We have a new and hopefully final home. It has been a very big and complicated job moving climateaudit.org with its nearly 2000 threads, over 200,000 comments, plus images, data, scripts to wordpress.com, which has large enough facilities to prevent the chronic server problems that plagued climateaudit as a standalone server operated on the budget that I was prepared to afford.
What substantially complicated the move was our desire to preserve the very large number of links to existing climateaudit images and threads (which I’m told create a subterranean draw and which we didn’t want to disconnect.) Anthony, Mr Pete and John A all contributed to the move, which was accomplished during a period when I was otherwise occupied so to speak. I’m very grateful to them. WordPress.com went several extra yards to accommodate the move and I’m very grateful to their staff as well. We think the old addresses are all pointing to the new addresses – let us know if you have any problems.
Off to our new quarters at climateaudit.wordpress.com
[Note: the www.climateaudit.org address should automatically take you there too – Anthony]
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.
An excellent analysis of whether the CRU zipfile was “hacked” or “leaked” here, arguing for a combination of a dossier prepared by the university in relation to potential FOI responsibilities (though not necessarily FOI requests in hand) and discovery of the dossier by someone at the university who released it to the outside world – very much along the lines hypothesized by Charles the Moderator of WUWT, but substantially fleshed out.
This is a detailed analysis, unlike IPCC allegations of attacks by the Russian secret service (their version of “A miracle occurred”).
Michael Schlesinger, apparently oblivious to the adverse public reaction to behavior of CRU scientists, threatened Andy Revkin of the New York Times with the “Big Cutoff”. Schlesinger’s email expressed particular annoyance that this was the second time in a week that he had had to give directions to Revkin, an earlier email having instructed Revkin not to give space in his blog to the Pielkes.
. Read more…
First, the bad news. I lost in the final of the Canadian “Century” doubles squash championships today. I played a good semi-final yesterday and not so well today.
I’ve agreed to appear on Campbell Brown, CNN tomorrow. Normally they don’t take an interest in doubles squash, but these are unusual times, I guess. I presume that they’re interested in my take on the squash matches over the weekend. Also, the respective merits of three-wall nicks versus reverse corners.
Also, I was taped last week by Fox News for a documentary which (I think) will be on this week. They interviewed me for a couple of hours. This was before the weekend squash tournament and they were interested in climate rather than squash. They were in Toronto for the Munk Debates and also interviewed George Monbiot (who I had a very pleasant cup of coffee with off both our records) and others. They were very well prepared – far more than anyone else. They knew (and asked) about such esoterica as the Starbucks Hypothesis. I’m not experienced in this type of interview and I’m sure that my answers were invariably too dull. We’ll see.
Obviously, there’s been lots of coverage on Climategate. Jon Stewart’s commentary on the Daily Show neatly rebutted spin by Gavin Schmidt on the “trick”, on the availability of “value added” data and closing with a sensible moral: don’t cut corners. It’s too bad that he wasn’t on the case with Upside Down Mann, where, at a certain point, the only reasonable discussion was satire.
There are many other interesting commentaries, but Jon Stewart’s is on point for Climate Audit issues.
James Delingpole is one of the first to observe the Climategate phenomenon as “uber-viral” – a story where there is much larger internet exposure than MSM exposure.
Citing Richard North, he compares the number of Google hits to the number of Google News hits for phrases of interest, comparing, for example, “Climategate”, a word that did not exist 14 days ago, to “Tiger Woods”, who has been adding to his celebrity in unexpected ways.
Updating the comparisons, “Climategate” has 32,000,000 google hits as compared to 4,080 news stories (Google), while “Tiger Woods” has 29,500,000 google hits with 54,018 news stories (Google). Although Tiger has over 10 times as many news stories, Climategate (remarkably) has more google hits than Tiger Woods (and many other famous search items e.g. Britney Spears, NFL, NBA or for that matter “climate”).
“IPCC” has 1,320,000 Google hits and 7,839 news stories (Google). If nothing else, the numbers show an extraordinarily intense interest in this story in the blogosphere, with increasing news media interest.