Skip to content

CNN

December 7, 2009

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.

204 Comments leave one →
  1. Denny permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:23 pm

    Steve,

    Do you know when the broadcast will be??

  2. December 7, 2009 9:24 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:26 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:30 pm

    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. permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:30 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:32 pm

    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.

    Cheers

    Phil

    source+full email: http://www.di2.nu/foia/1120593115.txt

  7. Brad Erenberger permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:33 pm

    Steve:
    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 permalink*
    December 7, 2009 9:34 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:36 pm

    Steve,

    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 permalink*
    December 7, 2009 9:38 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:41 pm

    Steve,

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:43 pm

    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. December 7, 2009 9:45 pm

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

  14. geo permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:50 pm

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

  15. LMB permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:53 pm

    > 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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:54 pm

    Well done Steve. I think you did great.

  17. hamletxi permalink
    December 7, 2009 9:55 pm

    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. December 7, 2009 9:56 pm

    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. December 7, 2009 10:00 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 10:02 pm

    Steve,

    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. December 7, 2009 10:06 pm

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

  22. December 7, 2009 10:09 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 10:10 pm

    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. December 7, 2009 10:21 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 10:21 pm

    Steve–

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 10:24 pm

    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. December 7, 2009 10:31 pm

    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. December 7, 2009 10:32 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 10:47 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 10:55 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 11:09 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 11:13 pm

    Chris Horner, Steve McIntyre & Michael Oppenheimer on CNN:

  33. Tom Ganley permalink
    December 7, 2009 11:15 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 11:16 pm

    Gerald

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 11:26 pm

    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. December 7, 2009 11:27 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 11:37 pm

    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. December 7, 2009 11:40 pm

    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 permalink
    December 7, 2009 11:42 pm

    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
    AFP

    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.”

    http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/World/Story/A1Story20091208-184594.html

  40. Daryl M permalink
    December 7, 2009 11:44 pm

    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.

  41. STEPHEN PARKER permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:02 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:02 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:04 am

    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. December 8, 2009 12:08 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:12 am

    Steve,

    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….

    Don.W

  46. Bernie permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:24 am

    Steve:
    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:25 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:25 am

    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?”

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-obamas-science-adviser-confirms-the-scandal-%E2%80%94-unintentionally/

  49. LMB permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:37 am

    > 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
    http://www.businessinsider.com/anderson-cooper-ratings-2009-12

  50. LMB permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:43 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:46 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 1:04 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 1:14 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 1:49 am

    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. December 8, 2009 1:50 am

    Hi,

    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.

    -Victor

  56. Doug in Seattle permalink
    December 8, 2009 1:57 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 1:58 am

    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…
    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/12/07/siu.climate.emails.cnn

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:02 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:24 am

    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.
    snip
    My best to you.
    Peter

  60. Tee permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:44 am

    [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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:45 am

    The video is here:

  62. El Buggo permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:48 am

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

    Starring McIntyre, Mann, Jones et al.

    YouTube, 3 parts, 33min: http://tinyurl.com/yjj2uxr

  63. David Harrington permalink
    December 8, 2009 3:00 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 3:39 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 3:41 am

    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.

    snip

  66. December 8, 2009 4:01 am

    Steve,

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 4:16 am

    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. December 8, 2009 4:17 am

    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. December 8, 2009 4:22 am

    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)?

    Dave

  70. December 8, 2009 4:28 am

    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. December 8, 2009 5:13 am

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

  72. Robinson permalink
    December 8, 2009 5:25 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 5:31 am

    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

    Stuart

  74. December 8, 2009 5:32 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 5:37 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 5:39 am

    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.

    Excerpts:

    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.

    Transcript:

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/ltm.02.html

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

    Transcript:

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/ltm.01.html

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 5:53 am

    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
    To: m.hulme@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Rob.Swart@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
    Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
    Reply-to: alcamo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

    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
    names!

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 5:54 am

    You came across great steve! Well done :)

  79. Patrik permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:00 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:14 am

    Steve

    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!

    Respectfully

    RFG

  81. RF Goodale permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:17 am

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

    Thanks

    RFG

  82. Robinson permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:20 am

    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. December 8, 2009 6:23 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:27 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:30 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:35 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:36 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:45 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 7:42 am

    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. December 8, 2009 8:17 am

    Steve,
    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:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818

    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.

    snip

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:26 am

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

  92. Sean Peake permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:48 am

    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. December 8, 2009 8:49 am

    must see on you tube …..steve and al gore…..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ymxLA5oRYI

  94. a reader permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:52 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:54 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:54 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:56 am

    Steve,
    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 9:12 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 9:25 am

    Patrik
    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. December 8, 2009 9:28 am

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

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11792

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

  101. nycoordinator permalink
    December 8, 2009 9:40 am

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

    http://nygoe.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/climategate-rationalists-hold-counter-conference-in-copenhagen/

  102. John MacQueen permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:03 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:07 am

    Steve,

    When is the Fox segment due to be broadcast?

  104. John MacQueen permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:08 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:20 am

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

  106. December 8, 2009 10:24 am

    Off-topic, sorry, but the met office have now released some of the CRU data.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/subsets.html
    It is Jones-adjusted data, so completely useless.

  107. Sean Peake permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:27 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:35 am

    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?

  109. bender permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:40 am

    The piece is here:

    Oppenheimer: “there was no deception”

  110. HankHenry permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:45 am

    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 permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:48 am

    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. Joey Buzz permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:52 am

    Steve,
    Please speak faster….we are running out of time. The critical news from the Wood’s home will soon surely bump Mann and CRU’s fraud from the media’s spin zone.
    Keep fighting the good fight bro!

  113. Annabelle permalink
    December 8, 2009 11:00 am

    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.

  114. December 8, 2009 11:17 am

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

  115. EddieO permalink
    December 8, 2009 11:28 am

    AJStrata
    Is that Hockey Stick maths?

  116. December 8, 2009 11:51 am

    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.

  117. nycoordinator permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:12 pm

    Stephen,

    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!

    Dan

  118. Sloan permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:16 pm

    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…

  119. FrederickB permalink
    December 8, 2009 12:27 pm

    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.

  120. December 8, 2009 12:36 pm

    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!!”

  121. December 8, 2009 12:44 pm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds

    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.”

  122. Craig Stone permalink
    December 8, 2009 1:06 pm

    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.

  123. Jim from Anaheim permalink
    December 8, 2009 1:20 pm

    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.

  124. Stacey permalink
    December 8, 2009 1:22 pm

    @ 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?

  125. LMB permalink
    December 8, 2009 1:41 pm

    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..."] :)

  126. LMB permalink
    December 8, 2009 1:44 pm

    Kudos to the Telegraph:

    Harry_read_me.txt: the climategate gun that does not smoke

    By Ian Douglas
    December 8th, 2009

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/100004334/harry_read_me-txt-the-climategate-gun-that-does-not-smoke/

  127. December 8, 2009 1:44 pm

    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.

  128. December 8, 2009 1:50 pm

    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?

  129. CFP permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:09 pm

    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.

  130. johnh permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:18 pm

    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.

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

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

  131. Paul permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:22 pm

    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.

  132. December 8, 2009 2:23 pm

    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.

  133. Ernst permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:25 pm

    Good job!

    Best.

  134. David L. Hagen permalink
    December 8, 2009 2:27 pm

    Steve
    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.

  135. December 8, 2009 3:00 pm

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

  136. December 8, 2009 3:00 pm

    Steve,

    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?

    Nuno

  137. Sean Peake permalink
    December 8, 2009 3:05 pm

    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.

  138. December 8, 2009 3:12 pm

    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.

  139. Daryl M permalink
    December 8, 2009 3:15 pm

    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.

  140. Dave Dardinger permalink
    December 8, 2009 3:27 pm

    LMB,

    “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.

  141. December 8, 2009 3:29 pm

    You can watch the two parts of the intervew at WAWT

  142. dirac_delta permalink
    December 8, 2009 3:54 pm

    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.

  143. hmmm permalink
    December 8, 2009 4:01 pm

    Steve,
    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.

  144. Calvin Ball permalink
    December 8, 2009 4:18 pm

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

  145. TurkeyLurkey permalink
    December 8, 2009 4:28 pm

    Wegman in the Hotbox;

    We unearth, you examine.

    TL

  146. Bob Koss permalink
    December 8, 2009 4:38 pm

    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.

  147. December 8, 2009 4:55 pm

    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.

  148. December 8, 2009 5:09 pm

    @FrancisT:

    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.

  149. Ed Snack permalink
    December 8, 2009 5:10 pm

    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 ?

  150. fFreddy permalink
    December 8, 2009 5:20 pm

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

  151. John permalink
    December 8, 2009 5:43 pm

    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.

  152. Jerry permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:06 pm

    Steve,

    I only saw a brief segment with Campbell Brown, Oppenheimer and the book guy. Nice job. It’s hard to boil it down. For what it’s worth, as a former 9th grade earth science teacher, I’ll share what I thought the “nub” was that you inferred nicely, but didn’t say (and anyone who doesn’t read won’t have gotten):

    Tree rings are important because they’re used to show that recent warming is unprecedented, and therefore clearly caused by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere. But tree rings have NOT been reliable thermometers for the last 50 years, when we have real thermometers to compare them to – so there is no basis for assuming they were reliable for the past 2,000 years. If it was as warm then as it is now, then it’s not clear that CO2 released by humans is responsible for the recent warming. Tree rings are unreliable thermometers, the Climategate emails show scientists trying to conceal this problem. It matters.

  153. Sean Peake permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:07 pm

    Steve, as your site is redesigned is it possible to add “reply to” links?

    Also when do you appear on Fox?

  154. Tom C permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:30 pm

    Steve -

    Good job. I’m glad you brought up the fact the real battleground is MWP vs. modern and that Briffa privately admitted to the MWP while publicly participating in denouncing Soon and Baliunas and any others who doubted MBH and progeny. I believe that this is actually the most damming of all the E-mails and it needs to be hammered home whenever possible. Hardly anyone beyond CA regulars understands the MWP backstory and the centrality to all the AGW issues.

  155. MrPete permalink*
    December 8, 2009 6:34 pm

    Please visit http://www.ClimateAudit.org :)

  156. December 8, 2009 6:37 pm

    dirac_delta, I completely agree. As a PhD student and then an in house patent manager, I have seen more bad data than one can think possible. Let me also add that, FOI or no FOI, scientists in fact are paranoid about sharing data. And I am not at all surprised by Mann, Jones et al – few big name scientists are truly dedicated to science, many are ego maniacs (and most in fact have plenty of money – wonder what Mann et al’s carbon footprint is) and petty rivalries are very common – their boys club mentality will put any sports team to shame. Instead of calling out this bad behaviour, we are told it is “usual”.

    I have a few friends who work in climate science and have done so for years. There has long been an interest in predicting climate and as a research area that is fine. The research has however never been as clear cut as portrayed, in fact all have had to deal with numerous setbacks due to contradictory data. It used to be an important but small area of research till it got hijacked, acquired a moral tone and generally went ballistic. Hopefully the email leaks will set off a process that will correct a distorted picture.

  157. December 8, 2009 6:38 pm

    I may be wrong here, but regarding the quote about how 2500 ‘other’ UN scientists agreed – Wasn’t Steve McIntyre one of those? Might be a good rebuttal to remember next time it comes up (which is always seems to). They always make is sound so ‘unanimous’, which is obviously wasn’t and still isn’t.

