WSJ Europe



  1. Robert E. Phelan
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 12:59 AM | Permalink

    A breath of fresh air. Gee, maybe McIntyre needs a fresh look. Maybe climate science needs a fresh look. OMG! Maybe McIntyre is right!

  2. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 1:29 AM | Permalink

    Congratulations, Steve.

  3. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 1:50 AM | Permalink

    Sweet, Steve!
    Congratulations and continuing appreciation for your work.

  4. John Baltutis
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 2:30 AM | Permalink

    Well done!

  5. chip
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 2:35 AM | Permalink

    And, again, notice the ad hominen attacks from the climate scientists. Are there any grown-ups in the field?

  6. Bob Koss
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 3:55 AM | Permalink

    Good article.

    Your perseverance in discovering and highlighting deficiencies in so many shoddily reviewed but widely touted papers is amazing.

  7. PeterA
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 4:18 AM | Permalink

    Truth always winds in the long run. Congrats Steve. I’m not sure if you are still interested – it would be nice if you applied your statistical investigative expertise on the GISS Surface Temperature Analysis shown here: They look too “hockey stick like” for my liking.

  8. Peter Stroud
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 4:40 AM | Permalink

    Well done Steve. Just keep at it please.

  9. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:06 AM | Permalink

    great post. This is great work and clearly a lot of hard work is put into your research. thanks

  10. Dishman
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:09 AM | Permalink

    Rob Wilson said:

    However, can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the laymen—and would they want to know?

    I think it has been fairly clearly expressed that we want to know.

    • Don B
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:35 AM | Permalink

      Re: Dishman (#10),
      Now that serious questions have been raised about the science, serious climate scientists should realise that it is now more necessary than ever for communication and transparency.

    • Hmmm
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

      Re: Dishman (#10), We could at least understand realistic error ranges (if they would just calculate them realistically and print them)

  11. dearieme
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:12 AM | Permalink

    “University of St. Andrews’s”: the beggars have inserted an erroneous apostrophe. When will the media raise their game to equal what we have got used to on this blog?

  12. dearieme
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:15 AM | Permalink

    Oh dear, I’m talking rubbish. The apostrophe is OK; though the “s” after it is unnecessary, it’s not wrong.

    On this blog, errors are owned up to.

  13. BarryW
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:38 AM | Permalink

    There seems to be another cultural component at work based on this statement in the article: “Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review.” In otherwords, “don’t criticize my work, do your own!.” However, to protect against an outsider actually getting the chance to present conflicting information you have the gatekeepers at the journals to prevent anything from getting past peer review. Sort of like having burglars on a jury so the accused has a jury of their “peers”.

    Seems to be that criticizing one of the brethren is verboten. If you do another study you don’t have to actually critique the other. Of course that only leads to a “you say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to” situation and doesn’t resolve if there what mistakes may underlie the analysis.

  14. Martin Brumby
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 6:39 AM | Permalink

    November 18th, 2009 at 5:38 am

    Of course, the warmists are always very keen to set Steve tasks from their agenda.
    But I don’t recall Steve ever suggesting that he could predict what the Climate was going to do. Or that his researches justified spending Billions and closing down the economy. That’s their game.
    The fact that he politely points out that the Emperor is walking out undressed doesn’t mean that he has to decide whether the Emperor would look more fetching in a pinstripe suit or perhaps a nice purple robe. That’s their job, for which they get paid handsomely, not to mention the index-linked pensions and the all expenses paid jollies all around the globe.
    It is just a pity that they don’t do what they’re paid for with even reasonable competence. And a little less arrogance.

  15. Jim Waters
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 7:26 AM | Permalink

    Congradulations. You dun good.

  16. TAG
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 7:38 AM | Permalink

    James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute, has dismissed him as a “court jester.” Mr. Mann replied to an emailed query about Mr. McIntyre by decrying “every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the science of climate change itself.”

    Others are more thick-skinned: “You mention his name in my community, people just smile. It’s a one-liner to get a laugh out of a group of climate scientists,” affirms Stanford University’s Stephen Schneider.

    One can examine Schneider’s condescending comment in the second paragraph with Mann’s fulminations in the first. There is a distinct contrast between them that cannot be reconciled with Schneider observation. According to Schneider, McIntyre is inconsequential and his work amusing. Mann and Hansen seem to have a contrary view. Climate scientists may say the science on AGW is settled but the science on McIntyre is still the subject of major controversy.

  17. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 7:39 AM | Permalink

    Congratulations Steve. And also for Anne Jolis!
    Keep on this excellent work,

  18. Stacey
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

    Well done Mr McIntyre.

    As an engineer I have always appreciated your approach: due diligence.

    If my client wants to have my structural calculations checked on one of their projects, no problem, if a tenant occupying a building structure designed by me wants their structural engineer to check/review the design no problem. The checking authorities get them as a matter of course. Why would any professional object to providing their calculations?

    A main stream architectural magazine in the uk has joined the debate. The writer Amanda Baillieu has been subjected already to the sarcastic nastiness that you have been subjected to afor many years and good for her she seems to be standing up to it.

    For what it is worth I dread to think where we would have been without the world wide web and your efforts.

    What is 2×2

    The physicist consults his computer and says it lies between 3.98 and 4.02.

    The hockey stick climate scientist says what do you want it to be?

    The engineer calculates on his slide rule 3.9 and says may as well call it four.

    Given your young age you probably won’t appreciate the above 🙂

  19. James Lane
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 7:58 AM | Permalink

    This is a terrific article, one that correctly articulates Steve’s approach.

  20. Gary
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

    A mention of the Steve’s field work to test the Starbucks Hypothesis and the BCP stripbark bias should have been made in the article as evidence of him being more than just a picture of the stereotypical blogger critic that opponents like to paint. As regular CA readers know, he doesn’t do a reconstruction of his own because he sees no value in it; however, he doesn’t shy away from doing the hard work of testing source data reliability, even if it means a hike in the mountains. Overall, though, the article is accurate, understandable, and well-deserved.

    • PhilH
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

      Re: Gary (#20), I have read hundreds of posts on this site in which Steve has taken data he has wormed out of these guys, and posted his “reconstruction” of what the data actually shows. In that regard, I don’t really understand the point about him not being taken seriously until he does his own “reconstruction.”

      • Gary
        Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

        Re: PhilH (#37),
        The issue of SteveM not doing a reconstruction himself is a red herring. It wouldn’t be accepted for a variety of excuses (although it would be mildly interesting hear them and count how many other reconstructions failed in the same way). Anybody can do a reconstruction; the trick is to show that it means what you say it means.

      • bender
        Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:07 PM | Permalink

        Re: PhilH (#38),

        I don’t really understand the point about him not being taken seriously until he does his own “reconstruction.”

        It goes like this. “Anyone can pick holes and discredit a body of work. Sure, it takes some skill. But it takes *real* skill – real innovative ability – to build something better, something that is more bullet-proof. Only after attempting to do this will Steve really appreciate our hard-earned gains. Until such time, we will continue to assume that his motive is to discredit honest, hard-working people earnestly trying to save the planet.”
        So they are basically phrasing the debate in terms of personal credibility and motive. They can’t constrain themselves to discussing fact because it would admit Steve as an equal competitor – something elitists are loathe to do. They need to keep the playing field as uneven as possible to maintain a semblance of authority. They simply refuse to accept the argument that the methods currently available are incapable of resolving the question to the degree advertised. They want you to accept their approximation as “accurate enough.”
        Is that clearer?

        • Steve McIntyre
          Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

          Re: bender (#71),

          I don’t really understand the point about him not being taken seriously until he does his own “reconstruction.”

          I commented on this Team meme in response to a question from Andy Revkin at his blog as follows:

          The underlying problem with trying to make reconstructions with finite confidence intervals from the present roster of proxies is the inconsistency of the “proxies,” a point noted in McIntyre and McKitrick (PNAS 2009) in connection with Mann et al 2008 (but applies to other studies as well) as follows:

          Paleoclimate reconstructions are an application of multivariate calibration, which provides a theoretical basis for confidence interval calculation (e.g., refs. 2 and 3). Inconsistency among proxies sharply inflates confidence intervals (3). Applying the inconsistency test of ref. 3 to Mann et al. A.D. 1000 proxy data shows that finite confidence intervals cannot be defined before ~1800

          Until this problem is resolved, I don’t see what purpose is served by proposing another reconstruction.

          Crowley interprets the inconsistency as evidence of past “regional” climate, but offers no support for this interpretation other than the inconsistency itself –- which could equally be due to the “proxies” not being temperature proxies. There are fundamental inconsistencies at the regional level as well, including key locations of California (bristlecones) and Siberia (Yamal), where other evidence is contradictory t.o Mann-Briffa approachs (e.g. Millar et al 2006 re California; Naurzbaev et al 2004 and Polar Urals re Siberia,) These were noted up in the N.A.S. panel report, but Briffa refused to include the references in I.P.C.C. AR4. Without such detailed regional reconciliations, it cannot be concluded that inconsistency is evidence of “regional” climate as opposed to inherent defects in the “proxies” themselves.

          The fundamental requirement in this field is not the need for a fancier multivariate method to extract a “faint signal” from noise – such efforts are all too often plagued with unawareness of data mining and data snooping. These problems are all too common in this field (e.g. the repetitive use of the bristlecones and Yamal series). I think that I’ve made climate scientists far more aware of these and other statistical problems than previously, whether they are willing to acknowledge this in public or not, and that this is highly “constructive” for the field.

          As I mentioned to you, at least some prominent scientists in the field accept (though not for public attribution) the validity of our criticisms of the Mann-Briffa style reconstruction and now view such efforts as a dead end until better quality data is developed. If this view is correct, and I believe it is, then criticizing oversold reconstructions is surely “constructive” as it forces people to face up to the need for such better data.

          Estimates provided to me (again without the scientists being prepared to do so in public) were that the development of such data may take 10-20 years and may involve totally different proxies than the ones presently in use. If I were to speculate on what sort of proxies had a chance of succeeding, it would be ones that were based on isotope fractionation or other physical processes with a known monotonic relationship to temperature and away from things like tree ring widths and varve thicknesses. In “deep time,” ice core O18 and foraminifera Mg/Ca in ocean sediments are examples of proxies that provide consistent or at least relatively consistent information. The prominent oceanographer Lowell Stott asked to meet with me at AGU 2007 to discuss long tree ring chronologies for O18 sampling. I sent all the Almagre cores to Lowell Stott’s lab, where Max Berkelhammer is analyzing delO18 values.

          Underlying my articles and commentary is the effort to frame reconstructions in a broader statistical framework (multivariate calibration) where there is available theory, a project that seems to be ignored both by applied statisticians and climate scientists. At a 2007 conference of the American Statistical Association to which Caspar Ammann (but not me) was invited, it was concluded:

          While there is undoubtedly scope for statisticians to play a larger role in paleoclimate research, the large investment of time needed to become familiar with the scientific background is likely to deter most statisticians from entering this field.

          I’ve been working on this from time to time over the past few years and this too seems “highly constructive” to me and far more relevant to my interests and skills than adding to the population of poorly constrained “reconstructions,” as Crowley proposes.

          In the meantime, studies using recycled proxies and problematic statistical methods continue to be widely publicized. Given my present familiarity with the methods and proxies used in the field, I believe that there is a useful role for timely analysis of the type that I do at Climate Audit. It would be even more constructive if the authors rose to the challenge of defending their studies.

          Given the importance of climate change as an issue, it remains disappointing that prompt archiving of data remains an issue with many authors and that funding agencies and journals are not more effective in enforcing existing policies or establishing such policies if existing policies are insufficient. It would be desirable as well if journals publishing statistical paleoclimate articles followed econometric journal practices by requiring the archiving of working code as a condition of review. While progress has been slow, I think that my efforts on these fronts, both data and code, have been constructive. It is disappointing that Crowley likens the archiving of data to doing a tax return. It’s not that hard. Even in blog posts (e.g. the Briffa post in question), I frequently provide turnkey code enabling readers to download all relevant data from original sources and to see all statistical calculations and figures for themselves. This is the way that things are going to go – not Crowley’s way.

        • Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#73), thank you for this statement at this point, Steve, I’ve bookmarked it as it is crucial IMO to show others your answer to the key Team objection “do your own recon – then we can take you seriously”. It also complements Ms Jollis’ (IMO excellent) article with the extra level Kenneth Fritsch felt was missing.

          It would be nice to use the Team objection as a reason to press for disclosure of CRU data, as Juraj V suggests.

          Right now I’m working on the ice core CO2 material and story, and the parallels of behaviour with the dendro Team are interesting. I think that there too there may be a hockey stick to deconstruct – an Ice Hockey stick.

        • Kenneth Fritsch
          Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

          Re: Steve McIntyre (#73),

          Ok read what Steve M says here and then look at the WSJ article and tell me if even an inkling of the essence of that post gets into the article. It is what frustrates me with what I see in the present day media. Could the author of the article have condensed those thoughts and found room for them by excluding the dumb remarks some climate scientists are wont to make? I say yes.

  21. Alexander Harvey
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 8:40 AM | Permalink

    Steve and all,

    So climatologists scoff!

    Can anyone point me to articles, papers, blogs, etc., authored by professional statistitians that are critical of Steve’s analysis.


  22. Pascvaks
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    So very well deserved!

    snip – too much venting

  23. TAG
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

    However, can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the laymen—and would they want to know? I do not think this would help.”

    You know that readers of this blog who have advanced degrees may just be able to understand nuances of climate science.

    • Steve McIntyre
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

      Re: TAG (#24),

      the idea that statistics PhDs are incapable of understanding the nuances of making a tree ring chronology or reconstruction is ridiculous. They arm-wave through problems, don’t like being questioned.

    • Jed Tyrrell
      Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 5:17 AM | Permalink

      Re: TAG (#24),
      I’m a layman. I understand that there are many more people interested in this. I also know when people are shitting me. I think you’ll find there are are many more laymen out here who know shit when they hear-taste-smell-feel-see it. It ain’t rocket surgery.

  24. RickA
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:10 AM | Permalink

    Thank you Steve. Nothing says thanks like cash – so I expressed my appreciation of your fine work with the tip jar.

  25. bender
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM | Permalink

    Climate researchers know their prescriptions don’t carry the certainty laymen assume from that which is labeled “science,” yet most shy from a straightforward account of this uncertainty.

    “Methods certainly need to be continually refined and improved. I doubt that anyone in the paleoclimate community would disagree with that,” says Rob Wilson of the University of St. Andrews’s School of Geography and Geosciences. “However, can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the laymen—and would they want to know? I do not think this would help.”

    Maybe not, but letting people feel duped by hyperbole is proving even more harmful to the warmers’ cause.

    Well, well, Dr. Wilson. Maybe I’m an anomaly, but this laymen DOES WANT TO KNOW. And thank you for asking. But I resent your elitist attitude whereupon you reserve the right to decide what to tell me. Your job is to give us the facts, and we’ll decide for ourselves which ones to act on, thanks very much, emperor sir.

    • ianl8888
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:19 PM | Permalink

      Re: bender (#27),
      C’mon Bender, they’re almost all like that. Populist fear is best engendered that way

    • Jed Tyrrell
      Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 5:20 AM | Permalink

      Re: bender (#27),
      Hear, hear

  26. mbabbitt
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    Well deserved recognition, Steve. Thank you for your work.Although you have said that your work by itself does not invalidate the global warming alarmist perspective, it does bring into relief the poor behavior of the climate science field in particular and the corruption of the leading bodies of science publishing in general. The fact that you have to beg, borrow, and steal (figuratively speaking)just to get an author’s data and methodology is enough of an indictiment of the scientific community today to make anyone wonder about the underlying science. One doesn’t need to be a scientist or mathematician to get this from your work if one follows it over time. I tell people I know that although I am no scientist, any objective person would be flabbergasted to find out the degree of unprofessional pettiness and meanness that exists in the global warming science crowd. It’s been so disappointing to watch – and scary to think that Gavin Schmidt, James Hanson, and Michael Mann are three of the top leaders in the field; they act like prissy spoiled brats.

  27. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:40 AM | Permalink


    Great article, congratulations.


  28. Craig Loehle
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 10:20 AM | Permalink

    There is a book detailing the response to Wegener’s theory of continental drift. The geological society closed ranks and make official pronouncements that the theory was unnecessary and proposed specious vanished land bridges to “explain” the data. The argument collapsed when the land bridges had to span from S america to Africa and ocean drilling showed no trace of them (among other reasons). Professional societies as enforcers of orthodoxy–just great.

    • Dave Dardinger
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

      Re: Craig Loehle (#30),

      the response to Wegener’s theory of continental drift.

      But you need to remember that there were good physical reasons the geologists had problems with Wegners’s theory. It was only when the theory of plate tectonics came along that there was a way to make it work. Though, of course, it was obvious that must be true from the shapes of the continents. To bring it back to climate, the real question is who history will claim is the winner in “the great AGW debate”. Once that’s done the roles of maligned hero and stodgy naysayer can be parceled out.

      • SteveGinIL
        Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 12:48 AM | Permalink

        Re: Dave Dardinger (#33), Not to go too far afield here, but those same geologists will tell us that most of the land now comprising continents was once see floor, in many periods since the theoretical Pangaea existed, yet it is today’s continental shelves which supposedly matched up in Pangaea. Is it rational to think that the continents of today are the only ones that match the dividing lines of the time of Pangaea? Scientists in those times (say, when the Himalayas were under the ocean) – they wouldn’t have been seeing those same outlines. With sea floors switching places with dry land all over the place, does all that make any sense? Craig Loehle at comment #31 uses the word “specious” in regards to speculated upon land bridges. Pangaea seems as specious to me. I suggest that just as those ideas about geology were thrown out, so will the idea of Panagaea. Basaltic underpinnings of continents – that same basaltic firmaments were in the same locations when those areas were under thousands of feet of water. The whole thing doesn’t hold together. (Sorry to go off topic, but it is the same kind of “common scientific wisdom” that is declared in AGW, just in a different field.)

        • Dave Dardinger
          Posted Nov 24, 2009 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

          Re: SteveGinIL (#124),

          those same geologists will tell us that most of the land now comprising continents was once see floor, in many periods since the theoretical Pangaea existed, yet it is today’s continental shelves which supposedly matched up in Pangaea.

          I think you’re confused about what geologists might say. Yes, they say present land was once sea floor, but not (with a few exceptions), from times preceding the opening of the Atlantic basin. People tend to forget that with there being land on earth for a couple billion years, bits and pieces of land have been joining and separating, building up and being eroded, sliding under and riding over other layers, for periods of time far longer than the time the Atlantic has been around. A geologist who has gotten any sort of decent grades in school will know this.

        • Dave Dardinger
          Posted Nov 24, 2009 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

          Re: Dave Dardinger (#132),

          Oops! I notice I said “from times preceding the opening of the Atlantic basin” when I meant “from times after the opening…” Sorry about that.

        • JeremyY
          Posted Dec 11, 2009 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

          thank you of that posting, in amongst all the depressing misinformation on this site it is nice to see something genuinely amusingly bonkers

    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 10:40 AM | Permalink


    Hail to Yulsman’s “gadfly”! I hope Revkin reads Jolis (and will write accordingly).


  30. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:02 AM | Permalink

    It’s a shame this wasn’t in the US edition!

    Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review.

    That’s their loss.

    Meanwhile, the educated public will not take climatologists seriously until they start paying attention to Steve’s critiques, whether published or online.

  31. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:08 AM | Permalink

    Sorry to have to be the one to give a different view of the WSJ’s article by Miss Jolis. She does not, in my view, capture the essence of what goes on at CA nor its importance. Her comments have more to do with the responses and reactions of the climate science community with Steve M as her foil.

    I really get tired of hearing those haughty remarks from climate scientists which signal absolutely nothing in the bigger picture. I would rather have had the articles author take one or two substantial analytical/auditing projects of Steve M’s and detail it and provide enough insight to allow the outsider to appreciate what this blog does. But such is the state of modern journalism.

    On the other hand, an appearance in the WSJ should have some positive benefits.

    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

      Re: Kenneth Fritsch (#35),

      Sorry to have to be the one to give a different view of the WSJ’s article by Miss Jolis. She does not, in my view, capture the essence of what goes on at CA nor its importance. Her comments have more to do with the responses and reactions of the climate science community with Steve M as her foil.

      Out in the general public debate, the first thing to get across is that the science isn’t “settled”. Only after that’s established can we get in to the nuances.

      But it’s nonetheless true that the real core message isn’t that climate change isn’t happening, the real core message is that the process being used to determine facts and policy is head cheese.

      On a related note, from over at Pielke, jr, Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing
      the Public on Climate Change

      Many observers have suggested that Gore’s leading role in the global warming debate has had much to do with the rising partisan polarization around the issue. And while this almost certainly has played a part, it is worth considering that there may be other significant psychological dynamics at play as well.

      In other words, they’ve figured out that people can sense when they’re not getting straight talk, and don’t like it when people try to blow smoke. I guess that’s what the Yalees get the big bucks to figure out.

      • SteveGinIL
        Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 1:00 AM | Permalink

        Re: Calvin Ball (#46), From Pielke Jr

        And while this almost certainly has played a part, it is worth considering that there may be other significant psychological dynamics at play as well.

        I may be wrong, but part of the dynamic is that people believe what these guys are saying because they believe these guys have done their homework. People dribble over to this side when they (like I did) assume the studies are out there that one by one eliminate all the other possible causes, leaving it indisputable that humans are wrecking the planet. That is an assumption people make, that this fundamental scientific step has already been taken, when in fact it hasn’t. People give the scientists credit for having done something that I have never seen. Studies have been done that suggest all kinds of things, but none that have been remotely close to definitive. Suggestion is not proof. People assume the proof is there, but isn’t. It is a belief in the honor and rigor and diligence of scientists. That, is the other psychological dynamic, IMHO – trust. What we have here are scientists who are abusing that trust. If they were selling unneeded roofs to little old women, we’d call them crooks.

  32. Mike L
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

    Congratulations, Steve! (First post from an avid reader 🙂

  33. Hoi Polloi
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

    I read this article this morning on the aeroplane to Germany where they distribute the WSJ Europe edition for free, before I read about it here. It was big on the editorial page. Slowly, but surely people will recognize Stevé’s painstaking work and eventually cannot ignore him, Ross and all the hardworking CA people anymore. Long live the free discussion!

  34. Tim Channon
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

    Nice article and amusingly with an apt if subtle cartoon by WSJ in Opinions today, perhaps chance

    Two angels standing on the clouds, the one holding unused bolts of lightning is saying “I think they’ve been hit with enough already”

    I leave it to the reader to work that out as desired.

    And yes indeed you have the thanks of many Steve.

  35. Greg F
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature unicorn reconstructions and submits them for peer review.

  36. R Taylor
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    It’s great to see recognition of your years of disciplined work and commentary. You won’t be an overnight success, however, until you’re on Oprah.

  37. Antonio San
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 12:59 PM | Permalink

    Unbelievable! This is still better coverage than the almighty Canadian Press offers… Anyone there? Hello…

  38. Matthew W
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    Fantastic !!!!

  39. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    It is a good start in reporting. Something for journalists with guts to build on.
    Too bad that some detractors/scientists are not being made accountable.

  40. Calvin Ball
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM | Permalink

    BTW, can we spot the logical fallacy in this statement?

    Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review.

    I’m not talking about anything like access to the journals, I’m talking about a very basic logical flaw that’s built in to the question itself.

  41. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

    Calvin Ball – 48,
    As CTO of fledging software start up going through an outside audit the CEO and I were given critical reports for using personal credit cards to purchase company property.

    Should we have told the auditors that we would not take them seriously until they were running an underfunded company themselves?

    That would not have worked for us then, and won’t work for the government funded climatologists now.

    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 3:06 PM | Permalink

      Re: Maurice Garoutte (#49),

      You basically got it. The built-in assumption is that there’s a bulletproof proxy reconstruction out there somewhere (not necessarily hockey-stick shaped), and Steve’s assignment is to find it, in a form that’s so perfect that they can’t shoot BBs at it. There’s no guarantee that such a thing exists. But they won’t let Steve into the club until he does what may not be possible.

      Reading between the lines, what I get out of that statement is that they realize that these reconstructions are all weak, and they’re saying “you do better”. Which is tantamount to demanding proof of a negative.

      • QBeamus
        Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 3:35 PM | Permalink

        Re: Calvin Ball (#51),

        Like in all those hokey movies, where “the only way to prove he’s innocent is to find the real killer.” An accusation is falsified by a good alabi–proving who actually did it is nice, if possible, but not necessary.

  42. Mrjthomas
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

    I think the article gives a good flavour of the Steve’s work and this site. It is difficult to capture the depth and breadth of what is discussed here and the technical expertise that is demonstrated in a single article, but the key messages are that (a) Steve is QA’ing some of the “settled science”, (b) he is qualified to do so, and (c) the response from “climate science” as a whole is not what you would expect from a group of scientists with the requisite balance of confidence in what they are doing and humility to admit that they may make errors.

  43. Mrjthomas
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    Blimey, just read the comments at WSJ. That Barrie Harrop doesn’t know when to stop digging does he …

    • Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 3:55 PM | Permalink

      Re: Mrjthomas (#53), Barrie Harrop is a clown — and fits the definition of an industry funded hack if I ever saw one. He has somehow declared himself high-priest of climate change science and deigned to arbitrate what journals and research is considered legitimate.

      Congratulations Steve. Your work and forum are models for the future of disseminating climate science information as efficiently and transparently as possible.

    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 4:48 PM | Permalink

      Re: Mrjthomas (#53),

      That Barrie guy is a well known WSJ troll. This isn’t his first appearance. He always shows up when there’s anything with a climate/energy angle. The avatar with the oh-so-bookish reading glasses should be a tip off. Obviously, he’s the smartest one there; someone with glasses like that can’t possibly have an IQ under 150.

  44. Shallow Climate
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 4:43 PM | Permalink

    Re Steve McIntyre (#26): “They arm-wave through problems, don’t like being questioned.” You said it. Everyone ought to know, especially research scientists, that research science is not for the faint-of-heart, not for sissies. You publish your work and put it all (that’s ALL) out there for the wolves to have at it. And the wolves have to have at it, and it has to survive the having-at in order to qualify as reliable. We’re all supposed to know that. (Am I venting, or making a valid and nonventing point? We’ll see if this gets snipped.) Once again, I am glad I put my pittance in the tip jar–it is well-placed.

  45. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:02 PM | Permalink

    I’ve just read the comments on the WSJ site and was so angered by the ignorance, the ad hominem attacks, appeal to authority and the hiding behind anonymity (‘By the way have leading and respected climate change scientist advising me’. Barry Harrop, WSJ comments) that I tried to register and respond but have yet to receive my registration email from the WSJ.

    Well Barry Harrop, just in case you are reading, I am a scientist active in climate change research (published in Nature, GRL, GCA, plus many other journals). Your comments tell us more about you and your ignorance of the scientific process. It matters not a jot where science is published. You seem to think the imprimatur of ‘Science’ or ‘Nature’ lends credibility to a study. Neither are ‘climate change’ journals. Science is about the search for understanding and truth and not concensus.

    • Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:47 PM | Permalink

      Re: Paul Dennis (#57), try to login and it will send an additional confirmation email. The first-one never came for me either, but the second did right away.

    • John Roberts
      Posted Feb 25, 2010 at 11:53 AM | Permalink

      I decided to take a look at Barrie’s LinkedIn profile, since he is always referring to them as though they were some paragon arbiter of professional qualifications, rather than Facebook for Self-Proclaimed Movers and Shakers. In other words, just another website, albeit one specializing in ‘social networking’ for elite statists.

      I was hoping to find something there showing his educational background, but alas, I was to be disappointed. So, we must just accept, on faith, that Barrie is a graduate in good standing of East Overshoe Middle School, located, paradoxically, in West Overshoe, Australia. (See the HEMA Australia Touring Guide, page 83. It’s located about 35 KM west of the Connie Sue Highway, between Premier Downs and Neale Junction.)

      So, on to his occupational record, where, amongst the self-promoting puffery to be expected from a site of this sort, we see listed the following:

      Environmental Services industry
      Retail industry (2 entries)
      Consumer Goods industry
      Government Administration industry
      Entertainment industry
      Real Estate industry (4 entries)
      Food & Beverages industry

      Seems to have moved about a good bit, wouldn’t you say? Oh well, when you can’t make a go of one thing, just move on to something else.

      But, folks… We all owe Barrie a apology. As we can see, he’s at least as well qualified as the hair dressers and landscapers listed among the oft-cited ‘2000 scientists’.

      After all, his current position in snake oil… errrrrrrrr.. lightning rod… ummmmmm I mean windmill sales places him at the very apex of the scientific community, and his proclamations should be given the weight to which they are entitled.

  46. Tony Hansen
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 5:23 PM | Permalink

    re Rob Wilson..‘can the nuances of methodological developments be communicated to the layman’
    How could it be possible for anyone to know all the nuances?

    ‘would they want to know’
    Until one makes a concerted effort one may not know either way (but bender and myself will do for starters)

    ‘I do not think this would help’
    Help in what way?
    My experience has been that those who are unwilling to try are usually unable to – but still seem to be driven to make grand pronouncements.
    Some seem to be aware that what we don’t know is much greater than what we think we know.

  47. cbullitt
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 6:11 PM | Permalink

    Congratulations. I guess hard work really does pay off. That the trolls at the WSJ site are livid is a good sign.

  48. L Nettles
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 6:16 PM | Permalink

    Beer money for the tip jar!!! Good Job!

  49. stumpy
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 6:18 PM | Permalink

    “Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review”

    Sounds like a challenge! Now if only they would give you the raw data so you could…..

    • bender
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:10 PM | Permalink

      Re: stumpy (#64),
      Availability of data is one thing. Coming with a model to correctly interpret it quite another. The latter is the deep poblem. But you first need the data to prove that.

  50. Geo
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 6:47 PM | Permalink

    It is a pity the article didn’t shine a public light on the data access issues. Yamal could have been a hook for that. If the public understood how successful these people have been in hiding their data from review for long periods of time, it would really move some of those numbers. People who could get something done would have read it in the WSJ. Ah well.

  51. Alexej Buergin
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 7:42 PM | Permalink

    I used to read a newspaper that had 3 editions per day. I read it when it had 2. Then it had 1. And then I decided not to read news on paper anymore. (I must confess that I read the “Daily Mail” when in England or Spain).
    If Ms Anne Jolis continues like that I might change my mind.

  52. Anthony Watts
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

    I’m in Europe at the moment, I’ll see if I can pick up a print copy for you and mail it to you.

  53. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

    Just went to the hotel lobby and scored two copies of the Euro edition of WSJ for you. The story is on page 15.

    3AM here, can’t sleep. Time zone whacky with body clock. 6PM in California.

    This is what I was doing today, speaking at EU Parliament in Brussels:

  54. David
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 8:37 PM | Permalink

    As a first time contributor, please accept my congratulations on exposing some of the deficiencies in what is being presented as supposedly robust scientific research.

    I know that you maintain a careful focus and rightfully so, but I wander which of the viewers can point out where the critical issues for ocean acidification are being debated.

    Like the nine headed (or was it seven) hydra, the AGWs keep changing the field of debate and it would appear to me that this is another one that deserves some attention.

  55. MattN
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 8:40 PM | Permalink

    Thank you, Steve….

  56. Denny
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 9:56 PM | Permalink

    For those who haven’t seen the paper, I posted it here:

  57. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

    Thank you for your work.Although you have said that your work by itself does not invalidate the global warming alarmist perspective,

    To me it’s more that Steve is showing that the climate science community has made a poor effort at making their case, and don’t like being called out. It’s that simple. I don’t know if AGW is happening. To me it seems like it isn’t, mainly because of the responses by climate scientists to serious questions about their work.

  58. Noblesse Oblige
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 10:33 PM | Permalink

    “Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review.”

    An old proverb: If you want to beat a dog, a stick is easy to find.” In this case a hockey stick.

    • bender
      Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 10:42 PM | Permalink

      Re: Noblesse Oblige (#76),
      Yes, but that’s exactly THEIR argument: “Steve is beating us poor dogs with a stick that any degenerate could have picked up. His choice is telling.”
      The scientific rebuttal – the only one worth repeating – is the one Steve listed.

  59. Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM | Permalink

    Thanks very much for your work, Mr. McIntyre.

    Did you ever talk with Dr. Roy Spencer? He seems to be in clouds and natural variability.

    I have no time to contribute scientifically. But if you need some extra money, I’d be glad to help out, as much as I can.

  60. John G. Bell
    Posted Nov 18, 2009 at 11:39 PM | Permalink

    Steve M,
    I know you don’t care, but some day people will look back and see what a great debt we all owe you for your devotion to science. I’d like to thank you now.

    Without sound science, public policy has little chance and the ardor of the confused and conflicted wins out. A better future awaits us because of your efforts.

  61. Daryl M
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 12:16 AM | Permalink


    You are a hero. Thank you for your relentless pursuit of truth.

    Keep up the excellent work. (Please.)

  62. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 2:05 AM | Permalink

    “Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review.”

    I think this is direct challenge for replicating the HadCRUT dataset from obtained raw data. Can´t wait!

  63. SamG
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:00 AM | Permalink

    Like a great artist overlooked in his day…..

  64. Mike Lorrey
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:08 AM | Permalink

    I love the claim that they want you to produce your own reconstructions. That is essentially what you do here all the time. If they want you go go out and do your own tree ring cores, thats laughable, its not like Briffa has personally gone out and drilled any, he’s just taking others work and reprocessing it.

  65. EddieO
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:49 AM | Permalink

    Did you read any of the comments attached to the article at WSJ
    As usual one “True Believer” turns up to try to ridicule Steve with a series of unfounded allegations and ad hominum attacks. This epitomises the continued approach of the warming lobby. They can’t defend themselves against criticism of their science or analysis so they resort to name calling and appeal to authority.

    Why does anyone take people like this seriously?

    • Jon
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

      Re: EddieO (#85),
      Unfortunately, the WSJ comments section is and has always been a complete cesspool.

  66. Espen
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 5:34 AM | Permalink

    Very good news, congratulations! It’s always very encouraging to see when integrity, honesty and hard work still pays off in the long run.

  67. KnockJohn
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 7:12 AM | Permalink

    Great to see that Steve is beginning to enter the more Main Stream Media, and good to see a pretty open article.

    I am often shocked by the closed minded nature of many that work in research associated ultimately with climate change. Even the other day a colleague dismissed Steve as “a skeptic – well that says it all”.

    Here in the UK we need to see a greater balance to the whole story. Unfortunately the BBC is ubiquitous, here, and their attributions of all unusual weather events to climate change (see todays rain & flooding in Cumbria) is widely swallowed by the masses.

  68. Geo
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    “until better data is available”. Oh really? And if data solid enough to do reliable paleoclimate reconstructions is *never* available?

    Imagine the scientist who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine dismissing critics until *they* invented a perpetual motion machine. No “merely theoretical” objections will be considered germane until you invent your own perpetual motion machine, sir!

    • PhilH
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

      Re: Geo (#89), Let’s see, Geo. Are you prepared to mathematically or statistically refute a single one of Steve’s findings? Imagine the commenter on this site who offers only “theoretical,” non-“germane(?)”objections to McIntyre’s work. Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me.

  69. Craig Loehle
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

    The complaint that Steve should create his own reconstruction is similar to the defense made against those criticising cold fusion or UFO sightings: “only experts in our topic can truly understand the concepts”. “If you are such a hot shot, do your own cold fusion experiment (find your own UFOs)”. What this totally misses (intentionally?) is that a critique can be stating that the enterprise in question is simply wrong. There is no cold fusion, trees are not good thermometers (unless you have historical precip data maybe…which we don’t), in which case why would a critic attempt their own cold fusion device if they think it is not possible? IOW it is a strange kind of ad hom, in which they imply that only those who can do X are true experts, whereas the critic is saying that doing X (at least as currently practiced) is invalid and with no guarantee that the methods can be “fixed”.

    • BarryW
      Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:25 PM | Permalink

      Re: Craig Loehle (#92),

      And if you can’t replicate then you just don’t know what you’re doing so your objections can be dismissed.

    • SteveGinIL
      Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 1:16 AM | Permalink

      Re: Craig Loehle (#92), A short personal story about cold fusion. At the time Pons and Fleischman came out with that, I worked in R&D. My boss sat down at lunch and told how the metallurgists in the building were laughing at the comments of physicists. He said the metallurgists all knew about the properties of Palladium, that different isotopes and different crystalline forms of Pd acted completely different, and that some experiments would show results and some wouldn’t. They said that the ones who unknowingly used the wrong forms of Pd wouldn’t accept that others’ results were valid. He then talked about it in terms of hydrogen in metals (causing embrittlement, which can be a big problem). This is a really well researched field; the hydrogen gets into the lattice structure and creates an incredible amount of pressure. To my understanding this is where the fusion is produced. The metallurgists said physicists simply never work in this area, so they know nothing about it. Yet the physicists would be the ones the journalists would be addressing questions to. Is all this true? I have every reason to believe it is true.

      “only experts in our topic can truly understand the concepts”

      I couldn’t put it any better – the physicists were out of their level, and they didn’t even know it. The metallurgists predicted this would all be proven some day, but it would be a long slog probably.

  70. Shallow Climate
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:14 AM | Permalink

    Re Rob Wilson: I know that Steve M. extols said Rob Wilson as a person of “unimpeachable character”. If Steve M. says that, it must have great merit, IMO. But now comes the “however”: However, I don’t take to Wilson’s point about explaining details to the layman (who might not want to know anyway). Feynman once said that if a scientist can’t explain his work in an intelligible way to a first-grader, then he doesn’t really understand it himself. So, Mr. Wilson, please go ahead and explain away. We, The Great Unbathed Masses, are listening.

  71. RickA
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    GEO #89 – You have put the burden of proof on the wrong party. The burden of proof is on the Scientist to do the correct analysis. All a critic has to do is successfully show an error with that analysis and the scientist has to redo it! If solid data to do reliable paleoclimate reconstructions is never available then there will never be a reliable paleoclimate reconstruction.

  72. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    RE Shallow Climate #93,

    Feynman once said that if a scientist can’t explain his work in an intelligible way to a first-grader, then he doesn’t really understand it himself.

    Actually, Feynman was referring to [Caltech] undergraduates, not to first graders, whence his undergrad-level Lectures on Physics.

    But still your point is well-taken — he always insisted that mere authority never determines truth.

    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 1:18 PM | Permalink

      Re: Hu McCulloch (#95),

      In my experience, if you have someone who gets flustered trying to explain the broad conceptual outline of something, that person doesn’t really understand it himself, but doesn’t even realize it. That’s why you sometimes get a very aggressive and emotional response to that kind of a question.

      I think the reason why Feynman excelled at explaining very complex and counterintuitive ideas to the lay public is that he had actually given the subject some serious thought, and was able to crystallize things in his own mind in a way that lesser minds couldn’t.

      If you get an angry response to a question, it tells you all you need to know about the level of deep understanding the person has, and probably also about how secure he is in his knowledge.

      • Craig Loehle
        Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

        Re: Calvin Ball (#96), An angry response to a question can also indicate that you are not being sufficiently respectful of the grand poobah hot-shot scientist. You are dissing him, you lowlife peasant.

  73. Eric Anderson
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

    Great article for the masses. Congrats.

  74. keith frost
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 1:45 PM | Permalink

    well deserved. We are all benefiting by your hard work and due diligence.


  75. PhilH
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

    Mark Steyn, on The Corner at National Review Online, has picked up on this.

  76. Robinson
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

    I would be careful about posting up this correspondence so fast. I don’t know why, but it’s making me feel a little uneasy.

  77. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 4:34 PM | Permalink

    Rob Wilson asks if the public can or wish to follow the nuances of these climate issues.

    I am not a statistician or a climate scientist by training. But I did do molecular biology to the lecturing level. I like to follow what is going on in climate science, so far as I can, and not merely pick up the climatology prejudices of the sensationalistic media and the often unreliable lobby groups that feed them. These climate issues are both fascinating and important in a policy sense.

    As a retired molecular biologist I am shocked by the sort of things I see repeatedly in climate science. Failure to fully disclose data or to respond to requests for it; failure to acknowledge obvious errors; gross indulgence in ad hominem attacks; group attacks on awkward questioners – my former field of molecular biology was not flawless but it had much better standards than these, and as a result it sorted fact from fiction much more quickly than climate science.

    Thanks to Steve for his contributions.

  78. buppity
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 10:47 PM | Permalink

    Feynman is good but maybe you should be looking at the work of Taleb and Gell-Mann. These two are still alive and contributing much to the statistics and science (respectively) surrounding uncertainty.

  79. Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:02 PM | Permalink

    Atta boy (high praise from a Navy man) Steve.

    AW has more on the Hadley hack here:

  80. Richard
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:09 PM | Permalink

    Here is an email dated 1998 to k.briffa from that lot:
    Tree-ring widths (TRW) chronology:

    A whole lot of data followed by:

    Draft manuscript

    M.M.Naurzbaev, E.A.Vaganov
    Taymir Biospheric Reserve, Khatanga
    Institute of Forest, Krasnoyarsk

    Regional tree-ring chronology with extension 2209 years (since 212 B.C. till 1996 A.D.) was built for the east of Taymir according to wood of living trees, well preserved residues of dead trees and semi-fossil wood from alluvial bank deposits by the cross-dating method. In addition the “floading” tree-ring width chronology for the period of Holocene Optimum (3300-2600 B.C.) was built with extention 685 years and supported by several rdiocarbon dates……… Temperature dynamics in the eastern part of Taymir for the last two millenia agrees well with temperature variations in the northern hemisphere obtained according to other indirect sources. The warming of the middle of the 20-th century is not extraordinary. The more long in time, and close in amplitude the warming at the border of the first and the second millennia was.

    Any comments?

    • bender
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 1:41 AM | Permalink

      Re: Richard (#106),
      Is this from the paper where they used the corridor method of standardization? If so, there’s your answer. This paper has been discussed here before.

  81. BDJ
    Posted Nov 19, 2009 at 11:54 PM | Permalink

    Found the 62 MB file (virus free) on Pirate Bay. Search for: “Hadley CRU Files (”

  82. David Harrington
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 3:36 AM | Permalink

    Fabulous Steve. Well done sir.

  83. Matthew
    Posted Nov 20, 2009 at 9:49 PM | Permalink

    It’s worth noting that Steve McIntyre is mentioned in no less than 45 of the documents in the Hadley CRU file set.

  84. steven mosher
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 3:59 AM | Permalink

    go find the mail from rob wilson requesting the yamal chronologies from briffa. hehe. technically rob told the truth. he did not ask for the raw data

    • bender
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

      Re: steven mosher (#112),
      Yes. As I had speculated: roundabout inquiry about inquiring about the data.

    • bender
      Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 11:32 AM | Permalink

      Re: steven mosher (#112),
      Jan Esper is quoted on the effect of rockfall on stripbark forms.
      Note: Trees at the top of treeline will experience more rockfall. Relevant to recent Salzer paper.

  85. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM | Permalink

    Mann accuses Esper et al 2005 of “shoddy” work, but Osborn defends it as merely “flimsy”. Mann gives in, was alerted to the paper by Revkin. Mann is more concerned about the publicization of the result than its publication.
    And there you have it: Michael McCarthy … on the hunt. Little wonder Rob is afraid to post here. It’s MM decides who has the cooties. And if you have the cooties your publishing career is over.

  86. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    Briffa to Juckes on bcp use:

    The bottom line though is that these trees likely represent a mixed temperature and moisture-supply response that might vary on longer timescales.


  87. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

    mike suspicious of new recruit Juckes:

    Martin Juckes has an invited talk in my session. I invited him, because he was working w/ Stott et al, and so I assume he was legit, and not associated with the contrarians. But if he’s associated w/ the Dutch group, he may actually be a problem. Do you have additional information about him and what he has been up to?

  88. bender
    Posted Nov 21, 2009 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    Briffa to Juckes:

    I agree that the rapid growth increase is most likely a result of a change in the proportion of net photosynthetic production potential (ie needle mass) relative to the area of living cambium that could occur as a tree shifts from “normal” to strip bark form. If this changes suddenly , as growth occurs only along a small strip rather than around the whole circumference (I know this is oversimplified) then you could easily get this apparent change in growth rate . BUT , if this is seen synchronously in many trees it would be hard to believe that this was the cause. To look at this would require a detail examination of all the data (in relation to the precise sample geometry). Changing precipitation trends, such as occurred pre- and post the mid 1970s will also confuse things.

  89. Robert Beck
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

    As Wikileaks is currently down, the 61MB file is also available on .

    If you have Vuze, you can also download it using and see for yourselves.

  90. poopypants
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:04 PM | Permalink

    $latex Should they be posted @ ? It maybe a helpful. Perhaps, a sweet-tasty effort in sharing the information to/at ALL the various Skeptic websites will aid in thought generation too! When your heads in the sand, something else is exposed! Go forth and kick’um in that rear-end or hind-quarter!
    Be well,

  91. poopypants
    Posted Nov 22, 2009 at 7:06 PM | Permalink

    $latex Should they be posted @ ? It maybe helpful. Perhaps, a sweet-tasty effort in sharing the information to/at ALL the various Skeptic websites will aid in thought generation too! When your heads in the sand, something else is exposed! Go forth and kick’um in that rear-end or hind-quarter!
    Be well,
    Re: Robert E. Phelan (#1),

  92. Trevor
    Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

    Can someone PLEASE tell me where these hacked docs can be seen.
    I’m desperate to see them because they appear to confirm what I have been saying for years – that this Global Warming scare is all BS.

  93. Sean
    Posted Nov 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM | Permalink

    I really don’t want to be a egotistical arse, but I’ve been saying this for years! The sun isn’t a light bulb in space, it’s a constant explosive reaction which by it’s very nature doesn’t have a consistant output. Solar flares reach out from the sun, I’m sure that fact isn’t in question, so how hard is it to conceive that larger flares may carry the explosion out a little bit more than normal. We know that the temperature of this planet isn’t constant – can anybody say ice age? – this climate change thing is either a hidious over reaction to some potentially flawed science, or more concerningly a big old lie to drain money from the world and line the pockets of a few. The world at large has been lied to before for monetary gain, it’s not outside the realms of posibility that this is just a really successful scam.

    UK-Analyst, a stocks and shares tips company, today sent an email to all subscribers urging them to sell any stocks they have in any of these carbon trading companies titled “A Book Review, 3 stocks to short to zippo and the political scandal of the decade”. The email encourages people to either short sell the life out of these companies in order to grab some cash from the sinking ship or to simply sell up before the shares are worth nothing. The email provides the following link as interesting reading:

    The website has many links to sub pages of this site: – which seemingly contains a catalogue of the leeked emails. Please do read up, and if you find the information plausable then do spread the word.

    This recent hack may be a massive hoax and I may be very very wrong. Climate change may be real, but we owe it to ourselves and everyone else to draw attention to this information so that it may either be discreditied or affirmed.

  94. Dallas
    Posted Nov 24, 2009 at 9:23 AM | Permalink


  95. Posted Nov 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM | Permalink

    I really enjoyed reading your post, keep up creating such interesting posts.

2 Trackbacks

  1. […]   ——————————————————————————— WOW !!! WOW !!! WOW !!! […]

  2. […] He shopped that link to several prominent climate-skeptical blogs. They included The Air Vent, Climate Audit, The Blackboard, and Watts Up With […]

%d bloggers like this: