed to steal property, wealth, and freedom.
    The odds are stacked against us like the Empire State Building next to a doll house.
    We need serious funding, not just nickles and dimes (although please don’t stop sending those in). As environmental realists we also need to stand united, despite our different focus areas and (mostly petty) internal squabbles.

  44. I can’t find the “SOP” thread. Neither tAV or WUWT contains a link to the heated discussion that pushed Jeff over the edge enough to call it quits.
    OP means original post in net lingo. But what does SOP mean?
    I subscribe to tAV feed and will definitely miss Jeff. Thanks for offering his the opportunity to guest post here. I’ll be looking forward to it.
    Wasn’t it tAV where the Climategate news first broke? That was definitely a pivotal moment, marking a historic sea change making climate the most controversial area of science for our era.
    Thanks, Jeff!

  45. Jeff: Of all the elements of the periodic table stupididium is the most abundant.
    This applies to WUWT as well. One possible answer is tighter moderation.
    [Reply: Should we moderate out stupid?☺ ~dbs, mod.]

  46. Let me reiterate my deep sadness at the closing of the tAV. The quality of the scholarship that I devoured, especially concerning the Steig paper, is first-class. I give my best wishes to Jeff and hope that he will find the desire to share his very valuable contributions with us once again.

  47. What they did to JefId is called “isolate and intimidate”. It’s an old political trick.

  48. Jeff , I have been a fairly regular “lurker” at your site an I am going to miss it, thank you for the time and effort you put in, and may a fair wind fill your sails on whatever heading you choose to sail in the future.

  49. Well, you own perhaps the strangest capitalization convention on the internet… Thanks so much for tAV, it was my most-watched blog while you, RyanO, and others were DEEP into the Steig reconstruction. I found it fascinating beyond belief, and by reading your progress every night, I think I might have actually followed the logic there once in a while. Despite my inability to do matrix algebra in my head. I’m sure relieved you guys can do it, your contribution has been a real eye opener on how science SHOULD be done, and how involved the details and arguments can get. What also impressed me is how gracefully and tactfully you built upon the work of a new-found colleague, Eric Steig. When so many others find it convenient to make accusations and trash an opponent, however heated the argument might get, or how uncooperative the subject author might be, you guys held the high ground on integrity throughout. Impressive indeed, and the results speak for themselves. Great Job, Jeff, your contributions will not be forgotten. Take a break and get back to us, please!…. Mike S.

  50. Alan Bates says
    ——-
    And why? Because they have your (I’m UK) tax dollars to keep them going! (Sorry if I sound bitter …)
    ——-
    Well Mosher also said to check your facts before adding comments. Do you have evidence that your claim us true?

  51. Mike D. says
    ———
    Over $100 billion has been spent perping the Greatest Hoax in History, and that’s just in “science” grants.
    ———
    Prove it. Looks like a made up number to me.

  52. Leif Svalgaard says:
    January 21, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Jeff: Of all the elements of the periodic table stupididium is the most abundant.
    This applies to WUWT as well. One possible answer is tighter moderation.
    [Reply: Should we moderate out stupid?☺ ~dbs, mod.]

    If it means reading fewer comments (or better, less time responding), it would have aspects of being a good thing.
    OTOH, I see tAV, climateaudit, chiefio, etc, as as more higher level science than WUWT, which I see as what you’d get if you had a TV Met create this blog. Basically something that doesn’t teach to the level of the least common denominator, but offers something where they can learn about a wide range of subjects.
    Livingston & Penn’s work on sunspot fading was a natural topic for being brought to the world here.
    One reason I hang around here is to try to help out with the teaching aspects, and I’m glad that there are others who seem to do the same.
    Back to the question – The US Constitution doesn’t ban stupid. Let them come and we’ll try to teach. Even if it doesn’t work on them, others will appreciate the effort.
    REPLY: That said, I am going to implement a tighter moderation policy, because in reality, angry anonymous people really just don’t warrant much attention. My moderation staff is getting worn down with the sheer bandwidth. Remember our recent 500,000th comment? Now it’s about that plus 21,000, so I think it’s time to add a notch filter. – Anthony

  53. Cold Temperatures? Hot temperatures? I do not think that there are such animals! I have heard of high, low, dropping, stable, and rising temperatures, but I do not think that temperatures have colour!

  54. Jeff,
    Congrats on representing rational/enlightened thought/expression as well as almost anyone could! Now you can pick and choose – enjoy your freedom while exercising the need to debate and contribute.
    Much gratitude for your approach.

  55. Golly gosh. A notch filter to exclude stupidity, insults ans the like. Dat some amazing piece of engineering. Do tell us how it is done.
    No Anthony the truth is this has become the No.1 because it is a fair mix between complex technical discussion and simple explanation: and odd and amusing curiosities by way of light relief.
    In short it has got the balance right: unlike much of the failing MSM or the highly political, partisan or technical blogs.
    That is why today the great men of science, as they imagine themselves to be, cannot ignore you and now come here to explain: or not as the case might be.
    That is a remarkable triumph you know, just a couple of years ago the same persons, if genuine scientists would be afraid for their careers to say anything here: or if of another persuasion would have cursed you as some kind of practitioner of the dark arts unworthy of their attention.
    Yet now they somehow feel they have to justify themselves here: and what a triumph that is.
    The trolls are always with us, and persistent as is their nature, although they are usually fairly polite on here.
    I appreciate the mods have to deal with difficult posters but that is what true moderation is for: unlike censorship.
    My advice, for what it is worth, is that you have a winning formula, so you don’t change it beyond minor tweaks to see what might appeal to the readers.
    Hot thoughts, especially in this superfast electronic world when action is but a keypress away, are often best left to cool upon reflection.
    Kindest Regards

  56. Anthony & mods,
    Playing with trolls can be selectively entertaining, but having to constantly play with them makes it unproductive work.
    Troll or not, I think civility can be the fair criteria for moderation.
    I do think anonymity often enables immunity for those who show irresponsible disregard of common civility.
    Leif & Jeff Id,
    Regarding stupididium, isn’t that the element that occurs after the element biasidium but before enlighteninium?
    John

  57. Heh, I’m not surprised. More proof of divinity. I especially mean for him to read Shub on anonymity. I salute the brave from whom we cowards take courage.
    ====================

  58. Just one thing to add, having said good-bye at tAV yesterday:
    Anonymity is the gateway to rudeness and trolling. Except for valid personal reasons, it should not have a place on blogs like this, or Jeff’s, or any other climate sceptic blog.
    One good piece of advice given to me when I started out commenting on blogs was: ‘don’t send your post if you wouldn’t say what you wrote when face-to-face.’
    Sorry if that makes me sound like your primary school teacher or your mum, but it is true, and it works.
    Thanks again, Jeff – and thanks, Anthony and mods!

  59. “While I’ve spent a fair amount of time studying politics and economics in general, not so the science of the global warming / climate crisis du jour issues. I’m barely scratching the surface, really.
    In any case, I’m just wondering if the political/economic side isn’t just as important as (if not more so than) the climate science. Seems to me there’d be little debate on this subject if statist politicians and their ilk weren’t trying to ram through sweeping regulatory changes in the name of saving the planet…”
    This comment, i’m sad to say, has no value for me. Here is the thing about political comments.I already know what you are going to say. I’ve heard it all before.
    That’s not to say it doesnt have value for others, I speak only for myself.
    My experience after having read these blogs since 2007 is that sooner or later every good science discussion gets derailed by a political or personal food fight.
    SINCE the issues in the forefront at places like WUWT are the SHORTCOMINGS of the science, derailing that discussion is not in your interest.
    You’re free to disagree.

  60. Dear Jeff
    Thanks for your contributions and we are grateful for the stamina that kept you going till now. Have a good rest and maybe think of contributing at WUWT from time to time.
    anna

  61. It’s a sad day.
    But we all know, as Anthony has said, how difficult it is to maintain a public service like this. I also speak for myself, and the difficulties I encounter.
    No need to say that almost all of us don’t get any return for this, while the alarmists are getting well paid to spread their stuff.
    But, liberty is this, and I believe it still is possible. Though, I have my doubts sometimes…
    Ecotretas

  62. LazyTeenager says:
    January 21, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Prove it

    True to form, our lazy NO-it-all can’t be bothered to do his/her own research, but as a start, here’s a whine about the lack of US spending on climate.
    Calculations she cites in an October report titled “Military vs. Climate Security: The 2011 Budgets Compared,” reveal that the U.S. climate change budget has more than doubled—from $7 billion to $18 billion—since 2008.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/12/military-climate-spending-us-china
    Taking a conservative average of $12 billion/year over that three years, that’s $36 billion in the US alone. Repeat: In the last three years.
    And as these things go, since the whine was aimed at arguing how little was spent, in which direction do you think any error would be?

  63. I understand Jeff’s point og view, and also wish him luck in the future. But wouldn’t it be great if he the blog is alive on the net, maybe with the comment feature switched off. He should have …hundreds of dollars to keep the site up, and cred for great achievement…

  64. Clarification: I mean to keep old blog posts up, to read for people, while stop writing new blog posts.

  65. “REPLY: That said, I am going to implement a tighter moderation policy, because in reality, angry anonymous people really just don’t warrant much attention. My moderation staff is getting worn down with the sheer bandwidth. Remember our recent 500,000th comment? Now it’s about that plus 21,000, so I think it’s time to add a notch filter. – Anthony”
    I have been thinking a lot lately about putting myself forward as a mod candidate, should you need another hand below decks. I’ll start at the bottom. Dogsbody. Then move on up to bilge swab if needs be. I find I have more time than I need now that I am layed up lame. If you are feel I’d be worthy… Feel free to email me at the address I use, or simply ignore my suggestion. I can take it. 8-( lol
    Cheers!

  66. I really appreciate the few sites such as this one, Anthony, and folks like you and Jeff who take the time, which has to be a lot, to put forth the science instead of the propaganda. It has been a long time, more than 50 years, since I studied the fundamentals of chemistry (engineer/chemistry major level), statics & dynamics, thermodynamics and electrical physics (physics major level) in college. A great deal of which I used in my career as a professional civil engineer to good advantage.
    For myself, this site has expanded my knowledge base greatly, from reading the posts of intelligent people with scientific knowledge that I didn’t have.

  67. Isn`t he the guy who proved that the warming of the past 160 years is artificially high unless corrections are made for non-climatic influences.
    In this, he of course he agrred with and confirned the CRU temerature graph. Well Nasa and Giss etc. as well.

  68. REPLY: That said, I am going to implement a tighter moderation policy, because in reality, angry anonymous people really just don’t warrant much attention. My moderation staff is getting worn down with the sheer bandwidth. Remember our recent 500,000th comment? Now it’s about that plus 21,000, so I think it’s time to add a notch filter. – Anthony
    ______________________________________________________
    That sounds good to me, for one. We already get a full plate of global warming ‘science’ and politics in the media. I like sites like WUWT, ClimateAudit, RealScience, etc, where you can get away from the constant drone of global warming. I think that people are already fully aware of what the global warming crowd is going to say.

  69. Let’s not forget the pivotal role TAV played in Climategate as well.
    Yeah, helping to stop the signing of a global climate treaty is a great and wonderful thing in my book. You probably prevented us from changing into a green egalitarian hell…
    Thanks Jeff!

  70. I’ve just been over to the Air Vent for the first time.
    Does the Air Vent closing down mean that all the physics crazies who were over there, are going to come over here?
    Yee haaaaa, this is going to be do much fun!!!
    REPLY: Actually no, you’ve been put in the troll penalty box for thread bombing. It is likely that your comments won’t see the light of day unless you change your behavior. – Anthony

  71. Steven Mosher says:
    January 22, 2011 at 3:46 am
    bs footprint says:
    January 21, 2011 at 3:47 pm
    “While I’ve spent a fair amount of time studying politics and economics in general, not so the science of the global warming / climate crisis du jour issues. I’m barely scratching the surface, really.
    “In any case, I’m just wondering if the political/economic side isn’t just as important as (if not more so than) the climate science. Seems to me there’d be little debate on this subject if statist politicians and their ilk weren’t trying to ram through sweeping regulatory changes in the name of saving the planet…”
    This comment, i’m sad to say, has no value for me. Here is the thing about political comments.I already know what you are going to say. I’ve heard it all before.
That’s not to say it doesnt have value for others, I speak only for myself.
    My experience after having read these blogs since 2007 is that sooner or later every good science discussion gets derailed by a political or personal food fight.
    __________
    Well, given that the scenarios in the IPCC report neglected purchasing power parity, and rather reputable economists, who were in governmental advisory roles, pointed it out and were dismissed, I am interested in whatever light economists and political scientists can shed on the issues.
    I have heard most things before. Sometimes, some of them are true.
    I’m interested in the science for its own sake. Even economics.

  72. Steven Mosher says:
    January 22, 2011 at 3:46 am
    “SINCE the issues in the forefront at places like WUWT are the SHORTCOMINGS of the science, derailing that discussion is not in your interest.”
    =======================
    At risk of activating the “stupidity clause”, what is in our interest?

  73. Hey LazyTeenager
    Here are jut 2 climate change waste amounts governments are throwing into the wind, why don’t you add up the rest of the world and report back here I would like to here it from your warm lips, PLEASE!
    UK £50 Billion Annual Climate Bill for next 40 years
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100046507/never-mind-the-climategate-whitewash-what-about-our-new-50-billion-annual-climate-bill/#disqus_thread
    The U.S. climate change budget has more than doubled—from $7 billion to $18 billion—since 2008.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/12/military-climate-spending-us-china

  74. wishing u all the best and hope we see u on WUWT when u feel so inclined.
    u and anthony, steve mac and others should have been swamped with sponsors for your websites after climategate, but that cannot be allowed when the CAGW scam is not scientificm but political.

  75. uk. your interest?
    keeping the shortcomings of the science in the forefront.
    why do you think they tell you to “do your own science”?
    gets you off your game and on their turf.

  76. Steven Mosher says:
    January 22, 2011 at 3:46 am
    Here is the thing about political comments.I already know what you are going to say. I’ve heard it all before. That’s not to say it doesnt have value for others, I speak only for myself.
    My experience after having read these blogs since 2007 is that sooner or later every good science discussion gets derailed by a political or personal food fight.
    SINCE the issues in the forefront at places like WUWT are the SHORTCOMINGS of the science, derailing that discussion is not in your interest.

    I agree; political comments are counterproductive, especially sweeping ones — they make it easy for swarmists to dismiss the site as “right wing,” etc., they aren’t persuasive to middle-of-the-roaders, and they deter their participation here.

  77. Steven Mosher said: ‘Put at least 30 minutes of good research in before you make a comment, try that for a couple weeks. Then you might be adding to the conversation rather than derailing it.’
    That is a fair comment.
    Over at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog we have been restricted to one comment a day on each thread, to get some backbone into the debate instead of waffle or abuse.
    Dr Marohasy is also giving long time warmist commenter (Luke Walker) an occasional guest post, a novel idea which should open up the debate.

  78. Jeff,
    Really enjoyed your site. Thanks for taking the time to share your insight with us. It has been enlightening and appreciated. Best wishes in your future endeavors.

  79. Id WILL BE MISSED!!!!!!!!
    sorry to see you go, you could post here once a week?????
    would be good for all….
    Thank you jeff for all your hard work
    Sky Warmer

Comments are closed.