WELCOME BACK, CLIMATE AUDIT
It was over six years ago, on August 7, 2007, that the Toronto Sun somewhat proudly stated that a native son, Steve McIntyre, had caused NASA to readjust some of its temperature data, and 1934 had regained its status as “hottest year ever,” (or at least the warmest since temperatures began to be recorded in the late 1800’s.)
Because I was friends with an old Kansas farmer, and had heard stories of the terrible conditions during the Dust Bowl, I’d had strong doubts that the heat of 1998 was even close 1934’s. The little investigation I’d actually had the time to do suggested nearly all the record high temperatures of the Dust Bowl area were not only set in the 1930’s, but were a full ten degrees higher than 1998’s. My doubts wouldn’t go away.
Also, during this time, an English judge ordered that Al Gore’s movie, “The Inconvenient Truth,” not be shown to children without the errors in the movie being clearly stated, and explained to the children before the movie was shown.
The fact others were seeing errors raised my doubts from a sort of uneasy suspicion in my gut to a level approaching certainty. I decided to go check out Steve McIntyre’s website, “Climate Audit,” and read the post from August 8:
This post opened my eyes to the degree temperatures were being “adjusted.” While others were willing to argue about the reasons for adjusting, I had a gut reaction that I find difficult to explain: I immediately sniffed the stench of fraud, and I promptly and loudly said so.
My comments were “snipped” on the Climate Audit site. I didn’t real blame Steve. He was not interested in gut reactions. He was interested in cool, calm and collected facts, science, and truth. As I read how people conversed at his site my eyes were opened to a type of civil procedure I greatly admired. Despite my hot temper, I tried to emulate Steve, and the people who commented at his site..
Meanwhile the “Climate Scientists” they were investigating did not respond in a manner that was at all civil. This was obvious even before the “Climategate” emails. (In fact I myself got quite a vicious tongue-lashing from someone I respected, when I first expressed doubts about Global Warming in 2007, however that is another story for another time.) Once the “Climategate” emails became public on November 19, 2009, what had been sensed became blatant.
What has amazed me from the start is the willingness of many to whitewash, ignore, and generally explain away what has seemed to me to be blatant fraud from the beginning. To me the fraud is obvious, yet, when I even begin to explain the obvious to certain people, defenses resembling an artillery barrage explode in my face.
When you have to put up with this sort of reaction, it becomes harder and harder to emulate Steve McIntyre’s calm, courteous civil procedure. In fact it must get hard for Steve McIntyre himself, especially when his own life goes through a less than tranquil period.
He went through such a period last autumn, including his daughter being in an accident. Climate Audit, as a site, fell silent on January 18. As the dark days of winter passed I missed the voice of reason, especially as several voices of illogic seemed especially harsh and blaring this winter.
Unless you have been following the Global Warming debate with interest over the past decade, you cannot know how offensive some Alarmists are.
For example, when you bring up a truth, they call you a “denier.” It doesn’t even make sense. What are you denying, when you bring up a truth? Are not they the ones denying what you bring up?
Then they suggest “Big Oil” pays you. I wish I received money for writing, but I don’t; however how do they pay their bills? They actually do receive large government grants…
…and so on and so forth. The attacks, which seldom touch the truth you attempted to bring up, get rather monotonous and boring, after even a year, and after six years I was wondering if Steve McIntyre was finally bored into submission.
Therefore I was greatly relieved when Climate Audit sprang back to life on March 2, full of Steve’s dry wit.
If anything, Steve seemed more vigorous than ever. I even thought I detected a flash of fire in his cool demeanor, which might be something new. He said, in reply to a defender of Michael Mann,
“…even if there were such a graphic other than in Mann and Kump, which I doubt, that doesn’t justify such a misleading presentation. Of course, you were unoffended by Gleick, so it’s hard to imagine what fraud on the part of a climate activist would be sufficient to offend you. As a result, discussion of these issues with you is pretty uninteresting since your ethical compass is so elastic.”
(I cannot express what a relief seeing such use of the English language is to me.)
I hope I can remember to speak like that, should I ever inadvertently become involved in some brawl in a back alley behind a bar.
I’d yell, “Oh Yeah! Well, discussion of these issues with you is pretty uninteresting since your ethical compass is so elastic.”
Then the other guy’s face would probably get uncertain, and, while he tried to work it out on his fingers whether he was insulted or not, I might have time to sneak in a cheap shot.
(It wouldn’t be very fair, but when you reach age sixty you need to consider resorting to such tactics.) And anyway, all is fair in love and Global Warming Politics.