Skip to content


This website is a secondary mirror website for operated by Steve McIntyre

It is used for high traffic situation where the main server is overwhelmed.

26 Comments leave one →
  1. Brianofthecam permalink
    November 21, 2009 6:17 pm

    The replying letter from the CRU contains an awful lot of words in refusing the FOI request when, for its part, just one would have done! It is so often the case when trying to get past officialdom. In the UK, we have the Anti-terrorist Act, which covers just about anything from from the feeding of ducks to running in the subway. Clearly, we have another and more worrying inconvenient truth to hand.

  2. John Charles permalink
    November 23, 2009 11:37 pm

    Iowahawk Geographic: The Secret Life of Climate Researchers

    Our very planet depends on them. Yet they remain nature’s most elusive scientific species, inhabiting some of the world’s most delicate and daunting academic environments. But thanks to new breakthroughs in high speed cameras and email files, metascientists are finally beginning to understand their mysterious behaviors and complex social interactions. Tonight on Iowahawk Geographic: step inside the Secret Life of the Climate Researchers.

    French Horn Fanfare Theme
    Fast-cut montage of walrus mating with polar bear, astronomer peering through telescope into neighbor’s window, cheetahs chasing penguins on the Serengeti, scientists filling out NSF grant proposals
    Dah dat dat DAAAH dat, dah daht duh dah dee-dah dee dah-dah!

    In the post-MSM period, ridicule is a most effective technique.

  3. John Bell permalink
    November 24, 2009 3:54 am

    Not sure what this email is about but it doesn’t sound very good.

    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    To: Tim Osborn
    Subject: Re: reconstruction errors
    Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400

    Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks
    back to:
    AD 1000
    AD 1400
    AD 1600
    I can’t find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you’ll see that the
    residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd
    case–its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can’t seem to dig them
    up. In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600–its pretty clear that key
    predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably
    larger uncertainties farther back…
    You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files.
    I can’t even remember what the other columns are!
    Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
    p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on
    this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So
    please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of
    “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try
    to distort things…

    Steve: Yes, I noticed that one and will post on it specifically. So much to do…

  4. Antonio San permalink
    November 24, 2009 8:18 pm

    Steve the Hockey Stick is back and the story unapologetic…

  5. Kevin B permalink
    November 25, 2009 3:32 am


    This is an extract from a email sent by Phil Jones to Bejamin Santer dated Nov 12 2008. My apologies if you’ve already seen it.

    At 03:57 12/11/2008, you wrote:

    Dear Tom,
    Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre’s twin requests under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre’s request (1), no “monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models” was “sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008”.
    As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him yesterday, all of the
    raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr.McIntyre wishes to audit us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paperare sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing Mr.McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the very purpose of an audit.
    I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our calculation of
    synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data. Douglass et al. obtained “model average” trends in synthetic MSU temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually identical to our own.
    McIntyre’s request (2) demands “any correspondence concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008”. I do not know how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante) probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of ourwork on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December 2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I have no idea why McIntyre’s request for email correspondence has a “start date” of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al.
    My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive and
    unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or
    explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strategy
    to divert my attention and focus away from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed by further requests for computer programs, additional material and
    explanations, etc., etc.
    Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing the serious
    scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am unwilling to waste more of my
    time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme
    irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the
    Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect conclusions on the basis of
    that flawed test.
    I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific
    discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to
    conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an “audit” by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.
    I will be consulting LLNL’s Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming.
    I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my immediate
    superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in charge of our paper at IJoC).
    I’d be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I’m sorry that the tone of
    this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today’s events, I must assume that
    any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre’s “Climate Audit” website.
    With best personal wishes,

  6. Matt permalink
    November 25, 2009 10:02 am


    without the question/request these are replies to, they are not meaningful AT ALL.

    It could be “did you delete data in relation to A” in case of the first reply.
    It could be “did you delete data in relation to B” in case of the second reply.

    You know that, it’s not that difficult. So unless these opposing replies address the same question, your post has no meaning. Do you mind filling the gap? Thanks.


  7. PaulS permalink
    November 25, 2009 7:08 pm

    Steve, not sure where to post this, but I would like some advice please!

    I have been looking at several sets of data at NCDC. I have spotted a commonality in most studied so far (not many, as I have just started). The commonality appears to be data recored in early years (early 1900’s for example) have regular TMIN and TMAX information, however, the later years (1990 onwards for example) have regular info for TMAX, but not TMIN.

    Can anyone give a reasonable insight as to why this would be and, if it has any effect on deriving mean temperatures?

    Many thanks!

  8. Roger Carr permalink
    November 27, 2009 1:05 am

    Would you blacken up the type some, Steve?
    I find it too pale to read quickly and comfortably.
    Your other site, and Anthony Watts’ site being black on white are much easier to work through.

  9. A Mullen permalink
    November 27, 2009 11:35 pm

    “I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. ” Benjamin Santer

    Everything I have seen before and following the Hadley disclosures confirms this.
    You, Mr. McIntyre, are an arse!

  10. Shona permalink
    November 29, 2009 6:21 am

    The segment is number 03 and the graph is about 1min 56

    He cites Moberg (canny from UEA published in Nature …)

  11. Shona permalink
    November 29, 2009 6:25 am

    He discusses tree density from about 3:38

    I take back everything I said about treemometers: they really do work as long as you look at what they really do and not “hide the decline”

  12. December 2, 2009 5:55 pm

    Interview Request for Steve McIntyre.

    Is it okay to send you a few questions. A few links to my articles are provided in the Website. Please advise. Thanks!

  13. editions du seuil permalink
    December 3, 2009 3:51 pm

    I am a french picture researcher. I would like to send you a reproduction authorization request for Seuil publisher in Paris. Would you be so kind as to let me know an e-mail adress where to contact you.
    Thank you very much in advance.

  14. J B Micawber permalink
    December 4, 2009 5:57 am

    Here are three abstracts of our papers rejected by JGR, Nature and EOS all journals previously published my work.
    Perhaps it illustrates the closed nature of the climate community and inability to conduct fieldwork to assess problems
    SST IN THREE ABSTRACTS with buckets etc

    Abstract 1
    Discrepancies between two major instrumental tropical Pacific Sea Surface Temperature (SST) datasets approximately coincided with changes in measurement methods from buckets to engine seawater intake (SWI) to satellite and buoy measurements. These data sets are important for ENSO climate trends. We report collection and analysis of hourly SST data from buckets, SWI, full meteorological data, and noon CTD profiles in central Pacific between Marquesas and Hawaiian Islands, May-June 2008. Eighteen observers simulated many archived-data observers. Related satellite, moored and drifting buoy, and Voluntary Observer Ships (VOS) data were obtained for comparison. Differences between wood, canvas and rubber bucket SSTs were insignificant for all 311 records in all conditions, day or night. No evaporative cooling was seen for canvas buckets, consistent with short sample time ~<1 minute and high humidity ~80%. SWI temperatures were 0.3oC±0.2oC cooler than bucket temperatures consistent with the ~3m intake depth, confirmed by noon CTD profiles. Buoy and VOS data were too few to be conclusive but in general agreed with bucket data. There were no differences between moored or drifting buoy data. Later OSTIA datasets including satellite data were in general agreement with bucket temperatures. A surprising weak correlation of 0.24 was observed between bucket SST and dry bulb air temperature. Some archived canvas bucket data were adjusted for evaporative cooling, and archived SWI data adjusted for engine room heating ~0.3oC-0.7oC. We conclude that neither adjustment was justified. Engine room heating is physically unlikely and unproven.
    Our field work suggests that discrepancies in sea surface temperature data sets are likely to be found in seawater intake temperature data because bucket and satellite data were found to be in broad general agreement. However, we have shown engine room warming cited as a possible source of seawater intake temperature data error to be negligibly small and the cause of the statistically derived bias remains unclear.

