Andrew Weaver Praises O’Donnell et al 2010

Reader David O emailed me:

I thought you might be interested that today at 11:00am Andrew Weaver was on the Bill Good show on am980 in Vancouver. Much to my amazement Dr. Weaver actually had some kind words to say about you regarding your new Antarctic study. The Interview can be heard here. FF to 27:00 minutes for the relevant part.
[relevant excerpt preserved here]

Weaver said that the article was “rather interesting and turn out to be quite an important study…very statistical…a really nice study. His science will be highly cited, it’s an important study.” (Weaver over-credited me relative to coauthors.)

A small mystery – given that the article hasn’t been published yet and none of the coauthors sent Weaver a copy, I wonder how he got the article.


  1. Posted Dec 6, 2010 at 11:41 PM | Permalink | Reply


    In March 2009 Professor Andrew Weaver described himself as “Lead author for the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

  2. Alex Heyworth
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 12:15 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Maybe he was one of the reviewers.

    Steve – obviously not Reviewer A.

  3. theduke
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 12:55 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Steve: re “over-credited”:

    You saw early on that there were problems in the paper and provided the venue that allowed talented people to expose those problems in depth.

    Journals that have heretofore been publishing splashy, pal-reviewed, AGW narratives will now subject such papers to more stringent critical review.

    Andrew Weaver has, perhaps unwittingly, given credit where it is due.

  4. Mark F
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 1:26 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Dr. Weaver’s statement, particularly in the context of his previous CKNW appearances, is baffling. Having almost SPAT Steve’s and Ross’ names in the past, snip

  5. Jason
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 2:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Weaver is probably calling them as he sees them.

    O’Donnell is an elegant demonstration that a result that reached the cover of a major journal was due to nothing more than the statistical methodologies which were employed. Most academics will be impressed by this.

    With a few (admittedly egregious) exceptions, it would be an error to model climate scientists as if they belong to any particular team.

    His previous behavior, while arguably partisan and/or paranoid, is probably also Andrew Weaver calling them as he sees them.

    • acementhead
      Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 11:58 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Jason I know that “everybody does it” but everybody does it is not an excuse.

      snip – please don’t use the word warmist

      You say

      “…nothing more than the statistical methodologies which were employed.”

      but you mean “methods” not “methodologies”. Methodology(the “ology” is a big clue) means “The study of method, especially scientific method”; it is not a clever way of saying method it is a stupid way. Most will view this as “nitpicking”; it isn’t, it is a matter of precision. Precision is very important in science and it includes the use of correct terminology. I think I would get a plethora of agreement on this from El Guapo.

      • oneuniverse
        Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 7:41 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Jason’s usage is correct English (whether it’s an accurate articulation of his thought or not).
        From the Merriam-Webster definition of “methodology” :

        1 : a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline : a particular procedure or set of procedures
        2 : the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field

        “Methodology” is sometimes used merely as a fancy replacement word for “method” or “methods”, but it’s not clear that Jason’s criticism is not intended (given the context of this blog) as part of a general criticism against the statistical techniques currently in common use in climate science.

      • mpaul
        Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

        “…and it includes the use of correct terminology.”

        I think you mean to say “…and it includes the use of correct *terms*’ :)

  6. Venter
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 2:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    That’s all fine about his calling them as he sees them. That’s only applicable when he sees something that’s open for him to view. When the study was not published and none of the co-authors sent him a draft of it, how did he ” see ” it in the first place?

    Judging from what I saw in the lead up the the O’Donnell article publication as described by Steve and having read Eric Steig’s posts in the comments section of TAV about the paper, I have no doubt that reviewer A was either Steig himself or a crony and they leaked the paper to others in the ” team “. This is the standard way the team operate.

  7. John Meec h
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 3:06 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Does this mean that Weaver has decided to drop his defamation suit against the National Post?

  8. Brian H
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 3:33 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Either he was a reviewer or channelling one.

    • mark t
      Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 4:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Good point. Maybe Gaia grants that power to her chosen?

    • TimG
      Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 5:13 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Or he is a regular reader of Climate Audit and Air Vent. Is there really anything in that paper that has not been already published in one form or another?

      • mark t
        Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 6:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Yes, the emails that went back and forth when the first results were posted. Pay attention.


  9. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 4:40 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Hey, cut it out, you guys. IIRC, this blog is not for speculation about the motives of people. It is for evidence. It’s not for ad homs, but it’s nice when a lot of effort is rewarded by personal congratulations.

    There is an emerging property of blogging, notably that those who follow the development of a blog topic should find the resulting formal publication much more interesting and relevant. The patient blog work that these 4 authors did beforehand was excellent preparation so that when it comes out, the O’Donnell et al paper will be more than just another mathematical dissection for a small specialist audience. Hopefully, it was improved by the comments of bloggers who knew the topic and that improvement might just have made the difference between acceptance and rejection. It might also help readers decide, on the balance, whose paper seems more credible when there are conflicting papers. That is speculation, so mea culpa, but I would second the observation that this paper is breaking new ground by having a collective of bloggers available to help the authors beforehand.

    This pattern might well become widespread in future years. It depends in part if editors consider that too much blog disclosure removes the novelty of the main theme of a paper. As for myself, I see it as a coming together of blogging and formalism. This is stronger than each in isolation.

  10. SM
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 5:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

    What Geoff Sherrington says. IMHO this site set a standard for staying “above the fray” and hewing to fact and analysis. Lets keep it that way.

    …and I am delighted beyond words that O’Donnell et al is finally getting published. I think its going to become an historical “key” paper in Climate Science – quoted and referenced by all papers to follow as an example of How To Do It Right. God knows the authors deserve it.

  11. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Weaver was probably just teleconnected.

  12. Fred
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Reply

    You can listen to the segment here . . . along with all the breaking news of the ongoing gong show called BC politics :)

  13. TomRude
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Ask deepclimate…

  14. Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Reply

    I listened to the radio clip.

    Weaver seemed to be most enthusiastic about “peer review” — not who did the study. Make of it what you will.

    • Mark F
      Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 12:01 PM | Permalink | Reply

      That may be, but he was certainly enthusiastic about the significance of the paper, and chose to finger Steve as a positive influence. Two separate issues, do we call that diversion?

  15. theduke
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Weaver on YouTube for Greenpeace:

  16. Fred
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    In related news, there is a rumour that Al Gore has finally arrived in Cancun for COP16

  17. dearieme
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Reply

    On the subject of not being rude: would it be all right to refer to Some People as “teamsters” do you think, or would that be beyond the pale?

  18. mpaul
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 2:54 PM | Permalink | Reply

    I know that it has been accepted for publication, but is O’Donnell et al 2010 even available yet? How did Weaver get a copy?

  19. steven mosher
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 2:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

    A smart climate scientist on the team would invite Ryan,steve,jeff nic to work on papers as auditors. They won’t think to do this.

    • curious
      Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Reply

      …they might well think of it but I doubt they’ll act on it… :-)

    • Brian H
      Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Why? They’d probably just criticize and cast doubt. Cranial implosions would ensue tout suite!

      • steven mosher
        Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 7:53 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Re: Brian H (Dec 8 00:36),
        why? if they said yes they’d be too busy to blog. If no?
        then its harder to criticize the process

    • bender
      Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

      A smarter auditor would say “Thanks, but I’m busy. I’ll watch for the paper though, when it comes out.”

      • Geoff Sherrington
        Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 7:09 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Commonly, an audit is post-event. The pre-event mechanism should be self-regulated governance respecting such laws as apply.

  20. Phillip Bratby
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Thanks theduke. So I wonder why a “climate scientist” is suddenly an expert on alternative energy schemes. He is an advocate, not a scientist.

    • Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 5:35 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Bingo! Also, during the course of the radio program, Weaver cited the dreadful PNAS Anderegg “paper” to bolster his more typical ‘don’t listen to those whose views are not climatically correct’.

      Not sure when this Greenpeace film was made; but more recently Weaver has taken his advocacy above and beyond his 2007 dive into the pool of hyperbole, to insist that Canada’s Prime Minister “has got to get kicked out” – and he made the ludicrous and offensive suggestion that Canada is like Zimbabwe.

  21. Ryan O
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 3:49 PM | Permalink | Reply

    At least it’s getting press . . . haha! :) I know I didn’t send him a copy, so I’m not sure how he would have gotten one, either.

  22. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 5:24 PM | Permalink | Reply

    A Momentary Lapse Of Reason

  23. Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

    He was apparently once chief editor of the Journal of Climate and now serves as editor emeritus.

    • theduke
      Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 9:26 PM | Permalink | Reply

      That opens up a lot of possibilities. For example, the fourth reviewer?

    • David O
      Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 1:32 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Jeff Id (Dec 7 20:20), This is what I found so amazing. Weaver was chief editor of JoC between 2005-2009. He had Mann and other assorted Team members on his editorial staff. Weaver did Steve Mc no favours when Steve was trying to get to the bottom of Rutherford et al 2005. Also mentioned in a couple of the emails. Weaver frequently parrots Mann in over the top rhetoric. I thought praise from Weaver would be as hard to come by as praise from Mann himself.

      • Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 3:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention David. Do you or Steve have a URL as a starting point for ‘trying to get to the bottom of Rutherford et al 2005′?

        Weaver has barely been on my radar in the UK but I did make a note in January of his apparent agreement with Ross McKitrick, no less, about some aspects of the IPCC, in The Windsor Star.

        His words then were also, surely, more forthright than anything from the likes of Michael Mann.

        The timing of his latest comments may add another unexpected twist to the saga of climate paper ‘cheque kiting’?

        • Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 7:45 AM | Permalink

          Re: Richard Drake (Dec 8 03:59), Careful with sotiries abotu Dr. Weaver. He has complained on many occasions that he gets misquoted. He has also launched suit against the National Post here in Canada for misquotes etc. See here.

        • David O
          Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 9:59 AM | Permalink

          Re: Richard Drake (Dec 8 03:59), I’m somewhat familiar with Weaver since he lives in my backyard. He’s generally regarded as Canada’s top climate modeler. He was LA in TAR, AR4 and I think SAR as well. He has also been selected as LA for AR5:Chapter 12. He gets lots of local press and usually offers up scary “point of no return” scenarios like this. A search at Fred Singer’s site will give you some old links. Rutherford et al 2005 (Mann, Jones, Bradley, Hughes, Briffa etc.) was published in JoC and there was a whole series of posts at CA back in 2006. I think this might have been the first one but not sure. My recollection is that Steve got the usual runaround trying to get data. For relevant UEA emails see here, here and here.

        • Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

          Thank you for such a thorough answer. From ‘fraud’ and ‘bozo’ to author of ‘very nice study’. Who’d have thought it?

          So Weaver is a climate modeler. His attitude on Monday is surely the one climate science should always have taken to valid criticisms of Mannian reconstruction. They have always been peripheral to the main CAGW argument, which stands or falls on strong positive feedbacks from water vapour and clouds. So why the problem?

          It’s quite a puzzle, including Weaver’s prescience. But it can’t be bad news.

  24. Dennis Wingo
    Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Reply


    To me Climate Audit has resulted in a fundamental shift in the process of scientific discovery, documentation, and verification. Fundamentally, your presentation of your research and the back and forth between yourself, interested parties who are knowledgeable in the software, science, and the larger realm of society, is resulting in a return to the best of peer review, which is true critical analysis of findings.

    If this paper is as solid as it seems (and I have watched the development of the thoughts and process here on CA) and has the influence that it has the potential to have, it will act as a means whereby the “mainstream” science community opens up and the scientists allow their work to go through the CA process before publication. This “public” peer review should help to improve the process overall and will result in a better science product.

    The next evolution in this process is for the scientific world to regularize, and codify this improved process, which includes the publishing and archival for public access of raw science data, software code, interim results, and the process of scientific thought evolution. The peer review system as it exists today should evolve in this direction, and this is a good thing.

    It is my opinion that this is your legacy, and your best contribution to science.

    • MrPete
      Posted Dec 7, 2010 at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Dennis Wingo (Dec 7 22:29),
      Part of what you are describing is implemented in the form of a growing movement called Reproducible Research… standardized in some labs of some universities around the world.

      May the trend continue and grow stronger!

    • theduke
      Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 12:23 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Dennis: that’s a nice, hopeful post.

      However, re: ” . . . whereby the “mainstream” science community opens up and the scientists allow their work to go through the CA process before publication.”

      Mosh has been suggesting they do this for years on CA and repeats it in a post above.

      I think the Team requires complete freedom to publish as they see fit and will not consent to allow CA to exert influence on the narrative since experience tells them it will likely derail the train. That may change should they fall further into disrepute.

      That said, I don’t know if Weaver is a starter on the Team but if he is, his statements in this interview suggest that Team recalcitrance may currently be undergoing “peer review.”

      It boils down to this: Can the Team learn to play squash?

    • PhilH
      Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 5:28 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Well, the next question is whether or not the journals will ask any of the contributors to the O”Donnell paper to be reviewers of future Team papers. That will be the acid test.

  25. bender
    Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 1:14 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Weaver not only praised the work, he also incorrectly/prematurely stated that it was “recently published” – which means he had priveleged access not only to the material, but also to the editorial process. Postulating that Weaver was a reviewer does not solve that second mystery. He clearly was supplied with priveleged information. He was not just a reviewer. How else could he know the fate of the article? Reviewers don’t know what an Editor will decide.

    • Clark
      Posted Dec 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Actually, many journals will immediately forward their decision on acceptance/rejection to all reviewers. e.g., Nature does this.

      • bender
        Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 2:43 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Thanks for your insights on a journal that is irrelevant to the question at hand. What is J. Climate’s policy? That is the question. TIA.

  26. bender
    Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Six days ago, Steve announced the following:

    “an article has been accepted by Journal of Climate (O’Donnell [Ryan O], Lewis [Nic L], McIntyre and Condon [Jeff Id]) refuting the West Antarctic claims of Steig et al 2009″

    Surely, Dr. Weaver is not getting his news from CA? “Acceptance” and “Publication” are very different things and Dr. Weaver knows this.

    • Skip Smith
      Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 5:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Actually, many academics use “acceptance” and “publication” interchangeably.

      • bender
        Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 6:39 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Not on grant applications they don’t.

        • Skip Smith
          Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 6:45 PM | Permalink

          What does that have to do with this radio interview?

        • bender
          Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

          Read the thread. Weaver had priveleged insight as to the status of the paper. Therefore he had an informant. That gives part of the answer to Steve’s question in the opening post: how did he have knowledge of the submission?

        • Skip Smith
          Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 9:50 PM | Permalink

          The acceptance of the paper and the details of what was done in the paper were discussed on this blog and elsewhere days before that radio interview ever took place. I know playing internet detective is fun, but this is just silly.

        • bender
          Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 10:21 PM | Permalink

          It’s logical to suppose my reasoning “silly” if you take “acceptance” and “publication” as synonymous. They’re not and Weaver knows that.

          Either you agree that Weaver had an inside track on the content of the paper, or you agree that his commentary was based solely on second-hand information, possibly nothing more than the superficial parsing here at CA. You choose.

          Steve asked a question, inviting us to play sleuth. If that’s what you think is silly, then I would take it up with him.

          But I would argue to the contrary. The issue is how well-connected, behind-the-scenes, Weaver is to the team.

        • anonym
          Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 11:32 PM | Permalink

          But if, as Jeff Id said, Weaver is emeritus editor of the journal, maybe the current editor asked him to look over the paper and give his advice on whether it should be published? That would seem to be a reasonable (or at least a defensible) thing for the current editor to do when faced with a controversial paper, and it doesn’t involve any leaking by the reviewers.

        • bender
          Posted Dec 9, 2010 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

          That’s a possibility that I don’t deny. “Privileged access to the editorial process” is what I said. I don’t recall specifying a reviewer leak.

          The alternative, which Skip Smith seems to favor, is that Dr. Weaver relies on CA for his climate science news.

          The interesting thought is what Wegman’s social network would look like if you broadened the analysis from authorship to reviewership. Who reviews whose papers?

          It would be a nice way of mapping convergences and divergences of schools of thought. Team groupthink.

          Is Weaver on the Team? Who gave him access?

        • Posted Dec 9, 2010 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

          I don’t think it’s a reasonable thing when he’s been openly hostile to at least one of the authors of the paper.

        • Skip Smith
          Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 12:22 AM | Permalink

          snip – conspiracy is a word that is discouraged under blog policies

        • bender
          Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 2:17 AM | Permalink

          So you think Andrew Weaver gets his climate science news from Climate Audit? Now who’s “crazy”?

        • bender
          Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 2:20 AM | Permalink

          Umm, which “public source”, if not Climate Audit?

        • Skip Smith
          Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 3:31 PM | Permalink

          >>”conspiracy is a word that is discouraged under blog policies”<<

          But not as the subject of blog posts.

        • Brian H
          Posted Dec 9, 2010 at 4:26 AM | Permalink

          if you’re going to keep repeating the word, at least spell “privileged” right.

        • bender
          Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 2:36 AM | Permalink

          I’ll spell right when you make some substantive commentary. Waht did yuou think of the WEaver-Greenpeace video?

        • bender
          Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 2:38 AM | Permalink

          Oh, and “right” is an adjective, not an adverb. When flaming me, please use grammar right.

        • oneuniverse
          Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 6:51 AM | Permalink

          It’s a noun, adjective and adverb. Brian H used it as an adverb.

          [RomanM: It is also a verb, so neither one of you is right. Enough of the OT food fight ... or else... ;) ]

        • bender
          Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

          [RomanM: Snip - Enough on the grammar and spelling debate]

          But why don’t the spelling police here make some substantive commentary? Why so anxious to paint us as “crazy”? Have the errors of Steig and the Team got you down? Boo hoo.

          Time, I think, to audit the rest of Steig’s lifetime of work. Maybe it’s ALL junk science. Like most Team work. If the data don’t say what you want them to say, then infill, PCA and retain only the part you like and call it “signal”, the “smoking gun”. Pure junk.

        • bender
          Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

          Oh, and lest I not give enough credit to the co-authors, all these characters are co-guilty of torturing data:

          Eric J. Steig
          David P. Schneider
          Scott D. Rutherford
          Michael E. Mann
          Josefino C. Comiso
          Drew T. Shindell

          They all go on the shit-list.

    • Skip Smith
      Posted Dec 12, 2010 at 3:09 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Sorry not to have contributed in a couple of days. My comment is still in moderation. I fear I’ve been RealClimated.

  27. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 3:31 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Maybe many on the team tried to find the penalty box. I said on TAV, “In addition to the possibility of reviewer bias,I get another impression from these two papers.
    The Steig et al 2009 paper suggests that the peer reviewers and the writers did not know enough about the statistics used while the writers of O’Donnell et al 2010 knew more that most of the reviewers. This is where peer review falters and blog review stands out.”

  28. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Dec 8, 2010 at 7:25 PM | Permalink | Reply

    On the broad topic of establishment figures admitting “outsiders”, here is an unanswered email I sent to the President of the Australian Academy of Sciences. Suggestions on how to get an answer would be appreciated because like the AGU, the AAS has issued a blanket statement of support for the establishment.
    Copy from 8 Sept 2010:

    For Professor Cory as President or Professor Lambeck, past President.

    Having just read again the August 2010 AAS publication

    it is germane to ask the concise past reactions of the AAS to these 3 Australian advances:

    (a) which is a minority view on the toxic effects or otherwise of trace lead in children, with its obstructionist difficulties of acceptance; and

    (b) the ulcers/Helicobacter story of Marshall and Warren, with its obstructionist difficulties of acceptance; and

    (c) S. Warren Carey on plate tectonics and the expanding earth (with Elliston), with its obstructionist difficulties of acceptance.

    Having worked with several of the above named authors and spent many hours/days of discussion with some, it is evident that the growth of important new scientific concepts often divides into a mainstream camp and a minority camp.

    Here, I am asking are whether the AAS recognises this not uncommon pattern of progress; and notes that the minority view can evolve to the more accepted view.

    For example, does the AAS have a set of guidelines to assist emerging talented scientists to manage the minority view?

    An answer framed around “man-made climate change” would illuminate the Academy’s stance and indicate how it has learned from past experience. I could name several test examples on request.

    Yours faithfully

    Geoffrey H Sherrington

    Scientist, (chemist), retired.

  29. Posted Dec 9, 2010 at 3:11 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Probably the same way Roy Spencer got a copy of Andy Dessler’s paper?

    • David O
      Posted Dec 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Reply

      Re: Eli Rabett (Dec 9 15:11),
      May as well remove the question mark from that sentence.

      • Ron Cram
        Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Reply

        David O, I don’t understand your comment. I can see you have linked something that contains an abstract of Dessler’s paper (poster), but that is not the same as the paper. But then again, I’m lost. I didn’t know there was a mystery about Spencer and Dessler’s paper. Did Spencer comment about Dessler’s paper before it was published? Did the comment show he knew more detail than was in the abstract? Does it really matter?

    • Dave Andrews
      Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 4:36 PM | Permalink | Reply


      Stick to nibbling the grass – its what you’re good at.

      • bender
        Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 11:18 PM | Permalink | Reply

        Is it funny or sad, the way Eli et al waltz in here making these tangential proclamations without commenting on the science of the paper in question? Eli, this is your chosen method of winning over hearts and minds? How’s that working for you?

      • Brian H
        Posted Dec 11, 2010 at 3:57 AM | Permalink | Reply

        Any naturalist will tell you, a rabbit’s main survival strategies are abrupt changes of direction, and burrows with multiple exits.

  30. ianl8888
    Posted Dec 9, 2010 at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Oh dear … PRIVILEGED, ok ?

  31. geo
    Posted Dec 9, 2010 at 7:27 PM | Permalink | Reply

    An aggressive style does not foreclose the possibility of intellectual admiration for an accomplishment of someone(s) you’ve been on the other side of different issues.

    But the combination can be disconcerting to both friends and foes. :)

    If the Team were not so utterly tone-deaf to the many statements that Steve has made over the years, they would try to get him to co-author far more often. Not always, of course, but there would be plenty of mutually interesting opportunities to do so without serious concern about a bloodbath amongst the authors.

    • mark t
      Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Reply

      No they wouldn’t. His attitude/approach is merely their excuse. He shot down their prize and they couldn’t live with that fact.

  32. EdeF
    Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 8:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Google no longer seems to be storing cookies for nor
    I guess they are being politically correct? Have to type the entire name each time? What’s Up With That?

    • Posted Dec 10, 2010 at 9:55 PM | Permalink | Reply

      That happened to me for a while too. It eventually came back. I don’t use Google though for browsing, I use Firefox.

      • Brian H
        Posted Dec 11, 2010 at 3:59 AM | Permalink | Reply

        I also suggest for searches; it “scrapes Google” of all ads and personal data. Pure results.

  33. Posted Jan 5, 2011 at 10:11 AM | Permalink | Reply

    Before getting too excited people should look at Andrew Weaver’s history.

    Note for example his letter to Innovation magazine of January-February 2010 in which he tried to re-define scientist to exclude anyone who didn’t agree with him. He uses a narrow definition in, positioning himself as scientific and his opponents as politicians, claiming his position is “fact”.

    In the news article “Canadian scientist says UN’s global warming panel ‘crossing the line’”, published in Canwest papers in January 2010, he said that almost all the “science” is correct but the IPCC should stick to neutral science instead of advocacy. He does logically criticize the IPCC for sucking in resources to create huge reports in a short time, when those resources should be spent on longer-term research. I have much sympathy for that position per se. Note that Weaver is one of the prominent authors of IPCC reports, and does advocacy himself as in

    Weaver was a key author in the pre-Copenhagen document “Copenhagen Diagnosis”, a glossy document complete with gratuitous use of images such as polar bears, a use with no conceivable purpose other than to play on emotions.

    He gets media attention for wild statements like “barrage of intergalactic missiles” (

    In the Martlet newspaper article “Expert enters climate summit cynically” he is quoted as saying that:
    - the Canadian federal government is alleged to have conspired with Alberta and the Canadian Association of petroleum Producers
    - voting down of a climate change bill by the Canadian Senate was an “affront to democracy”
    - refers to opponents as “dinosaurs”
    - he is critical of events like Copenhagen because they don’t do nearly enough to prevent several degrees of warming

    So maybe there is a streak of a desire for quality buried in Weaver, but from the modest amount of rhetoric I’ve seen he does not exhibit quality of communication and scientific precision in his public words and behaviour, and he clearly believes what the outcome of research will be. I side with Tim Ball who said of Weaver and Hansen “Their remarks are intended to scare people by threatening impending doom – nothing new – except there is increasing urgency and fear because their message is failing.” (in Bogeymen of the CO2). Certainly Weaver is not of the thoughtful well-expressed caliber of Stephen McIntyre.

    And a few more links: Bogeymen of the CO2 hoax losing ground (Tim Ball incl incl modelling) hatchets Harper defended

  34. Posted Jan 6, 2011 at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Reply

    Note in the interview that Weaver depends on publication in journals, so rejects Tim Ball who he claims he has never read a paper of in Weaver’s field (that statement bears checking), but thanks to the leak from the CRU we know those have been heavily controlled by alarmists. Weaver himself has been accused of suppressing questions at conferences.

    Tim Ball makes a lot of sense.

    Note that in his reference in the interview to McIntyre et al paper Weaver says it does not change the [indistinguishable word] paradigm.

  35. Posted Jan 21, 2011 at 6:59 AM | Permalink | Reply\

    Apology to Dr. Andrew Weaver
    By Canada Free Press Thursday, January 20, 2011

    On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

    Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.

    As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.” That work began in May, 2010. Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.

    Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling him during the talk. CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations.

    CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little about climate science.” We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.

    CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.

  36. Posted Jan 24, 2011 at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Reply

    PWNED, as the kids say.

3 Trackbacks

  1. By Top Posts — on Dec 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM

    [...] Andrew Weaver Praises O’Donnell et al 2010 Reader David O emailed me: [...]

  2. [...] At Climate Audit Andrew Weaver, who is not a climate skeptic, has been very complimentary of the Antarctic paper. [...]

  3. [...] använt sig av en dålig statistisk metod som smetade ut värmen över hela kontinenten. Mer här, här och [...]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,879 other followers

%d bloggers like this: