Andy May is a retired petrophysicist and has published six books. He worked on oil, gas and CO2 fields in the USA, Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Thailand, China, UK North Sea, Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Russia. He specialized in shale petrophysics, fractured reservoirs, wireline and core image interpretation, and capillary pressure analysis, besides conventional log analysis. His full resume is here: AndyMay
Dear Andy May,
let me introduce myself as the translator of your articles into German. I consider your contributions as of utmost importance. I am a meteorologist, subject weather analysis and -forecasting – and a climate realist from the beginning.
Just in case…
Best regards Chris Frey
Hi Chris, Good to hear from you. I appreciate your efforts.
I have a climate science and energy blog where I present the best articles I read online each day. So far this month, a surprising number of them from WUWT had the byline “Andy May”. I have never seen one author turn out so many consistently good articles in one month, and the month is not yet over. That’s based on 25 years of cleat science reading.
The WUWT articles did not seem to mention that you had a website, but I looked for one anyway, and discovered you did. So I searched for, and discovered, you had your own website today. And learned that you are a retired, which I suspected, with so many articles. And a Ph.D., which surprised me, because you don’t have the usual tedious “Ph.D. writing style”.
I’m writing to say “keep up the good work”, at this incredible pace so far in March 2022, if it can continue. I hope you have no problem with me presenting edited versions of some of your articles on my blog — but not the day you publish them.
That’s what you get for writing so many good articles. From now on, I’ll provide a link to your your website, instead of a link to WUWT. I’m also going to recommend your website as a bookmark for my readers. Something I’ve only done once before. I’ve had close to 300,000 visits in the past few years and hope lots of my readers start viewing your website regularly.
My short edited version of your latest article is here:
https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2022/03/uah-vs-rss-satellite-global-average.html
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan
Thanks for the very kind words, Richard and feel free to repost any of my work that you like, with attribution. I appreciate it when people mention my personal site as well. I’m not sure where on my site that you got the impression that I have a PhD, I do not. My only college degree is a BS in Geology from the University of Kansas.
A BS degree is good enough for me.
I have a BS degree too.
(detecting BS, not spouting BS)
And a Finance MBA.
Retired at age 51 in January 2005.
Discovered that I was allergic to work.
I read many articles on your website before
recommending it, and one mentioned a Ph.D.
I just realized that article was by Javier, not you.
I don’t care about degrees.
I look for common sense, logic, consistency
and no wild guess predictions of the future climate.
If the author insults a leftist Climate Alarmist
once in a while — that gets bonus points !
That Javier article was
the only one I didn’t care for
— deliberately trying
to get Covid infected?
Who does that?
The article was good
until that point.
That RSS arbitrary revision
in either 2015 or 2016
steered me to UAH.
The WUWT articles ought to start
with a link to your website.
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan
Compliments on your “Climate, CO2, and the Sun” post. Recommend comparing David D.R. Stockwell vs IPCC. Stockwell shows that temperature follows the INTEGRAL of Solar insolation with a Pi/2 (90 deg) lag. Best. e.g.
Stockwell, D.R., 2011. On the Dynamics of Global Temperature. August 2011a. URL, 186, p.55
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.4553&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Stockwell, D.R., Key evidence for the accumulative model of high solar influence on Global Temperature.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Stockwell3/publication/228517399_Key_Evidence_for_the_Accumulative_Model_of_High_Solar_Influence_on_Global_Temperature/links/0a85e532e35de53d8a000000.pdf
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ItN6tJ4AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
Thanks, excellent articles.
Andy, I hesitate to ask this but would you have the time or consider reading and steel-manning short papers from strangers such as myself. I have put together a 1st person narrative of the issue of CAGW, energy and, a long side-bar, into the way our bi-hemispheric brains render the world into being. I know that sounds kind of pretentious but most of what I have in the domain of climate science derives from Javier and I was hoping to have someone with the background, such as yourself, would be interested in looking it over and offering a critique.
The rest of it deals, as alluded, to energy and the Hemisphere Hypothesis of Iain McGilchrist. And the reason I’m doing this is because I perceive the network of virtually everyone I know to be either convinced, confused or indifferent to the notion of climate catastrophe. And almost everyone I know represent what I see as a large sample of the general public whose understanding or curiosity to the nature of what both you and I understand to be the path to energy poverty as something that will just sort itself out.
My intuition tells me otherwise and I want to reach out and engage them and hope that they will be energized sufficiently to do likewise.
My plan is to take my paper and try to distribute into that network of individuals and try to engage them in a measure of understanding that transcends what passes for information. But I want what I distribute to be properly steel-manned because I think it should be based on facts as we know them.
So if you don’t feel that you can entertain this, well no harm no foul. But if I have piqued your curiosity I would appreciate it enormously. I’m including my email if you would like me to send you a copy.
I am:
Mark Heidel
mark.heidel@protonmail.com
Thanks!!
I’ve been following your blog for a while, and I always appreciate the depth of research you put into your posts. Your writing style is engaging, and I love how you explained it. It makes it easy for readers like me to understand complex concepts. Thank you for sharing this valuable information. It’s incredibly helpful for someone like me who’s interested. If you are interested to know about the UPSC Coaching In Indore
Here is an interesting article
https://science.feedback.org/review/robust-scientific-evidence-supports-human-activity-drives-global-warming-contrary-to-claims-co2-coalition-blog-post-andy-may/
Divad,
Sorry science feedback/climate feedback are not reliable sources, and this post is just another example of their obvious misinformation. They have been ridiculed in the Wall Street Journal and fired by Facebook. Ignore them. For details, search “andymaypetrophysicist: science feedback” and you will find numerous examples. As for the “atmospheric fingerprint” myth do the same search but put in “atmospheric fingerprint.”
As for the modern version of the silly “atmospheric fingerprint” in AR6, the so-called pattern matching, it is statistically invalid as shown by McKitrick (2021, 2022, 2023).
Chen, et al. (2024, rejected in 2021) tries to show that McKitrick’s criticisms of the atmospheric fingerprint are incorrect. In fact, Chen, et al. mostly confirm McKitrick’s conclusions, but try and say they don’t matter and can be assumed away. For Ross McKitrick’s detailed criticisms of Chen, et al. see:
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/comments.chenetal.pdf
The Climate Science post is just SOS and just as invalid today as it was 10 years ago when I first saw these old arguments. Science feedback has repeatedly made fools of themselves and no one intelligent pays any attention to them anymore.
Another example of science feedback failure, they can’t seem to get anything right. Facebook was quite right to fire them:
“Said recommendations were frequently misguided. In December 2021, a fact-checker called Science Feedback flagged something I had written for Reason as “false information.” As a result, the article’s image was blurred and its distribution was presumably impacted. As Science Feedback later conceded, their fact-check was erroneous—my article was not. The decision was eventually reversed; TV host John Stossel had a similar experience.”
Link:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mark-zuckerberg-fire-facebooks-rogue-222618047.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHgu65-IfqX0alpeHxqeWO_j2khnKhsIaAtjRocNTnslFBA9p5tSuTgRNG9c-cpORoV4L1hEqEjpgq1ou9ErpQ3-S3XskhqU-NKg4vmgYqgnbP8I5NhPoSC3N3LGGTVSChdon0UEJ0Wnhl3WNMvkgaCt5XpYT1yF5qVYGXn6ey3N