A Small but Significant Discrepancy

[John Hunter shows how to introduce background information without having to cry “oil shill!”]

I find it interesting that Michael Mann, in his letter to the House Committee, describes Steve McIntyre as a “mining industry executive” and McIntyre’s own biography (www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/stevebio.doc) describes him as working “in the mineral business”. Both descriptions are pretty euphemistic. Around the time of the writing of McIntyre and McKitrick (2003; the Energy & Environment paper) and of the above biography (dated in October 2003), McIntyre was actually a “Strategic Adviser” to CGX Energy Inc. who describe their “principal business activity” as “petroleum and natural gas exploration” (cgxenergy.ca/investors/CGX_AR03_part2.pdf). CGX Energy Inc. occupy the same Canadian address given for McIntyre in McIntyre and McKitrick (2003), an address which is also occupied by Northwest Exploration Company, another business which apparently engages in oil and gas exploration (or at least a company with the same name does). McIntyre was also President of Northwest Exploration Company.

Read More

(Source: realclimate.org)

The Silence of the Goat Busters


Thank you for your comment on my exchange with Richard Drake, allowing you to stay quiet on factual errors from his part while probing my mind.

/1. To use a concept I know you appreciate [1], we can interpret gatekeeping as a function of an in-crowd. This function does seem to characterize quite well an activity that is not unlike what is being hinted in this remark above:

Almost looks like they are ganging up on him.

Wink wink, of course.

The freedom of my wandering has little to do with the concept of gatekeeping [2]. A freedom which is conditional to our beloved Bishop’s editorial deleaturs, which are now subreptitiously less invisible in a most recent thread than therein.

Read More

(Source: bishop-hill.net)

Mutualist Niche

Richard Drake,

First, it is a pity that you seem to take offense in my using Lindzen’s diminutive to address you. I called you Dick because it helped my last sentence to ring like “More Omertà, Nick?”, a sentence the Auditor used against a critic to burden him with commitments he did not have in the discussion.

For the sentence, see


For the overburdening of a commitments of a commenter, see Jean Goodwin’s analysis of this chasing technique at Steve’s:


This is a frequent “trick” (TM — Climate Science), so deserves due diligence.

I won’t use Lindzen’s diminutive again to refer to you.

Perhaps inspired by this diminutive, and despite his avowed ennui, Richard Drake now acts like a gatekeeper.

Gatekeepers should be very prudent with their readings of the people they want to throw out of the auspices they want to protect.

First, I am not claiming affinity with that sorry chap Richard Drake browbeaten a bit yesterday. What I could say, though, is that Richard’s responses does seem to make him claim the affinity. If he does, he should own it, and not burden me with an affinity he projects.

Second, this distracts us from the comparison between a murderer and a sorry fellow who was both a Nazi and an eugenist. To mention in passing a scientist who worked at Auschwitz to refer to people who, like Mike, should be sidelined, just a bit after having browbeaten someone who associated climate scientists with a murderer, takes a very lenient sense of duty as a gatekeeper.

However biased they might be, institutions should beware of such flagrant double standards.

Fourth, I in no way claimed that Richard Drake was a censor. I stated that our beloved Bishop did censor some comments yesterday. Unless another person is responsible for curating this blog, this is a fact. It is the prerogative of a curator to censor at his heart’s content, and even most of the time justified. In exchange, that precludes him from brandishing YesButRcModeration:


Gatekeepers should pay due diligence to facts.

Fifth, it was never my impetus to intimidate Richard Drake. I am quite pleased to see him pursuing this discussion. More so that he succeeded to remain silent on everything relevant we put forward in our last comments.

It is not impossible to remain topical even while having to defend against constant personal attacks. It is even easy when the whole point of our intervention is to show when words are hurled to hide a decline to discuss what is really being conveyed by a propagandist, and how this comedy is enforced by gatekeepers.

Institutions are judged by the way they open their gates to other voices. That includes establishments like RC, whose editorial practices I do not wish to defend. (I rarely read that blog and have other interests than defensive ones.) But that also includes contrarian institutions, with all their biases.

Considering how all the institutions maintain topics beyond discussion (i.e. in our case, that our beloved Bishop’s might be licking his chop a bit too loudly for prudence’s sake), that there is silence among us here, right now, does not imply that any of us is a lamb. And contrary to what Feynman might have idealized in an overblown address to budding scientists, only a few can claim the integrity they pretend. Such pretence does not matter much to science, which in the end always have to progress in spite of it.

The honour Steve defends in his personal vendetta does not transfer to his mutualist niche.

(Source: bishop-hill.net)

The Chairman of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Ed Clark, is a classmate of mine from university and a very smart and socially conscious guy. I’d follow his advice on this in a heartbeat.

Steve, selecting his auditing bias.

Anatomy of a Short CA Post

[John Mashey analyzes an important blog post surrounding the Deming Affair. I’ve edited a bit for clarity (I know, I know).]

You don’t have to go into statistical problems, as per DC’s Replication and Due Diligence [1]… or Nick Stokes on selection [2], i.e., wrong parameters and 1:100 cherry picks.

Here’s a no-stats case: The Significance of the Hockey Stick, Mar 16, 2005 at Climate Audit [3] plus a few related talks shortly thereafter.

Read More

(Source: shapingtomorrowsworld.org)

Well-Entrenched Paradigm


I believe your #612 underlines an important tension in our neutral Bishop’s storyline. That’s the second one, the first being outlined in v. #561. Here is a first quote, p. 24:

The so-called “Medieval Warm Period” was extremely well represented in medieval annals and other documentary sources and it had come to have at least some impact on the public imagination.

Read More

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)

There are a relatively small number of paid professionals in this, plus lots of semi-pros, and masses of unpaid others.

John Mashey, drilling up the noise drillers.

A cynic might even point out that there was more money for studying tree rings if you hooked it up with climate change, than in dating pueblos. Sort of like adding in a terrorism angle if you’re looking for government funding for municipal works.

Steve, almost defining the Kyoto Flames as people trying to get a temperature history from tree rings.


Steve, after network analyzing a bit by playing lip service to Lucia’s and Bishop’s, and before surmising that Gleick may have hacked Mike’s emails and sent them to Tony.
Older posts RSS