  158. December 8, 2009 6:40 pm

    Mr Pete;
    Thanks for all the work.
    It must be a bit like the sound engineer at a public event;
    a perfect job is when no one says anything.
    But if there is one episode of audio feedback, yikes!

    Clicked your link, no cigar yet.
    TL

  159. December 8, 2009 6:53 pm

    Also I think it is important to note you don’t need a conspiracy to get a group of people to act in unison. There are many UFO sightings every year, and these people probably don’t have conference calls. If you believe in something hard enough eventually you will see it. That is especially true is noisy data.

    That said, this does seem more like a ‘worldwide conspiracy’ in the literal sense that the email show people from different places in the world agreeing to present data in a way that looked extreme. I don’t think it fits the definition in the layman’s sense though — what people don’t realize how few people are involved in creating the hockey stick graph.

    If you present the hockey stick graph to 25 million scientists and say, “this data is correct, do you see a problem”, they will all see a problem (even if it is upside down!). Steve’s point is the graph isn’t correct, or at least is isn’t a the result of good science/math. You can show the graph with the actual proxy data, including the MWP and LLT, remove the grafted temp data, and then ask the same question. Problem? Mmm, not so much.

  160. Richard permalink
    December 8, 2009 6:58 pm

    Steve,
    I think many people have misunderstood your position. Although you have been “officially” labelled as a skeptic I get the feeling your position is more undecided? I get the impression you simply want the team to come clean about the level of uncertainty in the science and you do not have any grand statements to make about whether or whether or not there is AGW etc…

    It is ironic, the team is so distraught that you have been poring over the details of their statistics, that they have not noticed that you do not have an axe to grind!

    I hope the CNN appearance has had a positive effect on your business!

  161. Jeremy permalink
    December 8, 2009 7:00 pm

    I prefer Steve’s method of talking to any of the others, and I have a feeling his words as presented will stick in the mind better than everyone rattling off talking points in aggressive fashion.

    Real people who think when they watch the news will tell you that regardless of political leanings, they prefer PBS’ News Hour, not because of the personalities, but because of the real-life discussion. Steve was a good example of this on a for-profit 24-hour news station trying to present a biased view.

    It’s a drop in the bucket, but I would bet real money it will/would have more affect on those who think (assuming they ever watch 24 hour news networks) than anything any of the other guys said.

  162. MrPete permalink*
    December 8, 2009 7:10 pm

    If the new doesn’t work, try http://climateaudit.wordpress.com

  163. DoJo permalink
    December 8, 2009 7:17 pm

    By just being himself, I thought Steve put across the sceptical viewpoint in exactly the way it needs to be presented at the moment. It was in stark contrast to the infamous ‘asshole’ debate between Prof. Andrew Watson and Marc Murano on the BBC’s Newsnight. In that example, I’m pretty sure the general view of a non-partisan viewer would have been in favour of the professor, however irritable and complacent he may have been.

    I would favour the long game of Steve’s authentic ‘still, small voice’ over Morano’s slick soundbites any day. That said, it’s horses for courses and probably both approaches have their uses.

  164. icman permalink
    December 8, 2009 7:24 pm

    climateaudit.com is working now for me. If it doesn’t try flushing your dns

  165. December 8, 2009 7:25 pm

    Steve,

    I’ve reviewed the video a couple times, and my conclusion is you came across as the most unbiased and rational member of the panel. At no point did I suspect you of trying to sell me a used car, which is something I can’t say for the other members of the group (even the moderator.)

    All I can say is keep up the good work; perhaps discussing the complicated nature of the issues involved with the editors will allow you to expand upon the deeper issues involved in the “problem.”

  166. icman permalink
    December 8, 2009 7:26 pm

    stupid, climateaudit.org works, the other site, nevermind.

  167. Dave Dardinger permalink
    December 8, 2009 7:29 pm

    MrPete,

    That doesn’t work either, but I didn’t expect it would. The thing is that the internet has many nodes and when a new site (even if the “name” is the same) comes up, the info about the site has to be sent to the node a person’s request goes through before it can identify the site and pass the request on. This takes a few hours to a day generally. I won’t worry about it until a day or so passes.

  168. December 8, 2009 7:39 pm

    Looks Like DNS registrar propagation is the issue. some .org roots show nsX.wordpress.com as authoritative, some still show the old ns.

  169. Dave Dardinger permalink
    December 8, 2009 7:49 pm

    Iceman,

    Well, I looked up how to flush my DNS, but when I tried, it told me I had to be elevated, which I presume means I need to log in as an admin. I probably ought to know what my admin password is on my computer, but I’ve forgot. So I’m inclined to wait till the system flushes itself rather than waste time trying to find it. Thanks anyway.

  170. vic permalink
    December 8, 2009 7:54 pm

    off topic

    but has anyone seen this BBC article

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm

    I thought it was hilarious and symptomatic of the kind of science the IPCC does!

    The glaciers are melting, the glaciers are melting, head for the hills!

  171. Ted Swart permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:04 pm

    Geronimo suggests quite rightly that the AGW proponents were not involved in a conspiracy but that it was a case of folie a pleusiers. But try as I might I could not find the expression in any dictionary. So I consulted with my French speaking friends who all said they knew no such phrase. They said that the most appropriate expression was probably folie furieuse — which means raging madness and sounds a little strong to me..
    I hope we can all agree that there was no actual conspiracy but rather a small group of scientists “whose work was taken at face value by the rest of the scientific community”– who then reveled in all the attention. And this led to widespread collusion — which is a much better word than conspiracy.
    At the moment I have a real problem. Finding any truly robust truths in the world of climate sciecne is often like seeking a needle in a hay stack. But I did think that one such truth was the absence of any warming over the last decade. Perhaps the strongest evidence for this was right there in the leaked emails which agreed there was no warming and indicated that the AGW proponents were at a loss to explain this absence of warming.
    But now, in the midst of Copenhagen there are some claims floating around to the effect the warming continued unabated. Could someone please rescue me.

  172. Sean Peake permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:07 pm

    The end is nigh. Repent
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/07/balog.extreme.ice/index.html

  173. Dave Dardinger permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:25 pm

    Sean,

    It’s interesting to note how all the extreme warmers have this same meme that their grandchildren will ask them why they didn’t do something about Global Warming while there was a chance? The possibility that they might instead ask, “Why did you fall for such an obvious scam?” never seems to come to mind.

  174. will permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:37 pm

    With all due respect, the science ‘part’ is past. It wasn’t honest, and it was criminal, but Gore is no dummy. If one wishes to remain on the dais, Oppenheimer’s model is a salient one, and effective. This is 100 Percent political now, and has been for some time. This is my field, and whether you admit it or not, my effort is to awaken those whose goal is to stop the madness of AGW. It does not repose in rehashing the fine work of a brave science, rather it requires an effort to present the kind of work that people will understand in three bullets and keep pace with very well paid shills. I’d say we have some work to do.

  175. richard clenney permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:48 pm

    Just my take; I thought you did VERY good! You presented calm reason,
    something lacking in some others. I would like to see someone, anyone,
    burn the straw man of” You don’t think the Earth is warming”. That is
    not the issue, never has been; what part, if any, does humanity play
    in changing the climate? I still, after the US has spent $70 BILLION on climate research, do not know the answer. My hat is off to you, Steve( tip jar soon!).Illigitimus non carborundum!

  176. Stuart permalink
    December 8, 2009 8:48 pm

    Some interesting statements from physicists (of which I am one):

    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/08/taking_liberties/entry5933353.shtml

    Princeton University’s Robert Austin:

    I view it as science fraud, pure and simple, and that we should completely distance ourselves from such unethical behavior by CRU, and that data files be opened to the public and examined in the full light of day. We as taxpayers pay for that work — we are owed examination of the analysis.

    Princeton University’s William Happer:

    The APS has not responded to our petition. We submitted the petition several weeks ago… Prof. Callan, the president elect of the APS, who works in the same building in Princeton University as Professor Austin and I, has been unable to find time to discuss the petition with us.

    We have independently contacted as many members of the APS as we can to ask for their support of the petition. We are getting about as many supportive as negative responses, so I would judge that about half the membership of the APS agrees with us. Those who oppose us usually have little or nothing to say about the science and plenty of things to say about what evil people we are. Those who agree with us are troubled by the lack of scientific support for the current APS statement and the highly political nature of it.

    Hal Lewis of the University of California, Santa Barbara:

    I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.

    So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it’s easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don’t bother you — you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.

    So it isn’t simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative
    game.

  177. December 8, 2009 9:42 pm

    I only saw the 8:16 minute version on watts up with that. I thought Steve came across well. The segment had been introduced with a somewhat loaded presenter’s comment that the last decade was the warmest on record. But Steve at a later point cited the Medieval Warm Period and explained that this was as warm if not warmer than today. That was a telling moment for the viewer. Steve’s position was acknowledged by the presenter as ‘nuanced’. He was calm and measured in his comments. He did not advocate total rejection of any AGW or of all emission reduction schemes. He did not imply that all climatologists were part of a global conspiracy. His comments were quite consistent with the actual state of affairs – an over-influential clique of climatologists had used unacceptable practices to spread alarmism. And that is quite serious enough.

  178. Michael Larkin permalink
    December 8, 2009 9:46 pm

    Dear Mr. McIntyre,

    Reading some of the prior comments, I was concerned that the video was a hatchet job. But now I’ve looked at it, I was really pleased to find that you came across so well, just as on the Finnish video. I’m not just saying that. Joe Public will have duly noted your calm and reliance on the science.

    Please don’t listen to anyone who suggests that you should do anything different. Being yourself is the best ploy, because your integrity and sincerity shine through; people really do register that kind of thing.

    All in all, the whole programme was much better than I expected, and better than anything I have seen broadcast here in the UK on the MSM, unless I’ve missed something. I am optimistic; the wheels are falling off the so-called consensus, and it may not be too long before something nearer the truth, whatever that might turn out to be, is established.

  179. December 8, 2009 9:48 pm

    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.

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

    It’s lamentable, (indeed infuriating) but I don’t think it can be explained to Campbell Brown in a twenty second sound-bite.

    Dave

  180. December 8, 2009 9:53 pm

    Annabelle wrote:
    >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.

    How about this as a media quote:
    “Even scientists, who are supposed to be skeptical and think for themselves, can show a herd mentality when one guy makes a mistake and others innocently follow along with him without ever catching the original mistake.”

    After all, something like this is probably what happened on global warming: I know they ended up lying through their teeth, but they probably did not start out that way. It probably just started as over-hyping of surprising preliminary results, etc.

    I also agree with TAG on using the dot-com bubble as an example:
    “Scientists are no more immune to making mistakes as a group than the millions of investors who lost billions in the dot-com fiasco.”

    The two (truthful) memes I am trying to spread around the Web are:

    “They lied through their teeth when they said it was *settled* science.”

    “This is the worst scientific fraud since Lysenkoism.”

    Both these and my media quotes above are all quite true, but my guess is that Campbell Brown et al. would be more receptive to my earlier “media” quotes. I’d suggest the two latter sound-bites for friends, neighbors, co-workers, relatives, etc.

    I’m interested in other’s suggestions as to brief, true sound-bites we can all use on the Web and in the real world.

    By the way, did anyone else notice how uncomfortable Anderson Cooper looked when Bill Nye, the Pseudo-Science Guy made a fool of himself? These media types may not know science, but they do have to have some sort of built-in BS detector to do their job at all.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

  181. December 8, 2009 10:12 pm

    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.”

  182. MrPete permalink*
    December 8, 2009 10:20 pm

    Folks, pleeeeze visit http://www.climateaudit.org aka climateaudit.wordpress.com — this mirror site is now obsolete. All comments here will eventually disappear!

    Thanks so much

  183. Davesix permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:43 pm

    In the future, I’d focus on two themes:
    1. Data corruption and manipulation, lack of tranparency, history of obstruction to your FOI requests.
    2. The fundamental inability of the models to act as reliable predictors.

    Make certain that your qualifications as a statistician and expert in the science of prediction are presented by the host in the process of introducing you.

    You will then then free to “make nice” about the CRU and other scientists while presenting them as naifs about the science of prediction, which, of course, they are.

    You’ll kill them.

  184. bender permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:52 pm

    Mr Pete,
    That site doesn’t work for me. I’ll refrain from commenting until it starts working.

  185. Davesix permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:54 pm

    I’m going to repeat a portion of my post, in which I wrote,
    “Make certain that your qualifications as a statistician and expert in the science of prediction are presented by the host in the process of introducing you.”

    This is critical, especially in a forum like Foxnews or CNN, where your ability to make your case is limited to initial statements, and where your ability to qualify your position is limited by your obligation to answer the host’s questions, which reflect the host’s biases, of course; the premise of which you abandon at your peril, unless you disagree with it explicitly, which I recommend.

  186. jim permalink
    December 8, 2009 10:57 pm

    The links to climateaudit.org and climateaudit.wordpress.com are not working for me.

  187. December 8, 2009 11:37 pm

    Both links are not working, please update.

    Nuno

  188. James Lane permalink
    December 9, 2009 12:16 am

    I thought you spoke very well, Steve.

  189. December 9, 2009 1:47 am

    In an open debate situation, it seems that the “RealClimate team” simply won’t want to take part in any kind of discussion unless they can be sure that the moderator side (in this case, CNN) is known to be biased towards their side, giving them final say over matters.

    When could we expect a good debate between, say, a handful of RC’s writers and a handful of CA’s writers? I assume the CA team is ready and willing to take part at any time, but it’s a problem with the RC folks and they don’t want any participation on any site that publicizes all relevant comments.

    Mann, Briffa, Trenberth, Wigley, et al vs. a comparable team from CA would be great to see and read. How could we make it happen?

    ps. New site links don’t work for me either.

  190. Ted Swart permalink
    December 9, 2009 1:53 am

    I thought everyone was agreed that there was a significant temperature rise on Earth until about 1998 and that since then there has been no notable temperature rise — and this goes for both AGW supporters and those who have grave reservations about the notion that human caused increases in the CO2 content of the atmosphere are the major cause of the temperature ris.e.
    But the UK met office now contends that the most recent decade was the warmest in history. Ar they just brazenly blowing hot air or am I missing something?

  191. hamletxi permalink
    December 9, 2009 3:08 am

    Sauli Sarkka.
    I think you have exactly the right idea. There should be nothing in the way of such a debate. If not Mann and close colleges at least someone that can speak to all their work. This debate has never taken place at the IPCC as far we know. The weight that has given global warming and the resources that would need to be used demand open public debate. Progress has not yet allowed open public debate on any issue. Its about time if anyone is to stand by saying “this is a global problem that needs a global solution.” Cant we start a online global petition for this debate?

  192. LMB permalink
    December 9, 2009 6:29 am

    John Roberts is back in New York for CNN this morning.

    Let me get this straight. He went all the way to the UK for one interview with Phil Jones’s replacement so CNN could “dig deeper” into Climategate and then came home?

    CNN’s investigative journalism doesn’t come from its anchors, does it? Where is Drew Griffin?

    P.S. Why didn’t Roberts go to Copenhagen?

  193. EdBhoy permalink
    December 9, 2009 7:40 am

    Ted
    The temperature was at the top of the curve from 1998 to around 2001. The temperatures prior to 1998 were generally lower that the temperatures since 2001 so the 2000s are higher on average than the 1990s. It has been obvious for some time that this would be the case but the trend since 2001 remains negative for the UAH data which is the data I trust most. The bottom line is that the temperature now is lower than in 1998, although 1998 was anomalously warm due to the super El Nino that year. We are in an El nino phase again now so matters are slightly complicated.
    Ed

  194. Todd permalink
    December 9, 2009 9:08 am

    I don’t know if it is just my ISP (Cox) or if something went awry with the DNS changes, but I keep getting redirected when I try to load your new or old site. Just an FYI…

  195. Ted Swart permalink
    December 9, 2009 11:45 am

    Thanks EdBhoy. I understand everything you have written but on thinking further about it I now realize that the met office in the UK could well be right about their claim that the most recent decade was warm to an extent that stands out from the crowd. If, as all of us both pro and con AGW agree, 1998 was an unusually warm year, then the last ten ears or so might well, in a collective sense,s tand out form the crowd — since there was no overall rise and, at best, a small decline.
    This seems typical of AGW proponents. In order to keep their convictions alive they shift tack from warming to being warm.

  196. MikeE permalink
    December 10, 2009 4:44 am

    I liked your “nuanced” comment, and at least the presenter had the grace to pick up on this.

    From my very limited experience on live radio (not on this topic), I know that they always seem to want to rush you into saying something, and it is quite difficult for the truly thoughtful person to say what they want and need to say. It’s all very well coming ready with your “three bullet points”, but the danger then is of oversimplifying. Such is the media; soundbite science.

    You did well given the very limited time allotted. You really need a longer time slot in a more relaxed atmosphere to do justice to this subject.

  197. Ted Swart permalink
    December 11, 2009 10:59 am

    My apologies Geronimo. Another French speaking friend now tells me the full story about folie a plusieurs See below:

    Folie à deux (English pronunciation: /fɒˈli ə ˈduː/, from the French for “a madness shared by two”) is a rare psychiatric syndrome in which a symptom of psychosis (particularly a paranoid or delusional belief) is transmitted from one individual to another. The same syndrome shared by more than two people may be called folie à trois, folie à quatre, folie en famille or even folie à plusieurs (“madness of many”). Recent psychiatric classifications refer to the syndrome as shared psychotic disorder (DSM-IV) (297.3) and induced delusional disorder (F.24) in the ICD-10, although the research literature largely uses the original name.

    How beautifully apt a choice of phrase on your part Geronimo.

  198. July 27, 2013 10:22 am

    Hi there are using WordPress for your site platform? I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying to get started and create my own.
    Do you require any html coding expertise to make your
    own blog? Any help would be really appreciated!

  199. August 2, 2013 11:50 am

    However, there are several online interfaces available where one needs to click on
    different types of options to send HTML code in email or to
    generate HTML code. For professional web site builders extra complex laptop
    software program for net design is needed. We saw earlier that we
    could, through links to email addresses, contact directly with an email.

  200. August 2, 2013 5:01 pm

    Now, there are hundreds of programs available ranging
    from free to hundreds of dollars, including everything from
    a bare bones setup to an all inclusive image editing suit.

    It won’t take you extremely long to work out what way to employ it. Net’s builder has
    been out for a little more than a year, yet it already helped more
    than 5,000 webmasters to create their online forms.

  201. October 6, 2013 7:54 pm

    I just like the valuable information you provide for your articles.
    I’ll bookmark your blog and test once more here regularly.
    I am somewhat sure I’ll be informed a lot of new stuff
    proper right here! Good luck for the next!

  202. December 6, 2013 8:48 pm

    I was pretty pleased to uncover this page. I want to to thank you for ones time for this wonderful read!!
    I definitely really liked every part of it and i also have
    you bookmarked to look at new things in your web site.

Trackbacks

  1. McIntyre on CNN « the Air Vent

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: