Excerpts from the Telegraph:
A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” (Note: Delingpole reports via email he got it from WUWT, commenter Bulldust coined the phrase at 3:52PM PST Nov 19th – Anthony) to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian‘s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
…
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
Read the complete essay at the Telegraph

Have just read “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Mr Booker. What an eye-opener! It should be required reading by all politicians. Anyone who knows how science works knows that scientists are humans too, with families to support and careers to manage. The scientific process of peer review, experimental repeatability, validation of theory, works well most of the time, (cf “The Trouble with Physics”, by Lee Smolin), like democracy, it may not be perfect but it is the best we’ve got. These two processes are not always mutually beneficial.
No-one denies that the planet heats up and cools down, with causes ranging from solar activity, volcanic activity, asteroidal impacts, atmospheric water vapour, oceanic currents and perhaps carbon dioxide. The con lies in blaming the whole thing on carbon dioxide to the exclusion of everything else and then claiming that we can do anything about it. The naivety of this is breathtaking, bordering on the sinister. Especially as CO2 is the least effective green house gas, and the link to causing global warming is far from proved.
I read the book too. Got it from http://www.amazon.com .
I knew most of the stuff before reading it, but it was “nice” to get a summary. In fact its a bit depressing to see what is going on in the world right now. Will climate science ever recover?
Just read Lydia’s comment above. In my more optimistic moments I too used to think that it was a deep plot to prepare the world for a dearth of oil; but I don’t think that there is anyone intelligent enough in Brown’s government to be so deviously farsighted. Start preparing for the lights to go out!
Bob, maybe you should read the Sceptics handbook;
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
Bob Lloyd (04:13:17) :
“So many people describe themselves in these comments as “skeptics”, and yet they seem to have so little understanding of how science progresses. Instead they rely on their own comfortable assumptions that scientists are all venal, all out to deny the truth, all out to misrepresent the data.”
First of all, Bob, we are not “assuming” anything. They were caught red handed. We have about ten years worth of emails and computer code that would get an “F” if handed in as an assignment.
Second, it isn’t “all” of them, just the ones pretending they have data to support a theory which doesn’t describe reality.
The “appalling pseudescientific gibberish” is what’s coming out of CRU, and it needs to stop.
Forget the BBC, see what happens when I tried to let them know the facts …. DEBATE:
What do you think of the Copenhagen ‘deal’?
SENT:
04-Dec-2009 22:11
COMMENT:
I hope it stops the whole process. we need to examine the precarious position that the world powers have placed us in. World government, have we be ASKED yet? On the basis of the so called facts the CRU of University of East Anglia have systematically refused to allowing any examination of their work via FOI, been ‘encouraged’ to fudge, smooth out the readings they were entrusted to record and extrapolate. The e-mails are real.Facts known by the BBC, gone unreported until now, shame on you!
COMMENT STATUS:
Rejected
It appears that peer review has actually been peer-pressure review. This is not how I was instructed in the scientific method!