14 June 2009

Rejected Comments

Comment policy: I welcome and encourage comments. Those that I deem to be inappropriate, trolling or otherwise unacceptable will be deleted without comment. Others may be moved here. If you do not like this policy or its application, I suggest getting your own blog. 

Feel free to post here any substantive comments that I have rejected on another post for a second look. I will apply a lower threshold of acceptability to this thread.



  1. Okay, I'll play your game this one time (only). You rejected the following comment. And, I'm betting you won't even post it here:


    I have no intention of playing that game -- especially given your recent history of what passes moderation and what does not.

    But, I would be delighted to see you replace your new entry with a post in the same location which honors the promise you made on 7/31/09.

    If you ever do so, drop a comment in that last link and I will happily amend my post in accordance with the facts.


  2. I just realized I accidentally deleted some of these as I thought they were on a substantive thread. Apologies. If you put "rejected comment" at the top, I'll be sure to notice, but will try to do better on these. Thanks/sorry.

  3. Roger (Mon Nov 08, 06:38:00 PM MST),

    The facts are very clear and very simple.

    On July 31, 2009, you made a promise and -- for the last 15+ months -- you have repeatedly, deliberately and knowingly failed to honor it. Period, end of story.

    If you ever do decide to honor your promise, I suggest you reread the question which you, yourself, described as “fair”.

  4. Rejected comment from Albatross, who accuses me of being a "policy advisor" to the Heatland Institute, a false claim:


    perhap you should take a deep breath for falsely accusing me of lying in a public forum.
    I did no such thing, I'd appreciate an apology from you. Or perhaps The Heartland Institute should not have your picture on page 10 on their list of expert advisors?


    So no my friend you are over the line.

    Does this mean you are censoring me?"

    If Heartland wants to list me as an expert, that is their business, I am happy to have their followers read my work -- seems that they need it.

    Albatross, please follow up here/

  5. Albatross, you are not censored, but moved to the "Rejected Comments" thread. If you'd like a forum to behave in any manner you'd like, I'd suggest getting your own blog. Thanks!

  6. I never said that you were a "policy advisor" Roger, and note you used quotes. Please quote me verbatim where and indicate where I said that you are a "policy advisor" for The Heartland Institute.

    And even if I did say that, it does not make me a liar (please look up the definition), it would mean that I made an honest error. But I didn't.

    Please state exactly what lies I allegedly made up about The Heartland Institute in my posts here.

    Finally, what happened to my other comment that seems to have gottern you so upset? That has not appeared here, nor on the other thread.


  7. Hi Roger,

    My comments do not seem to be making it through. I submitted a post asking you to please quote me verbatim where I said that you were a "policy advisor" for The Heartland Institute. That has, at the time of submitting this, gone unanswered.

    "If Heartland wants to list me as an expert, that is their business, I am happy to have their followers read my work -- seems that they need it."

    You seem to be suggesting that you are not an "expert" for The Heartland Institute. What then is your affiliation/association with them, if any at all? Any idea how your photo got on their site? If you are not affiliated with them as an "expert", it seems then that The Heartland Institute are the ones lying, not me. Seems that you guys need to talk.

    Is the above quote form you as close as I can come to you admitting that I was not telling lies about you or Heartland? Your knee-jerk reaction seems over the top now does it not? I was still hoping that you would have the decency and integrity to apologise for calling me a liar in public.

    Yes, Heartland do need help, but I'm afraid that they may be well beyond help.

  8. Albatross, sometimes comments are not approved immediately, such as when I am in a PHD comprehensive exam, as I have been for the past few hours. Comment approval will continue to be sporadic through the weekend, as usual. Thanks.

  9. More from Albatross:

    "This is an excerpt from a post I just submitted at Think Progress:

    "As I pointed out to Roger last week, he does not seem to undweerstand the correct meaning of “liar”. The only group that is likely guilty of lying is The Heartland Institute– specifically, listing people as their “experts” when they know that said expets have not agreed to be listed as such.

    Finally, I find it troubling that Roger Pielke Jr. is very quick to falsely(!) accuse others of fabrication and being liars, but then goes and does the very same thing himself. In fact, he seems to be in the habit of falsely accusing/labelling people as liars (from this thread):

    “Brian said…
    Albatross – our good ol’ Roger Jr. falsely accused me of lying about him in comment he posted to Revkin’s blog, and supplied misleading information to prove it (Andy helpfully highlighted his comment).”

    Encouraging that I am not the only one Roger Pielke Jr. has falsely accused of lying, but at the same time worrying that someone of his academic standing would continue to do so in public without consequence."

    Roger says @47, "I stopped trying to post responses at Romm's a long time ago after he simply deleted them."

    Yet a critical post made by me here last week somehow disappeared into the ether of space, and we know for a fact that you read it because you (wrongly) chose to take strong exception to what I said and asccused me of fabrication and lying....just saying.

    As for me allegedly being "abusive" Roger, that is very rich coming from you. Surely, you jest? Let me remind you that you are the one accusing me of fabrication and telling lies, in addtion to other people. Then when repeatedly asked to apologise you refuse. I would argue that you are the one being abusive and belligerent.

    Moreover, I was not "demanding your correspondence" as you falsely alledge @40 above, now you are twisting and distorting my words Roger and I do not take kindly to that. For the record I said:

    "It would be most helpful and clarify matters if Roger shared his correspondence on this matter with his readers."

    Roger, you need to take a very long and hard look in the mirror. That you elect to play these rhetorical games and make serious false accusations reflects very poorly not only on you, but your your employer (CIRES) too; not to mention setting an incredibly bad example for your students.

    Have a very nice day. "

  10. If the author rejects any comment, I would say he has good reason, as perhaps the above indicates...

    I disagree with Roger on for example the need for government energy usage standards (as on light bulbs)
    but always find him ready to publish any reasonably composed criticism, my own as well as others.

  11. Good to see rejected comments. More of this on blogs would be a revelation.

  12. I have moved this trolling comment just submitted from Joshua to this thread:

    "Joshua has left a new comment on your post "Groupthink or . . . Beware of Climate Labels":

    ===]]] Put me in the category of people who think that trying to divide the world according to views on some aspects of climate science is just a bad idea.[[[===

    Say, Roger - what category of people use the term "climate chickens?" "

    In the future, Joshua, please submit such comments directly to this thread, thanks!

  13. Rejected from Albatross:

    "Roger @26,

    Aaah, sticks and stones Roger. Really, that is your comeback? And here I was expecting an intellectual reply from an academic.

    Either you are utterly naive about how those in denial will use your post (Morano did not even have to go to the trouble of spinning it), or you are doing a very good job of feeding fodder to those in denial. You choose.

    We'll see where this post pops up in the coming days and weeks.


  14. Rejected from Joshua (please no more of this):

    "==]] Albatross please try again without accusations of motive. [[==

    Under what circumstances should people abide by that standard?

    When they are writing comments on someone else's blog?

    When they are writing blog posts on their own blog?


    Under only some other conditions?

    Are kind of, of sort, (but basically obvious as made readily apparent by the reactions from readers on both sides of the debate who clearly interpret as such) insinuations of motive (with a flimsy veneer of plausible deniability) OK, whereas straightforward accusation is not acceptable? If so, why? Why would straightforward accusations be less acceptable than indirect but plausibly deniable accusations? Is there some moral or ethical standard that you use to differentiate the two types?"

  15. Rejected comment by Joshua on Marcott thread (off topic, changing subject, empty complaints about my choice of topics -- snore):

    "===]]] and your article is being quoted as some sort of proof or confirmation. [[[===

    This is what I find interesting. Roger is *concerned* that the "MSM" is drawing unfounded conclusions from the work of scientists, yet he seems to be *unconcerned* when his very own blog posts are regularly interpreted as confirmation of something that he says he isn't asserting.

    This is a repeated pattern. Roger writes a post characterized by plausible deniability - and has no particular interest in correcting a long line of "skeptics" who, ostensibly, misinterpret his work to draw conclusions he never intended.

    At a certain point, Roger, it doesn't add up. Why are you unconcerned that people misinterpret your work - particularly since it happens repeatedly. You are contributing to the noise and you have the power to turn down the volume, but you are too invested to do so. Why is that? It seems highly unlikely that you can't see that your own work contributes to the mantra of "fraud" and "misconduct" that so regularly characterizes the input of "skeptics." If you didn't intend for people to draw such conclusions, why don't you feel some responsibility for correcting their misintepretations of your work?

    And Roger - the last time I made this point I posted it directly into the "rejected comments" thread - but you didn't post it there. Would you explain why?"

  16. Another Joshua comment moved here:

    "Roger -

    ==]] But please do post further ruminations about me and my motives over on that thread (others too!).[[==

    I have made no comments about your "motives." Unfortunately, that kind of projection is also characteristic of these debates.

    I assume that your motives are as you state - to diminish the politicization of the science in these debates. That is precisely why I comment on your actions which, predictably, contribute to the politicization of the science. It is an pattern that is inconsistent with what I assume to be your motives.

    After a previous comment of mine on that pattern disappeared into the ethernet, I followed-up with a comment made directly onto the "rejected comments" thread - and it too never passed through moderation.

    I have no idea why that happened, but I think it was logical for me to conclude that you moderated it out. Nonetheless:

    ==]] I have not moderated out any comments made by you directly to the "rejected comments" thread. [[==

    I stand corrected."

  17. That's funny, Roger -

    You incorrectly post that I commented on your motives, in the current thread, and then move my response to your incorrect statement to this thread.

    I can see no logical consistency in your reasoning, but hey, it's your blog dude.

  18. Deleted from Doug at Marcott thread:

    "David Appel, #66: that's like analogizing a guy who tries to prevent a man bent on suicide from jumping in front of a train with a man who pushes another man on to the track in front of an oncoming train in order to kill him. They may look similar to the average eye, but they are completely different. I would say the majority of comments posted on WUWT would not see the light of day at RealClimate. Which is not to say that they should, but RealClimate really does snip or censor the tough questions, no mattter how politely they are asked. It stifles dialogue and debate on a regular basis. A lot of people who post incisive commentary on ClimateAudit would love to post at RealClimate, but they've been there and done that and it's never worked for them.

    (Sorry Roger, but the bogus analogy required a response. Snip at will.)"

  19. Still taking applying double standards, eh Roger? OK, I'll post it here so I can refer to it at a later time:


    So we have this:

    ==]] All -- as much fun as it is to discuss WUWT and who has what motivations, I'd ask that you take that stuff elsewhere. Thanks! [[==

    After we have this:

    ==]] There are a few bad eggs, with the Real Climate mafia being among them, who are exploiting climate science for personal and political gain. Makes the whole effort look bad. [[==

    Sorry, Roger - but your inconsistent application of standards is counterproductive. It is a symptom of the larger problem - just as Revkin said,

    ==]] One's integrity in such a situation is more a function of the consistent quality of one's output. [[==

    Now I would underline his reference to the situational aspect - the fact that your behavior is typical of climate combatants on both sides of the debate doesn't tell us about your integrity more generally. What you're doing is an all too human trait. But clearly, poisoning the well and then complaining that the water is poisoned only undermines your goal of being an "honest broker."

  20. Deleted from Albatross on Raise your Integrity thread:


    This is unbelievable. I am referring to a statement made here on this blog, that you endorsed in the context of the OP and Marcott et al., and you are honestly trying to claim that it is not relevant?

    At #24 you again insinuate that "some" allegedly eliminate or ignore scientific integrity. Please who are these "some"? You need to name names, otherwise you could be talking about Watts or McKitrick or the RC mafia.

    Can you please provide an unequivocal and unambiguous answer by naming names? Thanks. "

  21. Rejected from Albatross on Marcott:

    "Andreas @56,

    You hit the nail on the head when you said,

    "...except that people like you and McIntyre take it out of context and use the ambiguity to try to damage the integrity of the authors."

    Well undermining the integrity of climate scientists is a big part of the game plan for fake skeptics and those in denial.

    Unlike me, you have been very patient with Roger, but it is clear that he has made up his mind, is fully committed to his errors/misinterpretation and for whatever reason will stubbornly not back down. Quite ironic given that he is telling others to get their facts straight ;)

    There has been a lot of bluster by Roger, both in the main post and in the thread, but would challenge him to present a formal complaint to Science and/or the NSF. I doubt very much he will, because engaging in hyperbole and bluster on the safety of one's blog is quite different from having to construct an evidence based, coherent and rational argument.

    Or maybe he will submit a complaint, and when it goes nowhere, he will most likely (being the creative fellow he is) think of a way to try and leverage events in his favour and to garner more attention....

    Sadly we can be virtually guaranteed of more of these games from Roger et al in the future. In fact, I recommend you read the post he wrote immediately after this post in which he features a diatribe by Ross McKitrick."



    Once again Roger's comprehension is letting him down. You were requesting input from them, not help. Quite the difference. Roger does like to try and twist reality in his favour.

    Note too that Roger won't post at RC this matter (he'll likely get crucified like Curry did a while ago), so he only lurks in the shadows ;)"

  22. "Note too that Roger won't post at RC this matter..."

    "Real Climate" routinely censors out comments. Particularly comments that point out the dishonesty of their posters.

    Note that the do *not* even note that the comments have been removed. They simply pretend that the comments have never even happened.

    That is disgraceful and completely dishonest behavior, and absolutely unpardonable for a blog that pretends to be dedicated to science.

  23. I have commented all over the web on climate and non-climate sites. Here is a complete list of blogs that have banned me or arbitrarily deleted/refused to post comments:

    *Skeptical Science
    *Climate Progress
    *Real Climate
    *Brad DeLong

    I think that is it. Hmmm ... anything in common among them? ;-)

  24. I had enough comments withheld by Real Climate that I stopped commenting there. I probably should have continued to comment, and just saved my comments to post on my blog when they censored them. I remember two instances in particular. In one case, they had James Annan as a guest poster, and he was making fun of me in the comments. They kept his comments, but censored out my responses. And they don't just do like a: "we're deleting this portion, because it's too rough." They simply did not post my comments. So no one would ever know I responded. Sort of the literary equivalent of several people holding a guy's hands behind his back, so their friend can hit him in the stomach.

    In the second case, Spencer Weart had the ridiculous post "Antarctica is Cold? Yeah, We Knew That"...


    ...that pointed out that models predict that Antarctica will be cold.

    I sent a comment to the effect of, "Surely you can see that's conflating 'cold' with 'cooling'...and that no one is trying to argue that Antarctica should be warm? It was in no way problematic to anyone with an ounce of respect for getting things right. I didn't harangue, I just asked the question. But, "No soup for you!" They wouldn't post the comment, no matter how I worded it.

    Speaking of which...I just get done from over at William Connolley's Stoat where I tried--completely without success--to simply get William Connolley or any commenter to give estimates for global surface temperature anomalies in 2030, 2070, and 2100. (I was trying to get focused on the real question, which is not, "What were the temperatures thousands of years ago?", but "What will the temperatures in the coming decades?")

    Connolley began heavier and heavier censoring of my comments. Then another commenter (who never answered any of my questions) gave *me* questions about likely Arctic sea ice coverage in the 21st century.

    I answered on my blog...and left a final comment on Stoat saying that the response was on my blog, and that I wouldn't be commenting anymore on Stoat because of the censoring.


    Possibly in attempt to earn his Junior Stalin badge ;-) even that comment was pulled.

    Then later the questioner demanded:


    "Still no comment on Arctic sea ice? What’s wrong? Nothing to copypaste? No Gish Gallop anywhere with some useful disinformation?"

    Hilariously, I think Comrade Connolley had forgotten he'd even pulled my comment, and added this non sequitur response to the questioner:

    "[IJIS doesn't look very exciting at the moment, but then this time of year isn't a good guide -W]"

  25. Roger,

    You continue to try and invert reality and imply a conspiracy is afoot. I can only speak for SkS, as far as I can tell your allegations about SkS are simply not true. You are a) NOT banned from SkS,b) posts are deleted only if they violate the clearly stated comments policy (unlike your arbitrary and ad hoc "moderation" on your blog) and c) I cannot recall an occasion when moderators have refused to post your comments.

    Now please either substantiate your claims or retract your falsehoods concerning SkS. Thank you.

  26. -25-Albatross

    Plenty of examples on this thread:


    Their blog, their rules, fair enough. But that behavior nonetheless puts SkS in rarified company

  27. Hi,

    Oh, I almost forgot the most hilarious one...I got banned from Brad DeLong's website simply for asking someone for the source of a claim they made about global warming.

    It was literally a comment like, "Where did you read that?" That comment got me banned.

    I feel sorry for Professor DeLong's students who provide citations for their work. He must really hate that! ;-)

  28. Hi Roger,

    I am busy fact checking your allegations.

    Did you mean "rarefied" as in "of high moral or intellectual value; elevated in nature or style"? Why thank you for the compliment :)

    More soon.

  29. "Did you mean 'rarefied' as in 'of high moral or intellectual value; elevated in nature or style'?"

    Albatross, do you think it's good for blogs to:

    1) censor comments by clipping out portions of comments?, and/or

    2) censor comments by simply not even acknowledging receipt of the comments (so that no one is even aware that the commenter made any comment at all)? and/or

    3) ban certain commenters from even commenting?

    I'm honestly curious about your answers to these three questions. I think you can see from my comments in #22 and #24 that my answers to all three questions would be, "No, it's a disgrace to do any of those things." But what are your answers?

  30. Albatross again:


    You continue to play games. I clearly stated that I was referring to your response to Appell in which you chose to ignore (or omit) important details when quoting the paper.

    You have done this several times recently, including when quote mining from SREX."

  31. Hi Roger,

    Your claims about moderation at SkS are not only wrong, but dishonest. As Daniel Bailey told me when looking into this matter:
    "Quite frankly, Junior was treated with exceptional courtesy, candor and even-handedness.  That he was unable to comply with a very transparent Comments Policy that the vast majority of participants freely operate under, and therefore forced the moderation of his own comments …"

    I repeat, the following three claims made by you (Roger Pielke Junior) above about SkS are demonstrably false and/or dishonest:  

    1) You are not banned from SkS, you stating so is dishonest. You still have commenting privileges. 

    2) You are wrong to say that SkS has refused to post comments (see #1).

    3) You actually required moderation in your comments (which remain on that thread). Of the 28 posts that you made, four were deleted: Two by your request: "RogerPielkeJr at 21:59 PM on 16 August 2012 
Moderators can delete 104 and 105 if they'd like, thx". One because it was a reply to a deleted comment by another poster. Another comment by you was deleted, but only after you were repeatedly warned that a continuance of you violating the Comments Policy would force the moderation staff to start deleting your comments.  In fact, Rob Honeycutt advised you about needing to conform to the Comments Policy in a Moderator Response on your very first comment, here. Dikran warned you again about future comments being deleted if he kept posting off-topic statements (here). Dikran also politely explained to you why one of your posts was deleted:
    "(ii) no, you are not getting special treatment (actually I have been actively trying to keep the edits to a minimum to keep the discussion as even tempered as possible) (iii) I explained in my previous comment why your post has been edited, examination of what was snipped should make it easy to see what was off-topic and potentially inflammatory."

    May I remind you of your last post on that thread (my bolding):
    "I do appreciate the opportunity to interact and now have a sense of SkS, which I was only vaguely aware of. Good luck with your future efforts, perhaps we will cross paths again .. RP"

    Now that is at complete odds with your false and dishonest allegations made above.  

    I kindly request that you unequivocally retract them forthwith so that we can move on.

  32. -31-Albatross

    Thanks, but not sure what you are complaining about. SkS did edit and delete comments that I made -- that is a fact.

    Whether it was appropriate, arbitrary or justified is of course in the eye of the beholder. SkS calls it "exceptional courtesy" -- I call it uncool, so there you go. But the editing/deleting was done as you have documented, as I claimed in #23 above. I never claimed to have been banned from SkS.

    Let me be absolutely clear -- if I ever write a post about someone or their work, they have every right on this blog to respond unedited as they see fit on that thread, if not in a mainline post.

    I will not further discuss editorial policies at SkS or here. They have theirs, I have mine. If I don't like them at SkS, it is my choice whether or not to participate. Same goes for you here. Feel free to offer the last words.


  33. I was not the one complaining and making dishonest claims, that was you @23. Let me remind you what you originally said @23:

    "....blogs that have banned me or arbitrarily deleted/refused to post comments"

    The first blog you list is SkS. So your first and primary dishonest claim is that you have been banned at SkS. End of story. Let me be absolutely clear, your statement is not open to misinterpretation. And you now declaring that "I never claimed to have been banned from SkS" is a quite frankly a blatant lie.

    Your second false claim is that your posts were "arbitrarily deleted". See below.

    Your third false claim is that SkS refused to post comments. That is demonstrably false as was explained to you above @31.

    You are being disingenuous when you say:
    "Whether it was appropriate, arbitrary or justified is of course in the eye of the beholder."

    As has been explained to you before, unlike your ad hoc moderation, SkS has a very clear comments policy. You were encouraged to familiarize yourself with it following your very first post on that thread.

    Now you claim "They have theirs, I have mine"

    Please direct me and other readers to your comments policy.

    Again, I request that you please retract your false allegations about SkS. Surely you at least have the integrity to do the right think here Roger. Sadly I suspect that you won't.....but maybe you will surprise me.

  34. 33-Albatross

    I doubt I'll be able to help here. You seem pretty far off the deep end, but:

    "....blogs that have banned me or arbitrarily deleted/refused to post comments..."

    ...followed by listing SkS absolutely does *not* mean that Roger is saying he was banned from SkS. If you don't understand this, try drawing a Venn diagram of the situation. Or simply look up the difference between "or" and "and." (If he'd used the word "and" he would indeed have been saying he was banned from SkS.)

    So I hope you "at least have the integrity to do the right thing here", and retract this incorrect rant:

    "So your first and primary dishonest claim is that you have been banned at SkS. End of story. Let me be absolutely clear, your statement is not open to misinterpretation. And you now declaring that "I never claimed to have been banned from SkS" is a quite frankly a blatant lie."

    After this, we can discuss whether Roger was correct in his statement that SkS was one of the blogs that have "arbitrarily deleted/refused to post comments."

    But before that, I'd really like to get your answers to the questions I had in #29, i.e., do you think it's a good thing for blogs to:

    1) censor comments by clipping out portions of comments?, and/or

    2) censor comments by simply not even acknowledging receipt of the comments (so that no one is even aware that the commenter made any comment at all)? and/or

    3) ban certain commenters from even commenting?

    I've come up with a fourth question. Is it good for blogs to:

    4) Acknowledge receipt of comments, but refuse to post them?

  35. Albatross again:


    What you are doing is getting terribly tiresome. The fact is, that when you said @13 "The paper says:", the text that followed, the text that you chose to highlight omitted some important/key information from Sander et al. (2013), with the result of you misrepresenting their work.

    I brought this to you attention. After some obfuscation you appeared to concede the point @25 when you said "Yes, thanks, I hear you.". But you to again divert attention away from you. Now you are back to you @32 claiming that you did nothing wrong. Wheels on the bus....;)

    Look, so long as you continue to engage in this sort of behaviour in the public eye, I or someone else will continue to call you on it."

  36. Albatross again:


    Keep repeating a falsehood does not make it right or true. It is incorrect for you to claim that, "The paper also has a fatal methodological flaw as I have indicated", when it has been pointed out to you that that is not the case.

    Or are you perhaps referring to the methodology of Pielke et al. (2008) that the authors employed?"

  37. Joshua again, after posting a half dozen similar comments:

    "So Roger -

    Have you decided yet to step up to the plate and answer a simple question? Why is this so difficult for you?

    ==]] You can try to develop an index of well-being that hides wealth. [[==

    Who was trying to develop an index of well being that "hides wealth," Roger? 'Cause that looks a bit like straw man. If it isn't, then why are you hiding behind moderation? Would an "honest broker" do that, Roger?"

  38. Albatross:

    "Oh Roger, come on, please don't council me on snark, you are incredibly snarky yourself ;)

    My snark was justified as you are and were misrepresenting what people said to try and score points.

    I accept your silence on the subject of you misreading my and Sachs' comments as tacit admission that the premise of your argument was a straw man and a shifting of the goal posts. Why?

    Sachs was talking the strongest TCS increasing in strength globally, but then you start arguing about landfalling hurricanes in the WNP.

    Maybe you could explain to your readers why 50% of the ten strongest landfalling hurricanes have occurred since 2000, 70% since 1990.

    Grinsted's analysis also shows positive trends in the strength of the strongest TCs (top 90%, 97.5 and 99%) over the WNP extending the JTWC WNP data beyond 2010. Pity Aslak did not say whether or not the trends are statistically significant or provide the trends. Regardless the trends are positive over the WNP (top 90%, 97.5 and 99%), in agreement with Elsner et al..


    PS: Re cyclone center, it cannot hurt to have better data to work with. "

  39. Albatross again (note: please stop):

    "How sad for you Roger, you can't handle someone calling you on your game. Run Roger, run! "

  40. Roger, thanks for tweeting the Revkin piece. I thought Hoerling did a great job of explaining the way they use information to make the claim, so I posted it on my blog.
    A colleague asked about how that relates to information about the jet stream shifting...
    Is the difference that Hoerling was looking at what is happening and it's not outside the norm of the past, but changes in the jet stream may cause changes in the future?
    Or changes in the jet stream are not for sure related to climate change?
    Or ????
    Thanks to you and others who could help explain. For us not in the biz, even though we're scientists, sometimes it's hard to put the pieces together.