Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« No conspiracy | Main | Faking it »
Friday
Dec112009

And so it begins

McIntyre has posted his first analysis of some of the emails. It's not looking good for the Hockey Team, with their scheming to remove the divergence problem and "hide the decline" from the IPCC reports laid out in horrifying detail.

There are going to be months of revelations like this.

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (17)

When next someone gets 1700, or 17000, or whatever, payroll "scientists" to vouch for the honesty of work they've never read, it would be meet to ask them why the penetrating analysis has been done not by the highly-funded scientists of the USA or UK or Japan, but by a retired Canadian minerals man, at his own expense.

Dec 11, 2009 at 7:59 AM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

[Snip - venting]

Dec 11, 2009 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Z.

Steve's piece is great as usual, however i fear we have a communications problem getting the message out.

The problem is CA is being ignored because it is seen to be a "blog", not a scientific journal. I think what is needed is some other climate scientists supporting and co-authoring papers with Steve which should be entered for peer review. I think this is the only way we will blow a hole open in the agw scam.

Dec 11, 2009 at 10:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterMikey M

MikeyM is correct to a large extent. The last few days have been mostly about the science. The response by the political folks and most of the media (US) to simply "ignoring it" mode or propagandize it. The proponents of AGW are vastly better at PR and they control the agenda. For example, there are "writers" of all "news" shows on TV. They structure the appearance and topics to be "reported". Thus before a technical person that is a "denier" appears on these shows their appearance is scripted with questions and sequenced.

For example, to support AGW a writer of a "news" show would script an appearance by McIntyre so that the first question would be "Do humans contributed to temperature?" He, as an honest person, will say "yes". The next question would be "have temperatures risen in the last 100 years?". Again a "yes" regardless of how he qualifies the answer. Then I'd move to an "alarmist" and ask the same questions and get the usual "glaciers melting, planets burning, et al". answer delivered with passion and authority and credentials. Finally, I'd wrap up with a "journalist" who claims to have reviewed both sides and have them say "it's too important an issue to just ignore."

The point is the science folks talking actual facts and the "political" scientists will almost always cancel each other out with the moderator driving home the point they want. The way to combat this is to answer the "implied" question. In the first question above the answer should be "any human activity is not responsible for the temperature cycles we've seen especially when humans were not roaming the earth. Plants and animals will have a miniscule impact but they respond to climate change - not create it." If pressed (and the interviewer will to get the scripted answer, just refuse to go along and repeat "Miniscule and the react to climate change not create it." If (hopefully) they want to discuss "the trick" explain it by analogy. Say something like "it's like you bet someone your car gets 200 mpg but they catch you pouring extra gallons in the tank in your garage at night."

They buy ink by the barrel, broadcast 24/7 and they script everything. And they, as most of you are aware, are in the game to win regardless.

Dec 11, 2009 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered Commentercedarhill

Mikey M

Steve did a paper with Pielke Snr IIRC, but I guess the gatekeepers stood firm.

Dec 11, 2009 at 11:47 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

"And so it begins"
I like this way of starting this post. It makes one look forward to the months ahead.
So far we've only been hearing in the MSM that the trick is nothing more than a clever little solution to a science problem, and that the overwehlming science is not in dispute.

Dec 11, 2009 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterP Gosselin

What's happening with your book, has it gone to publishing, or are you able to add in a postcript with the latest "context"?

Dec 11, 2009 at 11:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Dunford

The book is due to go to print imminently. There's a chapter on Climategate.

I'm speaking to a US publisher too.

Dec 11, 2009 at 12:05 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Finally
Universal disdain
Climate change recognized as a hoax
Kill it now.

Yonder lies a future
Ominous and dark
Under the rule of fascist scientists.

All greedy politicians
Love their banker buddies.

Gear up for a fight
Or the corrupt will steal your souls
Rape your children's dreams
Empty our cupboards for a false cause.

Dec 11, 2009 at 12:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Z.

As an aside, here's a link to last nights discussion of climate change on This Week...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_week/8407642.stm

I found it amazing not just because it was on the BBC, but the way in which Nick Cohen managed to make himself and the AGW narrative look so bad.

Dec 11, 2009 at 12:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

Dave - thanks for that link. Nick certainly did a good job of looking bad. I wish we could get that sort of interview here in Australia.

Dec 11, 2009 at 1:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheSkyIsFalling

Thanks Dave for the link. I've just watched it. Michael Portillo came out looking very reasonable, whereas Nick Cohen made himself look like a complete prat (or idiot, which is how he described sceptics when he coudn't use the term deniers). He did warm-mongers no favours.

I agree that Steve's work, like most of his work in the past, needs writing up and getting out into the wider world. It needs to go the CRU and Penn State inquiries.

Dec 11, 2009 at 1:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Bishop

Clearly there are issues about the process and validity of alarmist science. With regard to process, I think Climate- and Hockeygate have highlighted some pretty unfortunate practices (not sharing data, dodging FOI requests etc etc). But with regard to validity, any chance you could give a short overview (perhaps in a new posting) where you set out your concerns re validity?

I think everyone agrees there is a recent temperature increase and that the human-produced greenhouse gases and aerosols are to some degree responsible. So does it come down to a debate about the magnitude of climate sensistiviy and feedbacks? There has been much questioning of whether the surface temperature record is valid or has a warm bias (Pielke Sr, Watts, Eschenbach etc). But my understanding is that the RSS satellite data pretty much accords with surface record as currently presented.

Or perhaps you've set out an overview in a previous post you could point me to?

Dec 11, 2009 at 2:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichieRich

Just for information: I also managed to get a comment posted on the 'Dear This Week' comment page ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_week/8298641.stm

However, I note that it got pushed to near the bottom of the page while others that were close to it this morning are still near the top. OK, maybe I'm just too paranoid about the BBC, but... you never know :-)

Dec 11, 2009 at 3:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterDave Salt

Dave Salt
I'm just too paranoid about the BBC, but... you never know :-)

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you! (Particularly true of the BBC I think)

Dec 11, 2009 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandy S

I'm always amazed to see people bashing the BBC. Try watching news in the U.S. for a few years. Not only will you have far fewer functional braincells, but you'll positively love the BBC.

Dec 11, 2009 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterAndy

Here's how to get the message out. Show two graphs from Willis's or Steve's work and describe them as follows:

1) Here is your raw temperature data.
2) Here is your temperature data on drugs.

Say no! to drugs.

Dec 11, 2009 at 10:17 PM | Unregistered Commenteredward

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>