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:
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
iam,m. Yep.
========
Shub, 6:41 PM
One for Antnee to read. Thanks.
================
[Anthony reads every post as you may know]
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.
====================
I wish you all the best for the future.
laursaurus;
Shurely yu jest?
SOP = Standard Operating Procedure. Mil jargon since forever.
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!
“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.
A sad day indeed.
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
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
LazyTeenager says:
January 21, 2011 at 8:42 pm
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?
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…
Clarification: I mean to keep old blog posts up, to read for people, while stop writing new blog posts.
“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!
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.
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.
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.
“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!
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
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.
Sorry Philemon. Heard that one as well. My first entry into the debate was through the SRES.
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?
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
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.
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.