A new thread. Just back from the studio. I’ve been interviewed a couple of times now, but I’m not experienced at television. This was the first time that I’ve been on a panel.

My main impressions. You sure don’t have time to expand a point. You’d better be thinking in point form before you get there. Second, everyone wants to put you into a pigeonhole. And when you’re dealing in sound bites, there’s not much that you can do about. I appreciated the invitation from CNN (as I have other invitations). I thought that the questions were polite.

The video is here:

Update: Invited by John Roberts to be on CNN tomorrow morning (Dec 11) about 7.30 a.m.


  1. Denny
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:23 PM | Permalink


    Do you know when the broadcast will be??

  2. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:24 PM | Permalink

    You did a good job. They had Schmidt, Mann and Oppenheimer before you were allowed to speak.

    I loved how they kept defining you as a “skeptic” and how many times did the bubble headed Campbell say Bozo before she introduced you. I don’t think I’ve ever read anything at CA that states your skepticism about global warming. Maybe these emails and this response will change that.

    The others were prepared to talk fast with hard ‘overstated’ points. Oppenheimer was fantastically dishonest [snip if you want] …

  3. David P
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:26 PM | Permalink

    Posted this in the news thread; you can delete it their if you like.

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

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

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

  4. michael_bolton
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

    I really don’t think that Campbell Brown (or John Roberts) knows enough about the issues to conduct a meaningful investigation/interview/discussion on the CRU emails. She let Oppenheimer off the hook so many times, I lost count.

    Whatever happened to the ‘no bull’ Campbell Brown?

  5. Bryan H.
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

    Unfortunately CNN has already established the point of view they intend to present as is readily apparent by their woefully late and slanted pieces. I hope you were not overly frustrated with the process of presenting your “bullet” points to an audience looking for soundbites to suit their view of the “deniers”.

  6. LMB
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

    Good interview, Steve.

    Campbell Brown’s big problem with Climategate is with the conspiracy element. She mocked, Why would so many scientists conspire to defraud?

    The show was too short, as you said, and the thing nobody got to was all the scientists who support the Global Warming are relying on data controlled by very few.

    The thousands of scientists pro Global Warming are not part of the conspiracy, Campbell doesn’t understand. So it really isn’t that big of a conspiracy. They have assumed the data they’ve seen is correct.

    Brown failed to bring up or answer this email on motivation:

    As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.



    source+full email:

  7. Brad Erenberger
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:33 PM | Permalink

    I thought you were excellent, but I wish CNN would have given you a bit more time. I also thought you were the calmest and most composed of the bunch. I was a bit disappointed Campbell Brown didn’t get into more detail (merits of three-wall nicks versus reverse corners, for example).

    Hope to see more of you in the coming days.

  8. stevemcintyre
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:34 PM | Permalink

    I heard the comments by Schmidt and Mann on audio feed while I was waiting for my segment. That was one reason why I tried to specifically respond to this new trick that the “trick” was some complex mathematical thingie. Jon Stewart got the trick much better than the reviewed-by-Phil-Jones realclimatescientists.

  9. Rob Huber
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:36 PM | Permalink


    You did fine! I was glad you didn’t come across as angry like the other guy did (the skeptic-attorney … don’t remember his name).

    In the past couple of weeks, I’ve heard repeatedly from the alarmists that “thousands” of scientists think global warming is real, that all the data has been freely available from the beginning of time, and that the work of UEA has been supported by multiple independant groups (like Galvin at NASA wasn’t involved in any of those emails!). I wish you had been given time to refute these points, but it’s got to be terribly difficult for a person not used to such interviews. It doesn’t matter though … your work on this site speaks volumes.

  10. stevemcintyre
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:38 PM | Permalink

    Before readers pile on, please keep in mind that I do not share the views of many, if not, most readers on the “big picture”. This does not mean that I don’t have strong views on proxy reconstructions and things like that – I obviously do. But these are only aspect of the “big picture” – one that I happen to specialize in though. I have never ventured an opinion on whether it is a big, medium-sized or little problem nor suggested that politicians modify any policy other than the improvement of due diligence and transparency. In addition, I discourage the venting of policy opinions by readers – regular readers know this, but I ask that new readers observe this. It’s a tricky line right now, but please keep it in mind.

  11. Johnny A
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:41 PM | Permalink


    You did well on CNN tonight, but yes, you are expected to talk in quick, overstated, talking points like Opp. did.

    It would have been nice if someone had talked more about the fact that this isn’t JUST EMAILS, and that there is model source code as well as other documents to analyze. The current defensive spin is that this is just “scientists behaving badly” when talking in “stolen private emails.”

    I would prefer to see more of you on these programs than the political pundits.

  12. INGSOC
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:43 PM | Permalink

    I thought you did very well for a first timer! Not too much deer in the headlights! 😉 Your points were very sound, and as others as well as yourself have said, the format can be tricky. You acquitted yourself well. You came across as very unbiased and authentic. Very hard to do.

    Thanks for doing it. You’ll be even stronger the next time!

  13. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:45 PM | Permalink

    Mann did a great job. Didn’t blink one time.

  14. geo
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:50 PM | Permalink

    Need to get you on Charlie Rose or something where you can have some “expounding” time.

  15. LMB
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:53 PM | Permalink

    > Mann did a great job. Didn’t blink one time.

    Yes, he was very cool, calm, and collected… because he got an open Mike and nobody on a panel to debate.

    In CNN’s next segment, John Roberts said Phil Jones meanwhile has gone underground.

  16. Cal
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:54 PM | Permalink

    Well done Steve. I think you did great.

  17. hamletxi
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:55 PM | Permalink

    I just saw the interview. It tough on tv you have to be quick they don’t want real answers. Steve keep it up you will feel more comfortable. Who is Oppenheimer i haven’t seen his name many times. Well its good to see cnn making an effort to bring all sides in. The UN however does not and i’m astonished they aren’t calling for any openness or discussion. The stonewalling is insulting to anyones intelligence. It quite disturbing to what the IPCC head said on Cnn after steve was on when asked about the language in the Climategate emails. Hesid he talks worse in private. Wat does that mean>?

  18. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 9:56 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, Steve, at my house you were pre-empted by The Closer, the boss doesn’t watch much news. I hope to catch it on Youtube or something. In the meantime, I’ll program my other DVR to get the rest tomorrow and Wednesday.

  19. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:00 PM | Permalink

    Agree about Jon Stewart, the most effective presentation of the problem I’ve seen and the one by far the most likely to reach those not already decided (a la Inhofe or Limbaugh) that there’s a problem – the younger, left-liberal crowd. This completely unpredicted situation requires a mental agility that is rare in such a polarized area. The man that’s done the statistical heavy lifting and had an off-the-record with Monbiot is on the right lines. As is Monbiot himself. That’s worth some meditation.

  20. Doug Badgero
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:02 PM | Permalink


    I agree that perhaps you do need to stay above the fray. However, since this is not just a scientific debate it is also a policy debate, I think us mere mortals have to make a decision about which side of the fence we sit on. In the immortal words of Rush: “If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.” Rush – they’re Canadian you know. I agree though, those discussions can be had on other people’s blogs.

  21. VG
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    It would be quite useful if the normal site was working quick smart as this is history in the making…?

  22. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:09 PM | Permalink

    On video, you can show what you truly believe, but cannot explain why you believe it.

    On video, stick to what video can show.

    Video favors the zealot over the scientist, for the zealot believes, and the scientist doubts. Deal with this problem by telling the audience what you truly believe – that the zealot’ s faith is not based on facts.

  23. EdB
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:10 PM | Permalink

    Steve you did fine. Cambell slandered you to heck before you got there. I have NEVER seen a person introduced as a “bozo’, multiple times before he can speak.

    I recommend you avoid the media. They will always screw a scientific person.

    Please… do what you do well, and avoid being set up as a bozo again. It was beyond belief that CNN could do that.

    I garantee the CBC or Globe and Mail would be worse.

    No, do not let yourself be labelled as a crank. That CNN introduction has already got you 75% down that road.

    You deserve a public apology from Cambell Brown!

  24. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:21 PM | Permalink

    What happened to the null hypothesis and the concept of proving your hypothesis by attempting to prove it wrong? Once the tree data “diverged” from reality there was evidence for divergences and it was time to find a new method. I notice most people who feel the science is settled immediately start talking about “all the other science”. Fine but lets admit the tree data is flawed.

  25. Johna Till Johnson
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:21 PM | Permalink


    Thanks for taking the principled stand on all this! The hardest thing to do is not give in to one side or the other, but focus on the data and where it leads. I’m glad you’re doing this (the analysis on this site, as well as appearing on TV, etc). I’ve been lurking for a few months, and really appreciate that you’re one of the few folks holding a sane discussion.

    And BTW you can jump pretty far for a white guy ;-).

  26. hamletxi
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:24 PM | Permalink

    Can someone tell me whats Steve’s position on the accuracy of the proxies is? i have been unable to find it? To me the proxies and whether they have ever been compared to satellite data to establish their margin for error. micheal mann is now saying tree ring proxies are unreliable. How that coresponds to phil jones used the tree ring data in 2007 i dont get?

  27. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:31 PM | Permalink

    I heard the comments by Schmidt and Mann on audio feed while I was waiting for my segment

    It had to be amazingly hard. The gave the sound feed, you’re waiting for your cue. They finally show your face live, you tense up, ready for the main event. The pretty girl with no knowledge describes all the names you’re called and then cuts to commercial. Stuck in a room. Two minutes later, all the ad hom’s are repeated, a question is asked and….SHOWTIME.

    Kinda like defending capitalism to Kim Jong Il.

    There was an intentional effort to put you off your game. It’s kind of awesome that it didn’t work but it’s hard to say they didn’t give it their best shot.

    I can’t watch CNN under non-waterboarding circumstances and actually recorded it this time. Maybe I’ll burn the DVR.

  28. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:32 PM | Permalink

    I caught one segment quite by accident: it was playing on the TV in the corridor at work as I passed by.

    I found the segment to be disappointing: “What’s wrong with wanting clean air?” was Ms. Brown’s exasperated question.

    Zeus almighty, woman, CO2 is not a pollutant, regardless of what the EPA says. This isn’t about wanting clean air, it’s about wanting clean science. Don’t you know basic science? I’m a humanities major and I get THAT.

    And then she wanted to know if there were any policies we could all agree on.

    Again, cripes on crutches! Why are we talking about policy reconciliation when the raw data has not even begun to be parsed in public.

    I hate TV. I hate shallow people. And I hate it when people lie.

    I guess when you are called on to speak, you have to answer not the question they ask (which in a sane world we’d all do) but the question they should have asked.

    Concatenate a bunch of sentences and rattle them off as fast as you can, mention just the meat of the problem: “Climate scientists have not been following the scientific method; due diligence has not been done by disinterested parties; the data sets are an unfathomable mess; all of the data sets need to be publicly available; the Internet should make scientific analysis easier because more people can check the math; most scientists are not particularly good statisticians; big policy decisions should be put on hold until we straighten out the spaghetti code,” etc.

    Otherwise, like J.A. Donald said, the passionate zealot (who could recite his talking points in a coma) will leave the mark.

  29. rootlake
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM | Permalink

    Nice job on there, Steve. I was quite annoyed that she decided to spend so much time on the ‘finding common ground’ question, hitting all 3 of you with it. Anyway, they at least gave you a fair shake for a little bit of time.

  30. Gerald
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 10:55 PM | Permalink

    I just got home from bowling. I caught the end of Anderson Cooper with Pat Michaels and Bill Nye. Now there is one person in total denial (Nye). He seems to think that deleting e-mails is the right thing to do when you do not want to answer FOI’s.
    Now I have to find the segment with Steve.

  31. nanny_govt_sucks
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:09 PM | Permalink

    I think the link to the interview is here (was there more?):

    Steve, I like the way you took the first nonsense question and answered the question that YOU wanted asked. Well done. I guess in an interview you always need to be prepared for such a situation.

  32. dan from NZ
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM | Permalink

    Chris Horner, Steve McIntyre & Michael Oppenheimer on CNN:

  33. Tom Ganley
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:15 PM | Permalink

    Nice job. You answered questions like you formulated the answer when the question was asked, and didn’ t sound like you had canned answers prepared. In short you talked the way normal people talk.

    An interesting note: my wife, who isn’t following this story closely, and didn’t know who Mann was, laughed out loud when he gave his explanation of ‘the trick’.

    When you do what you did, talk like a normal, reasonable person, it draws a sharp contrast to spin, and helps show it for the silliness that it is.

  34. BarryW
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:16 PM | Permalink


    After watching Nye I think he should be barred from having anything to do with teaching children about science. Some of the tripe he was spewing had me yelling at the TV. I wish just once there was a reporter that would challenge some of these ridiculous statements that people like Nye get away with. If he actually believed what he was saying then he needs to be medicated.

    The Team and friends also keep peddling the fairytale that the graph just replaced “bad” data with “good” temperature data to make the graph correct!

  35. Flint
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:26 PM | Permalink

    Most frustrating to me was not giving Steve an opportunity to expound on the irrationality of using tree ring proxies to flatten the MWP, then disregarding such data for the last half century. That, and the business about the 95% “consensus.” On the bright side, Pachauri came across as one with little credibility.

    All in all, the “nonconsensus” team did about as well as could be expected on a tilted field. The main thing, at this point, is to introduce people to the issues.

  36. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:27 PM | Permalink

    After re-watching, oppenheimer was pre-set with the criticism from bubble head that it appears to me as a laymen that the trick was….. I don’t think she ever mentions ‘hide’ through the whole hour long deep examination of the facts. Oppenheimer was prepared with the criticism and the answer.

    I’ll leave the rest for another blog cause it’s making me grumpy.

  37. kramer
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:37 PM | Permalink

    Steve, I thought you came across very well. Good job. I wish you had more air time to discuss more of your work.

    And thank you for all you’ve done so far on this issue.

  38. Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:40 PM | Permalink

    I used to have such a crush on Bill Nye: cutest nerd on TV.

    Now he makes me truly ill. I cannot understand why someone would prefer a thrilling lie to cold, hard facts.

    But then, he had Al Gore as a guest on his original BNSG show many years ago, and it was obvious that Nye was nursing a serious man-crush on Gore, so Bill’s been in this up to his eyeballs from the off.

  39. LMB
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:42 PM | Permalink

    I was pleased with the continued whitewash by CNN because it’s going to enflame the people who can actually get investigations started.

    Climate-gate global warming doubts ‘silly’: White House

    Tue, Dec 08, 2009

    WASHINGTON – The White House on Monday dismissed as “silly” the notion that global warming science had been compromised by emails exposing a row between top climate scientists.

    The emails have been pounced on by climate skeptics, particularly in the United States to suggest the scientific community is hyping the threat from carbon dioxide emissions ahead of the Copenhagen climate conference.

    “I think everybody is clear on the science,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

    “I think scientists are clear on the science. I think many on Capitol Hill are clear on the science. I think that this notion that there is some debate … on the science is kind of silly.”

  40. Daryl M
    Posted Dec 7, 2009 at 11:44 PM | Permalink

    Hey Steve,

    Great job! It would have been nice if you had more time to elaborate on your work, but you did really well, considering the format.

    Oppenheimer sure is a piece of work, though. Rather than say something about him that will surely be snipped, I’ll take a lesson from Bambi. If you can’t say something nice, don’t say nothing at all – other than that it truly is sad that he got to say so much without anyone calling BS.

    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:02 AM | Permalink

    Steve, you are quite right to stay away from politics.When you make a point, it carries so much more weight for it.Plenty of others out there playing politics. They can deal with the sticks and stones, they have a much harder time with the math and facts!

  42. Doug in Seattle
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:02 AM | Permalink

    Having now seen the segment, I came away with a sense that Steve did quite well. I also came away with a sense that CNN is not serious about the issue and is trying to sweep it under the rug.

  43. geogolfer
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:04 AM | Permalink

    I thought simply the fact that any of this played on CNN is a very big deal. It suggest a big change for the better in regards to balancing the debate in the MSM. Thanks Steve for your very important work.

  44. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:08 AM | Permalink

    Steve, all I have seen so far is the small bit of video posted by nanny_govt_s**cks above. I hope there is more. I would say, quite honestly, that you spoke in a direct and plain manner that will appeal more to middle-America and middle-Canada than the other folks did. That is where policy is decided, in the middle.

    Oppenheimer has been the video face of the warmist intelligentsia foreover. A decade or more ago, I saw him on the PBS Newshour opposite Lindzen, debating the science. He’s the kind of academic that appeals to the people with professional degrees who like to think of themselves as sophisticated. I remember intensely disliking him the first time I heard him open his mouth and I still do. He is exactly the kind of smug East Coast Ivy League elitist that inspires any sensible redneck to lay up an extra thousand .30-06 rounds, just in case.

  45. Don.W
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:12 AM | Permalink


    As a long time lurker, (many years now) and seldom commenter I have to say well done indeed! I thought Chris’s deference to you was also admirable.

    Unfortunately, it’s clear that they did not give you enough time and it is also clear that your response to John Roberts went right over their heads! And he’s been “investigating this for along time”! Just show’s to go you what investigative journalism has devolved into these days.

    As with Jeff ID, I too am becoming grumpy. I’ll return to my grumpy, lurker state but please keep up the good work. We admire the honesty and professionalism in your efforts!

    Sorry about the squash match….


  46. Bernie
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:24 AM | Permalink

    I also saw the piece that Nanny posted. You did a very nice job. It was a pity that you had to deal with the over-the-top Horner. The global conspiracy line was a major distraction from the simple fact that Mann has sandbagged a bunch of his colleagues. You made the most important point – without the tree rings the MWP remains and that means grand sweeping statements about unprecedented warmth have no foundation.
    Perhaps somebody will realize that a real debate/discussion would help educate the electorate – one where know nothing talking heads do not feel obliged contribute their two cents.
    Great job!

  47. sgi
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:25 AM | Permalink

    I’m quite new to this controversy about our climate but I’ve been trying to get up to speed the past few weeks.

    So, for what it’s worth Mr. McIntyre, I also appreciated your appearance on CNN. Despite the uphill battle you have fought for so long and the abuse you have tolerated, you appeared to me to be the most rational person on the panel. You were polite, didn’t make faces when you weren’t being spoken to, and spoke in plain language.

    There’s always more to say so it’s frustrating not having the time to say it. Perhaps you could follow up with a video to post here and on You Tube that would explain your position more thoroughly.

    My position is pretty simple. It is only common sense that we are polluting our atmosphere and we should make efforts to stop doing it, which we are already doing. Meanwhile, let climate science develop in the full light of day and perhaps skeptics and believers will find evidence that they can both support.

  48. David
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:25 AM | Permalink

    Steve, here’s something you can use to argue back from the argument that all 2500 IPCC scientists would have to be involved in a conspiracy:

    “The ‘small group of scientists’ up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis belong to the Climategate gang? Small world, isn’t it?”

  49. LMB
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:37 AM | Permalink

    > Having now seen the segment, I came away with a sense that Steve did quite well. I also came away with a sense that CNN is not serious about the issue and is trying to sweep it under the rug.

    Which makes no sense for ratings. The most recent TV viewership data I’ve seen shows CNN keeps falling further and further behind Fox. I don’t watch Fox, but I don’t understand why CNN can’t see that they could get a ton of mileage out of this scandal and higher ratings. The producer has failed. Bad business decisions are sinking the network.

    Will Anderson Cooper 360 do better tonight? He’s in the tank and fading fast.

    Anderson Cooper’s Ratings Plummet

  50. LMB
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:43 AM | Permalink

    P.S. Sorry, forgot to include Brown’s latest ratings:

    “”O’Reilly” was up 12% while “Countdown” and “Campbell Brown” were both down 62% at 8PM.” (Source: HuffPost)

    Covering up Climategate isn’t going to help her ratings.

  51. thethinkingman
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:46 AM | Permalink

    Well done Mr Mkintyre, I watched the YouTube and it was a good overview of the state of affairs right now.

    I am no fan of faith based science on either side of this debate, instead I just want to know how CO2 got picked as the villain of the piece in all of this.

    It’s a big fear that a lot of time, money and effort will be expended on getting rid of CO2 emissions when in fact something else may be the cause of the problem, assuming there is a problem.

    Unfortunately , living here in Zimbabwe, I have seen what happens when a political solution is applied which ignores the facts and just plays on emotions. We have no economy and we can’t feed ourselves but the politicians got what they were after.

    Fortunately any policy thrust that is built on FUD will ultimately fail because people will have their way as the truth will out. It just takes a long time and much distress first. This political science we are seeing in Copenhagen with it’s hoopla and circus and theater looks so false and “needy” may prevail in the short term but over the longer cycle real facts and sense will be brought to bear.

    Our contribution to 0.0019% of the atmosphere seems very unlikely to be the root of the Climate Change unconvincingly presented however if the science stacks up I will accept it. So far there has only been noise and no signal. Why is it so hard to convince ordinary people like me about the CO2? Why did EAU/CRU find it necessary to fudge their numbers? Why is the entire political sledgehammer being applied to the unconvinced and convinced alike when just a decent bit of research and applied science would do the job?

    We are all well meaning people with concerns for ourselves and the place we live. I don’t believe in conspiracies but I do think people get fixed ideas and then try and modify reality to fit those ideas . Scientists are supposed to be above that but there are always backsliders which is why we need the Steve McKintyres of this world to hold them to account on behalf of the rest of us.

    Thank you.

  52. snowmaneasy
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:04 AM | Permalink

    Hi Steve,
    Just watched it…you were fine…you stopped talking at all the right times…nothing worse then going on and on…Oppenheimer was trying to hard…Horner seemed Ok but you came across as the most relaxed…people like that, it shows you are sure about what you know..
    Keep it up

  53. Kasmir
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:14 AM | Permalink

    Steve, you did a great job for a first timer. I’ve done a few of these satellite national TV things, and they’re very difficult: you’re staring at a camera, not a person, you have all the stage fright pressure, limited time etc. You’re a natural — you came across as calm, you never got flustered, you said what you wanted to say. You were likable and believable — especially for a “bozo” 😉 Great job, sincerely.

  54. juanslayton
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:49 AM | Permalink

    When Oppenheimer said that AGW critics had had ten (or was it twenty?) years to refute the science, and _full access to the data_ (!) I thought he had just put his foot in it. Unfortunately, the format didn’t give a timely opportunity for you all to rub his nose in that one. But you done good overall.

  55. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:50 AM | Permalink


    I tend to tune out all the back and forth bickering, but this is an interesting website, and since I am humane, I cannot ignore a good “gate.” I have not formed a definitive opinion concerning “climate change is man made” – mainly because I am not informed of the technical basis for the conclusions. If man is guilty of anything, it seems that hypocrasy and hubris are at the top of the list. If I had to choose though, I say that I am a skeptic mainly from my own experience – although it is different, and much less complex than the global models that are a part of climatology. Global warming morphing into climate change reminds me of chicken little, and we all know how that turned out. My comment, and my biggest interest, surrounds the uncertainty with the mathematical models. In my work (mechanical engineer – automotive engine cooling and air flow systems), I deal with system models no where near as complex. In order to make conclusions with these systems, one must make significant assumptions, simplifications, and approximations. Most statisticians would say definitive conclusions, in the system models that I work with, are not possible if uncertainties are correctly accounted for. The only real way that I “force” system models to be meaningful is to test it in its entirety. Well, good luck testing the whole planet, not to mention the assumptions, simplification, and approximations that are required.

    Anyway… Good luck with your prudence.


  56. Doug in Seattle
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:57 AM | Permalink

    Steve, one thing more I should mention.

    Now that you have appeared on the least watched cable network, it is time for you to think about accepting a spot on the most watched. I seem to recall that you have a low opinion of FOX, but if you want your side of the story to reach the maximum audience, that is the place to go. They also are more likely to do a balanced interview than the CNN one.

  57. g-dzine84
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:58 AM | Permalink

    I dont at feel like a super involved/knowledgeable compared to many people on this blog, but I could definitely tell that they didn’t really grasp what you were saying, or its signifance in relation to what Mann and company have been saying in regards to the “trick”.
    Here is Mann’s CNN interview…

    Mann refers to the scientific literature discussing this divergence “problem”. Is there any logical reason given for this divergence?…Have you (steve or anybody else) read these scientific literature regarding this?

  58. aylamp
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:02 AM | Permalink

    Points for television interviews:

    Know beforehand what the few points are that you want to get over.

    Make your points in spite of the questions. (Change the question if you like – eg “What you should really be asking is…”

    The interviewers are rarely interested in the answers; 10 minutes later they’ll be discussing something completely different. It is the audience that is interested, so you have to focus on what you want to tell the audience in the few minutes you have.

  59. Peter
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:24 AM | Permalink

    Hey Steve,
    Greetings from Down under. Great job. You were the epitome of calm and reason. Considered, rational and believable. You came across as someone everyone can believe and relate to. Well done.
    My best to you.

  60. Tee
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:44 AM | Permalink

    [Sacrastic] Hey, I’m going to prove the uniqueness of the recent warming using tree proxy. But, the tree proxy doesn’t go up with the warming after 1950 which is the period i’m trying to prove the uniqueness. But, trust me I’m a god damn scientist, it works before for thousands of year. It doesn’t show up now but hey, trust me, if there were a warming back then it would show up in tree ring proxy for sure. Oh see, nothing showed up for the last 2000 years therefore the recent warming is unique …

  61. David Harrington
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:45 AM | Permalink

    The video is here:

  62. El Buggo
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:48 AM | Permalink

    CNN Does Hour Long Hit Piece On Climategate 2009-12-07

    Starring McIntyre, Mann, Jones et al.

    YouTube, 3 parts, 33min:

  63. David Harrington
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:00 AM | Permalink

    You will notice that Oppenheimer again makes the erroneous claim that there were 2500 scientists involved in the IPCC process. This is an outright lie. Only 20% of the people involved had any connection at all to climate science and approx 25 scientists wrote the main Summary for Policymakers. Currently 20% of those scientists are under a cloud of suspicion due to relations in the emails leaked from Hadley CRU

  64. Jonathan Fischoff
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:39 AM | Permalink

    You seemed reasonable. You seemed like you were trying to convey the facts. You didn’t seem like you were trying to persuade people. That is good, that is rare.

    Campbell had no idea what you were talking about. Most people will not understand what you said, but don’t worry. People watch TV while they’re on laptops. You primed them. They’ll understand when they start to read it.

    The trick has been explained. The trees are unreliable proxies because they do not correlate for the entirety of the temperature record. The team needs to stop denying that it was not misleading to hide that. It was.

    Don’t worry about the sound bites. People can watch you over and over again on the internet.

    Good job.

  65. LMB
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:41 AM | Permalink

    I just saw Anderson Cooper do Climategate on CNN after Campbell Brown. He did a better job. Even though he only had two guests, Bill Nye and Patrick Somebody (Cato Institute), there was no condescension, namecalling/labelling, or obvious attempt to control the debate.

    John Roberts is totally failing. He goes all the way to the CRU lab is East Anglia, “our man on the scene,” only to give one side of the story, Phil Jones’s replacement, unchallenged. Not one interview with a contrary opinion or set of data.


  66. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 4:01 AM | Permalink


    I thought you came across as the rational scientist while Oppenheimer came across like an activist. In the long run that’s bad for the “science is settled” crowd because you sounded like the only scientist in the group – and it was clear you think the science is not settled.

  67. J. Peden
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 4:16 AM | Permalink

    I saw only the 8.5 min. clip. Steve, you did quite well, keeping to the point as usual.

    But CNN didn’t seem to want to show what the issue is regarding the “trick”. As you intimated, all they would have had to do was to show the main “trick” right there in the ipcc graph, as contrasted with Briffa’s correct tree ring data graph.

    Oh, well.

  68. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 4:17 AM | Permalink

    Victor wrote:

    >My comment, and my biggest interest, surrounds the uncertainty with the mathematical models. In my work (mechanical engineer – automotive engine cooling and air flow systems), I deal with system models no where near as complex. In order to make conclusions with these systems, one must make significant assumptions, simplifications, and approximations. Most statisticians would say definitive conclusions, in the system models that I work with, are not possible if uncertainties are correctly accounted for.

    Yes, that is the major reason I too have started leaning towards the MM side of this debate. I’m a Ph.D. physicist turned engineer, and have worked on a lot of simulations. Unless the simulations have been confirmed with a lot of empirical data (not data the simulation was initially tuned to, but rather data taken after the simulation was finalized to test it), I don’t trust it.

    I don’t know how global warming will turn out, but I do know that the modelers have played too many games and not followed proper scientific standards of conduct.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  69. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 4:22 AM | Permalink

    To everyone complaining about Bill Nye:

    Of course he made a fool of himself! His career is in children’s entertainment!

    It would be like having PeeWee Herman debate Paul Volcker on monetary policy.

    What on earth was CNN thinking when they put Nye on opposite Michaels? Could it be that someone at CNN was secretly trying to help the good guys by putting on a moron to represent the other side?

    Or couldn’t they get any scientist from the other side to come on to Anderson Cooper (Cooper did have some good questions – may be the big guys were afraid of him)?


  70. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 4:28 AM | Permalink

    I’ve just had a look at the 8 minute segment on YouTube and a smaller one from LiveLeak about Phil Jones stepping down.

    There are a whole lot of positives here:

    The title “TRICK or TRUTH”. Who would have dreamed of the debate being framed like that on CNN even just three weeks ago?

    The presenter quoting the emails calling you a bozo, moron and the Joe McCarthy of climate science. With an intro like that all you had to do is not foam at the mouth and you had won the argument!

    In fact you used the limited time extremely well. You were clearly interested in the facts of the matter but you also proved that you could explain them in a simple way.

    As someone already said, it was extremely helpful for Chris Horner to say that he had learned a lot from you and depended on you for his own work.

    For me it’s also positive that the presenter explicitly said that your position was more nuanced than Horner’s, whoch you confirmed. First because that’s true. Also, he’s clearly the slicker of the two on you right now in front of camera. But he’s also a lawyer with a book to sell. Lots of reasons for the uninitiated to be ‘sceptics’ about this particular guy. You provided the perfect balance to that.

    For a first time this was awesome.

    I always seem to have my head at an angle for still photos and as a talking head in video but that is the one cosmetic thing to try to correct next time somehow. There must be ‘tricks’ the professionals use to get that right 🙂

    But even that spoke of the fact that you were new to the medium and weren’t a snake oil merchant. You clearly knew your stuff and weren’t in the Joe McCarthy mold at all. Those whose whole strategy has been to paint you as this unreasonable obsessive have just had a truck rolled through their defences.

    Good job. And worth again being thankful that we have lived to see this day. Well, at least I am 🙂

  71. VG
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:13 AM | Permalink

    Maybe if those guys had answered your questions years ago this would not have happened LOL

  72. Robinson
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:25 AM | Permalink

    I think you have to leave the sound bites to people like Morano and Monkton. The scientists I’ve seen on TV (Singer, Lindzen, et al) don’t come across too well; I’m always left feeling frustrated that they didn’t get their point across. The “other side” are great at media presentation and they can usually count on having the sympathy of the anchor as well.

    I guess you need to prepare and memorise short paragraph points; that’s what the media trained do. They repeat these points regardless of the question. It’s standard practice in politics and, I disagree with you here, Climate Science IS an offshoot of politics. High minded ideals won’t change that, rhetorical point scoring just might.

  73. Stuart Harmon
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:31 AM | Permalink

    Dear Steve

    You came across very well, it does not matter whether you are used to interviews, the public to their credit are capable of seeing through slick presentations and see honesty.

    In part CNN did what the BBC does, it stifles debate by allowing the presenter to spin their organisations view. It also restricts debates to sound bites but you got your point across and to be fair the presenter was not wholly biased.

    Professor Oppenheimer’s words will mean little to people. If something is wrong it is wrong and people don’t accept the idea that wrong doing does not matter.

    I have read your blog for many years now and I have always admired how you stuck to matters in hand. This last couple of weeks you have allowed much more freedom on the topics much to my delight. Most times I am unable to contribute opinions because of the specialised nature of the topics. Maybe it should remain thus to enable you to carry on with your work.

    “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

    Kind regards


  74. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:32 AM | Permalink

    Congratulations Steve.

    Unruffled, accurate and honourable.

    It’s about time the audience heard some specifics on the actual data manipulations. No amount of obfuscation can get around these facts, and they will carry…

  75. George Barwood
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:37 AM | Permalink

    Congratulations Steve – you made your points well.

    It was good that the other panelists conceded that there was a problem.

    At least a viewer can understand that there really are flaws in the paleo reconstructions.

    There doesn’t have to be any conspiracy, just poor scientists falling victim to confirmation bias.

  76. LMB
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:39 AM | Permalink

    Hey, nobody called Steve an a-hole, so he can’t be so bad. 🙂 If Steve is the Joe McCarthy of climate science, what is Phil Jones? Leader of the Phil Jones Cult?

    Did anybody see Dr. Edward Wegman’s interview in the 7 am hour yesterday on CNN? Didn’t see it mentioned on this page or site, or a video clip.

    The face-off was Alan Robock v. Edward Wegman.


    ALAN ROBOCK, PROFESSOR OF CLIMATOLOGY, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY: I don’t really think it’s a controversy. It’s just a question of language. When they use the word “trick,” what they really mean is technique or method. It wasn’t at all in the sense of trying to fool anybody.

    ROBOCK: Well, it turns out there was no attempt to suppress peer review.

    CNN slapped a label on him like Campbell Brown, too, which Wegman had to correct, and then at the end of the segment, Kiran Chetry had to apologize.


    John Roberts and company kicked off the 6 am painting the scandal from the beginning as a political issue not a scientific one.


    Chetry let something slip out which I thought was interesting:

    CHETRY: All right. John, great to have you over there because we’re digging into this deeper here at CNN. ******It’s a network-wide initiative.****** Just to try to get to the bottom of it and also find out from people that are, you know, sitting at home, what does this exactly mean.

    So it’s a network-wide initiative, is it? Does that mean not reporting it for two weeks aka The Embargo, was also the decision made by top brass at CNN?

    Is there any space left on that Russian server? 🙂

  77. geronimo
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:53 AM | Permalink

    Steve, just looked at your performance, it was good, you’ll never get the chance to expand into detail so what you did was concise and calm. Well done.

    I think we should give Campbell a break, she didn’t call Steve a bozo, or any of the other names she said he was referred to by those names in the emails. The subsequent appearance of a well mannered, reasoned and calm McIntyre only served to make the emails look over the top.

    As for Oppenheimer, and why would there be a conspiracy, I don’t believe there is a conspiracy, it is more a folie a pleusiers, in which a small group of scientists have involved themselves. Their work is being taken on face value by the rest of the scientific community. However, I suggest everyone should carry the email below in their pockets, I’ve put the full email in because I don’t want to be accused of providing the email equivalent of a soundbite. Here you can see the gathering storm of what might be considered to be a conspiracy in their own words.

    From: Joseph Alcamo
    Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
    Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100

    Mike, Rob,

    Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

    I would like to weigh in on two important questions —

    Distribution for Endorsements —
    I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
    possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
    numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
    signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
    without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
    different story.

    Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
    them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those

    Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
    1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
    a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
    that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
    2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
    afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
    time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
    about it.
    3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
    it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
    the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
    bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
    diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
    very different directions.

    Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
    November at the latest.

    Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
    with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
    willing to send you what I have, if you wish.

    Best wishes,

    Joe Alcamo

  78. Craig B
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:54 AM | Permalink

    You came across great steve! Well done 🙂

  79. Patrik
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:00 AM | Permalink

    Just saw the clip, You did great Steve!

    I think Mr Horner came across pretty good also with “We don’t have to keep changing the subject.”, since this happens ALL the time in debates about specific issues concerning AGW. For example, one starts off discussing the mean temp in one specific country around the equator and ends up talking about polar bears – why is that? 🙂

  80. RF Goodale
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:14 AM | Permalink


    Firstly, you are doing great work, and the elegance and grace with which you moderate this site is astounding.

    Secondly, the CNN debate was as good as one can get from 50% of the audience.

    Keep up the good work!



  81. RF Goodale
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:17 AM | Permalink

    My message above was severely and unfortunately truncated. Please either delete what has been published or restore what I posted.



  82. Robinson
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

    Yes Patrik, I had a discussion with someone only yesterday who use to talk about sea ice area and albedo but now only talks about ice volume, not area (obviously as ice area is recovering somewhat, the indicators are going in the wrong direction).

    Having just watched the clip, I thought SM did very well there. Very plausible.

  83. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:23 AM | Permalink

    I felt for you during the segment, but thought you got your main point out well.

    Good job.

    If the data and code is opened up, then the truth will be served – whatever it may be.
    Chris Horner, IMHO, does more harm than good – people used to the battling bots on these panels will likely see him as equivalent to the argument by head count prof.

  84. EddieO
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:27 AM | Permalink

    Steve, well done. It is very intimidating talking to the camera live but you pulled it off well. Oppenheimer just reiterated old mistruths while you stuck to the relevant issue. Does he think “hide the decline” refers to the weather station data?

  85. P Gosselin
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:30 AM | Permalink

    You were ambushed.
    If you were one of the 90% clueless viewers watching, Oppenheimer took both of you to the clearners. Sorry – but that’s how it looks when you don’t know the science and background.
    They made you look like amateur conspiracy theorists.

  86. P Gosselin
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:35 AM | Permalink

    Anyway, what we saw yesterday with the EPA was a coup d’etat and an interview here or there aint gonna change anything.
    Only an awakened population smarting from hardship will do that. Welcome to the NEW USA. Authority has taken over.
    I’d like to extend my congratulations to Jones, Mann, Gore and the rest of their team. You’ve won the first half 21 – 7. But don’t think the 2nd half will be the same.
    I just can’t believe it. What’s next?
    1. water (yes a water crisis is being manufactured at this moment)
    2. food (esepcially meat, sugar and fat)
    3. information (media control)

    It’s the era of Junk Science!

  87. Patrik
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:36 AM | Permalink

    P Gosselin>> Well, the sober and intelligent (but un-knowing) viewer would probably pick up on the fact that Steve and Mr Horner were there to discuss one specific topic – and that Oppenheimer kept avoiding the topic by extrapolating in infinity…
    I think it was evident that Oppenheimer used rethorics to cover up.

  88. fFreddy
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:45 AM | Permalink

    Steve, that was very well done. I hope CNN has the sense to have a longer debate some time, where you have an opportunity to rebut the moustache chap.

    In fact, that might make a fun post – a list of moustache’s talking points with quick rebuttals to them. You must be getting a certain amount of entirely new traffic solely due to that interview: it would be good to show them what more you could have said. Particularly if that traffic includes any of the CNN folk.

  89. cedarhill
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 7:42 AM | Permalink

    A good interview performance if you are a scientist. Having been in politics for forty years, at best, it just means some experts of some kind are complaining about what established experts have produced. Note the difference in tone of the CNN folks and the passion of the AGW guy. I don’t think the “skeptics” even broke even on “the science”. It’s called a mouse trap. They put up a semi-straw man “you say it’s fraud” knowing you didn’t say that so they forced you to agree with them of “no proof of fraud” which underscored what the AGW guy was saying.

    Don’t be surprised when the pols start quoting you as “even Steve McIntyre says there’s no evidence of fraud and that there’s just a disagreement on some arcane points. He even acknowledged there is human caused global warming.” Suppose further you want to correct that interpretation. Good luck. Chances are it’ll become even more muddied. At the very best a voter will walk away just thinking “the experts disagree”. It’s a victory but, in the end, it remains to be seen whether it has much of an impact and obviouslyo won’t move politicians away from regulating and taxing CO2.

    When the story of climate science is written some years from now, I do hope you’re mentioned favorably but never forget the winners in the political arena always write the history. Don’t bet your farm on being treated fairly.

  90. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    I wonder if time permits you to go have a good read of Willis Eschenbach’s stunning exposure of the climate records con over on WUWT? His full summary can be found here:

    Basically, Eschenbach shows the following:

    First off we know that there are only three main global temperature datasets that the world’s climatologists can study. One is at the CRU, Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, where we’ve been trying to get access to the raw numbers. One is at NOAA/GHCN, the Global Historical Climate Network. The final one is at NASA/GISS, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    These centres, before they let other scientists touch the numbers, process them to “homogenize” and smooth out any contamination that could occur from sudden changes in local circumstances ( eg a major road being built next door).

    These three global temperature records are known as CRU, GISS, and GHCN. Both GISS and CRU, however, get almost all of their raw data from GHCN. Surprise, surprise all three centres produce very similar global historical temperature records from the raw data.


    Eschenbach focused his investigartions on an unexplained homogenization at a key temperature station known as ‘Darwin Zero’ where the raw data showed temperatures falling at 0.7 Celcius per century. But after CRU ‘homogenized’ them the temperatures shot up to show warming at 1.2 Celcius per century – an adjustment of over two degrees per century with nothing in the records to explain why Darwin needed to be hiked up like this. What angered him even more was that there was no apparent reason to ‘homogenize’ any of the data from the Darwin region because CRU had possession of temperature readings from no less than five other nearby sites covering Darwin from 1941 onwards. Despite the fact they all agreed almost exactly with each other someone at CRU decided to tag on another whopping two degrees even though all Darwin’s records were apparently already highly reliable and didn’t need ‘homogenization.’

    Eschenbach concluded that he has found “indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.”

    Steve: There are many CA posts on adjustments to station to records and I’ve done what I could do draw attention to the phenomenon. Because the size of the adjustments is large relative to the trend itself, the adjustments need to be documented and cross-examined – one of the reasons for looking at actual CRU station data. Please don’t get too excited about this however until a lot more analysis has been done.

  91. Judith Curry
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:26 AM | Permalink

    Steve, you did a very good job. live TV is very difficult, pretaped and then edited is much easier

  92. Sean Peake
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:48 AM | Permalink

    Steve, it is quite likely that the media will increase its requests to interview you. It’s in your best interest to get some training on how to deal with it—to help you handle pointed and inflammatory questioning, which is soon to come as this issue heats up. I organized this for some CEOs a few years back to help cope with unanswerable lines of questioning, hostile interviewers and explaining complicated issues in easy to use sound bites. It also helped them deal with situations when a bunch of cameras are shoved in their faces, lights blazing, or reporters show up at their door or office. We’d ask them on camera tough or surprising questions to measure their reactions (“Ed Bradley and a 60 Minutes camera crew just arrived at reception and he wants to ask you some questions…”) There is no offence intended here, in fact it’s quite the opposite, it’s just that there will be reporters out there looking for a “got cha” moment for no other reason than to discredit you.

  93. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

    must see on you tube …..steve and al gore…..

  94. a reader
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:52 AM | Permalink

    For people who are new to this whole discussion of historical temperatures, two papers that I feel you must read for a good understanding of historical data sets are:

    “The Global Historical Climatology Network: A preview of Version 2” by Vose, Peterson, Schmoyer, and Eischeid from 1995

    “An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Temperature Database” by Peterson and Vose from 1997

    They explain how the basic data sets were acquired and combined to make the final HCRN.

  95. Mesa
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

    My take on this is that the TV people want someone on to say global warming is a big hoax, and scream at someone who believes otherwise. If the segments are set up that way, and you don’t believe that, you shouldn’t participate. The other side is going to go off point and refute the lunatic fringe of the anti-AGW crowd irrespective of what you actually say, since it’s an easy point to make.

    As an aside, although I think you have made your position on the big picture issues clear from time to time, there are a lot of people on this site who veer way to one side, in a pretty anti-intellectual way, in some ways hijacking your work to their own ends. I think you could be much more aggressive about making your position clear (perhaps with a mission statement or FAQ on the topic). I would also be much more heavy handed with deleting otr snipping wild anti-AGW propaganda, conspiracy theories, random op-ed posts, and juvenile humor. There are plenty of other sites for that.

    The real battleground at this point is whether AGW is a zero, small, medium or large problem. I think it’s true that no-one really knows. The things this site and others can help on are scientific in nature and include things like monitoring and evaluating the historical thermometer record reconstructions.

    Steve: I delete and snip a lot. PArt of the problem right now is that new readers don’t understand the expectations.

  96. Robinson
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

    Indeed Sean, quite right. Trying to wing it may work 9 interviews in a row, but it only takes 1 to completely destroy your reputation, regardless of whether it was justified or not. I would recommend media training.

  97. Chris MCV
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

    Nice work. Couple of non content tips for future interviews.
    Lean slightly into the camera
    Look ‘through’ the camera
    Widen your eyes slightly as you talk, it will make you seem more engaged. Another way to think of it, when you smile/laugh, ones eyes tend to be more animated, practice that and have that sort of facial appearance when you talk.

    If you look like you feel excited and engaged, people will tend to feel the same regarding your point of view.

    Content wise, Start with a quick bullet point, then support it.
    “The tree ring data was used in a way that doesn’t support the results, ….” then go into the reasons, but make your soundbite point first.

    Delete this in moderation please, its for you, don’t need to advise you on interview techniques in public forum, LOL.
    Good luck man, keep up the good fight!

  98. Stacey
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    I went through the desert on a horse with no name:

    Our Gav says this is so unfair, his mate Phil caused this problem and now that lucky so and so hits the big time on CNN. Bloody hell what next the X Factor?

  99. P Gosselin
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 9:25 AM | Permalink

    Evident to us, but not to the average CNN viewer.
    Steve was sticking to the science, but Oppenheimerand that other hack turned it into a propoganda event.
    Anyway, Steve mentioned something about a Fox special report – I hope it focusses more on the tricks.

  100. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    Will try and catch it on You Tube, but here is more Phil Jones trying to hide the decline (in an email to Mann)

    Now he wants to splice satellite data to his wilting stick!

  101. nycoordinator
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM | Permalink

    I have links to Stephen’s Panel Interview in this posting:

  102. John MacQueen
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

    Steve, I don’t know if you read all these comments.

    John Roberts at CNN has been doing a lot of reporting on this and has been to CRU.

    You should contact him and have a nice long talk with him and fill him in on the whole issue from your end.

    He seems like someone who is getting the air time on the issue and is CNN’s point man on this issue.

    He seemed to be very happy to get a chance to speak with you on that segment, and would air your part in this. I doubt he is really aware of what you have been doing and the impact on not only the CRU temp records.

  103. Peter
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM | Permalink


    When is the Fox segment due to be broadcast?

  104. John MacQueen
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:08 AM | Permalink

    Ohh and I would avoid those panel situations like the plague…

    Stick to interviews where there is time for proper discussion of your point of view.

  105. O (oggi) Tandogac
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:20 AM | Permalink

    Just watched the video Steve, You did a great job, Thankyou and well done.

  106. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    Off-topic, sorry, but the met office have now released some of the CRU data.
    It is Jones-adjusted data, so completely useless.

  107. Sean Peake
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    John Roberts is a Toronto boy (“JD” when he was a video jockey on CITY TV in the ’80s) and was likely excited to have another Torontonian on the world stage. He’d be a good contact (read: non-hostile) and not inclined to set up an interview by making disparaging remarks.

    Steve: Yes, I remember him from then. He was a radio disk jockey in Toronto before that. I think CHUM.

  108. LMB
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:35 AM | Permalink

    John MacQueen and Steve:

    John Roberts is originally from Canada (in case you didn’t know).

    In future interviews, do you feel it would be appropriate to say the climate science data needs to be audited? I mean my point is you’re an authority on the subject, and this site is Climate Audit, it seems to me that if you are policy neutral, you can at least make your public position that the new emails demand a new audit before any government creates new laws. That’s not an extreme or unreasonable position.

    Otherwise it seems interviews can end sort of hanging, with no clear idea what has to happen next.

    Maybe you could help set up a public petition online demanding a new audit.

    What do you think?

    • TurkeyLurkey
      Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM | Permalink

      In the event that you are again interviewed or ‘panel-ized’,

      I’d recommend writing out a dozen or so 3×5 index cards with pithy sentences that deliver self-contained messages.

      The other thing is to videotape yourself as you deliver the messages, and then tune them up as you see fit.

      My wife says that English is a second language for me, and a distant second at that.

      My first language seems to involve vectors and dynamic-pattern-matching-with-implicit-and-dynamic-weightings, and is thus inherently non-verbal.
      It also seems to involve working backwards from the answer.

      So, the ‘video-practise’ with self-prepared cue cards is non-optional for me.
      Maybe it will help you get the word out to the great unwashed masses…
      Warm Regards,
      Please consider establishing an Suitably-anonymous snailmail address for us old-fashioned types who’re not entirely comfortable with E-money.

  109. bender
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    The piece is here:

    Oppenheimer: “there was no deception”

  110. HankHenry
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

    Enjoyed seeing Steve. I admire his temperate nature. I also admire his focused view as much as his nuanced view. I was disappointed not to see more of the hockey stick in the segment. This email contretemps is really the culmination of a long long standoff. It’s wrong to characterize things as the musings of conspiracy nuts – although I probably wouldn’t say that that is totally absent from all quarters on the skeptic side of things.

    If I recall the exchanges correctly even Michael Mann will back down and start hedging on the accuracy of that graph his team cobbled together. It might be he can’t back down from it as much as he’d like now that so many have rallied around it.

  111. INGSOC
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:48 AM | Permalink

    Not to flog the carcass too much (others have already said most of this) I have a background in video journalism going back way more years than I can stand really. (Did I really have that much hair 20 years ago?) I have reviewed the whole segment with you, several times, taking notes and re-firing dormant braincells, and have come to the semi-learned conclusion that even though they truly threw just about every cheap shot in the book at you, you still managed to look extremely authentic. You made the others appear like zealots, including the host(‘s) and if anything left one with the desire to hear more of what you have to say. That is the whole idea in this game. All in all, a very successful first foray into the medium IMHO. I think you even managed to win over Campbell Brown at the end as she referred to you as an impartial scientist. Can’t get any better than that.

    I hope you will agree to further discussions on the tube in the future. Perhaps you might let Ms. Brown interview you in more depth? I have no doubt you brought many viewers to her show that weren’t there the day before, and they will notice that. Folks want to hear from you. That is clear.

    Again, thanks for doing the interview.

  112. Annabelle
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    Oppenheimer’s trump card was that to be a sceptic, you have to believe that thousands of scientists all over the world are part of a conspiracy theory. Obviously this claim makes sceptics look like silly conspiracy theorists. Be prepared for it next time: get in first and say that this is NOT what you are implying.

    I think an analogy can be made with the millennium bug. I was part of the army of programmers who worked on the Y2K bug (and did very nicely out of it, thank you very much). There was a genuine problem there, but it was massively over-hyped. Was there an international conspiracy? Of course not – although there were many people who had a vested interest in the hype. Coupled with media sensationalism, this created a kind of group-think in which it was very easy to believe the alarmism because everyone else did. And that just a techie issue with no moral ramifications.

    BTW for a first time, with the dice loaded against you, I think you did exceptionally well.

  113. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

    Watched the first half, looked good! It does show how difficult it is to explain these concepts to people who struggled through HS Math.

  114. EddieO
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 11:28 AM | Permalink

    Is that Hockey Stick maths?

  115. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

    Steve – I did CNN myself last night. Your thoughts are on point. Here’s some of what they taught me in media training that I had wayyyyyy back.

    1) Assume you’re on camera from the moment you’re in front of it. The same is true for audio, until the mic is taken off of you, assume it’s capturing what you say. Assume it could wind up seen/heard anywhere.
    2) Have your three sound bites with you when you go on. If you can memorize them, that’s great, if not, you can always put them on your knee, out of sight of the camera. If they ask you questions that you think are unimportant or trivial, just “bridge” to your talking points: “Well, that’s an interesting question, but what I think is *really* important is…”
    3) Don’t be afraid to interrupt if you’re on with someone else. You may have to in order to get a word in edgewise with a trained opponent who speaks in entire paragraphs, rather than sentences. (This can be difficult for Canadians on American TV. I noticed while living in Canada that Canadian TV is generally structured to avoid conflict, cross-talk, or interruption, while US TV often thrives on it.)
    4) Sit on the tail of your jacket (so the shoulders don’t bunch), perch on the front of the chair, and incline your body slightly toward the camera. It makes you look more dynamic (and slimmer)
    5) Make only small gestures, and avoid anything that would rustle the microphone.
    6) If you’re going to do a lot of TV, go to a makeup store, and have them teach you to do your own makeup. MAC is great for this. Most guys only need a translucent powder, but if you have ruddy skin, or bags under the eyes, etc., you might need a concealer and even a light foundation.

  116. nycoordinator
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:12 PM | Permalink


    Regarding Annabelle’s comment. I would suggest that you turn that argument back on the opposition by asking if they think that tens of thousands of scientists who argue against global warming are kooks!


  117. Sloan
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

    The CNN Pachauri interview was really worrisome when he responded to the mails saying: ” Well, I can tell you, privately when I talk to my friends, I use language much worse than that…” and this guys is head of the IPCC??? Unbelievable…

  118. FrederickB
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:27 PM | Permalink

    For me, one of the most saddening aspects of this science travesty is the failure of “peer review.” Only by having ‘faith’ in other scientific work do we avoid continually having to reinvent or rediscover the wheel. The premature acceptance of a hypothesis as theory sets everyone back. I am sure that many scientists and engineers “agree” with AGW because they trust the peer review process to guarantee the quality of the work asserting the validity of AGW. The fallacy of this assurance is what needs to highlighted.

    I hope that Steve gets a chance to expound on this issue at greater length in a public forum.

    Congratulations, Steve, and I’ll put another tip in the jar.

  119. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    Annabelle writes:

    I think an analogy can be made with the millennium bug. I was part of the army of programmers who worked on the Y2K bug (and did very nicely out of it, thank you very much).

    In my opinion, the dotcom and the fiber optic bubble are even more apt examples. Entire industries of scientists and analysts were telling us that Internet bandwidth used was doubling every 6 weeks. This was a mania that bore little resemblance t reality. The quote came from a marketing brochure that was picked up and believed as gospel by everyone.

    This was the fiber optic networking hockey stick. Calm researchers pointed out that the real doubling time was on the scale of two years but they were ignored in the mania. These calims were repeated by numerois researchers from universities more distinguished that UEA or Penn State and published in journals of great prestige. There was no ‘conspiracy’. This was the mania of crowds. It is much more dangerous than any conspiracy

    Because o this mania, many people had their lives destroyed. Good engineers with 25 years service were marched to the door by security guards. Some of these engineers with long service were laid off with no severance and no pension. So my admonition to the negotiators in Copenhagen is “Just, Don’t screw it up!!”

  120. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 12:44 PM | Permalink

    The above URL points to the Wikipedia article about the seminal book on the Madness of Crowrds. This book is quite aposite since it shows that it does not take a conspiracy to create a national delusion about some topic. AGW as a science may not be but AGW as a popula topic certainly is.

    “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

  121. Craig Stone
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    Thank you Steve. Thank you for making your voice heard in amongst the deluge of propaganda. You are a warrior for humanity, the Earth and the Truth.

  122. Jim from Anaheim
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:20 PM | Permalink

    Annabelle PERMALINK
    Oppenheimer’s trump card was that to be a sceptic, you have to believe that thousands of scientists all over the world are part of a conspiracy theory. Obviously this claim makes sceptics look like silly conspiracy theorists. Be prepared for it next time: get in first and say that this is NOT what you are implying.

    If thousands of scientists are involved in AGW research, then they shouldn’t mind pulling all the research papers for a handful of them.

  123. Stacey
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    @ Geronimo

    “The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
    signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
    without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
    different story.”

    Your post is significant how often have we heared the oft quoted figure of 2500 scientists?

  124. LMB
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:41 PM | Permalink

    Has any CNN reporter yet talked about the 247-page “Harry Read Me” file?

    I can’t wait to hear the professors explain away the real meanings of Harry.

    P.S. Who is Harry? Where are these ace reporters when you need a surname? Can you imagine what kind of interview Harry could give? lol.

    “What did you really mean, Harry?” lol.

    P.P.S. Has any interviewee ever brought up the “Harry Read Me” file?

    [CNN cuts away… “We are experiencing technical difficulties…”] 🙂

  125. LMB
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:44 PM | Permalink

    Kudos to the Telegraph:

    Harry_read_me.txt: the climategate gun that does not smoke

    By Ian Douglas
    December 8th, 2009

  126. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:44 PM | Permalink

    Steve, you acquitted yourself very well–congratulations.

    I think one factor in your success was a very obvious lack of media-conscious attempts to manipulate the agenda. I understand the commenters above who want you to take Media 101 courses for CEOs, but I think it might be a mistake. You did very well without it, and there is a palpable difference in perceived authenticity that I think is directly correlated to your lack of spin-savvy.

    That doesn’t mean you came off like a rube from the sticks–you didn’t. It means that you clearly didn’t arrive with an agenda to manipulate the media or the audience.

  127. EP
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    SM – you kept to the issue at hand whilst others around you were trying to create all kinds of generalised smears and strawmen. I don’t have access to these CNN panel features and I am surprised one of the reporters put forward a question from Michael Mann. Did you get an equal chance to send Mann a question, live on TV?

  128. CFP
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:09 PM | Permalink

    Steve – I’m a media/communications advisor who’s worked with many government, political and corporate leaders. If I may, I’d like to suggest that you begin nearly every answer, no matter the question, by aligning yourself with a search for sound science. That you don’t embrace/advocate specific policy prescriptions can set you apart, particularly on TV which values “red hot conflict.” This “unique positioning” is critical in this particular debate where the demonization game is played fast and loose and where the MSM is reflexively going to consign you to the intellectual ghetto. Emphasizing that you believe in science and that we should follow it wherever it leads will take alot of the wind out of your opponents sails.

    I’ve other thoughts that may be useful and would be happy to provide a volunteer sounding board and help you prep for future TV appearances if that’d be helpful. I assume you have access to my e-mail address through my comments registration – you can check my vitae at my company website using the last half of my e-mail address.

    Best wishes.

  129. johnh
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:18 PM | Permalink

    On the sbject of mass hysteria and global temp change, there have been 4 scares in the last 120 odd years, 2 ice and 2 warming. Once you know that taking a contarian view doesn’t seem so bad.

    Next scare is cooling due 2050 or so, due to too much carbon reduction maybe .

  130. Paul
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:22 PM | Permalink

    Perhaps Steve should consider puting together a few short videos with graphics etc to demonstarte particular points HE wants to get accross and then post them on utube.

  131. JJ
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:23 PM | Permalink

    Good job Steve.

    Keep up the good work of flying above the fray, dropping the big bombs from high altitude.

    Along those lines – Oppenheimer threw up a Team talking point, and offered to ‘throw out those guys and their data’. It is time that bluff was called.

    Pick the ten most egregious Team Players (Mann, Jones, Hansen, Schmidt, etc) and toss out anything that they have managed, lead, directed, authored, contributed to, ‘peer reviewed’, or otherwise potentially tainted by the personalities and methods exposed in the emails and data trails.

    If the Team claims they can make the AGW case without those resources, relying only on the wholey independant work of the other 2,490 ‘climate scientists’ (or whatever the exaggerated number du jour is) then lets make them prove it.

  132. Ernst
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM | Permalink

    Good job!


  133. David L. Hagen
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 2:27 PM | Permalink

    Compliments on presenting considered facts in the interview.

    May I encourage you with Churchill’s example:

    Young Winston Churchill suffered with a speech impediment. But in his first year at Harrow, he won a contest by reciting 1,300 lines of poetry from memory. He had a gift for words and persevered until he overcame the impediment. . . .His private secretary, John Colville, stated that Churchill devoted one hour of preparation for every minute of delivery.

    Profiles in Greatness – Winston Churchill”

    You have the gift for statistics and uncovering facts vs fraud. Persevere in clearly presenting it to today’s “sound bite” generation.

  134. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM | Permalink

    @Steve McIntyre
    the interview was OK, no problem for me as not well English speaking German, I understood all what you said. Well done !!

  135. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM | Permalink


    I appreciate your diligence in the FOIA requests through these years. Now many people are looking at this problem with the raw data and had you not kept at these guys, it may never have come to this. Just wanted to thank you for that.

    I am sure they are going to find that this information was leaked and not hacked. No matter, we have a right to this data and the emails surely show the attempt to duck the requests at all angles. This is most alarming to me.

    Whomever this whistle-blower is, s/he deserves a medal.

    Is this CNN interview on YouTube yet?


  136. Sean Peake
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:05 PM | Permalink

    CFP: it would be a good idea to get some people with video cameras to tape and analyse delivery, body language etc. Unfortunately Steve, to be sure you get the message out, you need to be well rehearsed. Lord Monckton is a good example. Never strays off point and always brings the discussion back to the issue at hand. Always.

  137. TW
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    I think you did “ok”. As a layman skeptic, the professor “sounded” more believable. And, as everyone seems to be giving advice:
    Never under-estimate the MSM ability to “seem” fair.

  138. Daryl M
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:15 PM | Permalink

    Re: Paul

    Perhaps Steve should consider puting together a few short videos with graphics etc to demonstarte particular points HE wants to get accross and then post them on utube.

    That’s a great idea.

  139. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:27 PM | Permalink


    “Kudos to the Telegraph:”

    Is this sarcasm? The article linked is pretty worthless. Douglas cherry-picks a couple of quotes, matches them to what he claims “skeptics” think of them and then claims that, in essence, Harry’s a hero. It may be true that some skeptics aren’t very careful in their analysis, but the first rule of honest debate is to look at the best arguments of the other side, not the worst. The second rule of honest debate is to actually quote and identify who you’re quoting and from where. Douglas fails both these tests.

    P.S. generally skeptics have had sympathy for Harry, but don’t think he produced what needed to be produced.

  140. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:29 PM | Permalink

    You can watch the two parts of the intervew at WAWT

  141. dirac_delta
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 3:54 PM | Permalink

    I just watched the CNN video, and was both dismayed and infuriated by the ignorance inherent in Campbell Brown’s first question to Chris Horner:

    (to Chris Horner)
    “…you have long argued that scientists are cooking the data but, I mean…what’s the motive for that? I mean that’s always been my question when somebody raises…the questions about the scientists. What are their motives in cooking the data? What are they trying to achieve?”

    So many laypeople–and particularly those on the left–have no problem recognizing the self-serving interests of corporations and businesses, yet they are completely blind to the self-serving interests of those within science and government. It is an unshakable economic principle that humans act in their own self interest. This all-too-common premise that human beings in science and government are somehow different than everyone else–that they act not in their own self interest, but in the interest of society–is as dangerous as it is laughable.

    As a scientist, I can attest that the primary role of a scientist in an American research university is not to discover scientific truths, but to do anything and everything it takes to get grants funded. I’ve seen fraud of all types, and for every instance that’s been outed, I would guess there are 5 more that remain clandestine.

    The truth is that today’s ‘scientists’ are more ‘grant funding lobbyists’ than scientists. In fact, it is my opinion that scientific research is very much a form of welfare, with vast amounts of dollars being transferred away from productive, wealth-generating activities in the private sector to relatively nonproductive, wealth-destroying activities in the academic sector. It’s very depressing to realize how much we are wasting.

    The AGW field is probaly the best-ever example of everything that’s wrong with the incentive system created by publicly-funded science. The response to this incentive system by scientist in the field is not surprising (indeed, I would argue that it is predictable). What is surprising is the uncritical acceptance of this false premise that these scientists’ chief intent is to ‘save the world’ or ‘act in the interest of society’. Pure tomfoolery.

  142. hmmm
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

    you hit the nail right on the head each time for the time they gave you; they obviously avoided your perfectly direct points and kept making general “nothing to see here” statements.

    I thought the moderator’s take that she couldn’t think of a reason for scientists to behave badly was incredibly naive and obtuse; it doesn’t take the broad conspiracy she envisioned. It takes preconceived notions and that is all. A little indoctrination in school. It can take research funding $$$ for a career. It can take ego and pride when presenting to the media. It can take a fantasy that you are helping to save the planet. It can take merely wanting to win an arguement. It takes but a dash of rationalizing why to use a certain statistical technique (or make up a new one) that supports you based on questionable assumptions which you then sweep under the carpet. It can be fueled by the incredible political pressure involved; think of the economics and governing power ultimately at stake. Where does the funding for that research come from? For cripes sake that’s what this is all about! I think her problem is that she expects a conspiracy theory to look like a movie with villains and a mastermind; in this case it’s more like a herd of sheep and their misguided shepards.

    And how many of those 2500 scientists does that guy think replicated the tree ring reconstructions from scratch? There is allot of trust and power in quite a few studies with some quite big question marks which he is obviously ready to take purely at face value. We are not.

  143. Calvin Ball
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 4:18 PM | Permalink

    Steve, you came across as serious. Horner came across as a lawyer, and Oppenheimer came across as a polemic.

  144. TurkeyLurkey
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 4:28 PM | Permalink

    Wegman in the Hotbox;

    We unearth, you examine.


    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 12:05 AM | Permalink

      Wegman needs some serious coaching in public speaking. I know what he was trying to say, but that isn’t at all what came across.

    • Calvin Ball
      Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 1:44 AM | Permalink

      Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Reply

      Oppenheimer’s trump card was that to be a skeptic, you have to believe that thousands of scientists all over the world are part of a conspiracy theory. Obviously this claim makes skeptics look like silly conspiracy theorists. Be prepared for it next time: get in first and say that this is NOT what you are implying.

      Never mind the fact that this “2500 scientists” is total nonsense. They arrive at that number by adding up all of the authors of the IPCC papers. If Mann is an author on say, 15 papers, he gets counted 15 times. In addition, most of the authors aren’t scientists. And on top of that, not everyone listed as an author agrees with the SPM. In short, the argument that 2500 scientists support the conclusions of the SPM is not only wrong, it’s disingenuous.

  145. Bob Koss
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 4:38 PM | Permalink

    No unthreaded so I’ll put this here.
    MetOffice has released a subset of HadCrut3 database. 1700+ files. It is value-added data, but might be useful for something such as station names and locations. Link at the bottom of this page.

  146. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

    Ok, someone clarify Wegman’s position in Turkey Lurkey’s video for me because he sure seemed like he was trying to whitewash the issues. The other guy was a true believer. It seemed like CNN did their usual masterful job of trying to examine an issue with two commentators who are both on the left side of the aisle.

  147. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:09 PM | Permalink


    Exactly. McIntyre came across as the scientist, Oppenheimer as the politico. All along, Steve has been arguing the science, and the Team has been arguing the politics.

    Maybe there’s a lesson in there.

  148. Ed Snack
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:10 PM | Permalink

    Dave and LMB, I read that Telegraph article as a piss-take. Surely it has to be, the “explanations” he gives are laughable, or, they are to me. Do you think the writer is serious, really ?

  149. fFreddy
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:20 PM | Permalink

    With all respect to Prof Wegman, he needs a bit more practice in making his points quickly and concisely.

  150. John
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 5:43 PM | Permalink

    Just watched this CNN/Steve McIntyre appearance on youtube. I thought Steve came across as the most thoughtful of all, including the anchoress. I thought Steve chose his words more carefully, and was less combative, than the others . If Steve keeps this up, he might get fewer invites….can’t have a “skeptic” appear thoughtful and reasonable, can we? Even if Steve has already told us that his goal is a relatively narrow one: to get the information available, to have it carefully and fully vetted, and then let the chips fall where they may, which under other circumstances might disqualify him from the “skeptic” community.

  151. John Silver
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

    Well, that was a relief!
    Looks good, except the “avatars” are a little disturbing.

  152. Robinson
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

    Hey, a quick comment (off topic). I’m hunting for Steve’s Yamal graphs (the one’s showing response of a single tree, or only 12) and can’t find them. Did the images not make it over to the new forum?

  153. 1DandyTroll
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 6:28 PM | Permalink

    I concur with professor Robock in one of the above CNN youtube videos.

    This here, truly bad, climate change is very man made indeed.

    One can not come to any other conclusion that the global warming is truly and utterly man made.

    The real question is how much of it’s real and how much, if not all, is just in the, man made, numbers?

    After all, from staring at only half of gaussian graphs, it’s no wonder people only figure half of the picture.

  154. Bernie
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 7:15 PM | Permalink

    Thanks for posting.
    Alas Wegman did not come across as crisp as Steve. He clearly wanted to say that the Mann and the Hockey Team including Jones were a clique who supported each other. However, Alan Robock clearly misled the audience especially about the peer review issue. Kiran Chetry simply got in the way and was clearly way over her head. The blatant FOI issue and hiding the data was not addressed.

  155. Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 7:49 PM | Permalink

    You did science proud … Keep up the good work.

  156. Laughin Jack
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:45 PM | Permalink

    Hey, does anyone here have some rebuttals for each of the points on this paper:

    I posted the same thing on Watts up with that this morning. Any help refuting this nonsense would be appreciated.

    • Murphy
      Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:12 PM | Permalink

      Well one thing (although I suppose it’s a bit unfair) is that Climate Research is in the Arts Faculty at Monash.

      Apparently the “hard science people” wouldn’t have it anywhere near them.

      Don’t blame them – they’ll probably have a lot to say when all this unravels.

    • Baa Humbug
      Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

      snip – too angry and OT

  157. Murphy
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 8:48 PM | Permalink

    TV Answers:
    For the conspiracy theory – maybe the best TV answer is another set of questions such as:
    How many scientists would publish data that would put them out of work?
    What would you do if it was going to put you out of work?
    And how many of their colleagues would allow them to do it?
    Sound like turkeys voting for Christmas to me – and what are they all going to do when this theory is disproven – there are thousands of them?

    To me this is a community with a common purpose rather than a conspiracy, but the effect is the same.

    Also, although I’m not a TV professional, it seems you need to have a couple of statements and questions to inject when you can’t think of anything intelligent to say or when trying to respond to asinine quotes such as “these are the hottest years, unprecedented warming, no other explanation” and so on. Trying to answer the question or comment directly is probably a mistake – as is getting into any detail.

    Remember the job of most journalists is to “simplify then exaggerate” as quoted by John Humphrys the BBC’s rottweiler (well sometimes).

    I suggest the following, others will probably do better.
    “Show me the data”
    “Why have you been hiding data”
    “Why won’t you debate this fully and openly (at another time) – what are you hiding?”

    Good luck Steve – you are doing a great job; I wish I could contribute in some way.

  158. Seth
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 9:19 PM | Permalink

    It is a breath of fresh air to see someone so polite and concise! Comments like “we were simply throwing out bad data” cannot keep getting through unchallenged. Trees stopped working as thermometers for no apparent reason in 1960? And before we could compare them to temperature records they were ok? Wow 😦
    This keeps going on because they successfully get people to think the argument is simply about whether it has gotten any warmer in the past 100 years and that emails will not stop the melting ice.
    I believe when they make a comment like the “trick” was not dishonest, the conversation has to be slammed to a halt and someone needs to say:
    “It is dishonest to make tree ring proxies, which are almost the sole basis for the unprecedented warming reconstructions, appear valid by hiding your “well known” divergence by sticking temperature records on the end. It is one thing to throw out (what you think is) bad data, but to present it in such a way so it looks like no data was thrown out is DISHONEST, period, period, period!”

    Congratulations on the new site. I have digging through all the posts the last month and think this is one of the most important sites and overall efforts of this decade! I will be checking the tip jar regularly to see when it is working!

    I apologize for taking up so much space being a new reader of CA. Your Google link leads to a dead end at the moment.

  159. CFP
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:41 PM | Permalink

    Speaking of CNN, they have a new poll that shows a 9 point decline to 45% from 54% a year ago in those who believe “GW is aproven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants and factories.”

    The number who believe GW is a theory that is not yet proven jumped 8% to 31%.

    And those who believe “Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars and industrial facilities.” held roughly steady at 23%.

  160. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 10:51 PM | Permalink

    Yeah! CA came up. Actually it did a couple of hours ago, but I didn’t send this message until after a meeting we had.

  161. theduke
    Posted Dec 8, 2009 at 11:05 PM | Permalink

    One thing I would suggest that Steve and others who speak publicly about these issues emphasize is the possible corruption of the peer review process and how we don’t yet know how pervasive it was. Wegman said he had reviewed 90 papers or so and was disappointed in how inbred the science was (my description not his) in them. His 2006 report voices the same concerns.

    The possibility that a dozen or two dozen influential scientists may have been involved in pushing extreme AGW scenarios by any means necessary and were persuasive in their efforts, and that their papers were taken as gospel and cited by 200(?) or more other scientists in the field needs to be explored. Some of us who post on CA suspect that the process was rigged in many different and often subtle ways. Steve became public enemy number 1 because he was beginning to uncover the corruption in the peer-review process, among other things.

    The failure of the peer-review process should be the focus of the battle at this point in time. Wegman, in the clip above, was powerful on this point, although he was not allowed to expound on his findings. If some of those with scientific backgrounds who post here can prove that the peer-reviewed process failed repeatedly in climatological literature, then it will contribute to reforming the science and getting us closer to the truth about AGW.

    I’d like to know the truth, regardless of where it leads.

  162. NickB.
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 12:17 AM | Permalink

    Steve, you’re my hero – you did great!

  163. Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 12:24 AM | Permalink


    The CNN poll seems not to have a spot for the obvious position:

    Of course, GW is real over the past two centuries (coming out of the Little Ice Age).
    Of course, anthropogenic CO2 contributes at least a little bit to GW.
    But… we do not yet know how big the human contribution is.
    And… we do not know the future course of the climate.

    I fear that scientific reality is too subtle for CNN’s pollsters.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  164. James Lane
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 12:30 AM | Permalink

    I thought you did a great job on CNN, Steve.

  165. Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 12:31 AM | Permalink

    dirac_delta wrote:
    >As a scientist, I can attest that the primary role of a scientist in an American research university is not to discover scientific truths, but to do anything and everything it takes to get grants funded. I’ve seen fraud of all types, and for every instance that’s been outed, I would guess there are 5 more that remain clandestine.
    > The AGW field is probaly the best-ever example of everything that’s wrong with the incentive system created by publicly-funded science.

    I’ve seen it too. I’ve also seen it in the defense industry.

    I assume you have seen Lindzen’s paper:

    Click to access 0809.3762.pdf

    which makes the point in great detail.

    It’s lamentable, (indeed infuriating) and quite important, and it needs a wide public airing.

    But I don’t think it can be explained to Campbell Brown in a twenty second sound-bite.


  166. edrowland
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 12:49 AM | Permalink

    Congratulations Steve. Points made were short, on point and substantial, and you stacked up well against people who do that kind of thing for a living. Definitely a home run.

  167. LMB
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 1:50 AM | Permalink

    CNN’s unprofessional and unethical bias is giving unequal airtime and unchallenged guests.

    1) John Roberts interviewed Jones’s replacement but never interviewed anyone with a competing view for the same amount time.

    2) A different CNN reporter did the same thing with Michael Mann.

    3) Anderson Cooper 360 tonight did the same thing with his one-on-one interview of an alarmist scientist.

    The only time non-alarmist guests are given air time on CNN is when they can be immediately challenged (e.g: on a panel by alarmists with more tv experience).

  168. Peter West
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 3:16 AM | Permalink

    Steve, fwiw, I think you did great job on CNN. The main impact from these things is not the details of the argument, so much as the impression viewers are left with. Introduced as on of the sceptics who had been hounding those poor climate scientists into doing things they would not normally do, you came across as mild-mannered and even-tempered. That will make a deeper impression than most of what was actually said.

  169. Wyatt
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 7:46 AM | Permalink

    I’ll suggest your effectiveness was hampered by the “soundbite” nature of TV. I do think you should consider some of the “coaching” suggested above. No offense meant. This isn’t about ego, it is about getting a message across to TV viewers. I found myself frustrated that you didn’t get to make your points properly.

    It is important to state your point quickly or the host appears to get bored and “moves on” before you can make the point. Those who do it quickly make the best impression on viewers. The same thing happened to Wegman above. He was marginalized.

    This entire thing may boil down to “TV sucks for news”. No wonder the ratings keep going down.

  170. LMB
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 11:31 AM | Permalink

    CNN, including Campbell Brown last night, keeps referring to polls (its own) which show public doubts increasing. Why don’t they trying polling the scientists?

    Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report

  171. Chris Alleva
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

    Steve, you are consistently scrupulous. Your answer to question regarding the validity of tree ring data to construct an historical climate record was right on point.

    While I appreciate your herculean restraint, I believe you have been far too generous to these global warming scientists. Even before the emails and computer code was leaked it was abundantly evident that there is rampant misconduct among these investigators.

    The evasions, the snide condescension, these were all tell tale signs.

    In my first job out of college I encountered a manager that oddly insisted on telling everyone in earshot what a company first man he was. He wrote memos with strange disclaimers like “my loyalty to the company is unsurpassed.”
    I had only been on the job a few weeks so I had no reason to even entertain such thoughts about him much less anyone else.

    Over time, his strange conduct set off some alarm bells. 30 months later, I documented him accepting commercial bribes from vendors and he was thus terminated.

  172. ivp0
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

    Bravo Steve and welcome to television! I thought you were by far the most sincere and objective member of the panel. You came across well and now we can all put a face to your excellent work. Horner seemed a bit rabid to me, and Oppenheimer pompous and disingenuous.

    While I don’t recommend all of the preparation ideas expressed here, a few are important simply due to the nature of television.

    1. What 3 things must be said today regarding this issue? Boil those down to short, clear, concise words that anyone can understand. Make sure you get these points in.

    2. What erroneous opposing views must be responded to (like the 2500 scientist conspiracy for example). How do we counterpoint that in a reasonable and honest way with two or three sentences.

    You have my two cents for what it is worth. Thank you for all you do and good luck in your future television appearances.

  173. LMB
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 3:23 PM | Permalink


    Did you see Campbell Brown’s second night on Climategate? Instead of two scientists, she had two politicians debating:

    Rep. Darrell Issla v. Rep. Jay Inslee.

    Inslee wasted no time with inflammatory rhetoric and immature namecalling. He tried to cast non-alarmists as the same type of people or same people as “birthers” – “deniers.”

    Issla skated circles around him and Brown had to rebuke Inslee when he got out of line.

    Inslee is propagating the new phony rebuttal of mass conspiracy (which Brown herself raised the night before when you were on).

    Stolen Climate E-Mails Cause A Ruckus In Congress
    NPR – Richard Harris – ‎Dec 2, 2009‎

    Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) said he was stunned by their skepticism. He said if global warming is a fraud, it must be perpetrated by a conspiracy of scientists from all around the world.

    “I just wanted to ask you if you’re part of that massive international conspiracy,” he said to the witnesses, adding with a note of sarcasm, “Are either one of your members of the Trilateral Commission, SPECTRE or KAOS? I just need an answer.”

    Holdren replied: “Congressman Inslee, I am not a member of any of those organizations, and I don’t believe there’s an international conspiracy. That would be an amazing thing indeed.”

    Cute little strawman, isn’t it?

    Let’s see who can read the emails and prove there was no conspiracy between the people who emailed each other.

    If I were a CNN producer, I’d be looking for an exclusive. Instead of putting together the two sides like everybody else, politicians or scientists, I’d be looking for the scientists who were alarmists before Climategate, but now are skeptics or non-alarmists.

    I’m sure Bill Nye already has about 50 scientists of his own who will stand up and say they were non-alarmists before Climategate but now are alarmists. 🙂

    What a cocky little man he is. The Genius with a Bow Tie. Did you hear how he spoke down condescendingly to Brown? He started acting as if it was his show and asked *her* questions trying to embarrass her.

    So we got the White House (Press Secretary) calling the non-alarmists silly, and the Democrat Rep calling them Deniers, and the Alarmist acting about as arrogant as anyone could on tv.

    They suck at politics as well as science.

    I think it would be helpful if a few scientists who were alarmist before Climategate would step up to the plate and speak out. It is important for the debate. Please let your voice be heard.

  174. Henry A
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 8:05 PM | Permalink

    Steve really you need to make a documentary on all the issues you have covered on this blog, so you can put into perspective the importance of what’s been revealed in the hacked emails. The announced investigations of the Hockey Team are going to be a whitewash. It would be like if before the .Maple leafs played they went to the Maple Leaf’s fan club to ask a couple of them to ref the game.

    After surprise, they find nothing to question the science of AGW in these phony investigations; the mantra is going to be the science is settled and now so is the hacked email distraction.

    Clearly you’re not going to get your point across in media interviews. Steve you have done great work at your blog, but it’s importance is never ever going to reach but a miniscule fraction of the people the Hockey team corrupt science will affect. Do this work you’ve done justice by making a filmed documentary covering the issues step by step, you can take the time to show your graphs, email and responses you’ve received over the years. This would clearly show how completely dishonest the Hockey Team is being when they say they always tried to cooperate and make all the data available and never tried to hide anything.

  175. Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 9:12 PM | Permalink

    (reposting from the mirror…)

    I watched the full first episode.

    I also thought Steve did very well. I wouldn’t have been able to get a complete sentence out, much less say anything coherent.

    I thought that Brown was constantly trying to paint Steve as some uber skeptic who thought the earth was flat, when all Steve was asking for was transparency in the process. Not once did Steve say Global Warming was a hoax or scam or that the science was bogus, but CNN seemed to want to put those words in his mouth, Oppenheimer wasn’t even in the same argument, he was just repeating the meme “Global Warming is real, Climategate doesn’t change anything.”

    I’m watching the second one now…

  176. EdeF
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 9:46 PM | Permalink


    Good job with the CNN interview. You answered the questions directly with poise.
    I thought Oppenheimer had more time. John Roberts was with CBS forever, generally
    a good reporter. It is too bad we cannot have a one hour interview with the same
    individuals, or even add a few, and really have a deep discussion of the issues.

  177. Walt
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 10:25 PM | Permalink

    I saw the interview. You did fine. As an aside, my family drank a toast to you on Thanksgiving.

  178. Hamletxi
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 11:09 PM | Permalink

    Micheal Mann has issued comments about his and others statements in the Climategate emails. You can find it here

  179. BillB
    Posted Dec 9, 2009 at 11:39 PM | Permalink

    The CNN viewers that matters aren’t those that read on climateaudit or realclimate, they already have formed their opinion and aren’t about to change. The only people that matter are those reasonably intelligent viewers that do not have a firm opinion. As a skeptic, I absolutely cringe when people like Horner start throwing around words like “fraud” and “hoax”. My wife fits the “intelligent, no firm opinion” mold and Horner really turned her off. Skeptics, save “hoax” for conservative talk radio where you’re just trying to stoke up the masses.

    As for Issa & Inslee on Campbell Brown, the wife loved Issia, hated Inslee.

  180. LMB
    Posted Dec 10, 2009 at 5:54 AM | Permalink

    Campbell Brown, in her third part of the three-part series Truth or Trick on Climategate replayed the Al Gore interview with John Roberts and Kiran Chetry.

    Roberts corrected Gore for his comments about the emails being 10 years ago but didn’t belabor the issue. There was something else he half-confronted him on, too. Gore evidently likes to play fast and loose with the facts.

    But once again CNN is being biased and unethical by broadcasting only one side of the issue. Nobody from the other side got any air time in a one-on-one interview let alone the same amount time as Al Gore. This is the fourth time CNN has done this in the past week by my count.

    My question is will CNN now bring out its Fact Check team or call in the Truth-O-Meter guy to expose Gore’s bald-faced lie? Or is CNN’s position they don’t need to do that because it’s already been done online?

    People who don’t believe Al Gore are Al Gore Deniers. 🙂

  181. JET99999
    Posted Dec 10, 2009 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    You did a good job, the lawyer was terrible, very poor communications skills for lawyer.

    However CNN has an agenda, they will stack the deck on these types of situations

    Ideas: Keep it simple so avg viewer can understand

    Make the point that like derivative financial models in regards to 2008 Wall Street crash (something the public now gets), the evidence is suggesting that CRU Hadley models had predetermined outcomes, and the group running these models formed the core or hub (likely along with NASA and NOAA models) of the wheel.

    Make it clear to the audience you are DEMANDing that all codes and data sets be made public for an independent audit. Of course you’ve been aaking for this for years or something similar, but the public doesn’t know that.

    Always bring up that 30,000 plus scientists are on record (names and credentials accesible to all on the internet) as having signed a document questioning the veracity of AGW as far back as Kyoto. The public doesn’t know this and CNN will not tell them.

    Television demands visuals, but CNN with its agenda (while oontinually running the visuals of iceberg melting and polar bears stranded – all day long) is never going to permit guests to bring visual charts for those questioning AGW

    STRATEGY is to then to use your two hands to form a very small circle, saying you believe its possible a relatively small group (THE CORE or hub of the wheel) for whatever reason, maybe 200 to 300 scientists and programmers (for whatever reason, idealogy, power, money, even though likely even well intentioned initially) – produced flawed computer models.

    “We don’t know 100% for sure, but we need to find out”

    The public loves a puzzle.

    After showing the core visual, you then visually draw in the air the larger wheel, the many 1000’s of researchers who relied upon those all important critical models etc

    KEEP IT SIMPLE, this is very important.

  182. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 10, 2009 at 4:58 PM | Permalink

    Invited by John Roberts to be on CNN tomorrow morning (Dec 11) about 7.30 a.m.

    • Posted Dec 10, 2009 at 5:52 PM | Permalink

      Reportedly Stossel debut show on FoxBizNet will feature ‘ClimateGate’, at 8 ET.

      Arguably he was not hired for his looks.

      Maybe this will include that fine interview with people who did some homework.

    • LMB
      Posted Dec 11, 2009 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

      Good work, Steve. I saw you this morning. You’re growing in confidence.

      The call to scientists to look themselves in the mirror was perfect. The time for soul-searching and honesty is now.

      I liked John Roberts’ question to your opponent if he could declare with 100% certainty his idea.

      Roberts was kind enough to give out this blog’s URL at the beginning. I thought that was good because I don’t think Campbell Brown did that.

      But you should have been given a one-on-one interview like Al Gore got yesterday.

      I admire your restraint in discussing the scandal. Although I must admit I kind of wish you’d drop a bombshell. 🙂

      P.S. How about challenging Mr. “Hide The Decline” to a public debate? Who knows CNN might even cover it live.

  183. INGSOC
    Posted Dec 11, 2009 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

    Once again, several loaded questions for which Steve gave honest answers. Truth matters, and it appears Steve has a firm grasp of it. Who knows, the folks involved in the CRU scandal may have been correct all along, but managed to smear themselves with their advocacy. We won’t know until honest folks follow sound scientific methods, free from political interference from either “side” of this issue. It appears that this will now happen over the following years. IMHO, that is the best result we could ever have hoped for. The need for integrity has never been as great as it is right now, and I thank Mr. McIntyre for his.

    Also, thanks again for making yourself available for these interviews Steve. It can’t be easy! Hopefully you have set an example for the discussions to follow.

  184. Tony B (another one)
    Posted Dec 11, 2009 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

    I am sorry – I feel like screaming at the TV. Steve has done a fantastic investigative job, but we need an experienced, credible, media professional to deliver the message. Someone who knows and understands the techniques used by interviewers, who has credibility with the viewing public and who is prepared to take on the AGW church.

    I can think of 2, and I have the personal email address of one of them.

    I can only ask – who knows what he will say.

    • LMB
      Posted Dec 11, 2009 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

      [Steve: I think you should start a new thread each time you’re on TV; you’ll get more interviews.]

      ROBERTS: The contentious debate over global warming on the front burner after those stolen e-mails from a climate change lab. Skeptics say they cast doubt on the science behind climate change, but supporters say it’s just a bunch of noise.

      Joining me now to talk about the implications of the e-mails and whether in fact there is global warming, Stephen McIntyre, editor of the blog He was mentioned in many of those stolen e-mails. And Dr. Michael McCracken, chief scientist at the Climate Change Program at the Climate Institute.

      Gentlemen, good to talk to you. Stephen, let me start with you. You’ve written extensively about these hacked e-mails on Do they cast suspicion on the entire science of global warming or just one particular set of temperature data?

      STEPHEN MCINTYRE, EDITOR, CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG: There’s only one set of data that is in question. This is a technical area, but an important technical area, and it’s as though this is one expert element in a large prosecution case and I’ve argued against that technical aspect of the argument.

      ROBERTS: Right. But does it suggest to you that the whole case for man-made global warming is a fraud?

      MCINTYRE: No, it doesn’t. It suggests that in this one particular technical area scientists have, I believe, overstated the case, but this has nothing to do with other aspects of the argument.

      ROBERTS: OK. Michael McCracken, can you say from your standpoint with absolute certainty that the global warming that we are seeing these days, the climate change that we’re experiencing, is in fact due to man-made factors?

      MICHAEL MACCRACKEN, CHIEF SCIENTIST FOR CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAM,CLIMATE INSTITUTE: Well, no scientist really can talk in terms of absolute certainty, but we look at a lot of different aspects of it and there’s really no other explanation for the kinds of things that are happening. So there’s a possibility there could be something we’re missing, but it’s very, very small.

      We look at changes in solar radiation and they can’t explain it. We look at changes in volcanic eruptions. They can’t explain it. There’s a question about whether there could be some poorly understood natural variations that could cause a little bit of it, but mainly it has to be human activities. There just isn’t any other way to explain what’s happening.

      ROBERTS: And Stephen McIntyre, do you have another cause that you know of besides a human component?

      MCINTYRE: The issue that I have is whether there has been a proper engineering quality analysis of the other explanations. I’m fairly conventional in my view points and I assume that scientists do a sensible job at what they’re doing, notwithstanding the fact that the scientists in the particular area that I’ve studied have, in my opinion, done a very unprofessional job.

      I think it would be very healthy to have an outside engineering quality examination of the very best climate model to reassure the public, as well as policy makers.

      ROBERTS: Right.

      MCINTYRE: Having said that, policy makers make decisions under uncertainty all the time, and I think that policymakers are entitled to make decisions.

      ROBERTS: Michael MacCracken, when we look at the temperature record over the last I guess 100 or so years, there appears to be an up tick in and around 1960 to 1970. That continued until 1998 when temperatures actually started dropping. Many global warming skeptics say that’s reason to believe that maybe this is just part of a natural cycle, that the temperature is not going to continue to go up. What do you say to that?

      MACCRACKEN: Well, there are some natural variations that go on. There are also needs to keep looking at the record. There’s an up tick, for example, during the years particularly of World War II and it’s being realized now that that may be because particular ship records that were taken when they were changing the measurement technique may have measured a little bit high.

      But there’s always going to be some variation going on over the short term. Over the long term, which is what we’re talking about for climate change, what you see is we’ve come from a quite cool, industrial period in the 18th and 19th centuries to much, much warmer conditions now.

      ROBERTS: Stephen McIntyre, Allen Leshner, who is the CEO of the American Academy for the Advancement of Sciences is, also the executive editor of the “Journal of Science,” had an op-ed in the “Washington Post” yesterday. He said that the science on this is clear. He wrote, “don’t be fooled about climate science. In April 1994, long after scientists had clearly demonstrated the addictive quality and devastating health impacts of cigarette smoking, seven chief executives of major tobacco companies denied the evidence, swearing under oath that nicotine was not addictive.”

      What do you say to the charge that skeptics may be so whetted to the negative financial impact of curbing greenhouse gases that they’re willing to ignore science?

      MCINTYRE: Well, I for one am not particularly whetted to any position. I don’t think that analogies to the tobacco case are very helpful because certainly for someone like myself I don’t smoke. I don’t have any interest in the tobacco situation, and any concerns that I have are ones that are honestly felt.

      So I think that rather than criticizing past issues like the tobacco industry that scientists would be better to look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they are doing the most effective possible job of explaining their case to the educated public.

      ROBERTS: All right. One more week to go in the Copenhagen conference and this is the part where the leaders will, in fact, factor into it. So we’ll be watching that very closely.

      Stephen McIntyre, Michael MacCracken, thanks for being with us this morning. Good to see you.

      MCINTYRE: Thank you, John.

  185. LMB
    Posted Dec 11, 2009 at 5:13 PM | Permalink

    “I think it would be very healthy to have an outside engineering quality examination of the very best climate model to reassure the public, as well as policy makers.”

    I wonder if for the public to understand this fully the comparison can be made to a corporation “cooking the books” (an expression used in this scandal), and the corp. then being audited by the IRS.

    We can also note that the organizations of accused parties in Climategate have offered to investigate themselves but professors have exposed conflicts of interest in at least one case, meaning that it’s impossible to get an unbiased review without government intervention.

    The early evidence is clear that East Anglia, the UN, and Penn State cannot be trusted to conduct a valid audit. I think the public and politicians recognize this. There is growing pressure from an outraged public demanding a full Congressional Inquiry.

    We have to get these people under oath giving sworn testimony. There’s no way that won’t happen. There’s too much money at stake in this awful economy.

    It will be as intriguing and as polarizing as the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers case!

  186. Dr. Ross Taylor
    Posted Dec 12, 2009 at 6:24 AM | Permalink

    Don’t worry too much Steve, I believe that sincerity shines through, and that it is inevitable that the truth will out.

    Update on non-warming in Copenhagen: As emergency AGW conference continues, it is perhaps ironic to calmly study some weather information readily available on the internet. I apologize that the figures are not absolutely precise because they are taken from graphs at Anyone can check my calculations, which took about 20 minutes and were not taxpayer funded.

    In the last 28 years (as far as the online records go back), the highest December temperature in Copenhagen was 11 degrees C and that was back in 1983. Over these years, the average highest December temperature was around 7 C.

    First day: a high of 7 C, exactly the same as the average high of the last 28 years and 4 degrees COOLER than the high of the last 28 years.

    Second day: a high of 7 C, the same.

    Third day: a high of 6 C, 5 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.

    Fourth day: a high of 6 C

    Fifth day: a high of 5 C, 6 degrees COOLER than the December high of the last 28 years.

    Can someone please point this out to the Met, the BBC and all the eminent and learned delegates?

  187. Michael949
    Posted Dec 16, 2009 at 12:55 PM | Permalink

    snip – nothing to do with CNN. editorially 2 paragraph attempts to prove or disprove global warming are against blog policies.

%d bloggers like this: