The one glaring lie in the whole account is that they were unable to respond to FOI requests because to do so would have slowed down their research efforts.

That is a first class flat out lie. They could have had a team of “under” scientists who could keep up with the research findings and attend to FOI requests without delaying research.

They have told a stupid, pointless, thoughtless lie. There must be a reason to do so and lies are told to cover and patch up previous lies.

This AGW research is just a cover for a big slug of snake oil. If those in Copenhagen vote for a worldwide cap and trade or sequestration of carbon we are all in deep doo doo because the barons and politicians who stand to benefit hugely will take that money from us. These “movers and shakers” will reward their good scientists and media friends and themselves of course, all at our expense.

There is absolutely no way of knowing if CO2 is the root of all our evils but we are being railroaded into something very costly and with no known efficacy. The research hasn’t been done as the emails blatantly show.

What will stop Copenhagen doing the wrong thing?

He compiled a list of what Rabett named as “true scientists” (versus the Morano’ list)-Mr. Zorita was in that list as a true scientist. I wonder if after Zorita statement about Jones, Mann, etc, the “true scientist” Zorita will be downgraded by Rabett to “mccarthy” Zorita. Curiously Von Storch, a close colleague from Zorita, was not in the Rabett list.

best

REPLY: Anything from that boorish troll is worthless. Science of repute is not conducted by people that hide behind cute names. – Anthony

My statement in my earlier post, represents my understanding of our current state. I am not an expert in paleoclimatology. My background is engineering, law and public policy. Research in climate and related fields, both current and paleo, is a hobby I adopted a half dozen years ago. I’m glad Bill is finalizing his post related to this topic. We will all learn together. Its time to revisit these issues of paleoclimate changes that we can expect to repeat. My personal concern is that we (or our children) will physically revisit these issues before we are ready to deal with them. Especially since we are focusing, as a globe, on the opposite.

So Bill, we look forward to your posting.

Thank you

The point Dennis (and Eisenhower) makes is bigger than GW. It has to do with the corruption of science via government. And vice versa The specific case is: perhaps government funds GW science as long as GW provides info supporting the expansion of government. And perhaps many GW researchers understand that and accommodate the government agenda in return for funding.

For some reason this bigger issue never gets traction.

Richard McGough (22:36:27) :

Bing.com autocomplete has climategate!

And it returns 50,800,000 pages!

That’s 50 MILLION! It’s five times Google which also has CENSORED “climategate” from its autocomplete suggestion list.

I say it’s time to push BING.COM in a big way. We need to reward MS for not being part of the climategate coverup. I don’t normally “like” MS that much because they have such a monopoly, but this is enough to make me switch permanently.

I just switched my configuration so bing is my preferred search engine. I have been uncomfortable with some of Google’s positions for some time, and I see no reason to support their advertisement revenue stream by using them, if they are going to actively manipulate search results to serve a political agenda, instead of being an honest broker of information.

Larry

It could also be very annoying, Richard. It seems to me quite reasonable that Google would make this move to unlink the pairing in the interests of all searching climate as surely many will be looking for this subject alone without gates or fences.

Perhaps the old never put down to conspiracy…. adage applies here.

Good point Roger. I got a little hot under the collar and now after a good nights sleep I see that understatements are generally best.

Wrong. Bad line and not applicable here. I meant that we should consider it is unlikely a conspiracy, but more a move for maximum spread in searching.

I agree that we should never jump to conclude a “conspiracy” but in this case it is not much of a jump since Google has censorship code in place. With just a few keystrokes they can eliminate keywords from their autocomplete suggestion list and they have a strong motivation to do it so it seems more likely than merely looking to maximize a search spread.

Thanks for your comments.

Why?

Mike, I am going to post up (with Anthony’s permission) the next part(s) of a series on the PaleoClimate next week. There will be a few other parts after that as well.

That question and lots of others will be answered.

Why?

Wrong. Bad line and not applicable here. I meant that we should consider it is unlikely a conspiracy, but more a move for maximum spread in searching.

Let’s also note that he is involved in material that is part of what was released from CRU.

If my name appeared associated with the CRU posts, I would want to distinguish myself from the general thrust too.

In my opinion, it was very smart for him to make this post to Anthony to cover tracks and absolve differences. One would think that others who are mentioned in the email traffic might do the same thing. I have no idea of the sincerity of these comments, but I hope more do so to actually open a dialogue.

The current authoritatively controlled discussion through IPCC is non sensical. It discourages the voicing of contrary views and disenables true scientific discussion about the data and how to use and interpret it. The IPCC won’t let people see the base data it wants to rely upon.

So, lets go back to basics: We are in an ice age. Over the last 2.5 million years we have experienced about twenty periods of glaciation and a similar number of interglacial periods. The periods of glaciation last about 100,000 years and the interglacial periods last 15 -20,000 years. Both are stable states of climate. One (glaciation) lasts 10 times longer than the other. We are at the end of the current interglacial period (15,000-20,000 from the last glacial maximum).

We don’t know what triggers the entrance to glaciation, or to the warmth of the interglacial. But they occur with documented accuracy. As long as there is a continent on either pole, we will continue to be drawn into periods of glaciation and interglacial periods.

The CRU emails and data computer files etc. deal with the last 1000 years. How convenient and silly. Our situation is not defined by a 1000 year window. Let’s wake up.

Also, when reading through their science and environment correspondent’s blogs it’s apparent that the initial tone of moral outrage and indignation (journalists being outraged by the release of suppressed information should appall everyone anyway) has dissipated somewhat and been replaced by some actual investigation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377465.stm

Let’s keep an eye out for more subtle changes in tone and substance as maybe, just maybe, those in the science community previously too afraid or unsure to speak out might just now have the opportunity and confidence to start putting the record straight.

If the tone of the emails which have been released so far is anything to go by there might be a lot of pent up frustration amongst certain members of the community and we might even get to see scores being settled.