In my previous post, I showed the spectacular data tampering at GISS during the 1990’s. But it is much worse than it seems. GISS publishes a data set called Fig C which keeps the monthly temperature anomalies over a certain time window.
The animation below shows all of the overlapping months reported in the 2001 and 2015 data sets. As you can see, every single month except one has been adjusted upwards. The odds of that happening randomly are very close to zero.
I am reminded every day by alarmists that Anthony Watts and Judith Curry have criticized my work exposing this tampering, and I would appreciate these highly respected skeptics clearly setting the record straight about what they believe is incorrect about this analysis.
You are absolutely correct Tony. Demand the they can prove you wrong.
I, for one, am anxious to hear what AW and/or JC have to say.
Watts just wants to win more Webby Awards, and Judith is a girl. 😉
Judith is a died in the Wool Warmist who wants to be ready to jump to a soft landing if/when the fraud is exposed. (I dug that out about a year ago.) Here is an example JC at the National Press Club (Just before the Climate talks in NYC)
From that is a link to a November 2010 article Uncertainty gets a seat at the “big table:” Part IV
STATEMENT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
This makes it very clear the lady is as much a politician as she is a scientist and she has no intention that ‘Climate Scientists’ lose their limelight.
It is useful to put the events of that time up front to understand WHY she might have decided to ‘adjust’ her thinking:
1. In November of 2009 the Climategate e-mails were released.
2. On February 2, 2010 on the BBC nightly news of all places it is announced: “The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has presided over a series of damaging blunders, but how and why has so much gone wrong?” news(DOT)bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8494793.stm
3. On March of 2010 Donna Laframboise called for crowd-sourcing help in going over the 2007 IPCC report. In mid April the report card is delivered: “21 of 44 chapters in the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible earned an F “ for using gray literature.
In other words the IPCC and its related ClimAstrologists went from Nobel Prize Winning to a laughing stock. So in November Judith is called on to testify “TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES”
At that point she has made the decision to hop up onto the fence and she does so.
She also decides that muddying the waters with the truth which is an excellent idea.
So she is NOT saying there is no problem she is just saying it is a complex problem and ‘Climate Scientists’ are needed more now than ever.
She also recognizes the threat of the blogosphere and the need to neutralize them.
Remember she was part of the BEST team and was well aware of all the underhanded goings on. She also hosted Zeke Hausefeather hatchet job on Steve in July of 2014. — Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data.
We all know who specializes in US temperature trends.
And she’s a girl! 😉
So am I!
Doesn’t mean I dont have teeth and the brains to use them. {:>D
My original comment was left just for you, and I knew you would depreciate it. 😉
Judith has made some helpful comments, but is a fence sitter, checking the grass on either side. And that is better than a steaming pile of MannSchmidt.
And just in case you wonder about CLIMATE FORECAST APPLICATIONS NETWORK, LLC
It makes it VERY VERY CLEAR Judith is our enemy in SPADES!!!!
I disagree. I have seen her being quite brave taking on Trenberth
And she isn’t being a Janus faced person? Look at the DATES!
Tony she is not an employee she is PRESIDENT/OWNER of a LLC that is dependent on keeping this scam going.
As I said she is a politician who is fence sitting but she is NOT OUR FRIEND. All she has proved is that she has the brains to see which way the wind is blowing and make sure she is positioned correctly.
Do not expect her to get behind you and agree that you are correct. That would be shooting her very lucrative corporation in the head.
They are rather naive. They also told everyone to talk nice to the warmists even as the warmists scream about murdering anyone who crosses them.
And yes, the system is corrupt. The CO2 tax was celebrated openly by the Bilderberg guys as a great way to tax the poor.
Judith Curry is not ‘naive’ she is playing the sceptics for all she is worth while she rakes in the $$$. (See my comment above about her vested interest in trashing the US energy system and implementing 20% Wind Power by 2030.)
Anthony is probably niave but his site is infested with trojan horses like Zeke and the Mosh Pup who protect the temperature data. L.S. who protects the ‘Sun is Constant’ meme. Englebeen who protects the CO2 data and trashes Ernest Beck, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski and Dr Glasman. Dr. R. Gates who defends the Arctic is melting meme….
Anthony is also from the Left Coast and from the Hollywood crowd.
Gail, you go a bridge to far. Anthony is from Chico, very far from Hollywood. California is much like the rest of the nation, regressive in the cities, conservative in the rural areas, thus several propositions to split California are proposed.
Anthony has an open and popular blog, and Zeke and Mosh, in my view argue so openly biased that they help skeptics, with Mosher’s words taking a pounding, but he never sticks around.to defend them as he is one strange dude.
L.S. is fiery, knowledgeable, and arrogant, in my view prone to confirmation bias.
Englebeen is definitely not an alarmist, but the subject of historical CO2 is not one I have put the time into to form a solid opinion, as IMV, all the evidence indicates the more CO2 the better. (If you have a good post or article that both makes and refutes his position, I would take the time to read it.)
It is good to have different views, and I think the forum of WUWT does a good job of presenting disparate perspectives. While AW has made some mistakes, I think he is generally an honorable man who, also due to his sense of fairness, got suckered into the BEST game. His reaction to some of S.G. posts was not his finest moment, but he and his co-authors have done the world a service with their well articulated skepticism of CAGW.
I will agree that AW is honorable and got suckered. I spent years at WUWT and read just about every article and comment. I do not make these comments lightly but only after observation and thought.
The questions you need to ask are:
#1. What are the assumptions/positions that need to be defended at all costs for CAGW to be a viable scam.
#2. Are there people at WUWT defending those positions?
#3. Has A.W. given these people priority?
>>>>>>>>>
The answer to the first question is.
#1. The temperature is ever increasing.
#2. The sun is constant and therefore can not affect the climate/weather. Only the Milankovich cycles cause a difference in the sun’s energy.
#3. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and CO2 is increasing do to man’s burning of fossil fuel.
>>>>>>>>
Are there people at WUWT defending those positions?
Yes there are:
#1. The temperature is ever increasing.
Mueller/Zeke/Mosher/Curry put together a ‘new improved’ BEST analysis of the temperature data after the Climategate e-mails tarnished Mikey Mann’s Hockey Stick. They even tried to rope A.W. in on the deal.
Here is Muller doing a save for the meme that the temperature is increasing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk
Note that Muller was always a Warmist but like Judith Curry, he realized a save was necessary to lull the sheeple back into believing in the experts. BEST was that save. Now there is an ‘independent’ data set by a ‘skeptic’ that agrees with the official data sets so everything is A-ok go back to sleep. Zeke and Mosher are at WUWT to protect the adjustments made to the data that create the ever warming temperature.
#2. The sun is constant and therefore can not affect the climate/weather. Only the Milancovich cycles cause a difference in the sun’s energy.
L.S. is on WUWT to protect the meme that the sun can not cause changes in the climate.
Jo Nova’s site has an excellent example of L.S. in a more neutral setting.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/07/the-solar-model-finds-a-big-fall-in-tsi-data-that-few-seem-to-know-about/
L.S. is busy, along with his buds, rewriting the solar data to get rid of the pesky lumps and bumps that might make people think the sun had something to do with the earth’s climate. Also notice that those who do not support the ‘sun is constant’ meme at WUWT have a tendency to get censored or even banned at WUWT.
#3. CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and CO2 is increasing do to man’s burning of fossil fuel.
Both L.S. and Engelbeen claim to be skeptics but the only time they show up at WUWT is to protect their specific meme and not to comment on other topics.
As far as Engelbeen goes Dr Jeff Glassman has this to say:
Notice that Englbeen is a regular at the website I mentioned above as being set-up by the team to counter the skeptic websites. It is a website that most of us get banned from after a comment or two.
Also note that Dr Glassman says in another article
There is RealClimate.org. again.
Dr Glassman then goes on to slice Gavin’s half-assed response to pieces.
The CO2 tricks deserves a closer look because that is the least understood of the scam.
I will add a few more good links in the next comment.
Dr Glassman posted another article:
CO2: “WHY ME?”
ON WHY CO2 IS KNOWN
NOT TO HAVE ACCUMULATED IN THE ATMOSPHERE &
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CO2 IN THE MODERN ERA
Lucy has a couple of layman friendly articles on the subject: (She also noticed the trojan horses at WUWT several years ago)
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-flux.htm
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-ice-HS.htm
This is an excellent sumation of the problems with the CO2 data:
http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.htm
I followed the links, and got exactly what you got.
I agree with SG/TH.
AW did write sort of an apology in his “confirmation bias” post but it effectively came across as ‘SG/TH has been wrong so many times that I just expected him to be wrong again’…not much of an apology but there was some subtlety that I dont recall being discussed.
AW needs to unequivocally say ‘TH/SG is correct… The surface data temperature has been [fraudulently] adjusted. I may not agree with the way my esteemed colleague lambastes the scientific community but he is absolutely correct on the data tampering.’
Fraud is very difficult to prove since you have to demonstrate intent, which is probably why the likes of Anthony and Judith go and hide behind the nearest sofa whenever the word is mentioned. Incompetence driven by confirmation bias on the other hand sets a lower bar, and may be the best way to go. Just sayin’…………
If you’re not all “dataed out” Steve, have you done any analysis on the new hadISD sub-daily dataset?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisd/
It only goes back to 1973, but someone called “Phil” is posting simple linear regression analyses of various stations on Paul Homewood’s blog, and has yet to find any evidence of any warming whatsoever :
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/temperature-adjustments-around-the-world/#comment-37117
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/cooling-the-past-in-bolivia/#comments
That is not the issue I am discussing. It is their claims that my analysis is incorrect, which are nonsense.
Tony, I hope you look at the ‘vested interest’ of Judith Curry’s that I just dug out.
Sure does explain a lot.
Oh, that. My understanding was that they were calling you out for not adjusting raw data when your analysis was trying to quantify the temporal differences between the raw data and the final adjusted data. In other words, making any adjustments (regardless of justification) to the raw data would have defeated the whole purpose of the exercise.
Do I have that correct?
All I can say if I look at this site everyday and it opens my eye. There are links to the data demonstrating your well made points. Frankly I am amazed at what an outstanding job you do with such a limited budget.
In her own words, Judith Curry makes it clear her goal is to Rebuild Trust and she is smart enough to realize the sledge hammer tactics of the likes of Joe Rom and Cook and Loony Lew do not do that. This does not however mean she is not still on board the goal of the ‘Radical Transformtion of America’ and Western civilization.
Yes, but it is the Russian oil interests supporting the Warmers. http://freebeacon.com/issues/foreign-firm-funding-u-s-green-groups-tied-to-state-owned-russian-oil-company/
The interest of Russian oil companies and American environmentalist financiers intersect at a Bermuda-based law firm called Wakefield Quin. The firm acts as a corporate registered agent, providing office space for clients, and, for some, “managing the day to day affairs,” according to its website.
As many as 20 companies and investment funds with ties to the Russian government are Wakefield Quin clients. Many list the firm’s address on official documentation.
Klein Ltd. also shares that address. Documents filed with Bermuda’s registrar of companies list just two individuals associated with the company: Hoskins, Wakefield Quin senior counsel and managing director, and Marlies Smith, a corporate administrator at the firm.
The only publicly available documentation of any business conducted by Klein Ltd. were two Internal Revenue Service filings by the California-based Sea Change Foundation, which showed that Klein had contributed $23 million to the group in 2010 and 2011. Klein Ltd. was responsible for more than 40 percent of contributions to Sea Change during those years.
The foundation passed those millions along to some of the nation’s most prominent and politically active environmentalist groups. The Sierra Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and 2011.
The Sierra Club, which received nearly $8.5 million from Sea Change in 2010 and 2011, launched its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign the following year. The effort has become one of the largest and best-funded environmentalist campaigns combating fracking and the extraction of natural gas in general.
Sea Change’s “skeletal staff quietly shovels tens of millions of dollars out the door annually to combat climate change. And that’s pretty much all it does,” noted Inside Philanthropy, which awarded the foundation its “sharpest laser focus in grantmaking” award last year.
Nathaniel Simons and his wife run the foundation and are, except for Klein Ltd., its only donors. Simons, a hedge fund millionaire who commutes to work across San Francisco Bay aboard a 50-foot yacht, also runs a venture capital firm that invests in companies that benefit from environmental and energy policies that Sea Change grantees promote.
Simons himself has ties to Klein Ltd. Several Wakefield Quin attorneys are listed as directors of hedge funds that his firm manages, and in which Sea Change has assets.
With a lot of hypocrisy of commuting by yacht.
Isn’t it interesting what you find when you start digging into the $$$$.
I am not surpized that tracing the $$$$ on the anti-fracking movement leads straight back to Russia. The last thing Putin wants is the USA shipping natural gas to the EU and taking away his one lever.
Weel well well, first up on the hit list after your find:
Green Groups Go Red, Team With Putin To Fight Fracking
Unfortunately that will not cary much weight with the true-believing zealots.
If you want to know where Judith Curry actually sits she makes it very plain in this Washington Post article that she still links to via her Climate Change Policy page
I would think Curry had changed over the intervening years but her 2012 and 2013 purposals for grants really reallly makes me doubt it. Also none of her Climate papers are more recent than this news article.
Thank you, Gail! I’m glad to see JC so totally exposed. I am sickened. 80% clean energy! 20% wind by 2030. That is insane. To keep the U.S. economy growing, thriving we need all the reliable, affordable energy we can produce. Wind and solar are neither reliable nor affordable. For every MW of renewables, there is a fossil fuel unit, usually gas, operating at a low level (not at all good for the plant) providing the “spinning reserve” for when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. This is a nightmare for grid operators who need to balance energy production with the demand/load. Too much, something has to be backed off (not always so easy) or too little, a unit has to be brought on line in a big hurry. Big stress all around 24/7/365! Maybe there will be a greater demand for mental health facilities and counsellors for dispatchers if the 80% renewables should happen. Now, if by clean we are thinking nuclear that would work well. Oh and by the way, I believe the world wide number for energy produced annually is about 25 MW from every 100 MW of wind machine.
Barbara, I am waiting for the power systems engineers to throw up their hands en masse at the madness and walk out leaving the politicians scrambling to get the grid up and running again.
It is pretty much what a lot of doctors did thanks to Obummercare but it would be a heck of a lot more noticable! Talk about going Galt’s Gulch…
A power systems engineer commented on WUWT:
“Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”
And yes I am on board with nuclear. I can see a nuclear plant out my window.
Many thanks again! I can use the power systems engineer’s quote. He nailed it! Also, our electric grid is old and getting older, but instead of spending money on upgrades or replacements, the wind farms are requiring new build transmission to connect their “off and on” generation. In addition, they want the rest of the grid users to pay for it.
Barbara one of the points I have seen no one bring up is the cost of ‘dirty electrical power’ by dirty I mean power with spikes (and dips) — think mini lightening bolts —- and what that does to your electronics and electrical motors.
(Please note that sentence cost me an hour lecture on fourier transforms and power by my physicist husband.)
This is what is behind what that power systems engineer was saying. When ever the subject comes up the Warmists and politicians do the hand wavy thingy saying the engineers have solved the problem. In the mean time the engineers are tearing their hair out.
Yes we have the engineering to deal with ‘dirty power’ but it costs money and it has a maximum spike that it can handle. (Think arcing across air)
Germany, the Renewable Energy Poster Child, ‘solved’ the power spike problem by shunting the excess to Poland and the Czech Republic. Poland and the Czech Republic were NOT PLEASED.
The above article has an excellent example of the problem I am trying to get at.
I highlighted regulators because that is what is needed to protect home equipment*** if spikes (or dips) become common. How many poor families can afford the equipment needed to provide them with ‘clean power’
*** For us low information types those are the black boxes we plug our computers into to keep the dirty power from frying the gizzards.
Barbara, in thinking about it, I think Judith may have decided to show up the ‘boys’
We know a group decision was made to fire-up the RealClimate.org website from a December 2003 Climategate e-mail SEE WUWT: The genesis of RealClimate.org appears in the Climategate emails, and surprise, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin seems connected
Judith mentions she had been poking around the skeptic websites as early as 2006 and realized the ‘opposition’ was a heck of a lot brighter than the ‘boys’ had acknowledged. Then as I showed earlier all he11 broke loose and trust in the IPCC and Climate researchers nose dived. Judith had the brains to know this problem could not be solved by the censorship and the Ad Homs that the guys on the Team™ were using. so instead she used the more subtle approach of Trojan Horse.
As Tony’s response shows, she is considered a ‘trusted skeptic’ She is inside the gate and therefore is in the critical position of being able to do damage control if someone like Tony comes up with anything that is really really damaging to ‘The Cause’
If you want to know what the ‘Cause’ is she tells you:
Notice that all her grants for her LLC are during the Obama admin.
Oops, in other words actual wind production is about 25% of face plate megawatts.
Tony: Is it possible that the pro-AGW crowd would tell us that the adjustments need to be made to post-1995 temps (using electronic thermometers) so that the pre-1995 temp data (using glass thermometers) could be properly compared with a more accurate data set, since glass thermometers allegedly (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/03/only-satellites-show-pause-wuwt-now-includes-december-data/) give temp readings 0.9 deg. cooler than electronic thermometers?
But then why would anyone confuse everyone else by adusting the “accurate” data to match the “poor” data, rather than vice-versa? I am just trying to figure out their strategy, not justify it.
Nah, they are just cheating.
Zeke Hausfeather, of the BEST data set, in his article at @ Judith Curry’s Understanding Adjustments to Temperature Data. says:
Yeah, right but no one bothered to do the side by side analysis… OH WAIT, some one did!
So that ‘adjustment’ just like the TOBS adjustment is also in the WRONG direction giving up to a 1.5°C warming bias!
Again someone did the tests on TOBS way back in the 1800s. Instructions were written and given out to the observers in 1882. There were two thermometers, one max (mercury) and one min (alcohol.)
For the maximum thermometer they state:
“…When a maximum thermometer is not read for several hours after the highest temperature has occurred and the air in the meantime has cooled down 15° or 20°, the highest temperature indicated by the top of the detached thread of mercury may be too low by half a degree from the contraction of the thread….”
That would indicate the max thermometer should be read just after the heat of the day and any adjustment for reading at the wrong time of day should RAISE the maximum temperature not lower it!
Tony, the fact that Paul Homewood’s research and conclusions support your assertions of cheating by the government funded ‘scientists’ should be satisfying to you. When last did Watts publish any meaningful research articles of his own at WUWT ? Mostly just blathering on … “much ado about nothing”. Call the cheating bustards out for what they are!
The thing you have to realize about me is that i have spent my life working on some of the most complex engineering problems in the world. I don’t have any doubts about my work and couldn’t care less what other people think. This stuff is child’s play compared to my professional life.
Eventually they will come around when it becomes obvious that they can’t hide from reality any more. What NASA and NOAA are doing to the temperature data is complete crap, and unworthy of elementary school science and math.
I’ve noticed that AW is becoming less tolerant of his little pal, Mosher … and that there are a few more comments and guest posts on flawed temperature data.
As you rightly point out, one day they will come around … like moths to a candle.
Reading between the lines, I think AW is steering clear of controversy while his Surface Stations paper is going through peer-review.
It will be interesting to see what transpires once that gets published, and even more interesting if, for some reason, it doesn’t.
I think that you are quite right … don’t want to upset the apple cart too much!
Regardless of the quality of the raw data, it will be tampered with by NCDC
My guess is since that WUWT/Zeke-Goddard episode, and AW’s really stupid comments at that useless site Lucias (which i think no longer exists for all practical purposes), WUWT hits have dived and SG’s have risen. THis and Homewood’s and Mahorasy’s are really the only ones tackling this problem of serious fraud, the way it HAS TO BE. In the end, it will be this site that ends up being the one that actually did most of the hard work and get the acciolades it deserves. LOL.
AW definately put his foot in it and more than once over the last few years. Tony is not the first colleague, AW and his trojan horse buddies have shot at with little good reason.
AW does not want the reputation of a ‘crackpot site’ but as a ‘scientific site’ however he does not have a really deep background in a lot of different sciences and therefore takes advice from those he thinks of as his friends. That leaves him open to manipulation.
Yes, I jumped ship to SG’s site after the shameful episode by AW. But I do agree that AW is becoming less tolerant of the fraudsters and I still really admire him. 🙂
AW is human as are the rest of us. I certainly learned a lot at his site and I am glad it exists.
I was wary of Judith Curry from how she wrote her blog, it was like a person using someone else’s money, on an each-way bet, on a rider in a one horse race. Thanks to your detective work, all has now been revealed, good stuff. 🙂
If you do a bit of looking it gets even better. (The internet never forgets)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
A bit if background on why I am not so trusting.
As I have said earlier, Judith Curry/ TPTB identified climategate and the sceptics as a major problem especially after the crash and burn of Nopenhagen.
One of their top guns is Democratic Strategist, Stanley Greenberg. He is a globalist who has worked in over 60 countries to get politicians like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, and South African president Nelson Mandela elected. For organizations, Greenberg has helped manage and frame a number of issues – including education, school financing, American identity, the economy, environmental regulation, international trade, and is strategic consultant to the Climate Center of the Natural Resources Defense Council on its multi-year campaign on global warming.
Republican pollster Frank Luntz says “Stan Greenberg scares the hell out of me. He doesn’t just have a finger on the people’s pulse; he’s got an IV injected into it.” (Check out the company Greenberg, Carville, Shrum and their love of globalization.)
It would not surprise me in the slightest to find out Stan Greenberg or one of his ilk had his finger prints all over the moves made by Muller, Curry and Romm. What is interesting is Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D), Greenberg’s wife has her fortune tied to his PRIVATE consulting firms. They went from poor as church mice to one of the wealthest of Congress critters ( $26 MILLION in 2013.) (Delauro pushed a food safety bill every year since 1996 which is why she showed on my radar) Now we find that both Muller and Judith Curry also have consulting firms — very useful for transferring payments for services rendered…
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here are some other interesting bits and pieces though nothing definitive.
To kick it off is Anthony’s post from 2/11/2011
So the top skeptic was invited to add his name to the BEST study. If you followed WUWT you know A.W. was NOT happy about how that turned out.
For that matter neither was Judith. (She does lean more towards integrity than the average ClimAstrologist and she also respects the intelligence of the ‘deniers’)
http://junkscience.com/2011/10/29/muller-accused-by-colleague-of-hiding-data/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then we find this little tidbit from Joe Romm a fellow of American Progress, a Progressive think tank.
thinkprogress(DOTorg/climate/2011/03/20/207726/berkeley-temperature-study-results-global-warming/
HMMMmmmm seems to me He Doth protest a wee bit too much. Also notice that Curry and Muller were specifically picked because they are NOT on the Climategate radar as ‘bad guys’ Also Judith was acting as a publicity type and not functioning as a climate scientist in the BEST study.
I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause” — Mann
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And I absolutely love this one from Zeke Hausfather about A.W., Romm and BEST. It is a comment on an article called The Romm & Watts Variety HourMarch 22, 2011 in Discover Magazine.
“Frankly, most of the publicity BEST has received is a result of the blog scrum, rather than any outreach on their part” – ZEKE
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh and there is a connection between Romm and Stan Greenberg though not a direct one.
If you search the website there are several other connections between Stan Greenberg’s Democracy Corps and American Progress such as this:
(wwwDOT)americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/01/25/10955/obamas-clean-energy-plan-for-an-america-built-to-last-how-to-use-less-save-more-and-put-people-back-to-work/
and this:
(wwwDOT)facebook.com/GreenbergQuinlanRosner/posts/184328965041635
When you get towards the top they all seem to know each other.
http://www.salon.com/2008/10/02/biden_palin_debate/