    Abstract 2
    It is reported that an abrupt temperature drop of ~0.3oC in 1945 in data sets used to monitor Earth’s climate may be due to uncorrected biases in sea the surface temperature record from engine room warming of seawater intake1. Seawater intake temperature is used in place of sea surface temperature based on a well-mixed 10m surface layer and suggested warming is based on statistical analysis of simultaneous bucket and seawater intake data 2,3,4,5,6,7. Oceanographic reports suggest engine room warming is not proven and that accuracy of measurement, depth of intake and near-surface thermocline are most important 8,9,10,11,12. Seawater intake depth was not recorded until 1995 and even then by untrained, non-scientist observers 13. Engine room warming and assumption of a 10m well-mixed ocean surface has not been tested by experiment. We show from physical and engineering principles and practical experience that engine room warming is negligible and assumption of a 10m well-mixed ocean is invalid with reported near-surface thermocline gradients ~-0.01-0.3oCm-1. Near-surface thermocline and halocline data contain valuable information and may allow computations of rates of evaporation, precipitation, runoff and ice melt but are poorly studied 14. We suggest that large discontinuities in the mid-twentieth century record may be resolved by completely removing sub-sea surface observations, and that scientists should collect and analyse detailed near-surface salinity-temperature-depth data as priority ground truth for climate change assessment and modelling.

    Abstract 3
    Corrections for non-existent engine room warming of seawater intake (SWI) temperatures caused discrepancies between climate models and probably missed a major shift in sea temperatures. Multidisciplinary Eos brought the climate model problem to our attention. Vecchi et al [2008] report US models indicate more El Niño-like conditions; UK more La Niña-like. This is attributed to transition between surface seawater temperature (SST) measurement methods from buckets to SWI to modern satellite and buoys. SWI engine room warming and evaporative cooling in buckets were suggested errors. As a retired multidisciplinary experimental geophysicist and undergraduate student interested in climate change, we applied Newtonian experimental physics. Experimental data comprising 311 hourly measurements of SST by many methods with simultaneous meteorological and oceanographic data in central Pacific between Tahiti and Hawaii were analysed. There was good agreement between all buckets and modern near-simultaneous constructed satellite-buoy datasets within the limits of monthly averages over 1 degree latitude and longitude. Evaporative cooling was absent due to humidity ~80% and less than 1min sampling times. Engine room heating is impossible with ~1second time to intake thermometers and high volumes. A thermocline depth of 5m with gradient -0.1oC per meter was found. Average correlation between SST and marine air temperature (MAT) was ~0.24. Climate models assume well-mixed ocean to 10m and substitute MAT for SST. Neither assumption was supported by field data. We suggest this arose from reliance on statistical analysis of data from non-professional observers on World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) Voluntary Observing Ships (VOS) scheme and ships’ logs, lack of ground truth and absence of communication across geophysical sciences and peer-review in narrow specialist disciplines. The depth of SWI was not recorded from 1955 to 1995 so is useless as measurement of SST. Peer-review becomes crony-review in very narrow disciplines. Thus wrong assumptions can propagate and appear in text books without challenge from close colleagues. Large numbers of authors may also inhibit challenges. We believe the solution is broad training in Newtonian physics and applied mathematics coupled with multi-disciplinary study, field and laboratory work and a return to scientific method. Theory, experiment, analysis and further refinement is essential. We cite examples of multidisciplinary education and focussed well-managed cross-disciplinary research programs. If basic misconceptions arise when we know the equations, how much more difficult it will be when tackling complex earth systems problems? Climate change is too important to be left to climatologists. We need well managed and funded, tightly-focussed multidisciplinary programs using investigators from many disciplines working cooperatively in future.

    Vecchi, G. A., A. Clement, and B. J. Soden (2008), Examining the tropical Pacific’s response to global warming, EOS, 89(9), 81, 83.

  15. P-Y B permalink
    December 8, 2009 11:18 pm

    Somebody should hook up with this professor Courtillot, he is great at explaining the science and he got the same treatment from CRU and HAD as other skeptics got and he was a believer. Too bad for them (CRU, HAD and the IPCC ), they started doing their own research and came to the same conclusion, that the data from them is corrupted. He use to believe them, now his team of researchers are opening their horizons to new ideas and fields of research. I think a lot of professors and researchers will abandon the IPCC and we will see in the next few years a different climate (no pun intended) in the supposedly settled science of climate research. the debate will open up slowly but surely. There is too many people trying to save face right now and are in denial of the reality and magnitude of this fraud for it to change at this time. Anyway, if you’re good enough in french it’s a very good lecture. There’s hope.

  16. SteveN permalink
    December 9, 2009 12:29 am

    The links to the new site are broken. Both and the lead to unresolved addresses.

  17. December 9, 2009 1:06 am

    SteveN The links to the new site are broken. Both and the lead to unresolved addresses.

    The same for me.

  18. sdlawrence permalink
    December 9, 2009 1:39 am

    Hey, have you been hacked? No DNS records for It would make sense if you were hacked. The “hacked” emails exposed information. A hack on your site would be to censor information – completely fitting with the pattern.

    WHAT IS GOING ON WITH CLIMATEAUDIT.ORG? I can’t ping it, nothing. It’s as if it doesn’t exist (except as a Google search result that takes you nowhere).

  19. Paul permalink
    December 9, 2009 2:12 am


    Still not able to access via mirror site,, google or hahoo.

  20. Likelylass permalink
    December 9, 2009 9:29 am

    Cannot access your new site. Which is not good. Hope you get up and running soon.

  21. Peter J. McMillan permalink
    December 9, 2009 10:24 am

    Can someone explain to me why it is believed that increased temperatures follow increased C02 emissions and not the other way around?

    Surely temperature and C02 are two entirely different animals and the only thing that ties them together are correlation events.

    But that still doesn’t explain which came first: the chicken or the egg.

  22. Steven Douglas permalink
    December 10, 2009 3:28 am

    Warmists/alarmists don’t necessarily believe that temperatures follow CO2 increases. The more “political and propaganda oriented” (Algore, I’m looking in your direction) would like to imply that correlation equals causation, but no serious scientist, event those in the believers camp, would ever try to sell that to anyone. They’d instantly lose all credibility.

    What they do believe is best summed up, I think, by a recent article by Richard Lindzen (facts not in controversy, so warmists shouldn’t object):

    “…current climate models [of AGW proponents like, Hansen et al] predict much higher sensitivities…because in these models, the main greenhouse substances (water vapor and clouds) act to amplify anything that CO2 does. This is referred to as positive feedback.”

    In other words, the tail (minor greehouse gas called CO2) is said to wag the dog (major greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds).

    The entire controversy over AGW theory and predictive climate models centers around climate “sensitivity” and the notion that water vapor and clouds act as a positive, and not negative, feedbacks (ALL current climate models have strong positive feedbacks built into them as governing assumptions – NOT ONE considers the possibility of clouds and water vapor as a negative feedback – even though there is no clear empirical evidence to support this assumption).

    In short, AGW proponents believe that the earth’s climate is highly sensitive (easily riled – an anthropomorphic projection?), and thoroughly dominated by positive feedbacks (which is where we get talk of “tipping points” and “spiral runaway” effects). Earth’s entire paleo-history strongly suggests otherwise, but the warmists’ argument then comes down to, “Yes, but in the Earth’s past we never had the additional CO2 that humans have generated added to the equation either.” This in turn becomes an Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance), wherein they ask, “What else could it be (the recent warming)? The only thing that is different now is the increased CO2.”

    In other words, whatever climate changes that might have taken place in the absence of our CO2 contributions ceased to exist, with all causation taken over by CO2.

    And yet the answer (to what they try to make a rhetorical question only, with no invitations to respond) are any combination of the following:

    1) Natural variability. Extremely plausible, given the statistical insignificance of current warming trends, even if all true on their face.
    2) Recovery from the last little ice age. Also extremely plausible, given that Climate Change, ironically, is the skeptics’ argument. We didn’t suddenly go from a constant, static climate to one that suddenly changed (scary hockey stick graphs notwithstanding)
    3) Errors in observed temperature data (especially “value added, quality controlled, homogenized data”)
    4) Urban Heat Island effect – aka more errors in data (i.e., measurements taken from stations located near buildings, airport tarmacs, air conditioning exhausts, etc.,)
    4) Errors in proxies (like the “divergent” problem, where tree-ring proxies somehow get the last 2,000 years right, but fail to correlate with measured temperatures of the past fifty years)
    5) Other?

    Of course, to the very best of our knowledge, the earth has never seen a single “runaway” effect on the warming side – not even when CO2 concentrations were orders of magnitude higher than today. If any “runaway” effect could be shown, it would be to the cold side, as Earth’s entire history is DOMINATED, not by positive feedbacks to the warming side, but by ice ages. Our proximity to the sun is the single largest “negative” forcing that prevents us, and ONLY only via greenhouse gases, from being a perpetually frozen, never to be thawed, ball of ice.

    Warm periods (called interglacials, which are geologically periodic and relatively brief – and we’re in one now) are actually the anomalies from Earth’s norm. Our planet can never be like Venus, contrary to some of the more whacko-conjured fear-mongering images, because we’re simply much too far from the sun for that to ever happen (at least not within the next foreseeable several hundreds of millions of years).

  23. Ted Swart permalink
    December 10, 2009 11:03 pm

    Thanks for the very clear and sensible commentary.
    The problem seems tot be that there is no extraneous experiment that we can conduct to find out exact;y what %age the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere has actually contributed (directly or in conjunction with some positive forcing) to the current warming. I suppose all one can really say is that it seems most unlikely that it is a large percentage — since, otherwise, the medieval warming spell cannot be accounted for.
    Having, for the first time, had a really close look at the discussions about global warming I have come to the conclusion that the really clueless notion is the idea that we can even get a half decent forecast of what will happen to the Earth’s climate over the next 10, 20, 30, 40 or more years (the Earth’s climate is simply too complicated). And, when it comes to predicting the change that would result if we reduced our CO2 production rate, by some chosen amount, seems simply a case of grasping at straws.
    I suspect that if the next decade shows some significant cooling, as it might well do, even the die hard AGW supporters will have to do a much needed re-think.

  24. james permalink
    March 12, 2013 5:43 pm

    New Anthony Watts Interview Just Published: Climate Change without Catastrophe (News Tip)

    Dear Editor,

    I just wanted to send you a quick mail to let you know that we have just conducted a very interesting interview with the well known figure in the climate debate Anthony Watts.
    It’s a very interesting chat and whether you agree or disagree with his comments I thought you and your readers would find some value in taking a look

    A few of the topics we discussed are:

    • The difference between “global warming” and “climate change”
    • Why CO2 is partially responsible but oversold
    • Why recent major weather events cannot be linked to CO2
    • Why we should be more worried about another ice age
    • Why carbon taxes won’t have any effect on the whims of Mother Nature
    • How the climate debate has taken on religious proportions
    • Why the Keystone protests are all for show
    • Why Mother Nature will be the final arbiter of truth
    • What we should and shouldn’t be doing to address global warming
    • Why “climate change” has become a favorite bogeyman
    • Why scientifically we’ve only scratched the surface of climate change

    You can read the full interview at:

    I hope you find the interview interesting.

    Best regards,

    James Stafford

  25. February 13, 2014 7:35 am

    This free app has a database with more than 30,000 foods with their corresponding points value. Branding is a way of making the public familiar with your company, its employees, and its services.


  1. Lead Scoring

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: