Links to everything about Climategate here. Relevant links posted in comments will be added.
WUWT Stories in chronological order, newest first:
Telegraph’s Booker on the “climategate” scandal
“Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google
Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review
Understanding Climategate: Who’s Who – a video
The Curry letter: a word about “deniers”…
How “The Trick” was pulled off
The Australian ETS vote: a political litmus test for cap and trade
An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science
Zorita calls for barring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf from further IPCC participation
Climategate protester pwn3d CBC on live TV
UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course”
IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence”
McIntyre: The deleted data from the “Hide the Decline” trick
Climategate: Stuart Varney “lives with Ed”
Climategate: Pielke Senior on the NCDC CCSP report – “strong arm tactics”
Warwick Hughes shows how Jones selections put bias in Australian Temperatures
Climategate: CATO’s Pat Michaels and Center for American Progress Dan Weiss on Fox News
Quote of the week #23 – calls for resignation in Climategate
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.
Climategate: “Men behaving badly” – a short summary for laymen
Statement on CRU hacking from the American Meteorological Society
Climategate: hide the decline – codified
Must see video – Climategate spoof from Minnesotans for Global Warming
The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole…
Government petition started in UK regarding CRU Climategate
CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS
The appearance of hypocrisy at the NYT – Note to Andy
Nov 24 Statement from UEA on the CRU files
Nov 23 Statement from UEA on the CRU files
Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation
The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation.
CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story
Video: Dr. Tim Ball on the CRU emails
Pielke Senior: Comment On The Post “Enemies Caught In Action!” On The Blackboard
Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues
Spencer on elitism in the IPCC climate machine
CRU Emails – search engine now online
Release of CRU files forges a new hockey stick reconstruction
and the post that started it all…
Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released
Sponsored IT training links:
Join 642-357 online course and improve your 642-691 test score up to 100% using certified 70-685 material.
Other relevant stories:
It might also be worthwhile to provide a repository of PDF’s.
Here’s what I’ve gathered so far:
Is it possible to place a date reference with each article and keep them in date order? Are the entires in date order?
Tim Ball will be posting an article tomorrow (Monday Nov.30/2009) on Canada Free Press that goes through the history of Climategate from the beginning, all the connections among this group, the games played, etc. This from a man who has been marginalized by these very people, and excluded from the peer-reviewed process, even though his research at the time was very relevant to the debate. The Hudson’s Bay records are sub-arctic spanning almost 400 years and their claim is that the Arctic temps are a thermostat for what is going on with the climate. What could be more relevant than this record. Because it did not show what they wanted it to show was reason for dismissal of this research. This is precisely what is wrong with this picture. Please take the time to read. It is an important piece of the Climategate puzzle.
McIntyre & McKitrick 2003 might be relevant somewhere here.
The Strata-sphere has found that surface temperature measurements fail to show twentieth century global warming. The raw CRU data released in Climategate shows that surface temperature readings measure the first half of the last century (1900-1960) as warm or warmer than it is today.
John Pittman has found some interesting science in the Climategate emails: The treeline is an sensitive treemometer, since it is very sharply defined, a few kilometers broad. Trees grow, just barely, south of the treeline, they entirely fail to grow north of the treeline. During the Medieval climatic optimum 750-1450 trees grew north of the present day treeline, indicating that the medieval climatic optimum was warmer than today in the north. During the past century, 1897 to present, there has been no movement in the treeline, indicating no twentieth century warming in the north,none.
Global sea ice area has also remained constant since it has been observed, from 1978 to the present.
My one and only (so far) Climategate post:
A look at the stories I have written on the topic:
You will also see on some of the stories the logo I whipped up for Climategate. I will see if I can come up with a unique one for here.
appeared in a large centrespread in the UK’s Mail On Sunday
wouldn’t have known had I not had breakfast at the local café
IF YOU LOOK IN SPANISH ABOUT ALL OF THIS…
SI BUSCAS EN ESPAÑOL INVESTIGACIONES RELACIONADAS….
BIG HUGH FROM ARGENTINA
UN GRAN ABRAZO DESDE ARGENTINA
I’d suggest several subsets of this, since the following is what most ordinary folks are concerned with. The science itself is of little interest to most people – Sunday supplement junk. This entire issue needs to connect with people and how they live their lives. At present it’s just another piece of BS from on high, that doesn’t directly impact them/us.
1. Political/legal activity and consequences/news as a result of disclosures (current and future ).
2. Financial/market activity and consequences/news as a result of disclosures (current and future ).
3. Farming and industrial activity and consequences/news as a result of disclosures (current and future ).
4. Consumer (groceries, housing, transportation, jobs, lifestyle, etc. ) impacts as a result of disclosures (current and future ).
5. Social organization and consequences of changes due to taxes, regulations, foreign aid, etc. Who are the winners/losers?
Examples of the large impact of manual data adjustments in temperature: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/yet-more-stuff-we-always-suspected-but-its-nice-to-have-proof.html
More explanation of “the trick”: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/the-trick.html
The heart of the scandal: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/the-heart-of-the-scandal.html
Response letter to the AMS: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/missing-the-point-perhaps-on-purpose.html
Dangers of a monoculture: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/dangers-of-a-monoculture-reactions-to-the-hadley-emails.html
Catastrophe Denied video: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/catastrophe-denied-video-from-my-climate-lecture.html
Additional Articles, and Interviews:
Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science
Trawl of Warwick Hughes:
CRU quietly revising 8 months of 2009 global temperature data: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=324
Exactly who was emailing who in Climategate:
Important link to diagram: http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/crunet.gif
Jones et al 1986 methodical insertion of warming bias:
My own modest additions:
OK, do not be scared; I have always been a bit of a hoarder for links. Not all of the links are of the same relevance and some may be repeated, but some are really hilarious (especially those of coders commenting on the CRU code). The following should be in approximate chronological order:
http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm (this coder despairs at the CRU code)
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/myview.html (Eduardo Zorita asks that Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf be barred from the IPCC)
Eric S. Raymond (esr) is the author of “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”; in the OpenSource community, he is as big as they get:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447 (“This isn’t just a smoking gun, it’s a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.”)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1436 (Open-Sourcing the Global Warming Debate)
And lots more in http://esr.ibiblio.org/.
And a comment from one of Michael Crighton’s lectures (pity he did not live to see Climategate; he would have loved it):
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html (Secrecy in science is a corrosive force by Michael Schrage; registration may be required, but worth it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09ORzwKrwaM (WUWT already has an article on this; still it is one of the best political videos ever recorded)
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1390 (this guy is a professional statistician and has done models in the past)
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10399.html (For now, we can safely say all the data produced by this CRU code is highly suspect. By the ancient and proven rule in computing of “Garbage in, Garbage Out” this means that all the climate simulations by other teams that make predictions using this dubious data are likewise corrupted. Given that literally hundreds of millions of lives over the next century will depend on getting the climate models correct, we have to start all our climate modeling over from scratch.)
http://vnboards.ign.com/ywain/b23441/112121341/p9/?135 (talking about the CRU code and the political consequences of Climategate; some of the comments are really funny)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece (the dog ate my homework too!)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Climategate-denial-foundering-on-army-of-Davids-8595184-76420732.html (the Instapundit reflects on Climategate)
http://greenhellblog.com/2009/11/24/ny-times-reporter-whitewashes-climategate-story-he-is-part-of/ (Andrew Revkin has a case of conflict of interests)
This last one is not Climategate-related, but I just cannot avoid sharing it:
It took me 10 minutes to stop laughing.
Frederick Davies (14:55:36) :
You’re right – the last one deserves a thread of its own – hilarious. Thank you!
The BBC and Climategate: was a reporter put under pressure to ignore the story?
Here is just a 5 min pencil sketch of a logo concept for your ClimateGate site.
If this simple concept is something that you might consider, then it can be refined.
Climate change data dumped
All my posts are here (which in turn link to lots of other sites):
‘Botch after botch after botch’
Leaked ‘climategate’ documents show huge flaws in the backbone of climate change science
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
National Post, Canada.
The “Climategate” link on your main page needs to at least be in red, and preferably a lot larger. Just a suggestion.
Here’s my attempt at a logo http://whatcatastrophe.com/drupal/sites/default/files/images/ClimateGate.png
A history of GCM development which discusses the limitations of the early models and the time line of their development for reference.
Any chance to split list into categories? It would make it more accessible and valuable to more people if they were not inundated with too much information spread through a large spectrum of problems that are associated with global warming.
Maybe even “try” a voting system to grade each page’s value to the community.
David Ball (13:01:54) :
“Tim Ball will be posting an article tomorrow (Monday Nov.30/2009) on Canada Free Press that goes through the history of Climategate from the beginning,”
He was on the Coast to Coast AM talk radio show Thursday night and was very outspoken about The Team and its supporters. Here’s what the C2C’s recap summarized his appearance:
“In the latter half of the program, environmental consultant Tim Ball discussed ‘ Climate-Gate,’ a coordinated effort to hide information about global warming. Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia and found damaging emails that show that scientists at the Unit created and manipulated false data to preserve the idea that global warming is real.
“Since 2002, global temperatures have been declining, and numbers from the past have been pushed down to make the current temps seem warmer, he argued. We’re seeing climate change ideas, often based on overly simplistic computer models, used as a vehicle for political purposes, he added.”
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.
Another PDF :
Dr David Evans’
A Simple Proof that Global Warming Is Not Man-Made
Just an idea… we should amass ‘resistance’ links as well. There is so much great information and support out there but it is so scattered.
I mean like links to ron paul, rushbo, lou dobbs, and so forth.. there are many. People/sites that want to take America back and talk about what it will take to do so intelligently and truthfully. People with a wealth of knowledge and experience. Information is our most powerful weapon right now, and these people are providing it. We need unity, and our sources are too scattered.
I am in such a state of shock that this is really happening that I have to seek out these places several times a day just to reassure myself of my sanity. Perhaps others feel the same and would also appreciate a ‘resistance central’, lol.
Anyhow again, just a thought.
“Lawrence Solomon: New Zealand’s Climategate”
“An agency of the New Zealand government has been cooking the books…The chief cook? Dr. Jim Salinger, considered one of the country’s top scientists, who began the graph in the 1980s when he was at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. CRU, of course, has become ground zero of Climategate at Dr. Salinger has maintained close relations with CRU since, as seen in the Climategate emails.”
Apologies if this has been posted…
It’s amazing how convenient THIS item is:
“SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. ”
Taken from this article:
Ok. So first Jones told the other team members to delete data/emails, and says he’s already deleted tons of stuff himself.
THEN he gets outted by the whistleblower, and everyone reads that email, and he publicly states that NO date or emails at CRU have been deleted.
THEN CRU comes out and says they’re going to release everything…
wait for it…
and NOW…they can’t release the information because it’s been deleted.
Does that about sum the data episode up so far?
Someone explain to me on what possible basis does this guy still have a job, and a window WITHOUT bars on it to view the rest of the world from?
Thanks for this resource. While there is a lot of fine work showing the lack of true scientific spirit coming from the alarmist camp, nothing has been so powerful for me as this graph that has shown up several times in WUWT, and an article by Frank Lansner that used that graph.
As Lansner pointed out:”When CO2 does not cause these big temperature changes, then what is then the reason for the big temperature changes seen in Vostok data? Or: “What is the mechanism behind ice ages???”
This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:
First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know.
What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to “mix” and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.”
Note that the warm period we are in, which included the Roman warm, the Little Ice Age, and the Midieval warm, has gone on far longer than any other warm period on the graph. Shouldn’t we be planning on how to survive the more probable cold spell that is coming?
As S. Fred Singer points out in “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years”, “No one alive today, however, is able to recall the alarm that was felt when glaciers advanced. Alan Cutler…described what it must have been like during the Little Ice Age:
The year was 1645, and the glaciers in the Alps were on the move. In Chamonix at the foot of Mont Blanc, people watched in fear as the Mer de Glace (Sea of Ice) glacier advanced. In earlier years, they had seen the slowly flowing ice engulf farms and crish entire villages….Similar dramas unfolded throughout the Alps and Scandinavia during the late 1600s and 1700s as many glaciers grew farther down mountain slopes and valleys that they had in thoudands of years.”
“Humans worry (perhaps excessively) when glaciers shrink but suffer dreadfully when they advance. Picture a mile-thick glacier covering the area that is now the city of Chicago- something primitive human hunters might actually have seen during the 90,000 years of the last ice age.”
Links to the CRU Code & code analysis
The HARRY_READ_ME.txt File organized L’Ombre de l’Olivier
Climategate: hide the decline codified
The Code Bishop Hill’s Blog
Data horribilia: the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file Devils Kitchen, 11/23/2009 03:56:00 AM
CRU’s Source Code: Climategate Uncovered by Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, November 25, 2009
The Program Code – Perhaps Far More Damning than the Emails Climate Skeptic November 25, 2009, 10:54 am
The HADCRU code as from the CRU leak L’Ombre de l’Olivier 23 November 2009
Hadley Hack and CRU Crud November 21, 2009 by E.M.Smith
CLIMATEGATE: My analysis of the CRU files, starting with “documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt” Steve Netwriter
Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story The “Read Me” file of a harried programmer who couldn’t replicate the scientists’ warming results, November 24, 2009 – by Charlie Martin, PajamasMedia
Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails Posted by Declan McCullagh
November 24, 2009 11:40 AM CBSNews
The Harry_Read_Me fileSteve McIntyre, 2009 November 23, CAMirror
Revenge of the Nerds: Climategate Is Following the Memogate Pattern By Jay Richards, The American November 29, 2009, 11:30 am
“Climategate” — Forget the Emails: What Will the Hacked Documents Tell Us? Ronald Bailey | November 25, 2009
I must be doing a bad job, nobody suggested these.
The comment by the Chief Scientist at CRU, Phil Jones, on learning that John L Daly was dead — “… in an odd way this is cheering news” needs to be seen in context to be fully understood. John Izzard has published this sobering story in Quadrant Online: https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/john-l-daly
This story in RollingStone by Matt Taibbi is a real eye opener on the investment banker Goldman Sachs http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/inside_the_great_american_bubble_machine
The leaker has been dubbed “Deep Climate” over at
I say we should call him Deep Decline.
BBC Radio 4: Quentin Cooper Talks to Philip Stott & Tom Crowley about CLIMATEGATE Scandal, and details of the emails revealed
The ONLY good BBC coverage of this AFAIK.
I’ve typed in the transcript.
Apologies if this has already been posted, but this excellent article from Climate Audit is a good example of how ‘real data’ fails to conform to the CRU/GISS/IPCC CAGW myth in the very area they say it is at its worst.
Antarctic Update – by Steve McIntyre on January 20th, 2007
A crime against humanity
by Walter Starck
November 30, 2009
Climategate: Trivial break in or devastating break out?
Walt (22:02:50) :
I say we should call him Deep Decline.
Him might be a them.
Drudge’s +20 million hits a day front page has this—beneath all the Tiger Woods headlines of course :
” ‘Climate change’ data dumped…”
at link :
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based…..The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data….Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records.
Follow the Money
I Just googled “grants site:cru.uea.ac.uk” and up popped the following.
This is a link to a web page titled “Recent CRU grants-Grants active since 1 January 2007,” which breaks down the distribution of roughly £3 million of grant money. The following information is provided:
“Project title/Contractor,” “Investigator(s),” “Value,” and “Start/End” dates.
Among the dozen investigators named are Jones and Briffa.
Nothing necessarily sinister here. In this era £3 million distributed among a dozen investigators is probably not unreasonable. Nevertheless, this information might be useful to someone trying to understand where some of the money was coming from.
Hacker or whistlerblower? An in-depth analysis by a senior programmer, and why he can guess that there has been no violation of the mail server of the University of East Anglia, but rather that the mail and documents were made public by a CRU researcher, presumably American.
Hack Attack! (English language):
The balanced and authoratitive audio file linked here is worthy of a listen:
via Andrew Bolt
Himalaya Glaciers NOT Shrinking
Just seen this: http://yesbuthowever.com/himalayan-glaciers-8136289/
“India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests has released a comprehensive report on the Himalayan glaciers by the eminent Dr. V.K. Raina, ex-Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India. According to his report, the Saichen glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.” In fact, it is growing. Even Richard Armstrong, Senior Research Scientist at the University of Colorado, and the man who briefed Al Gore on glaciers, concluded there was no major melting in Himalayan glaciers above 5,400 meters. Professor Armstrong’s research, as is typical in the field, uses satellite-gathered data. Dr. Raina and his team actually physically sampled 20 of the 200 Himalayan glaciers over a period of many years. They found little “snout” retreat, if any. The snout is the longest extension of a glacier – the finger. They also found no discernible pattern to glacier melt rates. As Raina put it, “ultimately the movements [of glaciers] are due to climate and snowfall in particular, but the factors are so varied that the snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier.”
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report had concluded Himalayan glaciers were receding at such a fast rate they could be gone by 2035 or earlier. Raina’s report acknowledges general glacier retreat, but finds no evidence of direct causation by carbon emission. Some glaciers even grew during periods of increased industrialization.”
One for the general public
“For the sake of science, Dick, for the sake of collegiality, for your own sake, give it a rest. You know as well as I do that the issue isn’t global warming. The issue is what side of the bread our butter is on.”
“Now, we’re climatologists, for crying out loud,…”
“The Climate Scam: Did You Read It First Here?
November 27, 2009 11:55 AM by N. Joseph Potts (Archive)
Anthropogenic global warming has been a dubious proposition from the outset to anyone with the slightest understanding of social science as it pertains to coercive government, science “science,” and the nexus of the two. Even if you didn’t read about it elsewhere (and there were places where you could), you could (and should) have easily thought up the evil plot in the whole thing.
Last week, Lilburne brought this Blog the report many of us have been waiting for for years: It’s all a put-up job.
But way back (it seems so long ago) in 2006, though, the Daily Articles of this site were graced by a put-up job by none other than myself, titled “How to Achieve Scientific Consensus,” it being an explicitly phony “e-mail” to Warming Denialist Richard Lindzen explaining how his failure to cooperate in the Great Professional Project of Warming Alarmism was messing up not only his career, but that of many of his colleagues.
I find it makes gratifying reading in light of the recent exposure of the global warming boondoggle.
But then, I like my own stuff. Hope you do, too, at least in this case.”
“How to Achieve Scientific “Consensus”
Mises Daily: Monday, August 14, 2006 by N. Joseph Potts
Date: August 14, 2006
To: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, MIT
From: Dr. John Q. Colleague [not anyone’s real name]
Subj: Scientific Solidarity
I’m sorry I had to decline your lunch invitation today. You seemed to know the excuse I gave you was just a cover. Of course, the reality was simply that the tenure committee is considering my application this week, and it just wouldn’t do at this particular moment for me to be seen hobnobbing with you.
I judge others have come up with their own excuses; the sight of you dining alone at the Faculty Club has become a rather forlorn feature of my everyday. As many years as I’ve known you, and as closely as we’ve worked together, I’ve decided to do you the favor evidently none of our colleagues has seen his way to doing and make a clean breast of things.
The issue, of course, is your ongoing insistence, exemplified most by your op ed in the Wall Street Journal for July 2, of bucking the consensus that all the rest of us in the department, and indeed, all over the world, have arrived at regarding the issue of global warming. I know you know this has estranged you from the great majority of the rest of your colleagues, including people like me who really agree with you, and I suspect you accept this, but I’d like to make it clear to you just how and why it does so, and what the further damage is or may be that your breaking ranks with our profession really does.
When you were starting out in this field 45 years ago, things were very different. For one thing, you didn’t have to be a grant magnet to hold an academic post at a place like MIT — you could get by just teaching and publishing the occasional article. For another, you were just weathermen back then, or meteorologists, as you were called by the few who cared to demonstrate respect for what you were doing.
Today, there’s a lot more money and a lot more candidates for what seems like fewer and fewer posts that offer any kind of real future. And that money — that grant money that comes from a few influential foundations but most of all, from Uncle — it flows like a thing you and I understand: a current. Like a current, it flows away from one thing, and toward another thing, and what it’s flowing toward now is what Al Gore terms the planetary emergency of global warming.
Now take a young professor trying to keep his head above water in this sweeping torrent — me, if you insist, but there are thousands of us in the world scientific community trying to run before this tide. […]
Through the work of stalwarts like Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who produced the “hockey stick” graph of millennial global temperature that was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we’re no longer the butt of jokes about weathermen who look out the window to decide whether to carry an umbrella after having made a weather forecast. Now, we’re climatologists, for crying out loud,…”
Here is my attempt at a logo
PSU investigates ‘Climategate’
The Daily Collegian [Penn State’s Newspaper] ^ | 11/30/9 | Laura Nichols
Penn State is conducting an inquiry into the controversy surrounding a Penn State professor whose illegally leaked e-mails have sparked an international debate over whether he and his colleagues distorted data on global warming….
The e-mails appeared to indicate that the director of the research unit in question — Phil Jones — contacted his colleagues to request they delete certain exchanges….
Though he says he was asked to delete selected e-mails by Jones, Mann said he did not comply with the request. He does not believe any of his colleagues went through with the deletion either….
I emailed the Collegian when this first broke.
