News

First, the bad news. I lost in the final of the Canadian “Century” doubles squash championships today. I played a good semi-final yesterday and not so well today.

I’ve agreed to appear on Campbell Brown, CNN tomorrow. Normally they don’t take an interest in doubles squash, but these are unusual times, I guess. I presume that they’re interested in my take on the squash matches over the weekend. Also, the respective merits of three-wall nicks versus reverse corners.

Also, I was taped last week by Fox News for a documentary which (I think) will be on this week. They interviewed me for a couple of hours. This was before the weekend squash tournament and they were interested in climate rather than squash. They were in Toronto for the Munk Debates and also interviewed George Monbiot (who I had a very pleasant cup of coffee with off both our records) and others. They were very well prepared – far more than anyone else. They knew (and asked) about such esoterica as the Starbucks Hypothesis. I’m not experienced in this type of interview and I’m sure that my answers were invariably too dull. We’ll see.

65 Comments

  1. Paul
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 4:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I believe your tiredness has left you. Wonderful humour which demonstrates your faculties are good and safe. Shame about the squash but perhaps you could “reconstruct” the final to have a different ending!

  2. bender
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    What’s wrong with “dull”? Just the dull facts, ma’am.

  3. Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 4:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry about the loss in the squash match. You could try my grandmother Dorothy’s sensational secret recipe but I’m guessing the yellow crooknecks aren’t in season up there. Besides you shouldn’t be having that much butter at your age.

    Good luck with the CNN interview. I will look out for that and the Fox documentary.

  4. kuhnkat
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 4:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Any idea if the shows will be available on their web sites??

  5. Arn Riewe
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Can you discuss who interviewed you from Fox?

    Jeez, I would have loved to have been a fly on the table at the coffee klatch with Monbiot!

  6. None
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 4:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Particularly glad to hear about the off the record coffee with Monbiot. A lot of these journalists really do believe the crazier delusions Mann et al feed them about their “denialist” foes. Can only do good to to show that it’s real people, who understand the issues, have no axe to grind but when conciensciously checking out the issues for themselves were alarmed at what they found.

  7. fFreddy
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Bad luck – but hope you get a good night’s sleep.

  8. waterside4
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 4:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve,
    commisseration on loosing the final.I have plenty experience of being the bridesmaid at golf comps in carnoustie.
    I do not know if this is apposite but over on this side of the pond we do not have anything to compare with CA or WUWT, if we did i’m sure the Brown commisars would soon ship us off to the gulag. maybe we could survey some of the defunct thermoms. there for you!
    The offering below is maybe off topic but what the heck!
    i find stuffed shirts detest irony. especially from a 67 year old grandad. do what you will with it.

    THE 12 DAYS OF CHRISTMAS.

    on the first day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the second day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    two tricks to play and a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the third day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    three hockey sticks , two tricks to play
    and a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the fourth day of cristmas my true love sent to me,
    four suspect graphs, three hockey sticks, two tricks to play
    and a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the fifth day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    five declines a hiding, four suspect graphs, three hockey sticks,
    two tricks to play and a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the sixth day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    six doctors lying, five declines a hiding, four suspect graphs,
    three hockey sticks, two tricks to play
    and a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the seventh day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    seven bears a swimming, six doctors lying, five declines a hiding,
    four suspect graphs, three hockey sticks, two trick to play
    and a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the eight day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    eight grants for milking, seven bears a swimming,
    six doctors lying, five declines a hiding, four suspect graphs,
    three hockey sticks, two tricks to play
    and a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the ninth day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    nine researchers dancing, eight grants for milking,
    seven bears a swimming, six doctors lying,
    five declines a hiding, four suspect graphs, three hockey sticks,
    two tricks to play and a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the tenth day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    ten computer programmes, nine researchers dancing,
    eight grants for milking, seven bears a swimming,
    six doctors lying, five declines a hiding, four suspect graphs,
    three hockey sticks, two tricks to play
    and a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the eleventh day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    eleven guns a smoking, ten computer programmes,
    nine researchers dancing, eight grants for milking,
    seven bears a swimming, six doctors lying, five declines a hiding,
    four suspect graphs, three hockey sticks, two tricks to play
    and a cross section of a pine tree.
    on the twelfth day of christmas my true love sent to me,
    twelve thousand warmists meeting, eleven guns a smoking,
    ten computer programmes, nine researchers dancing,
    eight grants for milking, seven bears a swimming, six doctors lying,
    five declines a hiding, four suspect graphs, three hockey sticks,
    two tricks to play and a cross section of a pine tree.

    the poet laundrette

  9. Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 5:00 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Sure you weren’t dull at all – most peeps are surprised/relieved when they see themselves on screen.

    Also – the public want to see reassuring sober and conservative specialists right now – the age of alarmism is drawing to a close – that’s why the AGW movement has become more hysterical [polar bears in 911/drowning/Greenpeace claiming their extinction] to attract attention.

    Frankly, my charitable opinion of the green lobbyists has changed a lot over the last month having seen their risible/offensive propaganda tactics. The 911 stuff was truly warped.

  10. nanny_govt_sucks
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 5:06 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, I’m starting to think that others don’t take your squash seriously enough. If you would just publish some of these matches, then you might garner more attention from the mainstream athletic media.

  11. Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, so long as we’re posting poetry, this parody of “The house that Jack built” seems particularly apropos. It is from the Space Child’s Mother Goose by Frederick Winsor and Marian Parry (Simon and Schuster, 1956). Substitute whatever name you like for “Jack.”

    This is the Theory Jack built.

    This is the Flaw
    That lay in the Theory Jack built.

    This is the Mummery
    Hiding the Flaw
    That lay in the Theory that Jack built.

    This is the Summary
    Based on the Mummery
    Hiding the Flaw
    That lay in the Theory that Jack built.

    This is the Constant K
    That saved the Summary
    Based on the Mummery
    Hiding the Flaw
    That lay in the Theory that Jack built.

    This is the Erudite Verbal Haze
    Cloaking Constant K
    That saved the Summary
    Based on the Mummery
    Hiding the Flaw
    That lay in the Theory that Jack built.

    This is the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
    That thickened the Erudite Verbal Haze
    Cloaking Constant K
    That saved the Summary
    Based on the Mummery
    Hiding the Flaw
    That lay in the Theory that Jack built.

    This is the Chaotic Confusion and Bluff
    That hung on the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
    That thickened the Erudite Verbal Haze
    Cloaking Constant K
    That saved the Summary
    Based on the Mummery
    Hiding the Flaw
    That lay in the Theory that Jack built.

    This is the Cybernetics and Stuff
    That covered Chaotic Confusion and Bluff
    That hung on the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
    That thickened the Erudite Verbal Haze
    Cloaking Constant K
    That saved the Summary
    Based on the Mummery
    Hiding the Flaw
    That lay in the Theory that Jack built.

    This is the button to Start the Machine
    To make with the Cybernetics and Stuff
    To cover Chaotic Confusion and Bluff
    That hung on the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
    That thickened the Erudite Verbal Haze
    Cloaking Constant K
    That saved the Summary
    Based on the Mummery
    Hiding the Flaw
    That lay in the Theory that Jack built.

    This is the Space Child with Brow Serene
    Who Pushed the Button to Start the Machine
    That made with the Cybernetics and Stuff
    Without Confusion, exposing the Bluff
    That hung on the Turn of a Plausible Phrase
    And, shredding the Erudite Verbal Haze
    Cloaking Constant K
    Wrecked the Summary
    Based on Mummery
    Hiding the Flaw
    And Demolished the Theory that Jack built.

  12. Doug in Seattle
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 5:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I, apparently like most everybody else, haven’t watched CNN in a long time. I might make an exception tomorrow evening though. I find the alternatives a bit stale anyway.

  13. Sean Peake
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 5:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Starbuck’s Hypothesis: There are as many Starbucks locations as there are weather stations used by the CRU

  14. Judith Curry
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 5:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Campbell Brown is doing a 3 part series on climategate, on her mon, tues and wed eve shows. Wed is apparently for the policy/copenhagen implications of climate gate. When i was interviewed last week, i was told that Mann, Schmidt, Revkin, Michaels had also been interviewed, and that they were trying to get Jones. Glad to hear that SteveM has also been interviewed, could be pretty interesting, sounds like campbell brown’s team is trying to do a very thorough job on this.

  15. Judith Curry
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 5:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

    An interesting side note. CNN had asked me to provide a graphic of the HADCRUT temperature series to discuss during my interview. I picked the link to the CRU website, that clearly had Phil Jones name associated with the plot. When i went to pull up the graphic on Fri morn during the interview, it was apparent that the entire CRU website had been taken down, and there was an automatic redirect to a PR statement on the issue by East Anglia.

  16. Barclay E. MacDonald
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 5:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Judith, does this help?

    http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=cru+update+december+1&d=174663664778&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=440992b9,520d5bf0

  17. Sean Peake
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 6:07 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Barclay…too slow. It’s gone

  18. Barclay E. MacDonald
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    And This from Eduardo Zorita, here: http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/

    Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
    Eduardo Zorita, November 2009

    Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.
    A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor do I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.
    By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research ‘soldiers’. And it happens that some of my mail exchange with Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn can be found in the CRU-files made public recently on the internet.
    To the question of legality or ethicalness of reading those files I will write a couple of words later.
    I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.
    These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the ‘politically correct picture’. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the ‘pleasure’ to experience all this in my area of research.
    I thank explicitly Keith Briffa and Tim Osborn for their work in the formulation of one Chapter of the IPCC report. As can be distilled from these emails, they withstood the evident pressure of other IPCC authors, not experts in this area of research, to convey a distorted picture of our knowledge of the hockey-stick graph.
    Is legal or ethical to read the CRU files? I am not a lawyer. It seems that if the files had been hacked this would constitute an illegal act. If they have been leaked it could be a whistle blower action protected by law. I think it is not unethical to read them. Once published, I feel myself entitled to read how some researchers tried to influence reviewers to scupper the publication of our work on the ‘hockey stick graph’ or to read how some IPCC authors tried to exclude this work from the IPCC Report on very dubious reasons. Also, these mails do not contain any personal information at all. They are an account of many dull daily activities of typical climatologists, together with a realistic account of very troubling professional behavior.

  19. Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 6:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#CRUG

  20. debreuil
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 6:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Glad to hear you had a pleasant coffee with George Monbiot. That is the path back to sanity here.

  21. boballab
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ll be watching out for those Steve, but you need to make sure you have plenty of rest for when the Met office releases the “raw” data.

  22. Don Wagner
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 6:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry to hear about the decline in your squash game. What happened? Exxon didn’t break your opponents legs?

  23. boballab
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 6:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Oh Steve I don’t know if you saw this or not, but this is extremely Ironic after how many times Mann et al threw Big Oil in your face but it turns out that CRU was getting money from Shell Oil, BP/Amoco and trying to get money from Exxon. Here is the link to the story:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

  24. Tony Hansen
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 7:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    …’they were interested in climate rather than squash’.
    How reliable can they be when they priorities are so messed up!!!

  25. Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 7:12 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I’m sure where to report this, but CRU has taken down their “staff” web page
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/

    All CRU web pages now seem to be redirected to an announcement about the investigation.

  26. curious
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    debreuil “Glad to hear you had a pleasant coffee with George Monbiot. That is the path back to sanity here.”

    Not so sure about that:

    “Pantomime season comes early to Canada in climate debate with sceptics”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/04/debate-climate-sceptics

    Despite calling for Phil Jones to resign it seems GM is still on full steam ahead.

  27. windansea
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 7:23 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve

    anytime you reach the finals you’ve excelled….well done!

  28. L Nettles
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 8:04 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dr. Curry was interviewed on NPR today and spoke about Climategate. She said some kind words for the serious Skeptical blogs.

  29. Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 8:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CNN & Fox news punditry: Readers of Climate Audit will be able to say “We knew him before he was a big celebrity climate science skeptic”

  30. Ron S
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 10:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve – this has got to cheer you up!

    “…Then you give me the Yamal tree ring chart … and it takes that f**** McIntyre five minutes to crack it!”
    (Adolf as Al Gore to Hansen, Jones, Mann & Briffa)

    • TurkeyLurkey
      Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Reply

      I believe this had been previously snipped by our genial host.
      TL

  31. MrPete
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 10:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dr Curry,
    If you don’t already know this: at least one of the places where your “open letter” was published is disingenuous about their desire for comment.

    I said a couple of things, others replied and challenged my statements… and then I was silently banned. I am completely unable to comment at Climate Progress. No, not a technical issue. No, I was not being disrespectful or off-topic.

    I used a different email address, got a small comment in, and it was quickly and silently deleted.

    This is a great example of how the Powers That Be try to control public perceptions.

    You might want to further consider the venues you use in the future. I know you receive enough guff already. But this non-scientific political posturing has got to stop.

  32. LMB
    Posted Dec 6, 2009 at 11:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

    > Campbell Brown is doing a 3 part series on climategate, on her mon, tues and wed eve shows.

    Brown can be pretty skeptical and sometimes confrontational with guests when she thinks they’re dodging her questions. Her CNN show used to be named “Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull.” They dropped that name, but she may still be anti-bias.

    It’s not too surprising she’d cover Climategate. She is married to Daniel Senor, a Republican consultant who regularly appears on Fox News.

    I’m not saying she’s conservative, but she has access to conservative ideas, and even if she doesn’t agree with them, she is probably at least sympathetic.

    She tends to virtually mock guests whom she thinks are ridiculous. Last week she did this with one guest who seemed more interested in the Selahis (?sp) being investigated than the White House social secretary. A few weeks back, she gave Valerie Jarrett (?sp) a hard time at one point.

    I usually watch her show every day so I’ll be looking for her new series on Climategate.

    (She isn’t the first CNN show anchor to deal with it. She follows Rick Sanchez and Jack Cafferty.)

  33. SineCos
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 12:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I searched the Fox schedule and didn’t find anything yet about squash nor McIntyre. I’ll watch for ads. It does look like CNN is still around, although I’m not sure what they’re doing between reporting one hour of news every two weeks.

  34. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 12:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hmmm, a two hour interview? That does of course mean that it will be edited down to fifteen minutes….. er, well, really about seven minutes counting commercials! :-)

  35. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 4:20 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Unfortunately you are not getting much publicity here in the UK, perhaps because we are less interested in squash here.

    The way the UK media is trying to spin it is that the only people who think it’s significant are right-wing US politicians and lobbyists (the BBC interviewed Inhofe and Morano).

    Interesting to see that the entire CRU pages have been taken down (on the false pretext of too many hits). Presumably this is part of their commitment to greater openness.

  36. P Gosselin
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 5:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “Too dry” will not sway the all important public opinion that, in may view, is now vital in correcting the science. Some houses have to be purged of characters, and that won’t happen without political pressure. That’s the real world.
    I thought Marc Sheppard of the American Thinker had a very easy to understand piece explaining exactly what the “trick” was and what was meant by “hiding the decline”.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/american-thinker-understanding-climategates-hidden-decline/
    I can only assume that Sheppard’s piece is accurate, and thus the temperature reconstructions made in the past by CRU and Mann are intentionally misleading.

    Steve:
    Why wouldn’t he have read myself and Jean S on this?

  37. P Gosselin
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 5:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I just think Marc Sheppard ought to get together with Glenn Beck and produce a real KO piece that the public can grasp. But, maybe FOX will use its editing wizardry and surprise you.

  38. P Gosselin
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 5:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Juraj V.
    There’s quite a disparity between RSS and UAH.

  39. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 7:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Looking forward to see them both! Surprised you did Brown, that one requires a lot of work before she could begin to scratch the surface of this issue. She is all politics, no news.

  40. stephen richards
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve I don’t suppose that our ages are too different and , when it comes to squash, I don’t think I’d have the body or the energy to get past the bar.

    I don’t know where you get your dynamism but I could sure use some of it. By the way, how’s the weight? Is that a rude question??

    Oh well, off to an assainissement project meeting now, how exciting is that ??

  41. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Sorry you lost, but now you will have plenty of time to heal your groin !!!

  42. Sean Peake
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 8:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Is there a live news feed from Copenhagen somewhere so we can see what the loons are up to?

  43. johnh
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

    According to his blog George Monbiot did fly to Canada and excused it on the basis of all the pleas for help from supporters in Canada. And yes he is totally against flying.

    The Financial Times has done a piece on the logistics of Copenhagan, the carbon footprint will be equal to the annual carbon emmissions of Switzerland.

    Pot calling Kettle Carbon black.

  44. Doug in Seattle
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Started this morning with my newpaper as usual. On the front page was this story from the NYT mill:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010442896_climatemail07.html

    The article by By ANDREW C. REVKIN and JOHN M. BRODER ran below the fold. The first half was remarkably balanced gien it source and authorship. After reading the front page bit I went to page 3 and as I read on realized they were turning everything around to the Team version of events.

    Damage control appears to be the purpose rather than reporting the news. Sad, but then I have to remember the source.

  45. KevinM
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Reply

    “AP – The largest and most important U.N. climate change conference in history opened Monday, with organizers warning diplomats from 192 nations that this could be the last best chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming.”

    The last best chance… I hope that Fox piece does the trick.

  46. patrick healy
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    On this auspicious day, when our ‘saviours’ are going about their nefarious buisness in Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale land, i was delighted that my local paper in Dundee (Scotland) published a letter i wrote.

    http://www.thecourier.co.uk then click on ‘letters’

    it is comforting to know that not all the media outlets are in the hip pocket of the great MMGW scam, and are prepared to discuss this epoch making adgenda to tax us to death.

    the poet laundrette.

  47. stevemcintyre
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Who says white men can’t jump?
    http://gallery.me.com/sportztime/100091/DSC_7221/web.jpg?ver=12601470590001

  48. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

    As I glanced through my Chicago Tribune this AM, on page 15 I found the pictures of Michael Mann and Stephen McIntrye. I am not at all happy with the current state of what passes for journalism in my Tribune, but they almost got the nuance right on “hide the decline”.

    They got wrong the labeling of Steve M as a warming skeptic, but seemed to have gotten the background and description on the “hide the decline” episode down fairly well.

    The short quote that they extracted from Steve M on the significance of “hiding the decline” does not do it justice in my view. Steve M’s quote is:

    “They deleted the values after 1960. If they show the [tree ring] reconstruction, it goes way down in the late 20th century, what does that mean? It means we can’t say this is the warmest period in 1000 years.”

    It would have been nice to allow Steve M more space to say something about the lack of agreement for the period 1960 and forward between the proxy and the instrumental record and what that means in terms of our confidence in the past relationship of temperature/climate and proxy response.

    In the article Mann alludes to trick “as tricks of the trade” and hand waves conjectures about the cause of the divergence with vague references to pollution and other factors. To be fair it would have been nice at this point to allow Mann more space and determine if he can do better than these generalizations

    Most disappointing was that the Tribune passed up the opportunity to have referenced Steve M as recent doubles runner up in Toronto squash tournament.

    Lack of space on that Tribune page could be attributed to the placement of a large tree stump from the tropics that is being displayed at Copenhagen to raise awareness of deforestation – for those I presume who do better with reading pictures than words.

  49. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Mr McI;
    I highly recommend topical trietholamine salycilate for ‘pulled’ muscles.
    It doesn’t stink or get hot.
    When the pain returns, reapply.
    I assume you are OK with salicilates if you are taking Ibu..
    In the use it is sold OTC as aspercreme.
    This might be the first useful blog entry for me…
    TL

  50. patrick healy
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Reply

    had the following letter published by the dundee (scotland) courier this morning.
    it goes to show that there is still some integrity in the MSM, not all in the gorbal warming camp. this paper has always allowed contrarian letters to be published to give balance to the hysteria of the alarmists
    http://www.thecourier.co.uk (click on letters)

  51. Barclay E. MacDonald
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 2:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Kenneth Fritsch: Doesn’t it make you wonder why the more complete and accurate news can be found on the internet? I thought it was the other way around.

    Watching how the press is handling this and what difficulty they are having just being objective doesn’t say much for the future of the printed page. What if all we had to read was the Australian press? At least here in the U.S. we can sense some confusion.

  52. Hans H
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 4:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Dear Mr McIntyre and all other contributors,
    As a fellow mathematician from Copenhagen (sorry) and fellow squash
    player (1995 finalist in a 5 player holiday tournament …), I am very impressed and delighted by your work and persistence (and squash). This webside is an island of enlightenment in a rather dark sea of mass media.

  53. docmartyn
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 8:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “George Monbiot (who I had a very pleasant cup of coffee with off both our records)”

    yes, but did you then climb a mountain and take a core together?

  54. John F. Pittman
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 8:42 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, you looked good on CNN. Hope you had a pleasant time.

  55. curious
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    CNN video clip has Wegman making an appearance:

    “Cloud over climate summit”

    http://www.cnn.com/search/?query=Cloud%20over%20climate%20summit%20&primaryType=mixed&sortBy=date&intl=false

  56. Patrick M.
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Just watched the Campbell Brown CNN thing. Well Steve, you were the voice of reason. Unfortunately that doesn’t make for exciting TV. The problem with shows like this is that it is reduced to sound bytes. Too bad they didn’t give you as much time as Michael Mann had to spew his spin.

    Hope Fox gives you more time.

  57. Bob
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 8:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, you were by far the most reasoned person on the panel. I wish they did not cut out the medieval warming stuff, because as we know if the team didn’t falsely eliminate it, their is no case for AGW.

  58. David P
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I have to say I thought CNN tried to be fair. What puzzles me is their apparent inability to realize that Mann, Oppenheimer and Pachuri are not impartial observers who can objectively discuss the soundness of the science used by the IPCC–THEY ARE THE IPCC!! Were we supposed to believe Baghdad Bob that no Americans were at Baghdad Airport b/c he was from the Iraqi Information Ministry, even though we could see GIs on the tarmac? I’m not suggesting the IPCC scientists are quite that far gone, but they’re still extremely biased when it comes to evaluating the scientific bases for the IPCC reports.

    I don’t care that “They say” the science is solid. Of course “they” are going to say that in public. The ClimateGate letters and code show that their predictable protestations of the soundness of their work cannot be taken at face value.

    You did well, Steve. I wish you’d been given time to rebut the “peer-reviewed” canard that Roberts raised parroting Mann. I don’t mind Horner, but I would’ve preferred just you and Oppenheimer had more time to discuss the issues.

  59. Bruce Cunningham
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:32 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I just watched the 1st CNN piece with C Brown. You came off very well Steve, a quiet voice of reason. Unfortunately it appears that this will be a whitewash attempt to negate the damge done by the emails. They allow a couple of minutes with you and asked one good question (where they stated that it appeared Jones was attempting to dismiss your foi request). They then spend the rest of the time to allow the “team” to explain things.
    Tomorrow they start of with Mann giving his spin. Rex Murphy, please move to the US and show these political hacks posing as reporters what real honesty is.

  60. Cromagnum
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve also starred in a Finland Documentary called “Climate Catastrophe Canceled” and he did an incredible job explaining the destruction of three hockey sticks.
    http://dotsub.com/view/19f9c335-b023-4a40-9453-a98477314bf2

    It was released a week before ClimateGate opened.

  61. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I suggest that on video, stick to this one point: That the warmist alarmists already new what the truth must be before they looked at the data, and therefore tortured the data till it recanted of its heresy, and confessed the one true faith.

    What appears to have happened ( and I do not suggest explaining this on video), is that the most eminent warmist alarmists were far too important to bother themselves with the mere data. Instead they delegated to some mere menial postgrad the minor and insignificant task of fabricating science that supposedly supported some point, and did not bother themselves with such minor details as to whether the resulting chart carried any relationship to the actual data.

  62. wano
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    can anyone debunk this?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Climatescam+%28ClimateScam%29

  63. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Sounds of santity from smartplanet:

    http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/does-global-warming-science-need-a-restart-or-at-least-a-new-story/2640/

    And of denial (no, not “our” type) from the American Physical Society – despite mutterings from some of their senior members:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/taking_liberties/entry5933353.shtml?tag=cbsnewsTwoColLowerPromoArea;morenews

  64. David
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 12:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    More of the straw-straw man stuff. These guys make 1930′s kremlin speak pale…

    Climate scientist sent death threats
    By Antonette Collins

    Posted 56 minutes ago
    Updated 49 minutes ago

    Dr Wigley says while the threats are genuinely frightening, he is not surprised. (UCAR: Carlye Calvin)

    Audio: Listen to an extended interview with Tom Wigley (The World Today) Related Story: UN to probe hacked climate emails Related Story: Past decade set to be warmest on record Related Story: Flannery defends scientists in leaked emails row Related Story: Climate emails hacked, published Related Story: Sceptics seize on leaked climate emails Related Story: Climate expert steps down after hacked emails Related Story: Top climate scientist hopes Copenhagen fails Related Story: UN defends scientists over leaked emails Related Story: World heads to Copenhagen for climate talks An Australian born scientist at the centre of the East Anglia University email affair says he has received a number of death threats.

    Dr Tom Wigley, a former director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit, has had several of his emails hacked and used by climate change sceptics to suggest that he and his colleagues have been distorting data about the evidence of global warming.

    He is unable to reveal the details of the threats, as they are now being investigated by the FBI and UK police.

    Dr Wigley told Eleanor Hall on The World Today that, while the threats are genuinely frightening, he is not surprised.

    “This sort of thing has been going on at a much lower level for almost 20 years and there have been other outbursts of this sort of behaviour – criticism and abusive emails and things like that in the past,” he said.

    “So this is a worse manifestation but it’s happened before so it’s not that surprising.”

    He rejects suggestions that scientists have been exaggerating about the effects of climate change and says the emails were simply scientific questioning.

    “We don’t base policy by what is said in personal emails from people who are just developing some sort of scientific story,” he said.

    “The real basis for developing policy has to be reports like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and literature that appears in scientific journals that’s gone through what’s called peer review.

    “I think the best approach to these people who criticise our work, whether it’s in other scientific papers or on blogs or whatever, is to fight science or pseudo science with science. And that’s what we often do.”

    Dr Wigley has also attacked climate change sceptics such as Australian commentator Andrew Bolt, who have used the emails as proof that the data on global warming is wrong.

    “Using the word whistleblower is really just another ploy on the part of Andrew Bolt and others to attempt to make it look as though the person who hacked these emails was a good guy and that they had a motive of trying to expose nefarious activities within the Climatic Research Unit,” he said.

    “Well, of course there were no such nefarious activities.

    “I didn’t choke on the deceit because there was no deceit. All I did was ask a number of pointed questions and I received perfectly adequate answers and that’s the end of the story.

    “It would be really nice if someone like Andrew Bolt used the same approach and tried to get both sides of the picture and then he might learn to understand some of these issues better.”

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*
*

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,113 other followers

%d bloggers like this: