CSIRO climate researcher resigns rather than be censored

Spash, like Hansen, is a fool, in that they both actually believe their governments are realling going to shut down their economies to save the planet, and have simply picked up the wrong tool by accident.
The EU has only been in favour of ETS because they know it doesn’t work and amounts to a gigantic exercise in paper pushing. The only exception has been Britain, but every community needs it’s village idiot.
How the French and Germans must have laughed when all their coded messages were taken literally by the British who then dutifully climbed out of the trenches and began marching towards the guns. I wonder how long it will be before Britain looks over its shoulder and notices that everyone else is still in the trenches.

James Delingpole is going head to head with Monbiot tonight – any killer facts that he can use to debunk the usual claims?
He’s been given the petition of 31k scientists who disagree/some stuff on ice growth.
Sure he’d appreciated anything re the code fiddling. He’s on in at 1800 GMT

PhilW (06:17:11) :
“The BBC is starting to crack………..”
Not really, if you examine the article, two points emerge. Firstly, as the comments are the official statement of Saudi Arabia, the BBC could not possible have not reported it.
Secondly, they quickly follow the statement with counter quotes from warmists just to remind everybody that Saudi Arabia is a “denialist petroleum economy” whose actions are “regressing to type”. And of course, everybody knows the science is settled.

The Full Story.
Can anyone answer me why the data is always held back by these centers when it is requested. If their case is so solid you would think they want the data public. If this proves to be right about NASA then the press has got to give. But I won’t hold my breath!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-climate-dispute/

I have no sympathy for this guy. Anybody who plays the “stress” card in public is an *ssclown. His apparent allegiance to the Hansen/Greenpeace/wacko fringe only confirms it.

Good that Spash doesn’t like cap and trade. Bad that Spash likes carbon taxes.

Leon Brozyna (23:46:04) As for being muzzled, oh please; the employer sets the terms; don’t like the terms? Quit and you’ll be free to speak your mind in any direction you choose.

For a private employer, and perhaps for government employers in the more “liberal” nations, but in the good-ole right-of-center U.S. the employer cannot set the terms for public speech if the employer is government. To allow such would make a travesty of the idea of government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Mike D. (01:04:16) :
Rats leaving the sinking ship. Nothing more. Ga’day, Dr. Splash.
Yep, however it appears the S.S.Copenhagen got hit by the Iceberg before leaving the
dock.There’s a Rat conga line forming on the Hauser…..

A major social democratic newspaper in Norway, Dagsavisen, now actually gas a decent and cool article about ClimateGate, congratulations Dagsavisen! It’s now time to focus on the real problems we have, the abundance toxic contaminants world wide, the rain forest, the endangered animals, birds and fish. You can read a translation to English below, well done Dagsavisen:
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.dagsavisen.no/meninger/article456118.ece
The importance of Climate Gate
It was initially unlikely that Congress would give the green light for emissions trading. “Climate Gate” has put the matter completely dead. United States will not ratify any agreement from Copenhagen or negotiations next year.There is no political support among voters.
Climate Gate is the name of science scandal in the wake of a leak from the climate unit to a British university. The so-called CRU-data set is one of the IPCC’s most important data sets, and the CRU has long been the subject of requests for public view. It is common that researchers share data so other scientists can verify the result. Crus main researcher, Phil Jones, has long been the subject of criticism because he has refused to share raw data for many years.
Jones last and most desperate, attempt to block the public view was when he claimed that he had “lost” the data in the summer. University he works for has meanwhile prepared for having to give up information that was the subject of inquiries. Finally, there were some at the university who lost patience with the delay methods. The prepared data package was leaked to journalists at the BBC and posted on a file sharing server in Russia two months ago.
The package of data files containing the incriminating e-mails in which scientists discuss how they have manipulated data sets to make them fit better with the desired conclusions and strategies for how they can force the journal editors to refuse to publish research from people they disagree with. In addition, there are a number of incriminating files such asprogramming code with explanatory text about how the data has been manipulated and a number of other things that make the CRU data now looks very credible out. There are nearly 200 megabytes of data and U.S. media have barely begun to dig into the files.
The contents of Climate Gate files is not a surprise to researchers in the field, but one thing is that “everyone” on the inside know about something, another thing is when senators can present the documents in Congress. Senator Inhofe, who is minority leader in the environmental committee, has already requested a hearing on Climate Gate. Commenting on the Wall Street Journal said Inhofe that 95 percent of clean nail in the coffin of emissions trading was in the coffin before the Climate Gate, now he felt that the last nail was clean inside. Inhofe is considered one of the most powerful greenhouse politicians in the United States.
It is long since the climate stopped being about science. The moment a scientific theme stepped into the political arena so changes the whole character of the theme itself. The scientists who believe that there is no catastrophic warming have no difficulty in building this, and they are happy to share their data. The problem is that politicians have defined a new political project, and the researchers’ only role is to legitimize the project. The scientists who do not participate in the game are ignored, both by politicians, media, and when research funding to be allocated.
Phil Jones has alone received almost 130 million in research funding over the past 20 years, and there is no doubt that superstars like Michael Mann has the same impressive numbers. They showed that if they managed to continue to produce shocking warming numbers, then the research funding to continue to flow. Globe has not cooperated. The last decade has seen a leveling off because of the La Nino / El Nino-fluctuations, while the CRU their graphs are steeper every time they run.
On the basis of the CRU data samples politicians in the world to adopt various measures that ultimately is rationing of energy. Most people know that it is disastrous for the standard of living. Australian parliamentarians have rejected this bright in a political drama this week. American politicians are not willing to risk valgtap of implementing the largest tax increase in American history, the voters know that their temperature is the same regardless of how much tax they pay.
Lene Johansen handles media for the American think tank Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow at climate meeting in Copenhagen.

Tennex (04:34:50) :
Off Topic sorry guys but.
I know there is a response to this http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/langswitch_lang/sw/ some where.

You are looking for a reference to the “peer-reviewed” literature, no doubt. I don’t have one. Answer steps one at a a time.
Concede the first three points.
Step 4: “Lessons from simple toy models”– Presumably meaning that less outgoing radiation means a warmer surface, but bring in other factors (clouds, advection, convection), and as a general rule this statement looks too simple.
Step 5: “Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2.”
This is about three times larger than some estimates (Stefan-Boltzmann for instance), and this is what a large portion of the debate revolves around, isn’t it? Settled? I doubt it. I see a few respondents on the thread are gamely prying away at this step.
Step 6:”Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number” Compared to what? Is it significant in terms of climate, extreme weather events, insurance losses, impacts on the economy, impacts on the polar bear, or letting bureacrats run every minute detail of one’s life? How big a problem is this in reality? This is the biggest unsettled issue in the swirling debate.
The blogger wishes to boil the whole debate down to three steps over which there is little quarrel, followed by three iffy steps over which there is no proof, but only his ex-cathedra pronouncements.
I did have to smile when I read the responses on that site (RC), though. Most could have a smiley emoticon in accompaniment, and they are all so polite–not like the adult world at all.

Slightly OT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm
Hope the link works.
Witness the full might of the governemnt propaganda machine (BBC) swinging in behind the Copenhagen crap. Especially the history of climate article, equally crap! We have them running scared. Do they seriously believe that people reading this rubbish will not notice that the names given within the article, are the same ones that produced the Hockey Stick in the first place, & which is part of the scandall being swept under the carpet by HMG & the AGW establishment, as I type. Remember, constant unrelenting reinforcement of the propaganda, oh how Goebels would be so proud of his “children”, they’ve learned so much from him, after all it was he who right up to the bitter end was making public proclamations of the impending defeat of the Allies, when the people could see the opposite. Richard Sharpe has it right on the nose, this is the Marxist Socialists dream ticket, it’s what the Club of Rome & the Sierra Club have wanted & worked for all their existance, they just didn’t know how to achieve it until the Global Warming scare came along! The end of the world is nye, WAGTD!
BBC local lunchtime News did its bit for the propaganda, with “experts” & school children (it is sickening the depths they have plumeted to) regurgitating the mantra, parrot fashion.
May you Hide the Decline!
AtB

PhilW (06:17:11) :
The BBC is starting to crack………..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392611.stm
———
The first delicious irony is that scepticism gains media acknowledgement not because of an open-minded reading of the argument but because of an exaggerated claim made by a diplomat with an obvious agenda.
The second is that the report neglects to point out that Hansen is a nutty extreme warmer and so it winds up suggesting that there’s a prominent sceptic at NASA.