Heartland Presentation

I’ll post up illustrated speaking notes in a day or two, as well as some comments. May 20 – Annotated version online here.

I’ve noticed two incomplete versions online.

One version is on Youtube in three parts here. It misses the last few minutes of the talk, but I prefer this version to the version on the Heartland website (which presently stalls at 20:46) because it includes some of the graphics – which were shown on a large screen to the audience and were an integral part of the presentation – and because it picks up audience reaction to the occasional ironic remark a little better.

Youtube part 1

Youtube part 2

Youtube part 3

Here is the Heartland version.

I’ll comment more on this later, but I’ll pick up on a couple of points that is occasioning blog discussion. These arise out of caveats at the beginning and end of my talk (the latter not online at present). In questions afterwards, people challenged me for not being angry, for discouraging angriness and for criticizing Cuccinelli. I received dozens of compliments from people at the conference.

Some blog characterization of my comments e.g. at Keith Kloor and Pielk Jr- somewhat mischaracterize my comments. Academics tend to be surprisingly poor listeners – all too often they fold people’s comments into their preconceived framework. Lawyers tend to be far better listeners.

CA readers know that I express myself carefully and try to make my opinions as narrow and precise as possible. As I previously stated in several CA posts, I disagree with Cuccinelli for a variety of reasons. Cuccinelli is seeking to establish an offence under section 8.01 -263.1 of Virginia act (here). I discussed this briefly in my speech as follows:

Despite the failures of the inquiries to do their job, I strongly disagree with Cuccinelli’s recent investigation of potential financial abuse. Regardless of what one may think of the quality of Mann’s work, he has published diligently. In my opinion, Cuccinelli’s actions are an abuse of administrative prerogative that on the one hand is unfair to Mann and on the other provides easy fodder for people to avoid dealing with the real issues.

All I’m saying here is that I do not think that there is prima facie evidence of a section 8.01 offence. I realize that Cuccinelli has the “right” to investigate section 8.01 offences, but I do not believe that his present interest in Mann arises out of search criteria arising out of section 8.01 – there must be hundreds, if not thousands, of government expenditures that would be on a short list generated by accounting criteria. This is too much like instigating out a tax audit on political enemies.

There are real issues in this file that should have been investigated by the appropriate inquiries. People who are worried about these things should complain to institutions responsible for the inquiries – not instigate section 8.01 investigations.


  1. PJB
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 3:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks Steve. I watched “live” and enjoyed most of the presentations although I missed Richard’s.

    Monckton got pretty choked up at the end of his…..you were considerably more avuncular. ;-)

    I prefer genuine to theatrics but as long as the science is right, np.

  2. timetochooseagain
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 4:03 PM | Permalink | Reply

    What do you make of the statements that your talk was not well received? What impression did you have?

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted May 19, 2010 at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I received dozens of compliments on my talk from all sorts of people.

      • Posted May 19, 2010 at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

        I’m surprised to hear it was only dozens. I had a hard time even getting near you to tell you I enjoyed your talk Sunday evening.

        Steve: “dozens” may not be the mot juste. I was thinking that it wasn’t “hundreds”, but now that I think of it, I guess the number of people that came up to say hello was probably over 200 rather than under 100. Every single person who approached me was positive. Many said that what I said needed to be said. Some said that, on reflection, they agreed with my approach. A few were positive, but said that I didn’t understand how legal processes worked. Funny how quick people are to make assumptions. A few even commented on the 90% of my text about the trick and said that they found the story interesting.

  3. Doug in Seattle
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I greatly enjoyed your presentation and hope you more public presentations like this one.

    While I could see your discomfort in being inside such a right of center milieu you handled yourself well and managed to get across both your science and policy points in an understandable manner.

    I can’t say I would be pleased to see your departure from the scene in the near future though as you seemed to intimate in your Q&A. There are still some important parts of the climate science creed that need to be audited – such as model performance and sensitivity.

  4. Bob
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve I understand your position but my question is how long do we have to wait for a proper inquiry in the manner you describe? I see no other way to get a proper inquiry.

    Steve: Unfortunately, a search for section 8.01 offences will not result in a proper inquiry either.

    • Tom Ganley
      Posted May 19, 2010 at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I get that you don’t want to be connected in any way with the political part of the argument; you’ve clearly stayed far away from that since the beginning. But Mann jumped into the political end of it long ago, and now is paying a political price. I don’t think the thing that’s confusing people is the fact you don’t want to pile on. That’s you, everybody gets that. It’s why you are sympathetic to someone that seems to have brought it on himself.

    • Pat Frank
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 2:53 PM | Permalink | Reply

      If climate science had not been so politicised, the proper inquiry would likely have followed the M&M03 paper with Ross, Steve, and certainly GRL05. It’s highly relevant that the current dust-up only followed the UEA leak and the public embarassment that followed the revelations of data skullduggery. That is, it took the political bombshell of “Climategate” to instigate the current even cursory examination of UEA science. So it goes in “politcal science.” When the commitement is political, only a political discredit will cause a re-examination and bring a change.

      Paleo-thermometry has been easily as politicised as the science surrounding the SAT. It seems likely, by analogy, that it will take a political scandal to cause re-examination of that field, too. Critical re-examination certainly hasn’t emerged in that field following from your papers, which it should have done. Maybe Cuccinelli’s investigation will provide the political impetuus for what, in the current super-heated atmosphere, will be ultimately a political, not scientific, change of course. The restoration of integrity in science will only come when the politics has been wrung out.

    • Stacey
      Posted May 26, 2010 at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Reply


      Mr McIntyre won’t thank me for this, but I think the inquiry has already been carried out diligently by the said Mr McIntyre.

      A very good presentation which demonstrates the rare skill you possess in dealing with facts and data.

  5. mpaul
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 5:43 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, your opinion about Cuccinelli is expressed in uncharacteristically broad language, which I suspect is what’s causing all the hubbub. We simply don’t know what triggered the audit. All we know is that Cuccunelli has said that the investigation is about misuse of research funds. The AGs office might have received a complaint with sufficient specificity to warrant an audit. Without knowing this, what basis do you have for accusing Cuccinelli of abuse of administrative prerogative? I would certainly not support a politically motivated witch hunt against academics. But I am withholding judgment until I see more information.

  6. Judith Curry
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 5:47 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, welcome to the middle where people on both sides find something to dislike about what you say :) Actually, i thought your presentation was very well done and your lack of anger with no “playing to the crowd” lent credibility to what you had to say.

    Steve: I’ve been consistent in what I’ve said. In Bush days, I compared my criticisms of proxy reconstructions to a CIA analyst saying that sometimes an aluminum tube was just an aluminum tube and not evidence of WMD – an analogy that always seemed to temper enthusiasm in some political quarters.

    • Posted May 19, 2010 at 6:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Judith, it’s my belief that Steve has always occupied the apolitical, non-agenda driven space in the middle. The travesty is that more scientists don’t share that space with him. One has to ask: what space a scientist occupies when Steve McIntyre is your arch nemesis? Have a laugh at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjQvDZ90DoE :)

    • JamesG
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 2:34 AM | Permalink | Reply

      As in “clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you”.:)

    • Hoi Polloi
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 4:02 AM | Permalink | Reply

      I think the “alu tubes” analog is a very good one. The theory might be very appealing to many, but nuclear scientists just know that’s impossible to use them for nuclear purposes.

  7. Ed Snack
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 5:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    An excellent presentation, thanks.

    I think the major reason that some people welcome the Cuccinelli inquiry is that they have (like me) given up all hope of any other inquiry ever being made on an independent basis. I don’t think Cuccinelli will get anywhere either, but perhaps at least he hasn’t already decided his findings before starting.

    • Jason Miller
      Posted May 19, 2010 at 10:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Cuccinelli only did this after he sued the EPA. He is fishing for anything he can use in that suit. Cuccinelli is a politician and lawyer with, surprisingly, a political agenda. Do you truly believe “he hasn’t already decided his findings before starting”?

      And, yes, my taxes are funding this agenda oriented fishing trip into the Commonwealth’s higher education institutions…. Cuccinelli has made it clear – if you did research over the last ten years that is not instep with the recently elected state officials’ agenda, beware.

  8. ZT
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 6:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Thank you – a very nice presentation – you evidently weren’t playing to the crowd – enjoyed your sense of humour too.

  9. Orson
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve writes:
    “people challenged me for not being angry, for discouraging angriness and for criticizing Cuccinelli.”

    No-not ‘angry.’ People challenge Steve to exercise sound moral judgement, not ‘net neutrality.’

    The point is that at some point, indulging others in charity about their own lack of good judgement becomes, itself, indulging evil.

    Reasonable people will disagree about where this line of demarcation (to call on Popper’s most famous formulation), is fairly drawn. And this was the source of contention was at ICCC4: somewhere the line is crossed, and the Climategate emails lowered the bar for crossing it, in many people’s estimation.

    Let’s recap: AGW-Orthodoxy commands the media, the universities, and Academies of Sciences, as well was all US political institutions. Yet orthodox AGW-science has been erected on many varieties of cherry-picking (ie, climateaudit’s theme). And now Climategate exposes the venality and insularity of these servants of the New ruling class and their statist objectives, real science be damned!

    Bowing before this New Class strikes many independent thinking American’s – who naturally prize independence – as, well, un-American: a gross betrayal of the ethics of ‘Liberal science.”

    A fully functioning culture of liberal science rests on relentlessly applying democratic values to the work of actual science. Values like open data sharing, transparency of methods, and that no one has the final say until soundness survives all reasonable testing. In short, values Steve McIntyre has relentlessly brought to bear on AGW criticism.

    As journalist Jonathan Rauch wrote when totalitarian-minded political correctness left Salmon Rushdie left to die before an Iranian fatwa, he called upon defending our enlightened western values in terms of science: “The credo of liberal science imposes upon each of us two moral obligations: to allow everybody to err and criticize, even obnoxiously, and to submit everybody’s beliefs–including our own–to public checking before claiming that they deserve to be accepted as knowledge.”

    It is a great accomplishment to do the first, but it is dangerous to indulge those who subvert the latter

    This creates an obligation to exercise honest judgement, not dishonestly calling dishonest scientists simply “misled” or “ignorant,” when only malice can explain malpractice and conspiracy to silence dissent and block substantive criticism is actually evil.

    And this conflict explains why Steve was not met with unanimous honor at ICCC4.

  10. timetochooseagain
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 7:33 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve has far more respect from me than the NAS, which can’t separate politics from science, evidently:


  11. Posted May 19, 2010 at 7:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, I thoroughly enjoyed your talk, especially the sarcasm. BTW you need to advertise “The Hockey Stick Illusion” (with cover image) on a side bar here and recommend it as a “beginners guide”.

    My problem is with Mann you come off too much like an apologist. By defending him on something like the VA AG it politically plays into “the team’s” hands. I fully understand you want to keep the debate academic but everything I have read about all of this has him doing everything he can to personally discredit and smear you (he even has used the words fraud against you). Now surely that at the least deserves the silent treatment on issues like the VA AG. Without commenting you maintain the academic high ground and lose nothing in the political realm. Most people, even those who disagreed with you understand where you stand and why, it is just your message on the issue comes across poor and muddled, thus it may be better to refrain from taking any position in the future and leave it to legal scholars.

    Also regarding Climate Audit having a finite life, I would hope you would consider assembling a team of “auditors” for future endeavors such as Lucia and other regulars you feel comfortable with to continue the site. Having a team would give you the ability to take as much time off as you would like without feeling like you have a need to grind it out.

  12. kuhnkat
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 9:17 PM | Permalink | Reply

    “People who are worried about these things should complain to institutions responsible for the inquiries – not instigate section 8.01 investigations.”

    They have and we have seen the result.

    On with the Cuchinelli’s padding their resumes.

  13. Posted May 19, 2010 at 9:57 PM | Permalink | Reply


    My one characterization was based on the Spectator blog post, but I only went with that after I read many of the disappointed commenters at Bishop Hill. So I thought there must be something to it.

    I’d be curious to know how I got it wrong.

  14. Anthony Watts
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 10:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I heard pro and con from people while I was there. I agree with Judith, on this issue at least, you are now squarely in the middle.

    Glad you made it home without further incident. As always it was a pleasure to see you and converse briefly.

    Steve Anthony, nice to see you too. As Anthony notes, we both ended up being very busy. Both Anthony and I did a lot of interviews – I must have done about 6-7 hours of interviews.

  15. Steve McIntyre
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    One point about the supposed reaction – at no point did I feel that the questions were personal attacks. I wasn’t bothered one whit by the questions and tried to answer them as best I could. Life in the blogosphere is a lot rougher.

    • PhilJourdan
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

      That is a sad indictment of the mainstream media today. Not that you should have been grilled, but hardball questions use to be the rule of the day for real journalists.

      My comment referred to the questions from the audience that have been characterized in some quarters as hostile, but which were polite in comparison to comments by Climategate climate scientists and their followers.

      As to journalists, I spent 6-7 hours and answered questions in a lot of detail. U think that I tend to get along pretty well even with journalists who come into the interview expecting to oppose me. That doesn’t necessarily translate into stories. Think about some of the coverage of the conference and ask yourself whether the reporter in question might also have talked to me and decided to write about a more contentious person.

  16. Ron Cram
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I appreciate the fact you express yourself very precisely and the fact you are not an angry person. These are both great traits.

    However, I also think you should painting those who disagree with you regarding Cuccinelli as angry people who cannot think straight because of emotion. While you did not make this assertion, the tone of this post seems to leave that impression. Perhaps you were only conveying your feeling the listeners at the conference were angry and unreasonable.

    I believe Cuccinelli has reasons for his investigation. First, Mann has shown himself willing to bend the rules. Second, his associates also bend the rules in regards to financial matters. Witness the CRU emails regarding funding research in Russia. When judges are shown wrongdoing, they will usually allow investigators to continue turning over rocks. Cuccinelli may not have prima facie evidence of wrongdoing on the specific studies he is looking into, but such evidence is required for this type of investigation. It is clear to anyone who understands the law as written that Cuccinelli is within his legal right to conduct this investigation. I am glad to see you admit Cuccinelli has the right to investigate Mann, even though you may not agree with it.

  17. JEM
    Posted May 19, 2010 at 11:37 PM | Permalink | Reply

    First off, let’s be honest.

    We would not be where we are today – that is, staring into the climate-science can of worms with the lid prised open, if not completely off – without your efforts.

    I support Cuccinelli’s efforts, cautiously and tentatively. I do not believe it would be desirable to see Mann hauled into a courtroom, and frankly I’d be surprised and disappointed – absent unequivocal evidence of clearly criminal behavior – if it really went that far.

    The more probable case is that the lessons of the UEA email release will be taken to heart – no man is condemned save out of his own mouth.

    The materials secured will be made public record, Mann will come off an ass, and Cuccinelli will leave the rest to public opinion.

    • JEM
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 12:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

      I’d further note that the only reason I’m in favor of what Cuccinelli’s doing – so far – is that the academic community has done bugger-all to police their own.

      If, over the past twenty years and through the IPCC process, we’d seen any indication whatsoever from the academy that they’d push back against suppression of dissenting views, that they’d support and facilitate and insist upon a broader discussion, then I’d consider the AG’s activities quite out of line.

      As things stand, though, he’s stepping in where others have failed to act, despite clear need to do so.

  18. Pete Hayes
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 2:24 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Opinions do not matter Steven. Its science that counts and science, not Cuccinelli’s efforts, will, in the end, either make or break the AGW theory. That is, science will win once Climatologists stop at playing politics and open up to real peer review.

    Judith, have you never noticed that SM has always occupied the middle ground or are you just feeing lonely? ;-)

  19. andy
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 2:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Al Capone was done for tax evasion.

  20. JamesG
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 2:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Well done. You showed that humour is the most effective way of dealing with this subject. There is definitely a strong element of farce about it all.

  21. Dirk
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 3:28 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, I wish I could have been there- I would have asked one question:

    If CERN publishes CLOUD data that purports to prove a link between cosmic rays and clouds and temperature (or some similar finding), will you audit that?

    Or do you see your self sticking to things hockey-stick related (or just riding into the sunset?)

  22. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 4:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

    We do not have the Q&A at the end of the talk here, so specifics are difficult and can but be inferred from the comments above.

    The generalisation that some seem to miss, is that the blog is named “Climate Audit”. Classically, an auditor performs specific functions of investigation and then reports about matters like finanacial accounting accuracy, compliance with required practise, unexplained discrepancies. Though it varies by country, an auditor does not proceed to prosecute; more often a matter with prima facie cause for prosecution is referred to another agency.

    If you look back over the years, Steve has done a rather deep audit of climate science and has found causes for concern. He is not responsible for their correction, though in many instances he has shown a better way to do a task – but that is a bonus for which we should be thankful.

    So, before you rush to criticise the lack of anger or the unwillingness to support what could be an investigation on a dubious basis, please remember what an auditor traditionally does. Dispassionately.

  23. David Bailey
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 4:36 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, while I see your point about Cuccinelli, my question is whether Cuccinelli would have another procedural way to expose what has gone wrong here.

    I’d hate to think that Mann can get away untarnished, and even worse, that his results remain as quotable “scientific evidence” for AGW!

  24. TomFP
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 5:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    It’s not your ivory tower existence that arouses criticism of your stance on Cuccinelli – quite the reverse. It is your decision to descend from it to deprecate Cuccinelli that irks. He may be bent on an unfounded witch-hunt, as many here who agree with your stance insist (although I suspect he may be merely a Republican), but how on earth do you know what prima facie evidence he does or doesn’t have? You are the last person any of us would have expected to prejudge ANY issue. I do wish you hadn’t so clearly prejudged this one.

    Having said all of which, much as I relish seeing Mann in hot water, I share your fear that Cuccinelli may come up dry, and end up handing Mann a few martyr points. But let’s just wait and see what his enquiry reveals, shall we?

    • Ivan
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Nobody is perfect. Obviously, Steve is using the rhetoric of “dispassionate analysis” and noble opposition to political witch-hunt to advance a political agenda, ie. to emphasize his animosity to Republicans and right-wing in general. I have no objection to his right to do that, but he should do that openly and without seeking any excuses, such as alleged Cuccineli’s “witch-hunt”. It is highly ethically dubious to use your impeccable credibility as a climate auditor and science commentator to advance your political views, and criticize the opposing ones, while pretending you are doing that AS a science commentator.

      And, moreover, Steve’s previous snipping of the policy debates here is now, at least in my view, much less credible, and boils down to political censoring of the skeptical views, rather than to principled avoiding any policy and political discussions. As we have seen, Steve also made an exemption when it was convenient to him to support Obama…I think that he would be more credible if he had allowed the political discussions here to both skeptics and alarmists, and argued in that debate for whatever he considered to be his own position. I personally would not like that (I like politics-policy free CA more) but that’s the credible position. Calling names to the skeptics and parroting the left wing smears about the skeptics as deranged (angry) people, unable for rational discussion, while pretending your blog is politics/policy free, is not a credible position.

      • stephen richards
        Posted May 23, 2010 at 6:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

        I have rarely seen a commenter on this or any site, including RC, get something SO fundamentally WRONG.

        Opening mouth and inserting foot has never been a good communication medium. So, shut up and remove foot until you have something credible say.

  25. kim
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 7:17 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hey Moshe, I’ve got to give credit right now to Roger Carr for inventing ‘Meltdown Mann’ at the Bish’s.

  26. Ed_B
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 7:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve was at Oxford. Dissident intellectual professors were once burned at the stake there by the authorities of the time. It seems to me SM learned to fear “authorities” using power to force their views on professors.

  27. Gary
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve, while your restraint is irksome to those who value justice more than mercy, you are not making the mistake of being vengeful. It’s better to be guilty of compassion than malice in every circumstance. I think you give too much credit to the motives and actions of policy-makers, but your consistency and truthfulness about where you stand on the political side of things deserves respect.

  28. Steve McIntyre
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I’ve placed an annotated version of my talk online here. The PPT slides are inserted as figures and blockquotes into my speaking notes.

    • Scott Brim
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Adobe Reader 9 won’t open the file and says the file is damaged and cannot be repaired.

  29. richard telford
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I confess to not having had time to watch your presentation yet, but are you not embarassed by some of those you shared the lecturn with? I have skimmed a few of the powerpoints, and almost all contain gross errors or tricks.
    For example
    Lindzen terminating a temperature graph at 1984, conveniently omitting the warmest part of the record.
    Eschenbach ploting temperatures with an ordinate axis 400K long, so not surprisingly, the graph looks flat.
    Was Segalstad’s presententation a test of the audience’s ability to detect nonsense? I thought he was supposed to be a geochemist, but he doesn’t even understand the chemistry of ocean acidification.
    And what exactly was the point of Soon’s slides on the collision between the Milky Way and Andromeda. This is not going to happen on policy-relevant timescales.

    • timetochooseagain
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Reply

      “Lindzen terminating a temperature graph at 1984″

      That’s because Stanley Grotch is dead. You apparently completely missed the point of those graphs. It was to show how small the global anomalies are compared to the uncorrelated variance at individual locations. That remains true after 1984.

      “Eschenbach ploting temperatures with an ordinate axis 400K long, so not surprisingly, the graph looks flat.”

      From a physical perspective, it makes a lot of sense to try and look at the temps in terms of degrees Kelvin. Stretching the data out so that the curve fills the hole plot is not any more honest:


      • Posted May 20, 2010 at 2:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

        @richard telford: “Compressing the vertical axis of a graph” is a well known technique used to amplify changes. This can be useful: For example, if you are trading stocks during the day, you want to see minute-to-minute, second-to-second changes relative to how the day began, not relative to the total variability of the series.

        When we are talking about the historical temperature record, compressing the vertical axis gives the impression of wild swings in temperatures. Compressing the horizontal axis overstates how much data are available.

        To see the effect, consider the data in the GHCNv2 from Sharjah International Airport (UAE)(see http://www.unur.com/climate/ghcn-v2/230/41196.html )

        With vertical axis that spans from -40°C to 40°C and a horizontal axis that spans from 1850 to 2007, you can the span of data and the extent of variability on scale that is comparable to other locations. Now, click on the image to get the version with the compressed vertical and horizontal axes. See the difference?

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 1:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

      are you not embarrassed to post on the blog of a person who would share the stage with people you disagree with?

      Are you not embarrassed to be on the same planet with some of the idiots that populate our globe. You should leave.

      There is this strange tribalist notion that Steve’s presence in a place suddenly translates into his agreement with all people in the same place. Look, Steve appearred at AGU when mann and gavin and ammann were in attendance and Nobody on the skeptic side questioned him about being in the same place with those characters. He appearred in congress with mann and all sorts of questionable characters

      A missionary for the truth does have to visit the sinners.. on all sides.

      But, back to you. How about venus I hear the weather is nice

    • Stacey
      Posted May 26, 2010 at 1:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I think your comments are quite odd the first sentance is along the lines of “I haven’t seen the film but I know it’s rubbish”

      You tradduce Mr Escenbach’s presentation the scales of the axes of his graph. He is in good company. If you follow this link, http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qj74manley.pdf
      and then scroll to QuartJ RMet Soc. CET temperatures 1659 to 1973 by Professor Manley you will see, well nothing to be concerned about?

  30. Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I agree with you, Mr McIntyre. People sometimes fail to parse what the other person is saying.

    It is natural to be angry with what passes for paleoclim science. I also believe that this anger should be expressed and articulated in the proper channels. Or else be curtailed completely.

    At the same time, I would like to point out that if we find people from ‘both sides’ against us – it does not automatically mean that what we are saying must be right.

  31. J Solters
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Your invaluable contribution to climate science, among other things, has been to illustrate clearly fatal distortions in proxy temperature reconstructions which led to unsupported conclusions on past temperatures. For this basic work as well as continuing efforts to clarify important data issues in climate science, the public is eternally thankful and greatful. But, you need to stay on message; or your efforts become misunderstood and possibly denegrated when you step into the street fight of American politics and the AGW crowd via the VA/AG investigation. Your fundamental attempt at “fairness” belies a political philosophy exactly opposite to American mainstream thinking on controversial issues like CAGW. When CAGW scientists intentionally co-opt the political process to push political solutions for their climate theories, they trip the wire for more political attention to be applied to their goals. In short, they asked for this brawl and now they got it. There is no known corollary between Canadian and American public reaction which instructs this issue. Nothing of use translates between these two diametrically fundamentally different attitudes regarding politics,(especially the military) or for that matter how to conduct a political fistfight between political scientists and the public they specifically target for life-style changes. A few years ago, once prominent French leader (Chirac) offered heartfelt advise to a Polish diplomat who publically expressed dismay that the EU constution was being railroaded, responded that the Pole “missed an excellent opportunity to sit down and shut up”. A word to the wise called tough love. Regards.

  32. Craig Loehle
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I would point out that Steve got a standing ovation when coming on stage, the only one I saw (I left just before the end of Monckton’s talk). Also, Jay Lehr in his talk said that steve was right and from now on he would say global warming “delusion” instead of “scam”.

  33. John Hekman
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Scott Brim: The pdf does open for me. Maybe not a problem at Steve’s end.

    • timetochooseagain
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Could be a time thing. Minutes ago, I tried and it did not work. I just tried again, and now it does.

      Steve: I fixed it.

      • RuhRoh
        Posted May 20, 2010 at 1:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Mr McIntyre;
        Very Helpful PDF, muchas grandes.

        Having stepped away from the fray for awhile,
        I’ve forgotten where to look up your references to key C-gate emails, such as 716 and 733.

        This complex story has needed a terse retelling such as you did here.

        I had never really previously comprehended the stench of the Briffa-Wahl secret interaction on the review comments, for which the ‘delete all email’ is so clearly germane.

        Other peripherally interested folks might have the same question; what is the best site to enter the numbers you posted?

        OK, I answered my own question;



        Excellent work, Sir!

      • Scott Brim
        Posted May 20, 2010 at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

        In the very last paragraph of his talk, Steve says, “People sometimes say to me – if the hockey stick is wrong, then the situation is worse than we think – arguing this on the basis that this would be evidence of greater climate sensitivity. My standard answer is – well, if that’s the case, we should find out and govern ourselves accordingly. And give no thanks to people whose obstruction has delayed the resolution of the problem.”

        OK … If the hockey stick is wrong, how — specifically — would this be evidence of greater climate sensitivity? (Perhaps there is already a detailed discussion of this topic on CA which Steve could point us to.)

        Steve: I don’t entirely understand the connection either. As I recall, WIlliam Connolley took this position. I’ll try to locate a reference.

        • timetochooseagain
          Posted May 20, 2010 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

          The argument goes that larger variations in temperature with no change in our understanding of the forcings would imply that the sensitivity, which is basically dT/dF, must be higher, sense the denominator is the same but the numerator is larger.

          This is only the case in so far as the forcings behind the MWP are even known, and our knowledge of those forcings is very low.

        • Scott Brim
          Posted May 20, 2010 at 2:37 PM | Permalink

          The simple ratio dT/dF represents a very mechanistic/deterministic way of looking at climate response.

          As I’ve said on this forum and on others, I have to wonder if, prior to the Industrial Revolution, Mother Nature maintained a Six Sigma type of quality assurance program for keeping the earth at some preferred Global Mean Temperature, one that is lower than today’s GMT.

          I don’t know if anyone has asked her that particular question, however. (At least in those terms, anyway.)

          If we did ask her the question, and if her answer was yes, the obvious next question for Mother Nature would be, what is your preferred Global Mean Temperature, and what are your specified tolerances?

  34. Orson
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 1:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Craig’s observation bears repeating: “Steve got a standing ovation when coming on stage, the only one I saw.”

    The Climategate episode or scandal is widely inferred to be a result of Steve’s dogged professional work, only echoed and imitated elsewhere. And the standing ovation was, I believe, over due regard for Steve’s only grudgingly and occasionally recognized success.

    “Poptech” writes: “Also regarding Climate Audit having a finite life, I would hope [Steve] would consider assembling a team of ‘auditors’ for future endeavors such as Lucia and other regulars you feel comfortable with to continue the site.”

    I, too, would enjoy seeing this concept come to fruition. S

    Steve can also meditate upon the kind of executive role he would like to assume, given such a mentored group-blog succession to his original climateaudit. Certainly a thoughtful “Statement of Principles” to steer the site would help extend a bona fide McIntyre vision into the future.

    For commenter’s who aspire to gain expertise in statistical work, inspired mostly by Steve – but also by others – there are a variety distance-learning opportunities to chose from: applied math certificates, climatology from the University of Tennesee, and the University of Arizona for paleoclimatology.

    Steve: readers interested in technical climate topics have choices now that didn’t exist a couple of years ago – to some extent, I’d like to think that I’ve set a positive example in trying to run a polite blog.

  35. Dave Funk
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 2:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

    You are one of my heros, please keep up the good work.
    I think I understand your deference for Mr. Mann. I would suggest that you could find the same for Mr. Cuccinelli. If Mr. Mann’s problem involves kinda stumbling a bit into politics, at lease Mr. Cuccinelli it there all the way with no pretense otherwise. Just as Mr. Mann may be doing what he is doing in complete honesty to himself, the same may be true for Mr. Cuccinelli. If you don’t want to judge one, then the other deserves the same curtesy.

    Steve: Entirely different. Cuccinelli has the authority of executive power. People keep saying that I don’t understand this topic. Look, this is an issue that I’ve been acquainted with far longer than climate science. One of my grandfathers was commissioner of a very important Canadian inquiry on civil rights, that carefully considered the issue of abuse of executive prerogative – where the executive has the “right” to do something, but the right is exercised with ulterior motives. His findings and recommendations were accepted by parties from left to right. Please don’t assume that this is an issue that I’m uninformed on.

    • Ron Cram
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

      I did not think you allowed posters to comment on people’s motives. Are you changing your policy on that?

      I don’t understand why you think Cuccinelli’s motives are ulterior. It seems to me he has spotted Mann’s bad behavior and wonders if he can get some money back for the state of Virginia. It is my judgment he is doing his job. Of course, I may not be in possession of all the facts.

      Steve: I didn’t comment on Cuccinelli’s motives; I commented on his actions as an arbitrary use of executive authority for reasons I’ve already explained. “Bad behavior” is not prima facie evidence of a section 8.01 offence. I’m not all that interested in debating it much more.

      • Ron Cram
        Posted May 21, 2010 at 8:10 AM | Permalink | Reply

        This will be my last comment on the matter. I am not interested in debating in much more either. But you cannot claim you did not accuse Cuccinelli of ulterior motives. Cuccinelli represents the executive branch. You have already admitted he has the right to investigate Mann under the law. In the statement above you say he is doing so with ulterior motives.

        Steve, you are one of the most consistently generous men I know. Generous to a fault in the way you refuse to accuse climate scientists of bad motives. And I think that is good. I am just surprised you will not grant Cuccinelli the same grace. I just don’t get it and probably never will.

  36. oneuniverse
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Reply

    The video of presentation is no longer on Heartland’s site.

    I was in the middle of watching it, too. Another URL for it ?

    Steve - there was something wrong with the version that was previously up – it stalled at 20:46. I contacted the person who posted the Youtube version; he has the rest and will post it some time reasonably soon.

    • oneuniverse
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Ok, just saw the prominent links to Youtube ..

  37. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    richard telford
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM

    I confess to not having had time to watch your presentation yet, but are you not embarassed by some of those you shared the lecturn [sic] with? I have skimmed a few of the powerpoints, and almost all contain gross errors or tricks.
    For example

    Eschenbach ploting [sic] temperatures with an ordinate axis 400K long, so not surprisingly, the graph looks flat.

    richard, the variation in temperature I showed was ±3%. To understand what that means, I showed it from zero. It looks flat because … well … it is flat, a change of ±3% is a small change.

    Here’s the graph in question, so people can decide for themselves:

    • richard telford
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 4:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Yes, past temperature changes have been small relative to absolute zero, but by any meaningful measure, the change from glaciated tropics to tropical rainforest in the Arctic is large. Is this really your idea of a stable climate? Even a small proportion of this change would be highly disruptive.

      A more meaningful scale, would be to calculate the range of temperatures in the geological record relative to, say, the temperature range conducive to the evolution of intelligent life.

      PS Do you not know what a lecturn is?

      • Willis Eschenbach
        Posted May 20, 2010 at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Yes, past temperature changes have been small relative to absolute zero, but by any meaningful measure, the change from glaciated tropics to tropical rainforest in the Arctic is large. Is this really your idea of a stable climate? Even a small proportion of this change would be highly disruptive.

        Whether any given measure is meaningful depends on what we are investigating. If we are looking at the climate as a heat engine surrounded by outer space at a couple of degrees above absolute zero, it is a meaningful measure of the overall stability of the climate. It is a hugely complex system, and has seen gigantic meteor strikes and millennia long widespread volcanic eruptions, and when the dust settles, the temperature has changed very little. I find that quite significant, although of course YMMV.

        But to say that Steve should be “embarrassed” by appearing along with someone whose views you might disagree with is a bridge too far.

        PS Do you not know what a lecturn is?

        No, I don’t … but I know what a lectern is …

        • richard telford
          Posted May 21, 2010 at 2:29 AM | Permalink

          So quick to judge, so slow to check: lecturn is an valid alternative spelling of lectern.

          The graph you present covers only the last 500 ma, a ninth of the Earth’s history. A longer time perspective would probably include the climatic variability you crave. Large (by your definition) climate changes in the last 500 ma are impossible, for if they had occured, we could not have evolved. This is the weak anthropic principle.

          There is nothing wrong with presenting alternative hypotheses. However, I wonder how much space should be given to someone like Segalstad, who apparently misunderstands most of the theory he is critiquing. Unless the plan is not to educate but to confuse the audience.

          Steve: I’m not particularly interested in Segalstad’s stuff, nor was he particularly prominent at this conference. If your concern is about people whose interest is not in educating, but confusing the audience, then you should save some opprobrium for Wahl and Ammann and their handlers. As I’ve stated on many occasions, in Dec 2005, before the NAS panel, before the House hearings,…, I made a proposal to Caspar Ammann (whose code reconciled to ours – they replicated our result) that we declare an armistice for 2 months, attempt to draft a joint paper setting out what we agreed on, what we disagreed on and how the matter would be resolved. (And if we could not agree within a short period, the armistice would end.) I observed that this would be of far more interest to the community than more controversy. Ammann said that it would be bad for his career.Why don’t you start with the beam in your own eye? Tell me – did Wahl and Ammann refuse to participate in a joint statement of points of agreement and disagreement because their purpose was to “educate” the community? If so, please explain how their refusal accomplished this purpose?

        • JamesG
          Posted May 21, 2010 at 4:54 AM | Permalink

          Maybe you could find the time to make a guest post critiquing what Segalstad says just to balance it up for the CA audience!

          I’m a layman but it appears to me that a lot of what is being criticised by Segalstad are assumptions and models that have little foundation and no real data or checking of the models. However, I’ve only ever had arm-waving responses from realclimate or rabbett. I strongly get the feeling that there isn’t a lot of theory to actually understand and that the mainstream works often on pessimistic assumptions because that’s what will get into IPCC documents and hence force policy, hence produce more funding. This impression was very much backed up by the cru emails.

          Please enlighten us in a proper post if that impression is not correct and that there is really some solid, data-backed science in the area that Segalstad critiques. Bear in mind some of us are naturally suspicious of someone whose job depends on the alarmism, so being vague or talking about the number of scientists who agree is not educating us either.

        • steven Mosher
          Posted May 21, 2010 at 11:42 AM | Permalink


          otherwise known as a common misspelling. this should be a fun debate. so quick to check, too lazy to double check.


          and this debate is a fun one


        • Posted May 21, 2010 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

          So quick to judge, so slow to check: lecturn is an valid alternative spelling of lectern.

          And “nucyuler” is a variant pronunciation of nuclear, according to Webster. Catering to idiots isn’t productive.

          Why use an alternative when the correct spelling is so easy?

        • Posted May 21, 2010 at 8:15 PM | Permalink

          No, I don’t … but I know what a lectern is …

          Oooh! Snap!

  38. geo
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 4:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks for the presentation, Steve. I think that’s the most lucid and understandable discussion of the history of the “divergence problem”, its implications, and the positions of the major players on it that I’ve yet read. I’ve been wanting that, so thanks.

    There was also context on Mann’s emergence on the scene that I had not previously recognized. I did not realize he was in “enfant terrible” territory with the publication of the first HS and the position it thrust him into in the climate science community.

  39. Posted May 20, 2010 at 5:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I finally got to see it, although the heartland version isn’t working.

    Too bad the Stewart video didn’t play, it was absolutely hilarious. Predictably I’ll say great stuff thx.

  40. Posted May 20, 2010 at 6:38 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks for taking a moderate line!

    Although I still disagree with using email which at the time were probably presumed private. (one says many things in emails that whilst showing your feelings exaggerate your response to sillyness -hyperbole- “if I see that person again I swear I will kill him” is not an indication that you propose murder, but taken out of context can be used against you).

    It would be good if you started looking at climate science on both sides of the divide – especially if you started looking at Lindzen and Plimer’s statements


  41. Posted May 20, 2010 at 6:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Willis Eschenbach Posted May 20, 2010

    Your plot does not show that we need not consider the small fluctuations because as a percentage of absolute temperature they are small. What it does show is just how fragile the ecosystem is – 3% shift in temperature downwards and we get iceages. 2% upwards and the world floods.

    This zero offset thing can be played both ways of course. Here is a plot of TSI CET and CO2 – Which looks as if may have an effect on temperature?


    • timetochooseagain
      Posted May 20, 2010 at 7:05 PM | Permalink | Reply

      “What it does show is just how fragile the ecosystem is – 3% shift in temperature downwards and we get iceages. 2% upwards and the world floods.”

      Except that those percent changes have occurred, and the ecosystem survived. And in terms of 2% increase leading to the world flooding, last time I checked the world did not drown during those warm periods but had plenty of land.

      • Posted May 20, 2010 at 8:40 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Apologies wrong coice of words.

        The ecosystem will survive. There may be many extinctions but certainly not man. I do not subscribe to catastophic AGW!

        Unfortunately much of “civilisation” is situated around coast lines. A 1 metre rise does not just inundate land less than 1 metre above current levels. There will be additional erosion of newly exposed shore lines. This is fun to play with:

        A few thousand years ago populations simply lifted their dwelling and moved to more hospitable lands. Is this possible today?

        Steve: offtopic.

        • Keith Herbert
          Posted May 20, 2010 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

          off topic

        • timetochooseagain
          Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:01 PM | Permalink

          With regard to what should be done about such a sea level rise, I imagine that with or with out AGW we may some day find out in certain locations. Locally, there have been dramatic changes in “sea level” arising not from climate but geological changes.



          Naturally, people will have to adapt to such changes (and apparently they have been) which will continue in the future.

        • Willis Eschenbach
          Posted May 20, 2010 at 11:46 PM | Permalink

          - reply to offtopic –

          Next, you say:

          Your plot does not show that we need not consider the small fluctuations because as a percentage of absolute temperature they are small.

          I never said it showed anything like that. I’m trying to understand exactly how the climate system actually works, not to investigate the effect of temperature shifts.

  42. anonym
    Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    If some kind person were to put the three YouTube videos into one playlist in the correct order, then it would be possible to provide a single link which would automatically play all three one after the other.

  43. John A
    Posted May 21, 2010 at 2:40 AM | Permalink | Reply


    Despite the failures of the inquiries to do their job, I strongly disagree with Cuccinelli’s recent investigation of potential financial abuse. Regardless of what one may think of the quality of Mann’s work, he has published diligently.

    What does the diligence of Mann have to do with the quality? Quality (or lack of it) is the key question in comprehending whether Mann’s work would lead large numbers of people to abandon technological progress in favour of a highly micromanaged and damped-down energy poverty.

    I don’t follow your argument at all. I don’t recall anyone complaining that Mann lacks diligence, at least diligence in producing scientific papers. The questions are all about quality and validity. Mann is certainly diligent in disparaging the reputations of any who question him and of impugning the motives of any inquirers who want straight answers to straight questions.

    I have been looking into the general questions of scientific malpractice and its far from clear to me that there is any established procedure to deal with such malpractice except in areas which have established audit and transparency rules such as in medicine.

    Steve: You and others are missing my point entirely. Cuccinelli is looking for an offence under section 8.01 under the Virginia statute – something that has nothing to do with Mann disparaging motives of others. People were very angry at Bernie Madoff but that doesn’t mean that DEA should have seized all his files under the pretext of looking for drugs. In fact, if they’d done so, it might well have compromised efforts to prosecute securities offences. If the securities authorities had whitewashed Madoff without an investigation, it would be frustrating, but the proper course of action would be to do what you could to expose the securities authorities rather than initiate a drug investigation.

  44. Spence_UK
    Posted May 21, 2010 at 8:56 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Roger Harrabin of the BBC has a hatchet piece on the conference up here, and our host is the topic of a fair chunk of the article:

    Harrabin’s take on the conference

    The level of smearing and snarks are astonishing in that piece – at every opportunity Harrabin drops hints about the American right-wing, meat-eating and tobacco-smoking. Basically, his article is a highly politicised rant; nothing new here from the “old school” of climate reporting.

    • Posted May 21, 2010 at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Spence_UK (May 21 08:56),
      It’s not too bad Spence, at least he is covering it and some of the descriptions are entertaining (“the fervour reached a peak when the reluctant hero, Steve McIntyre, shambled on to the stage.”)
      Did Steve really say that the work of CA was probably done?

      But yes there is the usual ‘right-wing’ smearing – self-contradictory given the comments about Steve.
      And he shows his lack of understanding of science: “because the positive feedbacks predicted by computer models will not occur” – no Roger, it’s an assumption built in to the models, not a prediction.

    • ZT
      Posted May 21, 2010 at 2:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Interesting to compare Harrabin’s article and the video. If one takes the view that the video provides an unbiased perspective, Harrabin is evidently not interested in truth in journalism.

      Perhaps the embittered Harrabin had over compensated himself in duty free on the long journey across the pond? Don’t worry Roger, you can buy carbon offsets to assuage your conscience.

    • Posted May 24, 2010 at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Spence_UK (May 21 08:56),
      Also, the BBC provides a link to CA – I think that’s a first!

  45. Sean Peake
    Posted May 21, 2010 at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    While we may disagree about Cuccinelli’s actions (I think he knows more than what he has said to the press), I appreciate your objectivity and keeping the debate civil. The more shrill and hostile one side of the argument gets, the less authority it commands.

  46. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted May 21, 2010 at 1:45 PM | Permalink | Reply

    richard telford
    Posted May 21, 2010 at 2:29 AM

    The graph you present covers only the last 500 ma, a ninth of the Earth’s history. A longer time perspective would probably include the climatic variability you crave. Large (by your definition) climate changes in the last 500 ma are impossible, for if they had occured, we could not have evolved. This is the weak anthropic principle.

    richard, you say it is “impossible” for there to have been large climate changes in the last 500 million years. This may or may not be the case, but seems like an untestable hypothesis.

    My questions is different – how does your proposed “impossible”, can’t-go-off-the-rails system actually work? What makes big variations “impossible”? What physical mechanisms kept the climate from any large changes over that huge span of time? For understanding that question, my graph is perfectly appropriate, not something that Steve should be “embarrassed” about sharing the stage with.

    Finally, your whole concept that Steve or I or anyone else should be embarrassed to share the stage with people with whose scientific ideas we might disagree is .. well … antiscientific. The essence of science is that people put out all kinds of ideas, mainstream ideas and off-the-wall ideas, orthodox ideas and unorthodox ideas, central ideas and fringe ideas. Then we all get to have the best kind of scientific fun, trying to either defend or shoot down those ideas.

    If you start limiting the kinds of ideas that you let up on the stage, science will only suffer. I, for example, am very different politically from most of the folks at the Conference. They seemed to be mostly conservative, libertarian, “Tea Party” type folks, while I have been a lifelong social liberal/economic conservative. In addition, as you point out, my scientific ideas are far from the middle of the road.

    So what? Thankfully, the organizers of the Conference didn’t pay any attention to that. In addition to inviting me to speak, and Steve, they also invited the following people to speak:

    Phil Jones
    Michal Mann
    Gavin Schmidt
    Alan Robock
    James Hansen
    Noah Diffenbaugh
    Timothy Hall
    Steve Running
    Brad Udall
    Marty Hoerling
    Caspar Amman
    Rasmus Benestad
    Raymond Bradley
    Eric Steig
    Tom Karl
    Tom Wigley
    Ken Briffa
    Kevin Trenberth
    Michael Oppenheimer
    Michael Schlesinger
    Alison Wise
    Scott Denning
    Tam Hunt

    Now, should I be “embarrassed” to share the stage with them? Never. They have their ideas, which may or may not be right, as will be made clear in the fullness of time. But science is not about saying “Eeeeew, I wouldn’t appear on the same stage with that guy, I think he’s wrong.” If you think he’s wrong, you should get up on the stage and show that he’s wrong.

    Science is the big tent, where all kinds of freak shows appear … and one of them may well be tomorrows main event. Since we can’t know in advance which one that might be, it behooves us to listen to everyone without embarrassment.


    • Ben
      Posted May 21, 2010 at 4:36 PM | Permalink | Reply

      As a novice in this debate (I started about 6 monthes before climate-gate).. I can say that you hit the nail on the spot as far as what I think. Science should not be politicalized, and as long as we are all discussing this here..the discussion of politics is obviously going to come out in such a politicized scientific field.

      Open scientific debate for all walks of theories should always be the goal. Politics aside, I wouldn’t mind sharing my ideas next to a communist or an anarchist. They have their beliefs, but that should not effect their science, just give them a different sort of perspective that might teach people to look at things from a different angle.

      That being said, starting science with a conclusion already in mind is a terrible waste of time…I think this is what is key, and what started me personally on getting educated on global warming. I spent my first year not even knowing blogs existed out there like Steve’s…and I spent all my time looking at data from realclimate, etc and finding the holes and such. Alas, most of my work was done better by others such as Steve, but the truth is I came to my conclusions independently…

      So although I am repeating most of what you said Willis, its simply a different way of looking at your conclusion..hope it helps others, and if not, they can always feel free to disagree with me…

    • snowmaneasy
      Posted May 26, 2010 at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Absolutely spot on and I must say your comment “Science is the big tent, where all kinds of freak shows appear” is where it’s at…

  47. Pat Frank
    Posted May 22, 2010 at 2:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Well, I just watched your presentation twice, Steve, and liked the Heartland version better than the Youtube version. Heartland’s version showed enough of the slides, which were also clear enough to read. Their close focus on you also made your presentation more personal because one could see you reacting to your own comments and to the audience.

    In general, I thought your presentation was excellent, as well as both understated and devastating. Given the tone you take here at CA, I’d guess this mix was exactly your intent. Humans being social animals, though, your casual demeanor constituted a kind of visceral contradiction of the devastating content of your evidence.

    One really has to pay attention to the meaning of your words to get the full message, because your tone of voice, method of presentation, and body language are entirely at variance with the emotional potential of the charges of malfeasance that are implicit in your presentation. So, I’m guessing that a lot of people will not really understand the gravity of the offenses against science and the integrity of truth-telling that you reveal in your talk.

    I also thought your juxtaposition of events, contrasting the evidence of the emails (recording both collusion and cover-up) and the hiding of declines against the conduct of the enquiries, the statements and qualifications of the panelists, and the prima facie ineptitude of the investigations themselves, reflected your intelligent and understated humor and was very effective at demonstrating how the institutional follow-up was not only ineffective but was actually a further manifestation of the problem. Some of your comments were really droll, and I enjoyed that a lot.

    It was clear from the audience response that most of those listening understood the full meaning and implications of your presentation. But the more modest applause after your talk really showed that they also were affected by the contradiction between the enormity of your evidence and the personal insouciance you seemingly displayed in your presentation. On a personal level, they wanted a justified anger, which you clearly declined to show, even as on a professional level they appreciated the strength of your case.

    All-in-all, you put together a seamless historical and scientific talk, connecting all the dots and showing evidences of motivations, of evolving strategies, of the visible consequences, and finally of meaning. I’m in total admiration of your capability and accomplishments.

    On the other hand, Mr. Cuccinelli, if he’s at all clever, will get very busy mining your talk for leads. Certainly an unintended consequence. :-)

  48. Kramer
    Posted May 22, 2010 at 2:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Just read this about Steve in the BBC:

    “The quiet man said he thought that the work of his climate-statistical website was probably done”

  49. dbleader61
    Posted May 25, 2010 at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I was very impressed with your presentation, although unlike other posters, including Anthony Watts and Judith Curry, I don’t identify your views on the data splicing as being in the middle. You were unequivocal about the inappropriate use of data to “hide the decline”. You clearly say it is wrong. I am so glad you are out there saying so.

    Where you are “in the middle” is your more conciliatory view on the scientists themselves -I don’t believe in any conspiracy amongst the “warmists” At worst it truly is a matter of “noble cause corruption” and/or “conspiracy of agreement”. I agree with you that Dr. Hansen is indeed diligent – notwithstanding he is diligently in error!

  50. John Murphy
    Posted Jun 13, 2010 at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Reply

    My take on Mann was that the contents of his “Censored” folder showed that he knew his published results were false.

    Does anyone disagree with that?

    If not, then Attorney should be going after him.

6 Trackbacks

  1. [...] of course, is the tireless scourge of slipshod climate science. But as any open-minded reader of Climate Audit would have expected, he has no interest in leading a lynch mob. So he got a standing ovation when [...]

  2. [...] Pour en savoir plus, je vous invite à lire ces quelques articles: – A “warmist” scientist embraces the Heartland Conference – Consensus? What consensus? – La présentation de Richard Lindzen – La présentation de Steve McIntyre [...]

  3. By Arthur Smith’s Trick « Climate Audit on Jun 23, 2010 at 3:01 PM

    [...] effort if he had bothered considering the analysis in my Heartland presentation, which I reported here as my most systematic exposition of the Trick so [...]

  4. [...] la présentation vidéo de Steve McIntyre sur le sujet lors de la 4e conférence du ICCC (International Conference on [...]

  5. [...] Heartland Presentation « Climate Audit [...]

  6. [...] in the late 20th century. See here for a blog discussion of the IPCC and the trick and here for a longer (updated) [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,880 other followers

%d bloggers like this: