Tip Jar now available

In order to help defray Steve’s costs in moving the hosting of the blog to a virtual private server, I have setup a Paypal tip jar on the left hand side.

The suggested amount is just a suggestion – you can put as much or as little as you like. The currency is Canadian dollars so bear that in mind when you donate, as well as the small transaction cost that Paypal takes off the top.

Checking today on xe.com 1 CAD = 0.87 USD = 0.44 GBP = 1.10 AUD = 0.66 EUR

You can donate via any major credit card (Visa, Mastercard, Discover, American Express).


120 Comments

  1. Cliff Huston
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 7:00 AM | Permalink

    I just used the tip jar. Thanks for your work on this site.
    For the record: I am not now, nor have I ever been an Oil Company.

  2. welikerocks
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 7:29 AM | Permalink

    We are happy to be able to use a tip jar!
    Keep on keeping on!-Mr. and Mrs. Welikerocks

  3. Gozza
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 7:44 AM | Permalink

    Just put my tip in….

    Long time reader with a Geophysics background. I`ve been increasingly concerned with the growth in AGW scare/hype/lies.
    Here in Aus it`s getting really scary.

    PLEASE keep up the good work guys.

  4. ian
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 8:02 AM | Permalink

    I’m pleased you have put in this facility to allow me to contribute.

    I read this site everyday and feel humbled that so much important work is being done
    in the face of such adversity.
    Good Luck!

  5. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 8:28 AM | Permalink

    Ok, I’m in.

  6. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    Thanks for the contributions. We’ve got about 10 contributions in half a day totalling about $300. Out-of-pockets for the blog will be $40 per month with the upgrade. It’s going to cost me about $1,500 to go to the AGU convention in December.

    Now that NAS panels and Wegman have reported on our work, I figure that I’ve made enough of an impact that I should apply for a research grant somewhere. I’d sure be better off doing mining speculations though. I looked at the forms in Canada one day and they are entirely oriented towards university departments, so unless I attach myself somewhere, I don’t qualify for any programs in Canada that I’ve browsed so far, but the look has been cursory. (I can understand why they do things that way – my situation is obviously rather unique.)

  7. Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    Maybe we should have a telethon…or something.

  8. MarkR
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

    Steve

    Have you thought about having individual whip rounds to help defray the costs of attendance at particular events, in addition to your regular running costs?

    I’m sure many value your attendance, and feedback from these events.

  9. Anon
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    I am glad you added this. I have contributed.

    I am a former academic (maths, computer science) now in private industry who is increasingly appalled at the low standard of statistical analysis in climate science, particularly given the stakes are so high.

    Please keep up the good work.

  10. MarkR
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    I’m very happy to have given something tangible to a very necessary forum, and outstanding chief forum-person.

  11. Cliff Huston
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 9:50 AM | Permalink

    RE#7
    Not to worry. TCO should be along shortly – he has been dying to fund a Steve M paper. TCO, a hint, $150K should do the job.

  12. Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

    I looked at the forms in Canada one day and they are entirely oriented towards university departments, so unless I attach myself somewhere, I don’t qualify for any programs in Canada that I’ve browsed so far,

    Would it help if you were an official non-profit organization, perhaps the M & M Institute? I’m sure that you could get endless clever suggestions for a name here.

    Jason

  13. anonymous
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 12:07 PM | Permalink

    Count me in.

    I am not now and I have never been employed by any fossil-fuel industry. However, I do freely admit that I have for my entire life used and enjoyed many of the products and services that are made possible by the consumption of fossil-based fuels.

    All my research at the present time is entirely funded by the good taxpayers of the USA. Thank you all.

  14. bruce
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 1:38 PM | Permalink

    I tried to send you some $ just now, but couldn’t do it. I’m not signed up with Paypal so tried to use Visa. HOwever, the payment details form is designed solely for Canadian contributors, and won’t allow me to put in NSW Australiawhich is the state that I live in. As that is required, it won’t process the payment. One thing that you could do is to put up a mailing address. I have some Cdn currency left over from some past trips, and can just post that.

  15. Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 1:42 PM | Permalink

    I am in! Please keep us poted on the totals. I am willing to make a bigger fair share commitment.

  16. Demesure
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    I tried to enrol some big oil company in donation but even Exxon says so on their site:

    ExxonMobil takes climate change extremely seriously. We recognise that the risk of climate change and its potential impacts on society and ecosystems may prove to be significant and that actions are needed to address this issue.

    I tried to enrol my deputees but here in France, they are all sold to the eco-doomers.
    So I made my little voluntary contribution. Far insufficient to thank Steve et al for their great job.

  17. Stevan Naylor
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 2:08 PM | Permalink

    I’m in… CA is an isle of sanity in a sea of debased, alarmist, ‘Climate Science’.

  18. Demesure
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 2:11 PM | Permalink

    #14 Bruce,
    You should sign for Paypal. It’s no harder than paying directly with your card and it’s free for the payer (you). So next time Steve is sued by the enviros, you can contribute to defray the legal costs (who knows, they sued the EPA for not limiting CO2 emission after all).

  19. TAC
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 2:12 PM | Permalink

    I’m in, for the reasons MarkR expressed (#10).

  20. Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 2:44 PM | Permalink

    I’m in for $300–we obnoxious Americans don’t consider CAD real money anyway. I am not now nor have I ever been a misanthrope.

    The jury is still out, but Steve’s Unsung Hero status might some day rival that of the Man Who Fed the World.

  21. bruce
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    Re #14: My bad! I missed the country choice bar!! Getting old! Done now.

  22. Pat Frank
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 3:08 PM | Permalink

    #6 — You need a letterhead for your grant application, Steve. If you like, you can incorporate a ‘Climate Physics Research Institute, Steven McIntyre chief scientist,’ and submit your proposals under that rubric.

    On the larger topic, you understand that with the tip-jar you’re now open to the charge of accepting money from climate skeptics, deniers, contrarians, criminally-disposed climate-nurnbergoids, and other morally bebased folk. I here publicly volunteer for that abuse.

  23. Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    Re #14.

    Bruce, did you change the country to Australia before you submitted the Visa request?

    Re #21

    Bruce you’ve worked it out! Well done!

  24. Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Re #22

    “Climate Statistics Audit Institute” is more appropriate, I suppose.

    Typical that John A forgot the exchange ratio of euro’s (oh, those English Islanders, like to profit from “continental” Europe, but accept “foreign” money as theirs, that is asked way too much!): 1 CAD = 0.66 euro.

  25. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 4:16 PM | Permalink

    Thanks, everyone. 32 contributors for a total of $1070 so far.

  26. laura Peter
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

    This site is superb. Much of the statistics go over my head, but it all reminds me of my econometrics class in college when I realized the data could be rigged to obtain the desired outcome. It is hard to believe the scientific community won’t look long and hard at what is being passed off . Keep up the great work.

  27. Curt
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 6:37 PM | Permalink

    I’m in for a hundred. And no taint of oil money here!

  28. Doug
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    I’m in. For the record, I have worked for Oil Companies, and own producing properties. However, I am rather liberal (moved to Canada when Bush was elected) and would support some fairly strident measures for the good of the environment. I just don’t see CO2 as one of the major problems, and would prefer to see good science guide our policies. As a geologist I’ve run too many models to believe they show anything but the opinion of the person running them, and I know that climate has changed continuously. Thank you Steve for doing the hard work to bring some standards to the fray.

  29. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 6:51 PM | Permalink

    I’m in … John A., please put the Tip Jar up near the top of the page, where people can see it. The AGW folks are spending millions on bad science, we can use all the $ we can get to fund good science.

  30. Paul Penrose
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 7:34 PM | Permalink

    I’m willing to put my money where my mouth (keyboard?) is. I seldom do this (very seldom), so you know how seriously I take CA, and how much I value the work being done here, not only by Steve and Ross, but all the other contributors as well.

  31. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 8:14 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for the opportunity to show some gratitude for your efforts. This blog is a bargain for $100.

  32. bender
    Posted Dec 3, 2006 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    Hey Ken, my computerized GFM says that for every 10$ you put in, the Bears will win an additional game this year.

  33. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 2:10 AM | Permalink

    More than happy to support someone who is trying to establish the true
    background of normal climate variability against which modern warming/cooling
    should be judged.

  34. Rev Jackson
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 3:26 AM | Permalink

    Mr McIntyre, I am so impressed by your commitment to truth and integrity on this matter that this coming Sunday I will commit 10% of my church takings to your cause!!

  35. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 7:01 AM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre: It’s all jolly good fun to joke around with quips like “I tried to enrol some big oil company in donation” (posting 16), but two indisputable facts remain:

    (i) industries with an interest in delaying action on global warming HAVE funded “science” that supports a contrarian view, and

    (ii) your work HAS been used for political ends by those with a quite open contrarian agenda (particularly in the U.S.).

    Neither of these facts means that you, yourself, are necessarily of a contrarian view or that you presently have any monetary interest in delaying action on global warming – on the contrary, you have several times been careful to distance yourself from some of the more extreme views expressed on this site, and you have also several times indicated how (up until now) you have funded this site entirely from your own pocket. Nor do these facts detract from the integrity of the no-doubt well-meaning people who have so far contributed to your “tip jar”. However this whole concept of a “tip jar” raises three important questions, which I’m sure you have already considered:

    1. Will the total amount contributed be disclosed on a regular basis?

    2. Will the names of the donors and the amounts they have donated be disclosed?

    3. What will you do if an industry, with a significant short-term commercial interest in delaying action on global warming, offers to donate a substantial sum to support you for, say, a year or so? Would you accept?

  36. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 7:39 AM | Permalink

    #35. (1) Sure. I do my accounts every year for tax purposes and will disclose the contributions. I’ll disclose
    information on the blog from time to time. While I appreciate the support, as you can see, the amounts do not constitute an income, but will cover some travel expenses to AGU and some blog operating expenses.
    (2) I do not plan to disclose the names of the donors. Some have been generous – the largest is about US$250 – but none have been material.
    (3) My intention is to apply for funding to NSF and the corresponding Canadian institution – and maybe whoever funded Mitrie. If it’s worth their time to fund people to try to discredit our work, maybe they should fund our work as well. I haven’t sought any money from companies with a significant short-term commercial interest in delaying global warming nor has any been offered to me by such companies. In a practical sense, climate scientists are looking for any excuse to avoid criticisms of their work and I’m reluctant to give them one.

    If you would like to contribute to Climate Audit and have your name disclosed as a contributor (or not), I’d be happy to accommodate your wish.

  37. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    Re #35

    (i) industries with an interest in delaying action on global warming HAVE funded “science” that supports a contrarian view

    It is also true that industries with an interest in promoting action on global warming HAVE funded “science” that supports a supposed consensus view.

    (ii) your work HAS been used for political ends by those with a quite open contrarian agenda (particularly in the U.S.)

    The work of the Hockey Team HAS been used for political ends by those with a quite open extremist and alarmist agenda (particularly in the US, but also across Europe).

    The RealClimate site is funded by an environmentalist group. Are you going to get them to declare their financial interest in the work of the Hockey Team, and if not, why not?

  38. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:04 AM | Permalink

    Thank you Steve (posting 36), but, believe it or not, I find your answer somewhat unsatisfactory. While you seem to be agreeing to disclose (“from time to time”) the total amount donated on this blog, the identities of the donors will apparently remain secret. You also do not answer the question “what will you do if an industry, with a significant short-term commercial interest in delaying action on global warming, offers to donate a substantial sum to support you for, say, a year or so?” – you only say that you “haven’t sought any money from companies with a significant short-term commercial interest in delaying global warming nor has any been offered ….. by such companies”. This skilfully avoids the real question – it doesn’t say what you would do if it happened.

  39. welikerocks
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

    Who funds you Jim Barrett?

  40. Dan Hughes
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:06 AM | Permalink

    re: #35 Hello Jim,

    I see that Steve M has responded to your questions. I would like to obtain some additional information regarding the issues that you have brought up.

    1. When you say, “… industries with an interest in delaying action on global warming …”, and , “… do if an industry, with a significant short-term commercial interest in delaying action on global warming …”, what industries are you referring to? Are they ‘Big Oil’, ‘Big Coal’, ‘Big Gas’, ‘Big Fossil’, or are they ‘Big Law’, ‘Big Wind’, ‘Big Solar’? My impressions is that ‘Big Wind’ is at this very moment making short-term gains due to concerns about CO2. In the long term, however, ‘Big Wind’ will be proven to be a mistake and can provide little, if any, decrease in CO2 emissions. By the same token, ‘Big Law’ is already trying to cash in, too.

    2. Kindly provide examples for which a funding source has influenced the mathematical laws that have been used in an analysis. How do funding sources influence the mathematics of statistics, for example. How do funding sources influence the fundamental laws of physics; conservation of mass, momentum and energy?

    3. Kindly provide an actual example and the associated mechanisms by which, “… an industry, with a significant short-term commercial interest in delaying action on global warming …”, can in realize significant short-, or again even long-term, gains by, “… delaying action on global warming …”

    4. Finally, please explain why it seems to be a true fact that ‘follow the money’ is applied only to those who have not signed up to ‘the consensus’? This aspect of your arguments is getting to be rather tiresome.

    Thank you for your attention to these requests.

  41. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

    I think Jim Barrett is going for the well with concentrated poison in hand…

  42. Dan Hughes
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:16 AM | Permalink

    re: #38,

    Jim, your comments continue to decrease in creditability even as you provide more. I suggest that you provide actual, real-world, has-in-fact-happened, examples or stop now while you might be a little ahead.

  43. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:20 AM | Permalink

    John A (posting 37):

    Firstly, you may have heard the old adage “two wrongs don’t make a right”. I was discussing the funding of contrarians by industry, not anything else.

    Secondly, can’t you see any difference between an industry making short-term financial gains for its shareholders by (often covertly) delaying action on global warming, and an environmental group (which – correct me if I’m wrong – isn’t there to make money for its “shareholders”) using the funds it has collected to further its openly declared aims? I can.

  44. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:31 AM | Permalink

    Dan Hughes (postings 40 and 42):

    Do you seriously dispute the first two points in my posting 35 (I notice Steve McIntyre didn’t – he even admitted that “companies with a significant short-term commercial interest in delaying global warming” exist!):

    (i) industries with an interest in delaying action on global warming HAVE funded “science” that supports a contrarian view, and

    (ii) your (i.e. Steve’s) work HAS been used for political ends by those with a quite open contrarian agenda (particularly in the U.S.).

    If you do dispute them, then I wonder where you’ve been for the past few years.

  45. Jean S
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    re #39, rocks:

    http://www.redefiningprogress.org/newabout/staff_bios.shtml#barrett

  46. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:35 AM | Permalink

    Re#43 Jim Barrett:

    Firstly, you may have heard the old adage “two wrongs don’t make a right”. I was discussing the funding of contrarians by industry, not anything else.

    And I was talking of the funding of a politically connected coterie of scientists by a group with a financial interest.

    Secondly, can’t you see any difference between an industry making short-term financial gains for its shareholders by (often covertly) delaying action on global warming, and an environmental group (which – correct me if I’m wrong – isn’t there to make money for its “shareholders”) using the funds it has collected to further its openly declared aims? I can.

    No, actually I can’t. It’s called “Poisoning the Well” and its used by alarmists and political extremists to cut off debate by claiming that people like Steve are operating as sockpuppets or shills of Big [insert segment of  market here]

    The environmentalist group in question clearly has a very large financial interest in supporting the results of a small coterie of scientists. Should that coterie be funded by such a naked economic interest?

    Your lack of even-handedness and inability to answer straightforward questions has been noted.

  47. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:01 AM | Permalink

    Re: Announcing contributors

    I don’t think Steve can (legally) do that without obtaining the consent of such donors. After all, do I really want my meager contribution to be displayed along with those who have given 100s of dollars? (In my defense, it was early Sunday morning, I just went with the default :-).

    Re: Funding for contrarian views

    AGW proponents propose that we have to spend significant amounts of current wealth globally to avert a global disaster. In that process, there will be winners and losers. I am already one of those who are on the losing side: Our mayor is replacing all traffic lights with LEDs ostensibly to prevent global warming. To be able to make rational cost-benefit comparisons, we need science that is on a firm footing. That firm footing cannot be attained if there is no criticism of the established point of view. Steve’s blog is an important tool in helping us guide to a better understanding of how much of the current scientific ‘consensus’ is based on proper understanding. If some company wants to fund this pursuit, then kudos to them. After all, our tax money is already being used the world over to fund the AGW point of view.

  48. Dan Hughes
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

    re: #43 in which Jim says, “… an industry making short-term financial gains for its shareholders by (often covertly) delaying action on global warming, …”.

    As you have not even attempted to respond to my several questions in #40, I’ll ask for a single answer to a single question.

    Please provide an actual example of any industry, and the mechanisms by which it was successfully implemented, making short-term financial gains for its stockholders by delaying action on global warming. And forget about the ‘often covertly’ part.

    Absence of a single example proves your arguments false, in my opinion.

    Thanks

  49. Cliff Huston
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    RE #35
    Jim Barrett,

    A visit to Redefining Progress Org. yields the following:

    1) Periodic reporting of the total amount contributed.
    2) No list of donors and the amounts they have donated.
    3) No policy statement that RPO will not accept donations from entities that have a significant short-term commercial interest in promoting action on global warming.

    I guess it’s alright to be a hypocrite, if you Gaia on your side.

  50. agn
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    Re: Announcing contributors

    I note that Mr Barrett’s organisation, “Redefining Progress”
    a) solicits donations from site visitors
    b) does not publish the names of minor donators (assuming there are any), though the major funders are listed here: http://www.redefiningprogress.org/newabout/fund.shtml
    c) does not publish the values of individual donations
    d) though providing financial statements, the latest published are to 31 March 2004

  51. agn
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:46 AM | Permalink

    Re #49

    You beat me to the “submit” button!

  52. anonymous
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    and what do we find over at RC ??

  53. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    #44. Jim Barrett, I said that “no companies with a significant short-term commercial interest in delaying global warming” had approached me. Since no companies whatever had approached me, that statement was obviously true. I can’t help but make the logical point that my statement does not demonstrate the existence of such companies. I’m really less interested in the politics of all this than people think. Politicians are going to do what they want to do. In practical terms, the release of the nuclear power industry from its previous purgatory is the most obvious outcome of the climate change industry and that’s something that various people, including me, can support. In Canada, politicians like Kyoto since it gives the opportunity for the federal government to spend money. The new Liberal leader’s dog is named “Kyoto”. That doesn’t mean that such spending is wrong, merely that it’s something that Canadian politicians like to do.

  54. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:56 AM | Permalink

    Jim, I have no problems accepting that some industries may profit from manipulating the truth and that buying scientists is one way to do that. It happens, no doubt about that, and peer review is just too weak an instrument to prevent or discover it. I should add though that this is a problem that receives much attention. Scores of newspaper articles and websites deal with it. I hope and think that that pressure is felt by these industries and that it has a healthy influence.

    But how about scientists manipulating the truth for political reasons? Do you think that can be a problem too? Or does someone who works FOR the environment automatically belong to a morally higher category of people, where honesty can be automatically assumed?

    Is there enough pressure on these people to stay honest or are we not talking about a significant problem anyway?

  55. welikerocks
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

    #50 and 51
    Capital Research Center has no financial information either about Redifining Progress.org but they do give the organization a rating:
    CRC Analysis
    Ideological Rating:2
    (1=Radical Left/8=Free Market Right)
    The number above represents CRC’s rating of the organization along an ideological spectrum

    CPR page

  56. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    What ‘action’ on ‘global warming’ is Jim Barrett suggesting?

  57. Ken Fritsch
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

    Hey Ken, my computerized GFM says that for every 10$ you put in, the Bears will win an additional game this year.

    Hey, Bender, my efforts for the Bears have been offers for “confidence and maturity” therapy for our mutual pal, Rex Grossman. Since Lovie Smith insists this worry is unfounded, I have redirected my efforts in obtaining therapy for weekly anxiety attacks.

    I particularly like this blog for:

    1. The occasional off topic quip.

    2. What I have gained in appreciation for statistical approaches to time series.

    3. A better understanding and appreciation of climatology.

    4. The up front and personal interchanges between the involved scientists and interested others.

    I have been thinking that Steve M should have a subscription fee for blog participation at CA for participants who posts while maintaining a free status for readers with the added capacity of the occasional “expert” to post without paying a fee. Then a comment such as the one by Jim Barrett in #35 comes along with his 3 prying questions (which Steve M politely answers) and I am thinking that a subscription system as described above might prevent some of us from enjoying the humor, intended or not, of such posts.

  58. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 11:25 AM | Permalink

    Re #56

    What “action’ on “global warming’ is Jim Barrett suggesting?

    Whatever it is, it’ll be just as effective as King Canute’s action on sea-level rise.

  59. Demesure
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    Hey, Jim Barrett is not just trolling. If he is him (“Dr. Barrett has worked on a variety of issues concerning energy and environmental economics, including the impacts of carbon reduction programs on the U.S. economy…”), so as a professional bureaucrat, he is scared to death for his job. So his “poisonning” reaction to Steve receiving money for ClimateAudit is normal (disgusting but normal). I’ll give him a break.

  60. Reid
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 2:57 PM | Permalink

    All the talk about corporate support of climate skeptics fails to name the worlds biggest corporate supporter of Kyoto and carbon trading. It’s just way too embarrassing for AGW believers to state that Enron gave millions of dollars to lobbyists to push for Kyoto. Ken Lay personally called Bush to lobby for Kyoto. All to no avail. As we all know, Bush is an oil man.

    The most humorous incident was Barbara Streisand castigating Bush for not signing onto Kyoto because he was friends with Ken Lay. Streisand’s opinions illustrate the fantasy world of pop AGW. She should tour with Gore.

  61. Pat Frank
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    #43 — Jim wrote: “I was discussing the funding of contrarians by industry, not anything else.

    I.e., ‘ignore the man behind the curtain.’

  62. Loki on the run
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 3:28 PM | Permalink

    Why don’t you do some tshirts with a broken hockey stick on the front and Climate Audit on the back?

    That way I can donate and get something as well :-)

    Also, it is notable that the AGW crowd has been playing the (pejorative) naming game for some time. Critics and doubters are called contrarians, or worse still, deniers (alluding to the holocaust) and are claimed to be the lap dogs of big polluting industry.

    On the other hand, climate modellers are elevated to the status of “Scientists.”

    Interesting.

  63. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 3:46 PM | Permalink

    I’m in.

    Normally, I tend to avoid giving to organizations whose positions I support because the first thing that happens is multiple and continuing requests for even more money. I’m assuming that won’t happen here.

    Keep up the good work.

  64. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    Jean S (45), Cliff Huston (49, 51), AGN (50), welikerocks (55): I sometimes wonder if, apart from Steve and those you like to call “trolls”, there is any intelligent life on climateaudit. I did a Google on “Jim Barrett” and got 91,700 hits; I did a Google on “Jim Barrett” and “Redefining Progress” and got 37. Doesn’t that just start to tell you something? I wonder how many Jim Barrett’s there are in the world — firstly there are the “real” ones and then there are all the people who use “Jim Barrett” as a pseudonym.

    I think you clowns owe Jim Barrett at Redefining Progress an apology.

  65. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 3:49 PM | Permalink

    Dan Hughes (posting 48):

    If you would like an example, I suggest you dig up the roots of the Greening Earth Society and see who originally set them up. Also look at the web of similar organisations connected with the Greening Earth Society. Although they appear more reticent about their funding sources nowadays, they were far more forthcoming in the early days.

  66. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 3:50 PM | Permalink

    Theo Richel (54): You ask “does someone who works FOR the environment automatically belong to a morally higher category of people, where honesty can be automatically assumed?”. No, I didn’t say that. What I said to John A (posting 43):

    “can’t you see any difference between an industry making short-term financial gains for its shareholders by (often covertly) delaying action on global warming, and an environmental group (which – correct me if I’m wrong – isn’t there to make money for its “shareholders”) using the funds it has collected to further its openly declared aims?”

    I still can.

  67. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

    John A (46): You say “the environmentalist group in question clearly has a very large financial interest in supporting the results of a small coterie of scientists”.

    I am not sure what you mean by “interest”. Do you mean that the members of the environmentalist group actually benefit financially from the outcomes of the work of these scientists? Or do you just mean that the group has put up some money to support this work? – if so, so what? Also what do you mean by a “very large” financial interest? Can you be more explicit?

  68. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

    So far 52 contributions totalling about US$2000. It’s nice that so many people have taken the trouble. Thanks, Steve

  69. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    I’d like a teeshirt with the Mann/Jones Hockey Stick Mark II above Dave Stockwell’s random number generated one.

  70. jae
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

    67: Mr. Barrett: As I am sure you know, the “financial interests” involve the building of a larger and larger organization to support their programs. And if the staff of the organization are not actively promoting whatever environmental disaster du jour, membership and money decrease. Obviously, there is an incentive for these types of organizations to exaggerate claims (I’m trying to put this nicely).

  71. brent
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    #60 Reid

    Quite right that there is an intense lobby to make money from trading hot air.

    For Immediate Release:
    June 28, 2001
    Three More Companies Join The Fight Against Climate Change
    snip
    The other members of the BELC are: ABB; Air Products and Chemicals; Alcoa; American Electric Power; Baxter International; Boeing; BP; California Portland Cement Co.; CH2M HILL; Cummins Inc.; DTE Energy; DuPont; Enron; Entergy; Georgia-Pacific; Holnam; IBM; Intel; Interface Inc.; Lockheed Martin; Maytag; Ontario Power Generation; PG&E Corporation; Rio Tinto; Rohm and Haas; Royal/Dutch Shell; Sunoco; Toyota; TransAlta Corp.; United Technologies; Weyerhaeuser, Whirlpool and Wisconsin Energy Corporation

    http://tinyurl.com/vck2n

    Contrary to the “Public Perceptions” fostered by AGW propagandists, one shouldn’t assume that even Oil&Gas companies will necessarily always deem it to their disadvantage to Price Carbon.
    The question of self interest is a lot more more complicated than commonly perceived in the public mind.

    http://tinyurl.com/yk3osc

    cheers
    brent

  72. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    Re comments by Jim Barrett and similar ones. This reminds me of: If you cannot find something wrong with the message, you attack the messenger with false accusations of support or other non relevant questions. Jim B and some others a) have not got the statistical expertise to find errors in Steve M’s analysis and/or b) cannot find errors because Steve’s work is very accurate, so they attack the messenger even though he has not declared that he is contrarian. They are afraid of the HUGE and frequent errors he is uncovering. If he gets financial assistance, the panic mode shifts into high gear. If Jim Barrett cannot make a contribution to the statistical discussion he should take a side seat. This thread is being hijacked to a non essential discussion.

  73. Paul
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 5:05 PM | Permalink

    #73 – Ditto!

    I think using an Amazon (or anybody else for that matter) to sell books might be a better method than Google… Might actually get people to buy some of the books to help with their maths…

  74. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 5:49 PM | Permalink

    I must apologize for an omission in my last post (#73). Giving donations to this blog also helps the many (and increasing) other intelligent contributions and analyses being made here, and I am sure Steve M will agree. There are too many names to mention, but you know who you are. This blog has made great strides in demonstrating where the problems lie and many scientists will be taking a second look at their work and other work in spite of the detractors.

  75. Jean S
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 6:07 PM | Permalink

    #64:

    Jean S (45), Cliff Huston (49, 51), AGN (50), welikerocks (55): I sometimes wonder if, apart from Steve and those you like to call “trolls”, there is any intelligent life on climateaudit.

    I think you clowns owe Jim Barrett at Redefining Progress an apology.

    I hereby apologize Jim Barrett at Redefining Progress, who presumably takes his lobbying very seriously, for linking him with a simple CA troll with similar interests.

  76. welikerocks
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

    #64 Jim Barrett , I didn’t really think that Jim Barrett was you -that guy has a phd in economics or something like that. You could have told us your profession or types of funding sources you had like I asked above. I think your tone implied somebody should be ashamed or something -for having a tipjar-when none of your notions about “who” the money comes from are even in reality and may never be.

    I can equally imagine a student, under the instruction of Dr. Michael Mann adding to the tip jar as well. Would he be in trouble?

  77. David Smith
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:23 PM | Permalink

    John A, the Road Map appears to have some potholes – I get a blank screen when I go to it.

    Thanks

  78. Peter Lloyd
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:32 PM | Permalink

    Me, too. Just spent an hour trying to find the blank screen bug in my laptop! Am almost pleased to read that someone else is in trouble as well! Mind you, it was there when I posted a comment – maybe I sent the whole thread in to Mann Stats Land.

  79. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    I ordered the upgrade on Saturday. It should resolve things as we’re having memory crashes due to the size of the b log.

  80. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:16 PM | Permalink

    Another chink in the wall…
    Leonid Khilyuk, former chairman of Kiev Technological University’s Department of Computer Sciences and Applied Mathematics, and Professor George Chilingar of USC beg to differ. Here’s the abstract of their peer-reviewed paper:

    Online here:
    Abstract:

    The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation as a dominant external energy supplier to the Earth, (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities generating and consuming atmospheric gases at the interface of lithosphere and atmosphere. The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate. Quantitative comparison of the scope and extent of the forces of nature and anthropogenic influences on the Earth’s climate is especially important at the time of broad-scale public debates on current global warming. The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.

  81. jaye
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:20 PM | Permalink

    Only good can come of a grass roots campaign to support the advancement of knowledge in such an important endeavor. Fighting the good fight against the legions of kool aid drinkers is always a good thing.

  82. Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 9:26 PM | Permalink

    Another chink in the wall: Evironmental Geology Volume 50, Number 6 / August, 2006

    “any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4-5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls.” What is more, they indicate that “application of these controls will lead to catastrophic economic consequences,” noting that “since its inception in February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost about $50 billion supposedly averting about 0.0005°C of warming by the year 2050,” and that “the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices).” This being the case, they conclude that “attempts to alter the occurring global climatic changes have to be abandoned as meaningless and harmful,” and that in their place the “moral and professional obligation of all responsible scientists and politicians is to minimize potential human misery resulting from oncoming global climatic change,” hopefully by more immediate, rational and cost-effective means.

  83. Loki on the run
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 10:25 PM | Permalink

    Re: 83.

    The problem with that article is that it has had some criticism and there appears to be flaws that they will need to fix. See Lubos Motl’s Reference Frame site for a link to the criticism.

  84. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Dec 4, 2006 at 11:35 PM | Permalink

    re: #84

    Yeah, a rapid reading / scanning of the paper wasn’t very impressive to me either. There may be some good points in it, and some of the problems may be language related, but some things just didn’t seem quite right.

  85. Larry Huldén
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 12:36 AM | Permalink

    I have tried to donate in the CA Tip Jar but no success. I obviously don’t understand the instructions, because I get some error message every time.

  86. John Baltutis
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 1:27 AM | Permalink

    Re: #86
    Worked for me. Posting the error message might help solve your problem.

  87. Cliff Huston
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 4:00 AM | Permalink

    RE #64 Jim Barrett

    1) My post #49 does not assume that you are the Jim Barrett of Redefining Progress. However, in your response, you imply, but do not state, that you are not that Jim Barrett.

    2) My point was that Redefining Progress, for example, does not meet the requirements you place on Climate Audit. If you would only apply your requirements to those that disagree with your personal beliefs on AGW, then your position is hypocritical. You ignore this point. Would you care to provide an example of any organization that supports your beliefs and meets your donor reporting requirements (including a policy of refusing donations from entities that will profit from ‘immediate action on global warming’)?

    RE #77 Welikerocks

    Since Mann, Curry and Juckes all have PHD’s, I don’t think we can say that having a PHD preludes possibility of Tollish behavior on blogs.

  88. agn
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 4:13 AM | Permalink

    Re #64

    I, too, humbly apologise to the Barrett of Redefining Progress for… er… for having thought that he would come here and cast aspersions on Steve McI? On the other hand, it seems the observations I made in #50 remain accurate and, concurring with Cliff in #88, also relevant.

  89. Larry Huldén
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 4:35 AM | Permalink

    Error message was (repeatedly during two days):
    We are sorry, we are experiencing temporary difficulties. Please try again later. If this error occurred while making a payment, avoid duplicate payments by checking your Account Overview before resending a payment.

    Message 3005

  90. Jean S
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 4:53 AM | Permalink

    Larry, strange, worked fine for me (Mozilla, Visa, no previous PayPal account) and I’m from the same location as you are. When exactly is the error message occuring?

  91. Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 5:15 AM | Permalink

    There are various reasons for “Message 3005″

    1. PayPal Error Message 3005: Should you receive this message when trying to purchase an item through PayPal, it means that your browser’s cache may be full or you need to reset (clear) your “cookies”.

    2. It’s a temporary problem in Paypal’s system connecting to your bank.

  92. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 6:04 AM | Permalink

    Gentlemen and gentlewomen: When I wrote posting 35, I attempted to be as fair and nonconfrontational as possible. I presented two facts which to me are indisputable and upon which no one on here has managed to shed one iota of doubt. In addition I said that “neither of these facts means that (Steve is) necessarily of a contrarian view or that (he) presently ha(s) any monetary interest in delaying action on global warming” and that “nor do these facts detract from the integrity of the no-doubt well-meaning people who have so far contributed to your tip jar”. I would have thought that this was in some contrast to the way Steve snidely refers to the “New Mann Paper” with “funding generously provided by NSF here” (as if the NSF funding is actually paid as personal funds to Michael Mann to spend on himself!). My posting simply asked three questions, of which Steve answered two. From his reply we can gather that (1) yes, when he chooses, he will reveal how much he receives, (2) no, he will not divulge the identities of the donors and (3) he is unwilling to assure us that he would not accept funding from industry bodies with a vested interest in delaying action on global warming. Fine – I got the answers to my little “audit”. However, my simple questions unleashed such a barrage of protest that I fear I have touched a raw nerve …..

    I am also accused by John A (72) of not engaging “with the statistical and physical evidence” and by Gerald Machnee (73) of not making “a contribution to the statistical discussion” and “hjacking” this thread “to a non essential discussion”. Now I was not actually aware that this thread was about statistics – I thought it was about Steve soliciting funds from his supporters and I thought I had asked a quite natural and simple question. However, if you really want statistics, how about this – this thread does contain one of the most spectacular examples of cherrypicking of the contrarian world. I refer of course to postings 45, 49, 50 and 51 where, from a potential sample of 91,700 hits, a mere 37 point to someone who happened to fit the preconceived notion of what “Jim Barrett” should be like. It even started theories like “I guess it’s alright to be a hypocrite, if you Gaia on your side”! Pretty good conclusions based on 0.04% of the population!

  93. welikerocks
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 6:11 AM | Permalink

    Steve soliciting funds from his supporters

    No. the supporters requested the tip jar Jim Barrett whoever you are.
    Let freedom ring and stop trying to poisen the well.

  94. Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 6:21 AM | Permalink

    Actually Jim you spent pretty much all of your time trying to smear Steve with an accusation that because he has accepted donations from pretty much anybody, therefore he could or might be controlled by some shadowy grouping by theoretically accepting money from them.

    A non sequitur if ever there was one.

    You have failed to demonstrate that there are such organizations or that contributions from them, or even second, third or more removals from them alters one iota of what Steve has analyzed. I can only conclude that your purpose was to poison the well.

    There’s nothing fair or non-confrontational about a false dilemma that you proposed to be axiomatic. It is not axiomatic to me that multinational environmentalist corporations (and some of them ARE that big) are any more likely to be trustworthy than a multinational fossil fuel company. Both have political viewpoints that I am skeptical of.

    It is not axiomatic that “action on global warming” in the forms of energy rationing, tax increases on all commanding heights of just the Western economies would a) mitigate in any measureable way the projected warming b) be sustainable without causing massive poverty or c) be based on experimental evidence.

  95. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 6:44 AM | Permalink

    John A (95): “Jim you spent pretty much all of your time trying to smear Steve with an accusation that because he has accepted donations from pretty much anybody, therefore he could or might be controlled by some shadowy grouping by theoretically accepting money from them.”

    Ah? Could you indicate to which posting or postings you refer? Or is this just a product of your fertile imagination?

  96. Jim Barrett
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 6:49 AM | Permalink

    Dan Hughes (my posting 65):

    How is your research going into the establishment and funding of the Greening Earth Society and its surrounding network? We are eager to hear what you find …..

  97. Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 7:09 AM | Permalink

    Jim Barrett:

    Could you indicate to which posting or postings you refer? Or is this just a product of your fertile imagination?

    Certainly it was from this (emphasis added):

    From his reply we can gather that (1) yes, when he chooses, he will reveal how much he receives, (2) no, he will not divulge the identities of the donors and (3) he is unwilling to assure us that he would not accept funding from industry bodies with a vested interest in delaying action on global warming. Fine – I got the answers to my little “audit”

    There’s no need for fertility in my imagination when the implication of what you have written leaves very little doubt as to your intent.

  98. Cliff Huston
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 7:25 AM | Permalink

    Jim Barrett (my postiing #88):

    How is your research going on finding example of any organization that supports your AWG beliefs and meets your donor reporting requirements (including a policy of refusing donations from entities that will profit from “immediate action on global warming’)?

    Also, why do you choose to ignore my clarification that I did not assume in #49, that you are the Jim Barrett of Redefining Progress? And why have you not made a clear statement that you are not the Jim Barrett of Redefining Progress? I think you owe that Jim Barrett an apology.

  99. Cliff Huston
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 7:55 AM | Permalink

    #93 Jim Barrett

    I noticed that you had raised my hypothesis that ‘it’s alright to be a hypocrite, if you [have] Gaia on your side’, to a theory. You must have some extra knowledge that applies to the matter. Would you care to share your insight?

  100. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 7:56 AM | Permalink

    Jim Barrett, I said:

    (3) My intention is to apply for funding to NSF and the corresponding Canadian institution – and maybe whoever funded Mitrie. If it’s worth their time to fund people to try to discredit our work, maybe they should fund our work as well. I haven’t sought any money from companies with a significant short-term commercial interest in delaying global warming nor has any been offered to me by such companies. In a practical sense, climate scientists are looking for any excuse to avoid criticisms of their work and I’m reluctant to give them one.

    I have no interest in giving excuses to people like you. The salient question is: will the funding agencies support critical research? I trust that I can count on your support in obtaining such funding.

  101. Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 8:22 AM | Permalink

    Has Steve taught us nothing of statistics and critical thinking?

    The Jim Barrett posting here uses a Google-approximation of the number of Jim Barrett’s in the world (91,700/37) and postulates that there is only a 0.04% chance that he is Jim Barrett of Redefining Progress. This estimate is quite accurate if one assumes that the distribution of Jim Barrett’s is uniform with respect to knowledge and interest of the AGW debate.

    I would postulate that the distribution of Jim Barrett’s is highly non-uniform with respect to knowledge and interest in the AGW debate. If we were to rank all Jim Barrett’s on their likelihood of posting here, I’d put JB of RP at the top, and estimate his likelihood of posting at 100 times the likelihood on Jim Barrett #2.

    Besides, he doesn’t deny it–he just uses sloppy statistics to attack our perfectly reasonable assumption. So let’s not apologize.

  102. Dan Hughes
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

    Initially I assumed that we would have fruitful discussions with Jim Barrett. He has proven that that is not going to happen. I still await answers to my original questions.

    As someone mentioned above he is a simple (6th meaning in an online dictionary) troll and has no intentions of conducting rational discussions.

    I am concerned that the CA Tip Jar thread has been hijacked and resulted in a decrease in funds. I plan to hit it again so as to help make up the difference.

  103. Brooks Hurd
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 9:29 AM | Permalink

    If Jim Barrett were truly interested in funding sources, he might ask similar questions of RC. Who is funding that site?

    Jim Barrett might also consider the fact that the people who run RC and provide the thread topics and commentary work for publically funded instutions. In other words, my tax dollars are contributing to their efforts to ingnore requests to release data, methods and code (also funded with my tax dollars); censor and edit critical questions; and belittle anyone who questions their conclusions. I fail to see how these actions are a positive use of my tax dollars.

  104. Jean S
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    #93:

    However, if you really want statistics, how about this – this thread does contain one of the most spectacular examples of cherrypicking of the contrarian world. I refer of course to postings 45, 49, 50 and 51 where, from a potential sample of 91,700 hits, a mere 37 point to someone who happened to fit the preconceived notion of what “Jim Barrett” should be like.

    C’mon, don’t teach me how to Google. Use the search words “Jim Barrett” and “Climate Change” and you get 308 hits, which refer essentially to 6 different JBs. Four of them are in US, one Australian English literature student in Sweden, and an Australian “Native Fish Strategy” manager. Out of the four in the US you can rule out the one from Michigan based on expressed opinions, two (California and Montana) on basis of time stamps (e.g. #35) of JB’s posts here, so this only leaves the one from RP (Washington, DC). But of course I may have mistaken your nationality too, or the “real” JB does not come up with those search words (excluding CA). I don’t really care, this is my last post on this matter, I won’t let you hijack this thread whoever Jim Barrett you are.

  105. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    Re #93 – **and by Gerald Machnee (73) of not making “a contribution to the statistical discussion” and “hjacking” this thread “to a non essential discussion”. Now I was not actually aware that this thread was about statistics – I thought it was about Steve soliciting funds from his supporters and I thought I had asked a quite natural and simple question.**
    But simple question was never your intention, was it?
    **However, if you really want statistics, how about this – this thread does contain one of the most spectacular examples of cherrypicking of the contrarian world. I refer of course to postings 45, 49, 50 and 51 where, from a potential sample of 91,700 hits, a mere 37 point to someone who happened to fit the preconceived notion of what “Jim Barrett” should be like.**
    You have just proven my point with your response. If you have not figured out that I meant statistics about climatology then we cannot help your juvenile thoughts. You may as well have commented on the death rate related to eating pickles. In any rate, it will not be worthwhile to comment to you unless you can demonstrate some ability to seriously discuss scientific analysis of climatology.

  106. John Hekman
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    Wow, I sure missed a lot having the flu for two days.

    I’m in. Best wishes, Steve.

  107. Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Re; #83 to 85 “the Kyoto Protocol is a good example of how to achieve the minimum results with the maximum efforts (and sacrifices).

    That’s a good line! The paper has obvious shortcomings, but there again so does Hansen’s ‘warmest in a million years’ PNAS paper, and the ‘hockey stick.’

  108. Jonathan Schafer
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 1:16 PM | Permalink

    I’m in. I’d give more but money is tight right now. You can freely associate my name with any donation list you may be required to
    produce. I have no ties to the oil industry, own no stocks which are associated with any big (insert xxx) companies
    that may have an interest in delaying action on global warming, although there certainly could be some in a couple
    mutual funds that I hold (haven’t browsed through all the companies in which they own shares).

    I do tend to use petroleum based products in my life, however, so I’m sure that somehow associates me as an
    evil-doer or puppet of some big(insert xxx) companies :).

  109. welikerocks
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 5:42 PM | Permalink

    something in the news sort of on topic:

    Obviously, other factors complicate our foreign policy. However, we are persuaded that the climate change denial strategy carried out by and for ExxonMobil has helped foster the perception that the United States is insensitive to a matter of great urgency for all of mankind, and has thus damaged the stature of our nation internationally. It is our hope that under your leadership, ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the “deniers.” Likewise, we look to you to guide ExxonMobil to capitalize on its significant resources and prominent industry position to assist this country in taking its appropriate leadership role in promoting the technological innovation necessary to address climate change and in fashioning a truly global solution to what is undeniably a global problem.

    WSJ editorial page “Senators to Exxon: Shut up, and pay up” Global Warming Gag Order

  110. jae
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    Rocks: that is a great op ed. It says exactly what several people on this blog have been saying: the extremist-AGWers are acting very insecure.

  111. Reid
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 6:20 PM | Permalink

    Sen. Snowe and Sen. Rockefeller quote from WSJ: “ExxonMobil and its partners in denial have manufactured controversy”

    I’d say Big Government and it’s allies have manufactured consensus.

  112. jae
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 6:44 PM | Permalink

    Some Bayesian statistics for bender here. Also “models incorporating linear slopes and instantaneous step changes.” That’s a new one on me.

  113. bender
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    where?

  114. Dan Hughes
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    On July 25, 1997, Senator Snowe and Senator Rockerfeller, along with 93 other senators ( five did not vote) adopted a resolution stating that “the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto.’

  115. John Baltutis
    Posted Dec 5, 2006 at 7:17 PM | Permalink

    Possibly this

    http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2004/djs0402.pdf

  116. jae
    Posted Dec 6, 2006 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

    Poor California: CARB can’t figure out what the 1990 baseline GHG emissions were.

  117. jae
    Posted Dec 6, 2006 at 2:08 PM | Permalink

    114: sorry about the bum link. Here.

  118. John Baltutis
    Posted Dec 6, 2006 at 4:45 PM | Permalink

    Re: #118.

    That’s a review; the original’s at the #116 link.

  119. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 6, 2006 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    Looks like the upgrade will finally get going. My credit card had rolled over expiry dates so they got stalled processing the upgrade.

  120. Patrick
    Posted Dec 16, 2006 at 5:55 AM | Permalink

    Steve

    Count me in. As the good book says, “The truth will set you free”. If we can discern the truth about what is happening to the climate, then maybe we can take action that does some good (particularly in the area of mitigation).

    Trusting that greenhouse gases are the root cause of global warming, and then trying to get international agreements to limit carbon, and then making sure that everyone sticks to those limits sounds like a very expensive way to achieve very little.

    Regards

    Patrick

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,203 other followers

%d bloggers like this: