Sample of Intl Text for WP move

Ok, I see you’re just regurgitating WMO policy. I thought we were discussing what should be done, which is to measure the temperature of the spherical slice of atmosphere. I never realized when I was walking through the forest that I was actually walking through land. I should have been like a Horta and screamed “Pain” about the missing “children”.

My reporting of the scientific methods used successfully for a lifetime is certainly not what you incorrectly describe as “ just regurgitating WMO policy.” I am presenting some valid answers in response to your question: “What are we trying to measure?” It makes no difference whether you believe we are talking about past and current WMO policies and practices or future such policies and practices.

i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left|\Psi(t)\right>=H\left|\Psi(t)\right>

Bürger CPD submission

I hope that you are following the lively discussion about Bürger and Cubasch at Climates of the Past here , where Mann aka Anonymous Referee #2 is carrying on in a quite extraodinary way. I’ll probably try to weigh in over there at some point. The dialogue has exploded fairly quickly and I’ve collated some of the discussion in the post here.

Bürger and Cubasch report a very high RE statistic for the "nonsense" relationship betwen the number of reporting gridcells and NH temperature.


  1. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Feb 25, 2010 at 11:07 AM | Permalink

    In december 2009, the site was moved to a wordpress server. This post appears to have been generated by Pete H as an experiment in the set up. This is the first time that I’ve seen it. Climate Audit started on Jan 31, 2005 – the date and time midnight, Jan 1, 2000 – is obviously artificial.

  2. oneuniverse
    Posted Feb 25, 2010 at 12:04 PM | Permalink

    This post must have been made after 2nd July 2006, deducible from the hyperlink.

  3. MrPete
    Posted Feb 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    This post is not even a real post. It is an extract of complex content from another post.

    For a successful test of the process, I had to use a “real” post, but it needed to be long before any of the “real” CA content.

    Not only is this “post” dated Jan 1, 2000, but the edit time is exactly 12:00:00 … one might think they would have noticed. I find it hilarious that someone used this to decide when the blog began.

    I’d delete it, but in a sense it has become a “honey pot” to attract those who have a bent to hyperventilate about nothing.


  4. MrPete
    Posted Mar 1, 2011 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    Since this test post has recently attracted more notice, I will add some additional information for those who are interested in learning how to discover when a site was actually constructed. (If you came here from a blog post or comment link, most likely you are doing so because the person citing this post is apparently more interested in smearing CA than in seeing the plain truth.)

    1) The very best way to know when a domain was first reserved is through the “whois” command, available in any version of unix, linux or mac command line. And online. This will show you the name was reserved on Jan 31, 2005. And RC on 11/19/2004. Oh, and on Sep 8, 2003.

    2) An observant visitor might have noticed the date and time and topic of this post. All aimed at showing it to be a test, and quite clearly a “test” rather than real post…particularly as the embedded link is dated well after CA began. (Why this was done: we needed a “live” test to run through the conversion system when moving CA to a much higher performance platform, that incorporated many complex elements of a blog post. This fragment contains a blockquote, italics, TEX formula and link. Better to set it clearly outside the true time range of the blog than confuse people by having it show up somewhere in the normal scheme of things.)

    3) Timeline. Unless the owners of a site have something to hide and have requested removal, the Smithsonian and friends maintain a valuable archive of significant (non-advertising etc) web sites. At you can learn much about the early history of many websites. For example:

    a) Steve McIntyre first posted notes related to MM03 on a tiny site called See here for the final edit of the first edition in late 2003.
    b) The site went untouched for a long time until August 2004, when further notes were added relating to back-and-forth with MBH on MM03 and the various responses. Here is the final edit of that interlude, from Sep 2004.
    c) Then the “blogging” began, in October. Apparently, RC’s William Connolley has the privilege of being one of the first third parties to comment, on Oct 15, 2004 on the Usenet sci.environment newsgroup. After his posting was replicated several places, Steve M wrote up a response on October 25th. Soon after, RealClimate went live, and Steve began writing responses. See here for the last archive of that era, in late January 2005.
    d) At that point, a non-blog system was unwieldy. With a growing chorus of commentary, particularly by what later turned out to be a self-described “team” of scientists publishing at RC, Steve created CA. The early notes (from (c)) were ported here, beginning with this post. And the real posts at CA began on Jan 31, 2005.

    There. A reasonably complete historical timeline, constructed from available information. Pretty obvious if you follow the trail. Clearly, Judith Curry was correct in noting that the CA blog was created in response to RC. That statement doesn’t suggest Steve had said nothing before CA, just that the blog itself was created to provide an effective communication tool in response to RC and others. (Later, I helped move CA to a bigger platform, again in response to the outpouring of commentary on Climatagate. There’s no PR firm planning this adventure, no deep-pocket corporation or donor paying for it.)

    Nobody has discussed this with me; if the timeline is incorrect, other (offline?) data will need to be brought to bear.

%d bloggers like this: