ctm Makes a New and, (Possibly) Improved Appearance

Well, well, well,

I’m back @%@%$’s.

For an indeterminate amount of time I will be running this blog again.

For those who do not know me, here is an article about my role in Climategate, way back in the day.

That was back when I personally did most of the moderation on this blog.

I have a different style than Anthony.  Some people like it. Others hate it.  For example, the few months I ran the blog last year, I invited guest posts from some of our more contrarian visitors.  I have not been around much of late, so I will be getting a feel for the happenings around her for a week or two.

I don’t know who the current crop of marginal actors are and with an unlikely amount of luck, that will continue.

All you guest moderators please step up as I won’t be putting the moderation hours in that Anthony does.  I will also send an email to the group about this.  Anyone who wants to volunteer to moderate, contact me through the tips and notes link.

I was recently interviewed about Climategate, as was Anthony and others, for the Red Pilled America Podcast.  I will post about it when our episode airs.

I don’t have a whole lot more to say.  I will be relearning on the job.

Advertisements

105 thoughts on “ctm Makes a New and, (Possibly) Improved Appearance

    • All thoughts are with you right now…..
      ….and this is going to be fun with CTM back!
      You’re in good hands…no worries

  1. I wish you luck. Moderating a site is much more difficult than it appears, given the number of sites that collapse into chaos, or end up as a tyranny.
    From some experience of your moderation in the past, you seem to be rather good at it, and can actually herd cats. Or rather baboons, alternately doing dominance displays and politics.

    • Yes there is a LOT of reading in the spam bin itself to fish out the occasional good comment that somehow floated in there amongst 50 or so obvious spams, also the reading of comments in a thread when they are going bad, hopefully stop it before too many of them bogs down the thread, then it requires Anthony to consider deleting a lot of them and possibly ban the miscreant who messed it up with his trolling.

      It would be great if people can moderate themselves BEFORE they post the comment, rather than have mods have to come along to scoop up the droppings for the spam or trash bin, which are dumped at regular intervals. Then the mod team can spend more time reading and commenting without having to lose it in the backroom correcting problems.

      As for me I can then spend more time moderating elsewhere……………., hopefully not!

      • “It would be great if people can moderate themselves BEFORE they post the comment”

        I suspect the majority of people that fit this spend so much of their time trying to moderate the climate that they don’t have time to moderate anything else…

  2. Charles, good to see you back, and we wish Anthony all the best during his break.

    I don’t see any coverage at WUWT yet of the scandalous decision to award the Carl Sagan Prize for Science Popularization to Peter Gleick, the framer, forger and “phisher of men.”

    We covered it here

    https://cliscep.com/2018/11/10/gleick-my-ass-2018-sagan-prize-helping-climate-parody-go-mainstream/

    but it would be nice to see something about it on a flashy (apparently widely distributed) site that people actually read 🙂

      • Thanks TPG, I must have missed it when it first broke.

        If two months have passed without any signs of Wonderfest’s rethinking their mistake, it might be time to talk about it again.

        One of our readers emailed the Prize’s custodians yesterday, and actually got a reply from Tucker Hiatt (tucker@wonderfest.org) which I’d characterize as polite, if naive. Without disclosing the contents of the email, I can say that Mr Hiatt apparently still isn’t aware of Gleick’s forgery. In fact he seems to dismiss Gleick’s “mistake” as a heat-of-the-moment moral lapse—a charitable interpretation, but one unequivocally falsified by the data.

        My introduction to Gleick was his fake review on Amazon of Donna LaFramboise’s book (“a stunning collection of lies… about the science of climate change”), to which other users of the site quickly responded by asking Gleick if he’d even read the book. Surprise, surprise, he didn’t think he had to.

        So his history of activism at the expense of common honesty, not to mention the time and effort it must have taken him to forge the ‘Climate Strategy,’ make a mockery of the notion that Gleick is guilty of nothing but a crime of passion.

        I’m sure everybody here understands this. But Tucker Hiatt of Wonderfest doesn’t.

        All this indicates to me that the skeptical community has failed to get a rather simple, but crucial, point through his skull despite having 2 months to be angry about it.

        Now that (some of us) have had time to get over our disgust, maybe we could try explaining to Mr Hiatt exactly why Gleick is a disgrace to the Sagan Prize.

  3. Welcome back CTM. Since you like like to see a good debate between people with different views would it be possible to have something on forest management in California? I suspect it’s not as simple as some say but a good discussion would be very timely.

  4. Re-posting the rules for comments might be a good start. I was looking for them and never did locate them.

    Welcome back…but I will still miss Anthony.

  5. Welcome back, CTM. Email me if you need me. I’ve been back from my almost 2-year hiatus for a couple of months.

    I’m working on a couple of short posts for this week, in additional to the monthly global temp update, which should be ready on the 15th or 16th.

    Regards,
    Bob

    • “Bob Tisdale November 11, 2018 at 7:01 pm
      Welcome back, CTM. Email me if you need me. I’ve been back from my almost 2-year hiatus for a couple of months.

      And gloriously well spoken during those brief months too!

      Welcome back Bob!

    • Your posts are always welcome Bob,

      I guess I’ll send you an email as well in case you miss this comment.

  6. Quote of the Week from TWTW:

    “The people who are supposed to be the experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence…I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That to me is the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that the whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?”
    – Freeman Dyson, foreword in a report by Indur Goklany [H/t Robert Brinsmead]

  7. CTM, how about getting Mosher to do a post? If he can temper his usual manner with those he finds irritating, he’s got some useful things that need saying.

  8. CTM and Anthony, thanks so much for keeping up this most important effort!!!

    Also, any more news on the emails from U of A that were supposed to be released imminently?

    Thanks for all you do!!!

    • And restore the highlighting of new posts in a thread. That makes it so much easier to navigate the comments to the articles. Otherwise, you have to reread the entire set of comments.

      I miss the “like/up” button, too.

  9. It seems this blog has a certain nature to it.
    When misfortune strikes it copes, adapts, and survives.
    Good luck with the moderation, and best wishes and more luck to Anthony.

  10. I have often wondered how Anthony keeps up the pace of this blog. The articles and information shared is massive … on a daily basis. And this from a ‘retired’ senior citizen. Anthony honestly reminds me of President Donald J. Trump … tireless. Boundless energy and drive to do a job. I Ugely admire people who can keep that pace. I hope Anthony gets a well-earned rest, and hope our UNIONized State Fire Employees STOP the Camp Fire (and it’s associated flare ups) from threatening Anthony’s Home

    Here’s an idea, Jerry Brown … how about hiring and deploying MORE Wild-Firefighters in the State … and offset the hires by FIRING thousands of the useless and unnessecary “green” and “eco” bureaucrats in this State?

      • Damn! Submission rule #9 just killed my first article … about how I sharpen my razor blades using intersecting barycentric vertices.

      • CTM,

        That report from the Independent (that’s a laugh in itself) is a rehash of a stupid article in the Sunday Times last September. The cretins were taken to task by Pete Rowley, a volcanologist with the University of Hull, who said the Times article was “incredibly disappointing. Not only does it appear to have taken quotes from Dr. Ilyinskaya totally out of context, it appears to have modified them in such a way as to directly contradict the intended meaning of her communication with them,” he told Newsweek.

        “Articles like this Times one can be incredibly damaging. Getting the right information to the right people at the right time about hazards like volcanic eruptions and earthquakes is hard enough without having people misled about them.

        “As scientists, we rely on journalists to help us communicate our findings to the public in a way that is both useful and timely. The more articles which push these ‘imminent disaster’ stories which ignore the reality in favor of page views only undermines people’s willingness to take warnings seriously when they are issued for real,” said Rowley.

        https://twitter.com/EIlyinskaya/status/1043923102122561536

  11. Charles, thank you greatly for stepping up during this time. I know that all right-thinking people wish you well … and the wrong-thinking ones are cordially invited take a short vacation in the place of eternal perdition. I invite everyone to offer Charles their support in whatever way we can.

    Please get in touch if you need anything from me.

    Good to have you back, buddy.

    w.

  12. If Steve Mosher had access to all the climategate emails and must have read everyone, how could he possibly now believe in global warming? Surely the climategate emails provide proof of a world wide conspiracy and that this is just a huge scam.

    • “how could he possibly now believe in global warming”

      Easy, Its just part of his job description with BEST.

      • “there was an LIA and its warmer now.”

        LIA was the anomaly, the rest of the Holocene has been much warmer.

        The world is just a small step out of that coldest of periods.

        Be VERY grateful for that natural warming.

      • Easy, Its just part of his job description with BEST.

        “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    • It was quite simple. yes I read all the mails, climategate 1 2 and 3.

      mails dont change science.
      only better science changes science.

      But then again I do remember Feynman saying that if a mail contraducted your theory that the theory was wrong. or was that Popper.

      Mails cant transform C02 into a Non GHG.
      mails cant make it cooler. there was an LIA and its warmer now.
      mails cant change the science, they can cause us to look a little harder at the data, but you
      should ALREADY be looking hard at all the data, especially data that SUPPORTS your position.

      before the mails, it was warming. its still warming
      before the mails we were adding c02 to the atmosphere, we still are
      before the mails C02 was a ghg, it still is.
      before the mails, there were these interesting questions

      A) how much more will we emit
      B) how much more will it warm
      C) will that cause damage
      D) what if anything should we do.

      The mails dont answer those interesting questions, and neither do they change the important things we know.

      • Mosher,

        Most of your rationalizations are actually non sequiturs. Since you took time to write more than your usual drive-by snarks, I expected better.

        CO2 is just part of a complex dynamic system, and the fact that CO2 has been shown to absorb IR in a laboratory experiment does NOT establish the fact that it plays the dominant role in that dynamic system.

          • Mosher,
            Your snarkiness fails to convince anyone that you actually understand the problem. It is yet another non sequitur. No one actually believes that CO2 doesn’t have an absorption band in the IR. What is important is how that interacts with all the other feedback loops.

          • CO2 is not a green house gas. It does not block convection. The whole greenhouse thing was a misstatement by Arrhenius of Fourier’s 1827 paper. Arrhenius incorrectly claimed in 1896 that “Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground.” It would be better to call it an insulating gas. Even then, it is a trace gas that has little to no effect without the assumption that water vapor is a completely dependent variable. Water vapor is the dominant insulating gas.

          • Clyde, why should an English major like mosh understand a scientific issue? There’s a reason he’s know for drive-bys rather than intelligent thoughtout scientific posts.

            before the mails, it was warming. its still warming

            it’s been warming since the LIA ended, well before man is (falsely) held responsible.

            before the mails we were adding c02 to the atmosphere, we still are

            and even as CO2 went up, temps went down (1940s to 1970s/80s). Later, as CO2 went up, temps went flat (2000s)

            before the mails C02 was a ghg, it still is.

            yeah, so what? What does CO2 being a ghg have to do with whether or not it is the “control knob” of the earths temperature (particularly given that fact from above about temps and CO2 moving in different directions)

          • ant BTW Mosh, it doesn’t help your credibility any when you spell it c02 (carbon zero two) instead of CO2 (Carbon Oxygen two, the two is supposed to be a subscript but alas the typical keyboard doesn’t easily allow for typing subscripts as subscripts). As an English major you should realize the importance of proper spelling. If you were a scientist you’d realize the importance of getting atomic formula correct.

          • John? Got to call you out on this one. You forgot to tell him” to put ice on that, it is going to leave a mark.” Just a minor issue, other than that you are bang on, brah!

        • Weird,
          In my world Jordan peterson doesnt get to decide what we should do.
          he has an opinion.

          Note, nothing he says, nothing mails say, can change the physics

          • I don’t think you really know what real physics “says”.. so your comment is irrelevant.

            His opinion is worth as least as much as yours, far more, I would say, because it is based on rational thought, not pre-determined bias.

            You certainly don’t get to decide what we should do..

            .. no matter how much you and your fellow “believers” would like to.

          • In my world Jordan peterson doesnt get to decide what we should do.

            no one claimed he does. He does, however, intelligently and articulately answer the very question you asked: what if anything should we do?

            Don’t ask questions that you don’t want to hear the answers to.

            he has an opinion.

            indeed and his is a logical, well thought out opinion unlike your usual drive-bys.

          • Mosher
            The Climategate eMails matter
            because they are more evidence
            of climate junk science,
            where conclusions
            are decided in advance,
            and data are manipulated
            and/or data mined, to support
            the CO2 is evil (unproven) belief.

            The little real “physics”
            is closed system
            laboratory experiments.

            They tell us little about ACTUAL
            effects of CO2 in the real world.

            A worst case estimate, assuming that all the
            warming since 1950 was caused by CO2,
            extrapolates into a TCS of about +1.0 degrees C.
            which means CO2 is harmless.

            You obviously have other
            pre-existing conclusions about CO2,
            disregard the real world evidence
            of minor, harmless warming since 1950
            ( that may not
            have been
            caused by CO2 ),
            and you also disregard
            thousands of plant studies
            on the benefits of increasing CO2,
            which apparently don’t fit your
            leftist narrative …
            and that makes YOU
            a science denier,
            and, in my opinion,
            a DING DING DING
            bat of climate science.

      • No, It is NOT warming.

        The only warming in the last 40 years has come from two El Nino events

        With the now dissipated 2015/2016 El Nino , there has been no warming since 2001.

        Yes, the group you are designated frontman for, show some fabricate warming..

        .. but it is NOT REAL.

      • A) how much more will we emit
        B) how much more will it warm
        C) will that cause damage
        D) what if anything should we do.”

        A.. with China, India etc expanding.. LOTS MORE, and plant life LUVS it. 🙂

        B.. Warming is nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. Probable cooling trend coming

        C.. Damages? as in a 15-20% increase in world biosphere.? Increased crop yields etc etc.
        Name one “damage” that can be scientifically proven to be caused by atmospheric CO2 !!

        D.. stop erecting bird killing crucifixes and roasting solar system that disrupt regularity of supply systems and increase prices, , and go back to the cheapest most efficient, RELIABLE forms of energy, that have helped built all of society of the world

      • Mosher: “before the mails, it was warming. its still warming”

        Before the mails it was also cooling for decades at a time. The mails made that cooling disappear. That decades-long cooling was part of “the science” before the mails.

        You say its still warming but It’s cooling now. What happened to the “Hottest Year Evah!” meme?

      • mails dont change science.

        no, but they do highlight the perversion of science.

        only better science changes science.

        Shame you clearly don’t understand science. perhaps if you went for a science major instead of an English major you’d have a better understanding.

        Mails cant transform C02 into a Non GHG.

        They don’t have to. You are pushing a strawman argument there. The vast majority of the skeptics of CAGW (aka “global warming” aka “climate change”) don’t claim it isn’t and the arguments against CAGW don’t depend on it not being so.

        mails cant make it cooler. there was an LIA and its warmer now.

        No but mails can show efforts to denying past cooling. And since it’s been warming since the LIA, covering a period of warming before man is to blame (not to mention other warming periods of the past such as the MWP and RWP) and a period of warming that man get’s blamed for, the onus on the believers of CAGW to prove why the reasons for the later are different than the reasons for the former.

        mails cant change the science

        indeed they can’t, but with your strawmen and non sequiturs you’ve shown no understanding of the science. Not surprising considering you are not a science major. Science is predictive, CAGW has failed in every prediction it’s ever attempted. it failed those before the mails, and it has continued failing them since.

      • before the mails, there were these interesting questions

        A) how much more will we emit
        B) how much more will it warm
        C) will that cause damage
        D) what if anything should we do.

        Actually, not all that interesting.

        A) we currently emit a small fraction of this gas which itself is a small fraction of the atmosphere. For this to be an interesting question one first must prove that our emissions of said fraction of a fraction is net harmful. To date it has, if anything, been net beneficial (increase in plant food results in increased food production)
        B) for this to be an interesting question, you must first prove how much of the warming man is responsible for (something that, to date, has not been done). If the answer is none to a very small fraction, than this question is meaningless rather than interesting
        C) again, for this to be meaningful you have to first show that our fraction of a fraction is capable of causing damage. To date, if anything, it’s been a net benefit.
        D) Again, to be interesting you first have to show that 1) it is a problem (to date, it’s been a net benefit) and 2) that we can meaningfully do anything about it. If it’s mostly due to nature (as all previous warmings have been) and our contribution is so small as to be barely detectible, then “doing something” is a total waste of effort.

    • If Steve Mosher had access to all the climategate emails and must have read everyone, how could he possibly now believe in global warming?

      He’s an academic, which is a cult. Violent deprogramming is the only thing w/any chance of recovery.

    • Proximity was also a factor. Steve Mosher is my roommate. – CTM

      Roommate!

      Is that an americanism like smoking dope and not inhaling or denyng having “sexual relations”?

      Talk about keeping your friends close!! 😉

      • Nothing wrong with being gay, but gay with Mosh? Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

  13. Thanks now I understand he derives income form an organisation that’s alarmists/warmist.
    It’s run by Dr Muller who believes “All warming in the past 250 years is human caused”!
    Their ‘latest’ report 2017 (oceans) 3rd Hottest Year on Record . . . well that must hurt a bit . . .
    Any organisation truly believing in a fair analysis would present comprehensive data including, for example, links to UAH data.
    Where’s Muller’s list of arguments for and against his assertions?
    There isn’t one and that’s why people come here and why Muller’s desire to convert skeptics will fail as he isn’t quite telling the full story (like all alarmists)
    They no longer publish their list of ‘funders’ and judging by the pre 2014 list I can see why!!

    • The funders?

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-mercers-trump-mega-donors-back-group-that-casts-doubt-on-climate-science/2017/03/26/dc1fde86-109b-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.a1137778f781

      mega trump donors.

      So
      1. All my work for Berkeley Earth since 2015 or so has been volunteer.
      2. From 2013 to ~2015, I collected a small stipend. Ask Charles

      But hey wasnt it Popper who said that all you have to do to disprove science is look at the funding!
      ya, I think he said that

      • Mosher,

        Then why is it that those who criticize ‘skeptics’ so frequently accuse them of being paid by the fossil fuel industry, or the Koch brothers? Even Anthony gets his share of accusations of being on the take. On the other hand, it is rare that any of the ‘warmers’ are accused of being monetarily awarded beyond their academic salary or grants. There clearly is a double standard with many feeling that the only reason a person might take exception with the consensus paradigm is that they are being paid to do so. It clearly demonstrates a lack of imagination, and an unrealistic outlook on life.

        • Clyde
          Why?

          I dont know, perhaps you could apply some science to figure out their motives.
          Bottom line, I avoid motive hunting because it’s not very scientific.

          you run along and construct some unfalsifiable theories about motives.

          I will note.

          1. People questioned my results because of the funding
          2. I point out the funding was a Trump megadonor
          3. Rather than retract their insult or correct their mistake, people just
          change the topic.

          Stupid skeptical playbook move is to attack funding.

          dont be a stupid skeptic

          • “dont be a stupid skeptic”

            Mosher, don’t be a stupid gullible “believer”

            We question your finding because they are based on biased and erroneous methodology.

          • Mosher, don’t be a stupid gullible “believer”

            Too late for that, it would seem, as that ship sailed a long time ago.

      • The funders?

        A link to the Washington Compost? Really? A wasted link & you lost any credibility right there. Try again.

  14. CTM,
    Sincere thanks for moderating.
    Drop me an email if you need part time help from a denizen at the beginnings of TaV.
    You are forgiven for equating my writing style to those just discovering drugs. You were not to know I am one of those rarities who has not even tried pot.
    But I have done a lot of hard science. Still bemused by arguments around advanced science when the elementary,fundamental climate stuff has not passed examination.
    Goodness, how I miss the sheer joy of top quality science. Geoff.

  15. Every good wish and a giant thank you to Anthony, and an equally sincere thanks to CTM for his willingness to step up at this dire time.
    As a regular reader of (but only rare commenter to) WUWT for over ten years, it’s a main stay of my daily reading (indeed i’m on a bus in rural Szechuan as I type this). It’s hard to overestimate the value of the contributions made here and Anthony’s concern for its continuity itself speaks volumes.
    So thank you both again and to Anthony, Godspeed on getting quickly and (to the extent possible) with minimal pain to the other side of this current near-insurmountable challenge!

  16. Good of you to step in and help when a friend is in difficulties I hope you have a good time and that we won’t wind you up to much!
    As for learning n the job I think it’s the best way a bit like the apprenticeship I did many years ago much on the job learning with college to give the theory and science behind what I was doing.
    Our elder son is a self taught geek (computer boffin) who has run rings around others who have done computer science at uni.

    All the Best
    James Bull

    • I’ve done this before. It’s now a matter of establishing my work flow. Doing it efficiently and setting the various priorities of time between creating posts from current events, seeking out authors, giving feedback to people asking questions. Reading comments, moderating, and a few other housekeeping tasks. There’s a lot to do. Anthony is a machine.

  17. Good to see you helping out.

    I’ve been a lot less active than I’d like to be, but I hope that will change in not too much time.

    Actually all it would take is WUWT first, Facebook second. 🙂

  18. Ctm, I will noodle a few new guest posts, some new takes on old topics, others new takes on newish topics, especially as the green energy debacle continues to unfold. Benn taking it easy since August 2017 given significant others health problems which unexpectedly arose then.

    • Relax and deal with your real life issues Rud. If you do get inspired for the helluvait, that idea I mentioned to you the other day may make for a publishable paper.

  19. Good to see you back and I’m glad that Anthony is OK and able to help the community.

    Maybe to get you started, there is an interesting post over at No Tricks Zone. It has been pointed out that Raman spectroscopy is the interaction of EM radiation with the vibrational modes of molecular bonding just like infra red. The climate boys have overlooked this in their narrow classification of what makes a greenhouse gas. It rather spoils their model when oxygen and nitrogen are shown to be greenhouse gases too.

    • SC,
      Thanks for the No Tricks Zone alert. It is interesting, but I’m just a little dubious. Raman scattering is an inelastic scattering with the potential for adding or subtracting a small amount of energy. So, yes, N2 or O2 can have its energy state increased slightly interacting with IR, but I suspect that it is orders of magnitude below that of typical photon absorption, which is probably why it hasn’t been noticed previously.

      The question to be answered is, “What is the bulk emissivity/absorptivity of the ‘non-greenhouse gases’ at IR wavelengths?”

      • It is equivalent in mechanism to GHG theory but with differences in vibrational modes and frequency shifts. I suspect that the author is right in supposing that it was overlooked by climate scientists. I tend to agree with you that the energies involved are probably very small compared with IR, but then the quantities of the gases, oxygen and nitrogen are absolutely gigantic compared with the trace gas, carbon dioxide. For these reasons, it deserves serious consideration.

  20. have offered to help with mod duties in past, offer still stands.
    caveat, from Dec 1 to April 15 may be suddenly unavailable, in maine and I plow lot of snow.
    have experience in wordpress, disquss commenting systems. experience running centos and ubuntu based servers including csf firewall/iptables, etc etc.
    have been mod on largest android site in past (can’t really say much more, was vbullettin site) and am comfortable with smf, pgpbb, invision based software.
    you get the drift.
    will help with backend (mod stuff) stuff if needed.

Comments are closed.