Mann acted on the delete email He asked Gene Wahl to delete the emails:
From: Phil Jones p.jones@x To: “Michael E. Mann” mann@xxx Subject: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
From: Michael Mann mann@xxx
To: Phil Jones p.jones@xx
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.
I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx
To whoever gets to sort through these posts: Just thought I’d let you know I changed the title of the post I linked above to “Phil Jones Missed The Point.”
Here’s the link again:
The IPCC head keeps deluding himself (“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report.” An author or two? How about the whole team?). On top of that, questions about BBC’s role (or lack of) in the Climategate scandal:
Peter Landesman (author of Spacemazes) posted a good brief summary of the flaws in modeling non-linear equations:
PSU investigates ‘Climategate’
Collegian Staff Writer
More on Climategate
30 Nov 2009 09:40 am
In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.
. . .
One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson’s study raised, and it was also emphasized in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre’s campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.
Climategate – The Introduction
Climategate – Part I
By: Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Attributed to Abraham Lincoln
On November 20, 2009, an individual or individuals published a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and other information. But this wasn’t just any old file: this file contained reams of confidential information flowing back and forth between the Hadley Climate Research Unit (HadCru) at the University of East Anglia in Britain, and a small cadre of “elitists” who were promoting the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) agenda throughout the world.
As word leaked out that HadCru’s servers had been compromised and sensitive information placed on the Internet, the silence outside the “skeptic” community was deafening! But within the “skeptic” community, thousands of scientists, researchers, and others salivated at the very thought of what may await them. Ad hoc task forces quickly formed, saved the files to their desktops, and began digging into the mountain of information. What unfolded was stunning, to say the least.
The emails contained ultra-sensitive information on how a small group had been manipulating the AGW issue with false and misleading information; had been systematically blackballing “skeptics” from publishing in peer reviewed journals; had been hiding and even destroying data that didn’t mesh with their pre-conceived opinions and agenda, and had been viciously demonizing all who got in their way.
Reviewers of the now “not-so-confidential” emails began publishing their damming contents on “skeptic” websites throughout the world. Media independents, such as the Fox News Channel, Investors Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times started taking notice and began tracking the issue. The so-called “Main Stream Media” (MSM) took a pass and remained silent.
It wasn’t long however, before the MSM had to take their heads out of the sand and begin addressing the issue. But for the most part, the MSM articles downplayed the importance of the revelations and instead, condemned the hacker who caused all the problems. But was it a hacker? More to come on this later!
One of Europe’s best known and highly respected enviros – George Moribot – had this to say about the rapidly unfolding disclosures:
It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. (Editor’s note: Dr. Phil Jones Is head of the now infamous HadCru)
NPR weighed in on what now has now been dubbed “Climategate” by adding:
“… a group of scientists who support the consensus view of climate change have been working together to influence what gets published in science journals.
Journals are supposed to be impartial filters that let good ideas rise to the top and bad ideas sink to the bottom. But the stolen e-mails show that a group of scientists has decided that’s not working well enough. So they have resorted to strong tactics — including possible boycotts — to keep any paper they think is dubious from reaching the pages of a journal.”
Not to be outdone, a “Climategate” article appearing in the New York Times included a quote by Judith Curry (Chair, School of Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology) as saying: “This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails.”
But that’s only the tip of the iceberg!
Given the fact thousands of scientists and researchers have signed petitions, letters, and other documents challenging the AGW theory, the so-called “consensus” has always been suspect. The emails suggest many scientists were browbeaten into “going along to get along” or threatened with the dire consequence of not getting published in scientific journals. And not getting published can mean the end to one’s career. Others simply fell in line.
The emails flowing back and forth between this small cadre of “elitists” also dealt with methods of marginalizing and demonizing skeptical scientists, manipulating what gets published, and advocating the destruction of data.
The emails also encouraged members of that small group to form a solid front against those challenging their assertions, regardless if those assertions were accurate or not. But while creating a solid front may work in politics, it doesn’t work in science. Science relies on others challenging each hypothesis in an effort to prove or disprove it. This is part of what’s called the “Scientific Method.” The “Scientific Method” also mandates replication, that is, the ability of an outside peer reviewer to duplicate the experiment(s) supporting the originator’s hypothesis. If the experiment can’t be duplicated, the hypothesis is “falsified” and returned to the originator.
But this zealot group of AGW promoters bastardized the “Scientific Method” by refusing to allow “outsiders” to see their papers and instead, reviewed and approved each other’s. Can you imagine how fantastic your college grades would have been if the professor allowed small groups of classmates to correct and grade each others’ papers?
As far as the promoters’ programmed computer models and the “Scientific Method” are concerned, meteorologist and researcher Anthony Watts had this to say:
The same holds true for computer models. This 2006 paper by Rand and Wilensky of Northwestern University: Verification and Validation through Replication: A Case Study Using Axelrod and Hammond’s Ethnocentrism Model (PDF) illustrates clearly the need for replication when it comes to models, something climate science is lacking in when the data and code is not made available to independent researchers.
Outrageously, this rogue band of elitists also refused “outsiders” the ability to review their computer code… and the emails showed why: programmer’s notes revealed how the computer models were rigged to show trends favoring the AGW hoax, and to hide or delete trends showing temperature declines!
So who are these “elitists,” what was their motivation, and how did they almost get away with their AGW scheme and bankrupt the industrialized world in the process?
Developing… more to come!
George Monbiot attacks Paul Hudson http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4537&updaterx=2009-11-30+10%3A17%3A22
Pajamas Media now offers a ClimateGate database which allows comments.
Here is a story Fox just broke at least on their website:
here is an except from the document that Fox found:
“The environment should compete with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity. To do that, however, it will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already
concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency. Indeed, unless UNEP succeeds in recasting the debate, it is
highly likely that the economic community will do it—badly, and on its own terms. It is already happening in the field of climate change.”
Earlier in the document they decry that it is a travesty that UNEP doesn’t have the control over the IPCC that they wish they did.
And the latest BBC propaganda is:
The shrinking Himalayan glaciers
Whereas the Indian Scientists say:
Indian Scientists Say Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
Quote: “India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests has released a comprehensive report on the Himalayan glaciers by the eminent Dr. V.K. Raina, ex-Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India. According to his report, the Saichen glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.” In fact, it is growing. Even Richard Armstrong, Senior Research Scientist at the University of Colorado, and the man who briefed Al Gore on glaciers, concluded there was no major melting in Himalayan glaciers above 5,400 meters. Professor Armstrong’s research, as is typical in the field, uses satellite-gathered data. Dr. Raina and his team actually physically sampled 20 of the 200 Himalayan glaciers over a period of many years. They found little “snout” retreat, if any. The snout is the longest extension of a glacier – the finger. They also found no discernible pattern to glacier melt rates. As Raina put it, “ultimately the movements [of glaciers] are due to climate and snowfall in particular, but the factors are so varied that the snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier.”
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report had concluded Himalayan glaciers were receding at such a fast rate they could be gone by 2035 or earlier. Raina’s report acknowledges general glacier retreat, but finds no evidence of direct causation by carbon emission. Some glaciers even grew during periods of increased industrialization.”
I wonder who the BBC get their info from!
Climategate Scandal Heats Up, As Researcher “Accidentally” Deleted Data
Nov. 30, 2009, 1:48 PM
It would appear that the Climategate scandal, the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. revealing that scientists distorted climate change data, is not going to cool off anytime soon.
Climate change skeptics are fired up about the “accidental” deletion of temperature data by head of the CRU Phil Jones and the bogus data aggregation procedure used by scientists that “renders the [temperature readings] totally meaningless,” but what gets some people’s goats the most is the fact that the University of East Anglia is still denying that there was any wrong doing.
[Quotes from Washington Times article below*]
EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
Climate-change researchers admit their data is ‘garbage’
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The climate-gate revelations have exposed an unprecedented coordinated attempt by academics to distort research for political ends. Anyone interested in accurate science should be appalled at the manipulation of data “to hide the decline [in temperature]” and deletion of e-mail exchanges and data so as not to reveal information that would support global-warming skeptics. These hacks are not just guilty of bad science. In the United Kingdom, deleting e-mail messages to prevent their disclosure from a Freedom of Information Act request is a crime.
The story has gotten worse since the global-cooling cover-up was exposed through a treasure trove of leaked e-mails a week ago. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been incredibly influential in the global-warming debate. The CRU claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report.
. . .
*We read and reread these CRU documents in stunned amazement. But rather than investigating all the evidence of so much academic fraud and intellectual wrongdoing, the University of East Anglia is denying there is a problem. Professor Trevor Davies, the school’s pro vice chancellor for research, issued a defensive statement on Tuesday claiming: “The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”
Unlike these global-warming propagandists, we expect research to be done in the open. Scientists who refuse to share their data, who plot to destroy information and fail to tell other scientists how their results were calculated should be severely punished.
Seems ClimateGate, the ‘The global-cooling cover-up’, may gain some traction prior to Copenhagen.
Are there anyway you could make two categories; those giving weight to the fact that they manipulated the data and another one for those articles that try to defend them? Maybe you could use two colors for the text and still keep the chronology.
Then again, don’t waste you’re time watching 2 climate bimbos going at it.
Hey, has anyone contacted Al Gore? I’m sure he could explain this. If we could just stay awake while he droned on.
A list of articles from Is It Getting Warmer?:
Professor Don Easterbrook left this comment on the ABC news site.
I’ve spent 4 decades studying global climate change and as a scientist I am appalled at Krugman’s cavalier shrugging off the Hadley email scandal as ‘just the way scientists talk among themselves.’
That’s like saying it’s alright for politicians to be corrupt because that’s the way they are.
Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data.
Posted by: Don Easterbrook | Nov 29, 2009 1:57:05 PM
If you are concerned about this issue and are a Canadian, please sign this petition to establish a royal comission to investigate the cause and extent of Gloabl Warming. Feel free to advertise this where ever you feel it may do some good and webmaster please contact me via e-mail if you are willing to put a link on you awsome blog.
This is a link to a 15minute audio interview with Aynsley Kellow, Prof. and head of Government at the Uni. of Tasmania. A very calm clear exposition of why the leaked emails are disastrous for science. A transcript may follow ,but this was only broadcast yesterday. Recommended.
There are quite a few more links at this address:
The money trail is given in the Wall Street Journal of Nov 30, 2009 (section is Opinion Europe).
Headline and sub-head states:
“The Economics of Climate Change
The stakes are too high to treat Climategate as just another academic spat.”
And The Whitewash Begins…
Climategate: the whitewash begins
1) Lord Rees (Royal Society) to be asked by UEA to investigate CRU leak.
The appointment of Lord Rees, if confirmed, is especially worrying. It’s the rough equivalent of appointing King Herod’s grand vizier to investigate a mysterious outbreak of mass baby killing in Judaea.
First, Lord Rees – formerly Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal – is very much of the catastrophist mindset which helped launch the whole AGW scare in the first place.
Document Reveals U.N.’s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks
Environmentalism should be re garded on the same level with religion “as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog.
The following are Climategate-related articles at The American Thinker”, from 112109 through 113009:
1 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_ghost_of_lysenko.html
4 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/sen_mitch_mcconnell_remains_si.html
5 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/un_climate_expert_what_me_worr.html
6 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmists_and_a_wave_of_disease.html
7 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
8 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/politics_and_greenhouse_gasses.html
9 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
10 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/climate_fraud_and_the_environm.html
11 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/acorning_the_climate_change_mo.html
12 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html
13 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/deliberative_analysis_rip.html
14 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html
15 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climategate_an_inconvenient_wh.html
16 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_emails_were_leaked_before.html
17 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/the_warmist_pr_con_job.html
18 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/calls_to_ban_cru_scientists_fr.html
19 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climategate_the_stones_cry_out.html
20 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_scientists_shredded_vital.html
21 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/down_under_global_warming_is_a.html
22 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/greens_are_blue_about_black_fr.html
23 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmist_denial_wont_work.html
24 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/tear_down_the_warmist_wall.html
25 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/does_the_worlds_fate_depend_on.html
26 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/on_to_copenhagen_for_obama_and.html
27 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/mccain_silent_on_global_warmin.html
28 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/thanks_again_president_bush.html
29 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/technology_writer_charlie_mart.html
30 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/rnc_remains_silent_on_global_w.html
31 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/science_frauds_may_face_crimin.html
32 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_emails_spur_lawsuit.html
33 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmists_using_suicidal_animal.html
34 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/violating_the_principle_of_sci.html
35 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/monbiot_phil_jones_should_resi.html
36 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/more_weather_hypocrisy_at_the.html
37 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/kiwi_challenges_gores_settled.html
38 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/drink_coca_cola_save_the_plane.html
39 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climate_change_blamed_for_incr.html
40 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climate_fraud_continues_unrave.html
41 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climategate_heats_up.html
42 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmings_pentagon_papers_conti.html
43 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/todays_media_ethics_award_goes.html
Climategate: Follow the Money
Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
Climategate: The Phil Jones University could break into children’s television, big time
Damian’s revelation that Futerra has gone so far as to train even CBeebies researchers in “green” communication may offer a lifeline to embarrassed academics at the beleaguered “University” of East Anglia. The ever-helpful BBC might be able to channel them towards a less challenging audience than those brutal sceptics who are holding the Phil Jones University up to so much painful ridicule. Might there not be very promising alternative careers for Phil Jones and Michael Mann if a happy collaboration between CBeebies and, say, Blue Peter could be devised?
“And now children, here are Phil and Michael to show you how to make your own global warming statistics at home.”
Lindzen at the WSJ:
excellent NYT SCIENCE article
E-Mail Fracas Shows Peril of Trying to Spin Science
The CRU’s Criminal Conspiracy
When Scientists Become Politicians
Fallout from ClimateGate?
Australia opposition elects new leader, ETS laws set to fail
Mon Nov 30, 2009
CANBERRA, Dec 1 (Reuters) – Australia’s opposition elected a new leader on Tuesday, Tony Abbott, who is opposed to the government’s carbon-trade laws, ensuring the embattled legislation is almost certain to be defeated in a hostile Senate.
The carbon-trade scheme would be the biggest outside Europe, covering 75 percent of Australian emissions and start in July 2011.
Carlo (17:42:55) : “And now children, here are Phil and Michael to show you how to make your own global warming statistics at home.”
And then of course the next line is “And here’s a graph we prepared earlier…” 😉
The following article is dated 9th November but it is an interesting insight in to how GISS works (cooks the books):
Go to the home page for up-to-date stuff on Climategate.
Another good effort from Christopher Monckton over at SPPI:
Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
He’s good; very good.
Just my twopence worth.
I hope this will become a resource for TWO main categories:
(1) the human side of ClimateGate:
the news, the politics, the corruption, and the possibilities for sweeping reform
(2) the science issues:
basics for newbies (simple and advanced), refutations of the classic AGW “debunks” of “contrarians”, and specialized topics in detail.
I wrote my “Primer” (click my name) essentially for newcomers, people who were shocked and waking up, and though it has gotten a bit long and a tiny bit out of date, I think it can help people still – pictures help a lot. Also there may be lots of other relevant specialist issues written for non-specialists on my website if you look at the index – eg what really happened to the Wegman and North reports, and their misrepresentation by the MSM. And if you want any that need a bit of editing, please let me know, or please, feel free to edit yourselves.
this from the BBC. Clearly feeling forced to lift their head from the sand. Sorry if a re-post.
From Pajama Media
* <a href="http://www.climate-gate.org/ ClimateGate Document Database
* <a href="[http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=browse-events&event-id=1913&tab=4 ClimateGate Coverage
Climate change: ‘Hefty taxes and monitoring needed’, says expert
The West must undergo a radical lifestyle change to prevent a global warming disaster, the world’s leading climate change scientist has said.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said imposing hefty taxes and increasing electrity monitoring is needed to combat the ways of adults who have been “corrupted” by their daily routines.
Dr Pachauri caused controversy last year after suggesting people should eat less meat due to the levels of carbon emissions associated with rearing livestock.
Consumers unlikely to benefit from smart energy meters His latest suggestions include curbing car use, increasing London’s congestion charge to £25, putting electricity monitoring equipment in hotel rooms and implementing hefty aviation taxes to stop people flying.
In an interview with the Observer Dr Pachauri said: “Today we have reached the point where consumption and people’s desire to consume has grown out of proportion. The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable.
“I don’t see why you couldn’t have a meter in the room to register your energy consumption from air-conditioning or heating and you should be charged for that.
“By bringing about changes of this kind, you could really ensure that people start becoming accountable for their actions.”
The Great and Powerful Climate Oz
Global warming fearmongers say restaurants must stop serving ice water.
just saw this 12-1-09
National / World News 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, December 1, 2009
UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
Lord Stern (economist) calls ‘deniers’ “confused and muddled over Global Warming”.
The comments after the short article make for interesting reading.
U.K. climate scientist investigated
This may or may not be a stealth response to ClimateGate, but the EPA has delayed their E15 Ethanol decision until Summer 2010. They say they want to do more tests.
Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen had a more negative view on EPA’s announcement. Speaking at the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association’s summit in Vancouver Tuesday, Dinneen said the EPA continues to send mixed signals about what it expects from the ethanol industry.
Dinneen said he doesn’t understand how EPA can push forward on a low-carbon fuel standard that penalizes ethanol for so-called international indirect land-use change effects, based on theory, yet also push for additional studies on a proposed move to E15.
An example of the theory of indirect land-use effects is that corn acres used for ethanol displace soybean acres, which boosts acres of soybeans in Brazil. Those increased soybean acres in Brazil displace pasture land, prompting cattle producers in Brazil to take down more rainforest land. Therefore, corn-based ethanol is a cause of rainforest depletion.
The EPA is considering land-use changes in developing low-carbon emissions standards for ethanol. Including ILUC calculations would make ethanol a more carbon-intensive fuel than if ILUC wasn’t taken into account.
“On one hand, we allow indirect land use to undermine ethanol on theory,” Dinneen said. “On the other hand, we have to test every weed whacker and lawn mower in the country. We’re not asking for the moon here.”
Science or Nonscience?
“By now, anybody who is serious about the possibility of global warming knows that the “hockey-stick” theory promulgated by the UN a few years ago is bunk.”
It’s now on this YouTube video:
[Snip – we’ve been getting repeat-bombarded with this. It has been decided that the venue is over the line. Sorry! ~ Evan]
monkeyboy (07:36:43) :
Yes, titled ‘Show Your Working’: What ‘ClimateGate’ means – seems to be providing some real discussion at last, and mention of the term everyone else has been using for days.
Criminal investigations into scientific fraud in the UK:
Lord Christopher Monckton releases the definitive report on ClimateGate
ClimateGate is back at the top of page Drudge’s +20 million hits a day front page
the 3 headlines
CLIMATEGATE: Scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down…
Penn State Professor also under investigation…
Inhofe Asks Boxer to Probe Potential Scientific ‘Conspiracy’…
Yahoo top science searches for 2009, more searches for “Bermuda Triangle” than “Climate Change”
“Climate Change” is #9
Oddly enough “Bermuda Triangle” is #8, ranked higher in searches than “Climate Change”
Rigging to get a “Consensus”
Keenan formally accuses Wang of Fraud:
http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf Keenan Fraud Allegation v. Wang
http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm Doc Links
A good write up in Forbes, “Cringing Over Climategate – A major scandal was exposed. So why won’t Obama acknowledge it?
Some people just don’t get it: read Stern’s comments …. and be afraid, thuis guy advises the UK Government …
Penn State is going to investigate Climategate (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html)
Particularly interesting is this paragraph:
Penn State officials, who will not discuss the matter, are investigating the controversy. If anything requires further inspection, the school will handle it, a spokesman tells the Daily Collegian. A panel will read every E-mail leaked and determine if climate change critics have any ground for their accusations, the report says.
“I would be disappointed if the university wasn’t doing all [it] can to get as much information as possible” about the controversy, Mann tells the Daily Collegian.
— So it looks like the school will follow the CRU crew practices of keeping everything undercover.
— Is Dr. Mann calling for Steve McIntyre to contribute testimony in the investigation?
Fallout Over “ClimateGate” Data Leak Grows
American LameStreamMedia quiet but curious about what others are reporting about ClimateGate.
Climate Change E-Mails Cry Out for a National Conversation
“Despite all this, ABC, CBS, and NBC have failed to even mention anything about this scandal on their news broadcasts. CNN has covered it, but has minimized any concerns. The Obama administration has also either dismissed these events as either irrelevant or just completely ignored them.”
NBC and CBS Researching Climategate; Still No Coverage
“[O]ne of my stories got some attention from both NBC and CBS. The blog that they were so interested in was “Why is “Climategate” Getting Little to no Coverage?” CBS and NBC are looking at a story ridiculing the lack of coverage of climategate, while they themselves have not covered the story.”
– http://politicallore.com/blog/?p=597 –
I thought it would be nice to have a repository where readers of the leaked emails can copy and paste what they have found.
This was buried a bit as an update on the NYT Dot Earth blog just in case you did not see it.
[UPDATE, 5:05 p.m.] Here’s a statement issued on Tuesday by Pennsylvania State University on the issues raised in the emails:
University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information
Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann’s research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann’s seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions. In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.
Interesting bit of pre-investigation puffery for someone being investigated for evidence of wrongdoing. With supporting links, even.
Penn State might as well be announcing: “We found no evidence of wrongdoing. Some innocent, minor mistakes were made. Prof Mann had the patience of a saint, given the stupendous job he so selflessly undertook for the benefit of humanity. The record has been sealed, time to MoveOn.”
In any honest investigation involving multiple players there must be at least one skeptical investigator representing the accusing side. Suspicion of motives is necessary. There is no concern that Michael Mann will lack enough of his own apologists in Penn State’s
The concern is that everyone involved in this investigation will be Michael Mann’s apologists, supporters and enablers. The Mann puff piece above indicates that few if any findings of wrongdoing will emerge; certainly nothing so serious as Mann’s intent to defraud the taxpayers who paid for his shenanigans.
This investigation is no different than an all white 1930’s jury in the trial of a black man accused of raping a white woman; the fix is in. The school has closed ranks. The deck has been heavily stacked in favor of the school’s grant rainmaker.
There will be no justice or honest investigation unless the aggrieved party — the taxpaying public — is competently represented by a trusted individual or group. The fact that everything is being done in secret, behind closed doors, makes clear the school will do everything in its power to cover up Michael Mann’s wrongdoing.
Article on slashdot December 2.
Related article November 20.
Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon I will have to pray to the good Lord to maintain our freedoms and not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God-this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it’s self – I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate change agenda is a proven fraud and racketeering, but the United Nations and Globalist governments don’t care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? The tree will be standing 100 years from now, but will you be looking at the tree, from inside the fence of a Concentration Camp? Anyone out there want to fight and maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose
their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Any lawyers want to help out by filing this Copenhagen Treaty be classified as an illegal Treaty, in order to, help save Freedom in North America? ( Unlimited Promotion Opportunity Here For a Law firm to Gain a favorable high profile credibility! )
Global Warming Climagate, Fixing the Climate Data around the Policy
Ross McKitrick on Channel 4 news
via Bishop Hill’s Blog.
McKitrick on flawd Data in FinancialPost
In an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen, the world’s pre-eminent climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.
I refer you to an article on the BBC site ;
Mike Hulme is professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change
Dr Jerome Ravetz is an independent scholar affiliated to the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) at Oxford University
Stubborn aren’t they?
Cold, hard facts debunk Climategate
By The Kansas City Star Editorial Board
Sorry to burst the balloons of global warming skeptics out there: Climategate is a dud.
Sure, it’s a catchy title, implying that a huge conspiracy surrounds the hundreds upon hundreds of e-mails that were reportedly hacked and recently released from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England.
And in a handful of those e-mails, scientists friendly to the notion that global warming is occurring appeared ready to delete or otherwise obfuscate evidence that might have contradicted their theories. In short, they were haughty scientists behaving badly.
But in reacting to this development, some people have leaped to absurd conclusions.
The first is that this incident “proves” climate change is not occurring.
The second is that it shows there’s no need for the world’s political leaders to take bold action at the upcoming Climate Conference in Copenhagen, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Wrong. And wrong.
The furor over the e-mails hasn’t changed the central reality:
The overwhelming preponderance of evidence from scientific research from around the world indicates global warming is a reality, and manmade emissions have played a role in climate changes.
It would be irresponsible for President Barack Obama and other world leaders — especially those from China, India and other rapidly developing countries — to use a manufactured scandal as an excuse for inaction on global warming.
Skeptics poring over the released e-mails are looking for evidence that scientists contributing to the Climatic Research Unit over the past two decades have somehow conspired to twist data so it shows only one thing — global warming is happening.
But in reality, many of the e-mails include attempts by scientists to challenge others’ work and to more rigorously examine the data. Plus, reputable groups outside the Climatic Research Unit have been involved in similar research for years. They include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Japan Meteorological Agency.
For example, NASA lists several factoids on its website (climate.nasa.gov) regarding climate change. They include:
Levels of carbon dioxide are higher than at anytime in the past 650,000 years.
Global sea levels and global surface air temperatures have been on an upward trend (yes, with a few yearly declines mixed in there as well).
The Antarctic report
This week, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research released what it called “the first comprehensive review” of Antarctica’s climate, based on the work of 100 scientists from eight nations.
Responsibly, the group wanted to make sure leaders in Copenhagen would have more complete information before making decisions that could result in spending billions of dollars to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Not all the report’s findings were doom and gloom. In fact, the study is a prime example of how scientists must approach the topic of climate change.
For instance, the authors concluded that the manmade ozone hole over Antarctica had actually shielded much of the continent from the effects of global warming. And that sea ice was actually increasing in parts of the continent.
But the report also said carbon dioxide levels were rising at an “unprecedented” rate and the continent is predicted to warm by slightly more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
Copenhagen and the future
The effects of the leaked e-mails could be felt many ways.
In the long term, scientists doing climate research should be more open about how they get their data and how they draw their conclusions. That could make the complicated issue more understandable to the public.
It is the short-term impact of the incident that hangs in the balance, though.
As we noted, it’s clear that the United States and other countries should continue pursuing the best ways to set goals for reducing harmful greenhouse gases.
It would be disastrous if a few e-mails traded among some imperious scientists could derail essential efforts to deal with global warming.
Submitted by Yael T. Abouhalkah on December 2, 2009 – 4:28pm.
Anthony (and the Mods),
Here is my logo design:
Climategate gets 20 MILLION hits on Google.
Global Warming only gets 10 million!
Climategate Claims First Victims! Key Global Warming Legislation Voted DOWN in Australia!
I don’t see the free-for-all part. This is from The Truthorator
Truthorator.com. The web site is very bare, so I’m not sure exactly who wrote it, but here goes:
Global Norming Concensus Proves Climate Strange Is Real
December 2nd, 2009 by admin
Using a highly reliable measuring system know as the five senses, human
beings in their billions have come to the conclusion, that the only
certainty about the weather on planet earth, is that it keeps on
changing in very strange ways. Some times hot, sometimes cold, sometimes
wet, sometimes dry. This mind blowing discovery that affects all our
lives has been dubbed Global Norming. Otherwise know as Climate Strange.
What effects this will have on future generations nobody knows, but one
thing everyone agrees on is that the effects of Global Norming will be
To help alleviate the terrifying effects of Climate Strange a panel of
experts has been formed to collate scientific research from around the
world into a series of reports to the United Nations, detailing exactly
how strange Global Norming might be. As a result it has been found
without doubt, through a data modelling process called normalisation,
that the normality of strange climatic behaviour will continue for ever.
Everyone with a brain and even those without, now agree that this will
result in the complete annihilation of mankind at an unknown point in
the future. To ensure that this does not occur a system of global
governance or Globatorship has been formed to organise the
pre-annihilation of all peoples likely to be affected by the devastating
effects of Climate Strange – which politicians agree will occur in
direct relation to the amount pigmentation in their skin and/or money in
their bank account or pocket.
This is to be financed by a Hardon tax that will help facilitate the
study of the constantly rising and falling temparature and moisture
levels at the very center of the Global Norming phenomena. But
opposition is mounting as humans and animals alike, complain that Hardon
is essential to all life on earth. But the absense of Hardon in the
creation of plant life and in the upper atmosphere has left the
pro-human lobby without a voice at the negotiating table.
Agreement on action to combat Climate Strange, is being sought at the
highest levels at a summit in Copenhagen, where world leaders are
meeting to discuss how far they are willing to go to save the planet.
Through a show of normal behaviour that includes blocking out all
information to the five senses, while demonstrating their own Hardon
emission limits, they hope to convince each other and the world that
Climate Strange can be controlled by the members of a coming
However concerns are growing that Global Norming theory is a sham after
scientists were caught acting extreme abnormally themselves, by
falsifying results and corrupting the review process to get more
funding. The climatology community has rallied round, stating that this
is in fact perfectly normal behaviour for scientists and therefore
confirms the Global Norming hypothesis, even as their credibility
continues to melt.
Despite this, world leaders are attempting to reassure the public that
should Hardon emmissions exceed mandated levels, the merging of the EU
and the UN into an EUgeNic Globatorship will guarantee pre-annihilation
for all, after the capture and trading of emissions, before Global
Norming gets out of control and things become even more strange.
Please forward this message via links and emails to all the presidents,
prime-ministers, senators, commissars, member of parliament,
ambassadors, rabbis, priests, imans, gurus and real people that you
know, to help them understand the absurdity of the United Nations
climate change agenda and open their senses to the strange
climatological normality that is the weather.
An piece and a interview with a Dr Eduardo Zorita on climategate and Prof jones helping police with inquiries.
Dec 2, 2009, 8:01 P.M. ET
Climategate: Science Is Dying
Science is on the credibility bubble.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.
. . .
What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously “unprovable” theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.
. . .
If the new ethos is that “close-enough” science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.
Nic (14:58:05) :
I refer you to an article on the BBC site ;
Mike Hulme is professor of climate change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change
Dr Jerome Ravetz is an independent scholar affiliated to the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society (InSIS) at Oxford University
I really don’t like this “post-normal” science concept. Science has no choice but to approach something like quantum mechanics differently that classical mechanics, but society’s norms and communications capabilities really don’t play into it.
Some more articles to peruse:
Good Op Ed by Dr Lindzen:
Good column by Debra Saunders (syndicated from SF Chronicle, I caught it today in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune)
CSIRO scientist resigns after climate report censorship.
Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon.
The CSIRO said the report was in breach of its publication guidelines, which restrict scientists from speaking out on public policy.
Pseudo science journal Nature weekly supports scientific misconduct.
The stolen e-mails have prompted queries about whether Nature will investigate some of the researchers’ own papers. One e-mail talked of displaying the data using a ‘trick’ — slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique, but a word that denialists have used to accuse the researchers of fabricating their results. It is Nature’s policy to investigate such matters if there are substantive reasons for concern, but nothing we have seen so far in the e-mails qualifies.
EPA rejects Inhofe’s call for delay on finding
Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson declined Inhofe’s request.
Return to the index page | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones
Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice – YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please ! I’m trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:29 +0000
To: Christian Azar , email@example.com
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
Cc: “‘David G. VICTOR'” , ‘Katarina Kivel’ ,
N.W.Arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, firstname.lastname@example.org,
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
F.I.Woodward@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
Dear Steve et al,
I’ve been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid
will add my thoughts. I should say I have been more involved in all the exchanges
Mike and MM so I’m probably biased in Mike’s favour. I will try and be impartial,
I did write a paper with Mike (which came out in GRL in Aug 2003) and we currently have
a long paper tentatively accepted by Reviews of Geophysics. With the latter all 4
think the paper is fine, but the sections referring to MM and papers by Soon and
are not and our language is strong. We need to work on this.
Back to the question in hand:
1. The papers that MM refer came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in GRL
1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the code. So,
acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous
Mike has made all the data series and this is all anyone should need. Making model
code available is something else.
2. The code is basically irrelevant in this whole issue. In the GRL paper (in 2003 Mann
and Jones), we simply average all the series we use together. The result is pretty much
the same as MBH in 1998, Nature and MBH in 1999 in GRL.
3. As many of you know I calculate gridded and global/hemispheric temperature time
each month. Groups at NCDC and NASA/GISS do this as well. We don’t exchange codes
– we do occasionally though for the data. The code here is trivial as it is in the
MBH get spatial patterns but the bottom line (the 1000 year series of global temps) is
almost the same if you simply average. The patterns give more, though, when it comes to
trying to understand what has caused the changes – eg by comparison with models. MM
are only interested in the NH/Global 1000-year time series – in fact only in the MBH
4. What has always intrigued me in this whole debate, is why the skeptics (for want of
a better term) always pick on Mike. There are several other series that I’ve produced,
Keith Briffa has and Tom Crowley. Jan Esper’s work has produced a slightly different
but we don’t get bombarded by MM. Mike’s paper wasn’t the first. It was in Nature and
is well-used by IPCC. I suspect the skeptics wish to concentrate their effort onto one
person as they did with Ben Santer after the second IPCC report.
5. Mike may respond too strongly to MM, but don’t we all decide not to work with or
co-operate with people we do not get on with or do not like their views. Mike will say
that MM are disingenuous, but I’m not sure how many of you realise how vicious the
attack on him has been. I will give you an example.
When MM came out, we had several press calls (I don’t normally get press calls about
my papers unless I really work at it – I very rarely do). This was about a paper in
E&E, which when we eventually got it several days later was appalling. I found out
later that the authors were in contact with the reviewers up to a week before the
appeared. So there is peer review and peer review !! Here the peer review was done by
like-minded colleagues. Anyway, I’m straying from the point. Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
and I felt we should put something on our web site about the paper and directs people
to Mike’s site and also to E&E and the MM’s site. MM have hounded us about this for
the last four months. In the MM article, they have a diagram which says ‘corrected
version’ when comparing with MBH. We have seen people refer to this paper (MM)
as an alternative reconstruction – yet when we said this is our paragraph MM claim they
are not putting forward a new reconstruction but criticizing MBH 1998 !! We have
decided to remove the sentence on our web page just to stop these emails. But if a
corrected version isn’t a new or alternative reconstruction I don’t know what is.
So, in conclusion, I would side with Mike in this regard. In trying to be
fair, Steve, you’ve opened up a whole can of worms. If you do decide to put the Mann
response into CC then I suspect you will need an editorial. MM will want to respond
I know you’ve had open and frank exchanges in CC before, but your email clearly shows
that you think this is in a different league. MM and E&E didn’t give Mann the chance
respond when they put their paper in, but this is a too simplistic. It needs to be
out in an editorial though – I’m not offering by the way.
I could go on and on ….
At 10:36 15/01/2004 +0100, Christian Azar wrote:
I agree with most of what has been said so far. Reproducibility is the key word. If the
Mann el al material (to be) posted on the website is sufficient to ensure
reproducibility, then there is no compelling need to force them to hand it out. If not,
then the source code is warranted. Also, even if there is no compelling need to make the
source code public, doing it anyway would clearly be beneficial for the entire debate.
Department of physical resource theory
The BBC continue to ignore Climategate…this has appeared on the main news page as a Feature: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm
A quote from the end of the article:
“For the final time period covered, the temperature data is sourced to the Met Office Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.”
Yet no mention of the doubts over the validity of said data!
From Pops link above:
Hess claims he is unfamiliar with the leaked email controversy??
After reading that obvious lie coming from the official GISS spokesman, I can not believe anything he or GISS says.
Warming conspirators in disarray.
[snip – no matter how many times people post the Hitler parody video – it won’t be seen here – think “deniers” – A]
Here’s a great example of garbage journalism in Time:
Examples of garbage journalism include the lead picture of the polar bear walking on broken ice pack, the injection of unrelated links into the text like, “(See pictures of a glacier melting in Peru.)” and “(See how global warming is threatening penguins.)” and the statement of opinion as fact, “It was the eve of a month in which crucial decisions could be made in the global effort to curb climate change before its effects become truly dangerous.” and “The debate over climate-change science was closed two years ago”.
I’ve saved an electronic copy so in the future this article can be used to further discredit Time and garbage journalist Brian Walsh. Once the scientific basis for the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative is completely debunked we should focus our attention on the journalists, media outlets and politicians who propagated this deceitful narrative.
According to this unscientific poll on AOL, the vast majority of folks want Congress to investigate:
Try this: type googlegate in the google toolbar. It works! Harold Ambler has an interesting story about the ‘climategate’ word showing up on autosuggest (or not) at http://icecap.us , titled google gate.
From: Phil Jones
To: Kevin Trenberth
Subject: A quick question
Date: Tue Dec 21 11:39:09 2004
No idea how Chris Folland got this. Presumably David Parker forwarded it !
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. The questions are:
When will you be sending me your signed-off draft?
Will this be the complete doc file of text?
Will you be modifying any of the figures?
On the latter just want to know if I’m keeping track of figs as well as Refs. I’ve got
the two you sent last night.
I’ll be off from 5pm on Dec 23. I’ll begin reading the draft from Dec 29. Will likely
be in at least once on Dec 29-31, but will be checking email from Dec 29.
As someone who dealt with these matters in the past, a decision about the climate
normals period was regarded as so important that all of WG1 debated it and agreed the
outcome. So that should be the route again, I believe, if a change is wanted. From a
personal perspective, I tend to agree with Phil that this time we should stick (in
general) to 1961-90 normals, and that IPCC 2013 should perhaps change to 1981-2010.
Having said that, we may produce 1981-2000 normals in the next year for SST if we can
solve adequately remaining problems (for climate change monitoring) with satellite SSTs.
A key goal is monitoring changes in the Southern Ocean. Solutions are likely to include
use of some corrected (to bulk SST data) ATSR data. This depends on work elsewhere in
the Met Office. However, some less well corrected AVHRR data is needed as well to extend
normals adequately back to 1981 in much of the Southern Ocean.This may give a new
perspectives on the southern ocean SST changes; are likely to be significantly different
in the southern half of the southern ocean from the global average. This is suggested by
the lack of reduction of Antarctic sea ice, in contrast to the Arctic, which still
persists. Such work may or may not get into IPCC FAR but if it did, it could be a
special case. But it would need careful handling for conversion to advice to policy
Here’s a post on NASA hiding Data
UK University to probe integrity of climate data
Anthony, searching thru the hacked e-mails I’ve found this about Artic temps. Not sure yet about the meaning, maybe I’m just a little bit paranoid
“In the AR4 chapter, we had to exclude the SST from the Arctic plot
as the Arctic (north of 65N) from 1950 was above the 61-90 average for most of the years that had enough data to estimate a value”
you can find it at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=795&filename=1178107838.txt
should I understand that the Arctic in the 50’s was warmer than the average in 1961-90? 🙂
Wonderful job you are doing! Please see the following to find out how far fanaticism gan go.
I am now geting “climate gate scandal” as the first suggestion in Google search after typing “clim.”
The Wall Street Journal, possibly taking its lead from this page, has published the “WSJ Guide to Climate Change – A collection of our editorials and op-eds.”
The Wall Street Journal is a welcome and valuable ally as we peel back the layers and expose the lies of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.
Harvard Professors support for Climategate saying its all ho-hum. However, please read comment NUMBER 13, located beneath small article. Extremely well written and succinct by a person who says he is a climate scientist. Worthy of a post almost. All comments were scathing of Professor’s stance. How long can the media put up this warmist smoke screen?
Dec 3rd 2009
Sen. Boxer and ClimateGate: The Terror of Tiny Town
by Michael Walsh
”You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate. Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not… This is a crime.”
~ Barbara “Call Me Senator” Boxer
. . .
“With the Copenhagen Climate Conference coming up, the ruinous Waxman-Markey bill rattling around Capitol Hill, and the investigation into climate data-manipulation starting to head to these shores, the Democrats are heavily invested in “hiding the decline,” so naturally they’re changing the subject. Leaving aside for the moment the sheer counter-intuitive insanity (did I mention Al Gore?) of carbon-constraining a civilization of carbon-based life forms, it’s awfully convenient for the Left to discover its High Dudgeon about leaks right about now. For leaking, in all probability, is what we’re dealing with here: an insider who, faced with the specter of Copenhagen, decided to go public, rather than some crazed right-wing “denier” brazenly hacking into the system. Indeed, the BBC had the files a month before they were posted on a handy Russian server – but naturally suppressed them.”
“Leaks are as old as the republic, and one man’s leaker is another man’s heroic whistle-blower. And, in the end, it all comes down to one’s interpretation of the First Amendment. The leak of the Pentagon Papers by a disaffected Daniel Ellsberg not only set the gold standard, but the subsequent Supreme Court decision, a 6-3 ruling in favor of The New York Times, which had published the purloined material, also firmly established the First Amendment principle of no prior restraint on publication.”
. . .
”A stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern,” ~ Justice John Paul Stevens.
Use Web 2.0 magic to sprinkle democracy on science
Mike Hulme: Apply the Truthiness patch
While acknowledging Climategate has damaged trust in science, Hulme seeks not to repair it by advocating an honest dialogue with the public, or returning to first principles, where stuff may be true. Instead, he’s looking to apply the Consensus Theory of Knowledge (where the idea with the most votes wins) to science.
” The classic virtues of scientific objectivity, universality and disinterestedness can no longer be claimed to be automatically effective as the essential properties of scientific knowledge.”
” Instead, warranted knowledge – knowledge that is authoritative, reliable and guaranteed on the basis of how it has been acquired – has become more sought after than the ideal of some ultimately true and objective knowledge.”
The phrase “warranted knowledge” – with its echoes of Papal authority and the Inquisition – is far from democratic. The 2.0-tastic tools don’t lend any legitimacy to the exercise.
Colbert defined ‘Truthiness’ as the “the Truth we want to exist” – an apt description for Hulme’s post-modern epistemology, and it works pretty well for contemporary climate predictions, too, as we know from the Hockey Stick discussions leaked from CRU. Colbert also challenged his TV audience to redefine reality – which they did, via that democratic conduit of warranted authority, Wikipedia.
But Colbert was being satirical. Hulme isn’t.
LiamIAm (18:24:25) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
Use Web 2.0 magic to sprinkle democracy on science
Mike Hulme: Apply the Truthiness patch
“[Hulme]’s looking to apply the Consensus Theory of Knowledge (where the idea with the most votes wins) to science.”
As previously reported on WUWT…
Read NOAA launches new website: climate.gov
…it seems NOAA is putting this into effect.
“Our plan is to actively gather user feedback through focus groups, usability studies, and informal communications. Over the next several years, we will expand the NCS Portal’s scope and functionality in a user-driven manner to greatly enhance the accessibility and usefulness of NOAA’s climate resources. As this effort continues to expand in future years, partners from outside of NOAA will become involved in this effort.”
Visualizing the East Anglia Climate Research Unit Leaked Email Network:
The analysis to which Horner refers, the one referring to Gavin Schmidt as a “major player,” is a network analysis provided by Daniel Katz and Michael J. Bommarito II at Computational Legal Studies. These two men used the e-mails as a database and drew a vast network of connections based on frequency of mention as From, To, or (Blind) Carbon Copy. They then prepared a dynamic analysis, showing the state of the network over the period covered in the archive, in the form of a video embedded below:
L. Gardy LaRoche,
That is truly a fascinating video. It shows just a handful of insiders orchestrating the whole AGW scheme.
This might be worth a post!!
Fall-out from ClimateGate
New Rasmussen Poll numbers just released today :
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.
Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely
Now even the IPCC recognises there is a problem and a leading UK Govt scientific adviser demands raw data be published. Wheels coming off big time folks!
Tough crowd in Boston.
Check out the responses at boston.com’s “Green Blog” to comments from Harvard professor James McCarthy who was a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author.
“Harvard Professor Weighs in on Climategate”
The United Nations panel on climate change is to investigate claims that scientists at the University of East Anglia manipulated global warming data to support a theory of man-made climate change.
Dr Zorita also said that the content of thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia’s computer system and published on the internet confirmed that some global warming research was riddled with ‘machination, conspiracies and collusion’.
this last paragraph
Copenhagen climate conference: ‘climate saboteurs’, including senior Tories, risk a deal
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has accused two senior Tories who questioned the science behind global warming of being “profoundly irresponsible
Concerning the UN investigating the CRU –
WHAT A JOKE! WHAT A JOKE!
It’s like a mob leader saying he’s gonna investigate his own mob.
“Gee Sid, we aint found nottin wrong.”
“…should I understand that the Arctic in the 50’s was warmer than the average in 1961-90? :-)”
looks that way to me too!
monkeyboy (07:36:43) :
given the tone they have adopted of recent, it sounds disingenuous. Lets see
Here is a Poll from the pages of British Climate Change Minister, Ed Miliband’s own public website.
Do you agree with the
Government’s policy on
coal and carbon capture
Yes 30 %
No 63 %
Don’t know 6 %
See the poll, make your own vote.
See how Miliband vilifies the local
Doncaster City Mayor, who spoke
out about the Climate Frauds.
How Much Longer Before Climategate Explodes?
Sarah Palin Calls on the President to Boycott Copenhagen
Not much chance of that, of course.
Money quote: “Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil.”
One way to reach those not being served by the MSM might be to post to Yahoo Finance stock message boards. If you don’t have a Yahoo ID, it is free to sign up. After you post a few links, you will be locked out for a day or so, but it is worth it to get the word out. Just get on Yahoo finance and enter a stock symbol or name of the companey, then on the left margin click on “Message Board” Larger companies have higher message board activity.
Eric Raymond at Armed and Dangerous has some perceptive blog entries. He is an open source person.
Not sure if this has been posted yet, but interesting commentary at NYT…
Sorry if this is a repeat
BTW Anthony and Team… congrats on the mention in the NYT!!!!!
I’m not sure why, but I don’t see Tips and Notes on my browser. I use Ubuntu with Firefox, Epiphany, and Galeon. Don’t see it on any of the three. Oh well …
Some guys want Algores Oscar. Sweet!
Top of the Ticket
Politics and commentary, coast to coast, from the Los Angeles Times
« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »
Take back Al Gore’s Oscar, two Academy members demand in light of Climategate
December 4, 2009 | 2:03 am
Ex-VP Democrat Al Gore clutches his 2007 Oscar–from his cold dead hands
No, it wouldn’t do anything for the environment.
But two Hollywood conservatives (yes, there are some) have called on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to rescind the prestigious, profitable gold Oscar statuette that it gave ex-Vice President Al Gore two years ago for the environmental movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both Academy members, are among a small, meandering pack of known political conservatives still believed to be on the loose in the liberal bastion of movie-making.
In 2007, the Academy sanctified Gore’s cinematic message of global warming with its famous statue, enriched his earnings by $100,000 per 85-minute appearance and helped elevate the Tennessean’s profile to win the Nobel Peace Prize despite losing the election battle of 2000 to a Texan and living in a large house with lots of energy-driven appliances.
Chetwynd and Simon were prompted to make their hopeless demand this week by the …
… leak two weeks ago of a blizzard of British academic e-mails purporting to show that scientists at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit systematically falsified data to document the appearance of global warming in recent years.
The university is reportedly investigating the claims, which added dry fuel to the never-ending political debate over whether the Earth really is warming as a result of human activity or if it’s just normal natural cycles and the debate is what’s heated. The demand to withdraw Gore’s award provides yet another opportunity to argue.
The startling leak comes at an inconvenient time, just before next week’s United Nations climate change meeting, which will cause an immense carbon footprint with thousands of people flying up or over to Denmark to talk about saving the environment.
These airplanes will include Air Force One with its primary passenger, President Obama, who’s returning to the Copenhagen scene where he didn’t help win the 2016 Summer Olympics for Chicago, which could do with a little global warming at this time of year.
Simon, a screenwriter who is also chief executive officer of Pajamas Media, a network of conservative online blogs, conceded he knew of no precedent for the Academy withdrawing a previously awarded Oscar, despite decades of Hollywood high jinks and worse. But, he added, “I think they should rescind this one.”
The Anti-Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) community already knew that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would eventually launch it’s own investigation (Damage Control) into the leaked/hacked emails and documentaion from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit two weeks ago . ClimateGate , as it is called , has finally gotten onto the Mainstream Media’s program schedule only after it’s attempts of ignoring and/or downplaying the story has been unsuccessful .
And as the Anti-Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) community already knew , the IPCC would outfit their committee with pro-global warming proponents in again , another pointless effort to control the momentum of Climategate’s critical importance to the decisions that will be made at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copanhegan next week .
The leaked/hacked data from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit has made it clear to the world that manipulation of data to “hide the decline” in global warming was stated in the obtained emails. The most Prominent proponent of Anthropological Global Warming , Al Gore has gone as far as to cancelled his high-profile appearance at Copenhagen only days after the ClimateGate evidence has placed doubt on the legitimacy of the pro-Anthropological Global Warming arguement .
Phil Jones , Director of the East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit where the emails and documents were ‘ aquired ‘ has also stepped down . Micheal Mann , a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty on climate change research is also being investigated by the Penn State University review . Both of these men are in the emails talking about doctoring and tricking the numbers in climate tempertures to make it seem that the planet is heating up , rather then cooling down as the raw data shows .
The Watergate Scandel in the 70’s began with 5 men breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at Watergate Hotel and ended up the the Resignation of the President of the United States , Richard M. Nixion due in part to tape recordings of conversations in his offices , implicating that president Nixon’s staff conspired to cover-up the break-in because of ties that the Watergate ‘ burglars ‘, had with the White House and in turn , the president also attempted to cover-up the break-in that ended up with his resignation . Whether President Nixon had pre-knowledge of the break-ins was never clearly established .
What was clear is that Watergate was and is the Biggest Political Scandal in United States History . It was uncovered not by Political Committees , not by members of Congress or the House of Represenitives but by a Once obidient Mainstream Media .
We have a similar case with ClimateGate today . We have found in emails leaked/hacked from East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit that proves that several prominant scientists were manipulating scientific data in relation to pro-global warming . As with the tape recordings that ended up being The President of the United States demise , we have the leaked/hacked emails that will eventually be another’s downfall . The Purpose of the manipulated data is left up to the reader to determine.
How high the Conspiracy will go in ClimateGate will not be determined by one-sided invesigative committees formed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , nor by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) . The Congress of the United States are also calling for hearings into this scandal. Although we have only a handful of Congressmen and Represenitives that the knowing public can deem Trustworthy , it will be the voice of the people not only in the United States but a Global Voice of the people in which this Crime Against Humanity was obviously directed toward.
Big three networks highlight own irrelevance by ignoring Climategate email scandal
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/post.aspx?bid=354&bpid=24483 an email that is being sent around APS members aparently. WUWT has covered the APS stance in the past so thought it may be relevant.
Three hundred and sixty comments (and counting) on this article already. News is spreading in the US.
Skeptics Handbook II! Global Bullies Want Your Money
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
UK Met Office to publish raw data
I hope some of the climate guru’s here will take a look at this leaked email and see if it comes across as it does to me – a rather clear example of the ‘Team’ saying they are going to fake data. Not to mention it seems an admission that they’ve no clue with regard to why past temperatures don’t don’t support their preferred vision of a clear later 20th century rise in temps greater than any previously occurring… it also sure seems to me that its one more example of people supposedly doing independent research who are instead collaborating on how to fix the results to their preferred outcome.
Please see if there are any other even halfway reasonable explanations? In case there isn’t, I wanted folks to be aware of this set. There’s more at the thread, but I’ve copied a few of the emails below rather than the entire thing.
I’ve tried to bold what appear to me to be the most questionable statements, and added [my comments] in brackets (hopefully I don’t mess up the coding). I haven’t searched the emails for other possibly related emails/threads yet, but wanted to get this posted so some who understand the details discussed far better than I can take a look.
The email is at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1069&filename=1257874826.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: Gil Compo
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data – One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean.
This departure is part of AGW. [or is it evidence of urban heat island? Are they saying ocean temp rise lags, therefore the divergence is reasonable and AGW? Or ?]The rest is in your Co2 increases.
These will do for my purpose. I won’t pass them on. I am looking forward to the draft
paper. As you’re fully aware you’re going to have to go some ways to figuring out what’s
causing the differences. [I believe they’re referring to why the temp reconstruction doesn’t match CRU & GISS in terms of the ‘hot’ years in late 1800, the 20’s & 30’s, etc.]
You will have to go down the sub-sampling, but I don’t think it is going to make much
difference. The agreement between CRU and GISS is amazing good, as already know. You ought
to include the NCDC dataset as well.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html the ERSST3b dataset.
In the lower two plots there appear to be two types of differences, clearer in the
NH20-70 land domain.
The first is when reanl20v2 differs for a single year (like a year in the last 1960s, 1967
or 1968) and then when it differs for about 10 years or so. It is good that it keeps coming
back. For individual years there are a couple of years in the first decade of the 20th
century (the 1900s).
The longer periods are those you’ve noticed – the 1920s and the 1890s. There is also
something up with the period 1955-65 and the 1970s. [something up with? Like, those years are hotter than they’d like, perhaps?]The 1920s seems to get back then go off
again from about 1935 to early 1940s. Best thing to try and isolate some of the reasons
would be maps for decades or individual years. For the 1920s I’d expect the differences to
be coming from Siberia as opposed to Canada. I think the 1890s might be just down to
sparser coverage. The 1890s is the only period where the difference brings your pink line
back towards the long-term zero. All the others have the pink line more extreme than the
Rob Allan just called. I briefly mentioned this to him. He suggested maps of data input
during these times. He also suggested looking at the spread of the ensembles. Your grey
spread is sort of this, but this is a different sort of ensemble to what Rob implied you
One final thing – don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be
changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. [CHANGING THE SST’s?? What could justify that? This looks like smoking gun to me, but not at all sure if I”m not just reading into things?] There is also
a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low – all 3 lines. This may
be down to SST issues. [low, therefore it must be wrong. All 3 of them. Right? Because that doesn’t look as good for AGW, does it]
Once again thanks for these! Hoping you’ll send me a Christmas Present of the draft!
At 20:45 09/11/2009, you wrote:
1. I didn’t get the attached.
Both version1 and version2 use HadISST1.1 for SST and sea ice.
2. time-varying CO2, volcanic aerosols, and solar variability (11-year cycle until 1949,
“observed” after that) are specified.
Attached is a research figure. Please do not share.
In it, I have plotted the annual average (top panel) 50S to 70N global average 2m
temperature from 20CRv2, SST/2m temperature from HadCRU3, SST/2m temperature from
GISTEMP 1200km, and the 90% range of 2m air temperature from 25 CMIP3 models that can be
extended beyond their 20C3M runs with SRESA1B. The ensemble mean is the thick gray
curve. Averages are July-June.
(middle panel) 50S to 70N land-only 2m temperature from 20CRv2, 2m temperature from
CRUTEM3, 2m temperature from GISTEMP land-only 1200km. CMIP3 data is the same.
(bottom panel) same as middle panel but for Northern Hemisphere land-only (20N to 70N).
Anomalies are with respect to 1901-2000. period is July 1891 to June 2005. The CRU
(HadCRU) curves are supposed to be black.
No data has been masked by another dataset’s observational availability, but missing
values are not included in that dataset’s area-weighted average.
Your ERA-Interim finding about it being warmer seems to be the case in the late 19th
century but not the early 1920’s.
Note that the only thermometer data in the magenta curve (20CRv2) is the HadISST1.1 over
oceans. The two landonly panels are independent of thermometers, aside from the
There are some very interesting differences, particulary late-19th century, 1920s, and
Correlations (I told you this was research, right?). The second pair is for linearly
GLOBAL LAND (70N-50S)
NH Land (20N-70N)
I thought that correlations of 0.8 to 0.85 were high for an independent dataset this
long. I think that these are higher than the proxies?
The global isn’t that fair because we have the HadISST.
The correlations are about the same as for AMIP runs, though. See
Hoerling M., A. Kumar, J. Eischeid, B. Jha (2008), What is causing the variability in
global mean land temperature?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L23712,
It will be interesting to see if the masked numbers change.
Let me know if you need anything else on this for your essay material.
Oops, sorry, correction.
Where I typed:
[something up with? Like, those years are hotter than they’d like, perhaps?]
I meant to type:
[something up with? Like, those years are colder than they’d like, perhaps?]
And, is this the right place to post issues like this, or should these sorts of posts still be in the tips to Anthony, with this thread only for links to climategate articles?
A link for the list. Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wi) rakes Holdren over the coals re ClimateGate and his previous AGW statements at a Global Warming Hearing. It’ll warm your cockles at least a little bit just listening to it.
An idea for the logo –
Suggestion/concept for logo:
ABC Australia’s answer to Climategate is to roll out a polar bear story. Note “Scientists say” morphs into “Conservationists say”
Looks like Yahoo is censoring WattsUpWithThat now. When I try to post, I get this:
“Sorry, Unable to process request at this time — error 999.
Unfortunately we are unable to process your request at this time. This error is usually temporary. Please try again later.
If you continue to experience this error, it may be caused by one of the following:
* You may want to scan your system for spyware and viruses, as they may interfere with your ability to connect to Yahoo!. For detailed information on spyware and virus protection, please visit the Yahoo! Security Center.
* This problem may be due to unusual network activity coming from your Internet Service Provider. We recommend that you report this problem to them.
While this error is usually temporary, if it continues and the above solutions don’t resolve your problem, please let us know.
Return to Yahoo!
Please try Yahoo! Help Central if you need more assistance. “
Wow! After getting the error 999 message, I went back and looked just now and it posted. Ya for Yahoo!!
Well if they have any more dirt whoever they are we need it now as the political spin has gone into full effect and looks like its overcoming climategate.
sad times indeed.
I tried posting the Scientists Behaving Badly – Part II on Yahoo and apparently, it did get censored. It has not posted yet. What could they have to lose?
No mention of Climategate in this Marketwatch article on Copenhagen. Just much drooling over the government funds to fill their coffers later. This is one of the main drivers to the bewildering efforts to sequester CO2 – money in my pocket! Businesses don’t care how they make money, they just go along with the politicians to get along. As I recall, Hitler made lot of promises to businesses and the rich to get into power, then dumped them. Businesses could take a lesson, IMO.
Two Academy Award members request Al Gore give back his Oscar.
Here is an entry on Climategate on Slashdot. Slashdot have not put much up on Climategate, not much compared to the huge number of articles out there, that is. They report Nature’s admonition to “move along, nothing to see here.”
But the in the comments there is good discussion.
BBC just put this on their website:
Headine: UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row
image of laptop: “The e-mails were posted on the internet last month”
The UN’s official panel on climate change has hit back at sceptics’ claims that the case for human influence on global warming has been exaggerated…
Full text at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm
BBC finds a way to bring big oil in to the picture
and is now beginning to put the blame on the computer programmer
this could be the BBC’s way of getting the scientists in the emails off the hotseat
4 minute BBC video
I heard on the news this morning a man talking about the Copenhagen meeting. I came into the room too late to hear his name or what he represents but he was saying that the AGW argument is not invalidated by the disclosures from Climategate. His reasoning was that U.S. scientists (I think he said NASA & one other – can’t recall) have performed their own independent studies and come to the same AGW conclusion. The TV news host asked him whether the U.S. scientists are using the same disqualified data as was used at UAE. He didn’t answer that question directly, but just kept saying it was independent study. Does anyone know if there are truly independent (including using independently gathered data) U.S. studies that come to the same AGW conclusions as those of UAE? If so, have they had good, independent, objective peer review? – Thanks for your response.
[REPLY – yes and no. NASA uses already-adjusted NOAA/NCDC data and readjusts it. NOAA and CRU use data from a heavily overlapped group of stations. But NOAA adjusts its US trend considerably warmer than the raw data and I heavily suspect CRU does the same for the world. US is adjusted from +.14 (raw) to .59C/century (FILNET adjustment) per station, equally weighted. We do not have the NCDC (or CRU) adjustment algorithm available. ~ Evan]
The problem with any bad theory is that we need a better theory to replace it. Otherwise the current theory will continue to hold sway. This means we need a theory that can better forcast the climate and makes sense to the average taxpayer.
I find Carl Smith work on Landscheidt Cycles fascinating and compelling. It appears to go a good job of predicting solar activity and is in agreement with similar work by NASA.
Looking at the historical C14 (solar activity) records it appears to me that solar activity does a better job of predictiing the historical temperature record than AGW does.
What I find fascinating about the work on Landscheidt Cycles is that is appears to explain historical solar activity and the cooling of the past 10 years, something the current theory on AGW did not forecast.
Combined with the observed lunar effects on severe weather it does seem that there is a strong case to be made for orbital mechanics to drive long term climate change.
Just my two cents. My specialty is computer science. I can see how tidal effects on the sun might heat it up, how the moon might influence solar wind, how ionization from the sun might affect cloud formation and rainfall.
There are of course other theories and I’d like to see them brought forward publicly. Properly explained this sort of work could capture the attention of the public. This is likely to be a “teachable” moment in the history of climate science.
Oh snap! We’ve been “debunked”… this proves it:
NBC evening broadcast of 04-Dec-09 finally whispers ‘ClimageGate’.
Media Research Center
NBC Nightly News Takes Up ClimateGate, But Frets It Could ‘Delay Taking Action’
By: Brent Baker
December 04, 2009 21:15 ET
Two weeks after the scandal broke, NBC Nightly News on Friday night became the first broadcast network morning or evening news program to inform viewers about “ClimateGate,” but only in the most cursory manner as correspondent Anne Thompson, a long-time ally of the environmental left, despaired the e-mails may end up “giving politicians from coal and oil-producing states another reason to delay taking action to reduce emissions. The government’s leading scientist told Congress there is no time to lose.”
Anchor Brian Williams had teased: “ClimateGate, they’re calling it. A new scandal over global warming and it’s burning up the Internet. Have the books been cooked on climate change?” But neither Williams nor Thompson ever again used the “ClimateGate” term as Thompson’s story assured viewers the threat remains while she saw — not a major scientific scandal — but merely how “those who doubt that manmade greenhouse gases are changing the climate say” the e-mails “show climate scientists massaging data and suppressing studies by those who disagree.”
. . .
Latest from the National Post
Lawrence Solomon: Even before Climategate, the public suspected fraud
Anthony, need a little humor?
When the all the best models fail…
It’s going to be a cold, cold winter.
Amir Khan fought Dimitry Salita last night. Google’s auto-suggest already suggests search terms:
Meanwhile climategate is is constantly being erased from Google’s suggestion database:
17 days after the story broke, German television finally gets around to making a 3 minute report on it.
Maybe you will be interested to see how the European Geophysical Union stops a debate on anthropogenic versus natural drivers of climate changes. See the relevant exchange of e-mail messages (the oldest in the bottom).
Subject: Re: MISSING SESSION PROPOSAL
From: “Bruce D. Malamud”
Date: Tue, October 13, 2009 18:45
Cc: “firstname.lastname@example.org” (more)
Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version | Download this as a file
Thank you for your e-mail.
In coming to the decision we did, we consulted with a number of
scientists and other programme group members.
I was the one who moderated the various discussions regarding the
decision, and communicated the overall decision
to you in my e-mail
First of all, I do not like to accused of censuring. My own research has
itself been controversial at times, and as
such I am highly sensitive to these sorts of accusations, particularly
given the position of trust I have been placed
in as Scientific Programme Chair to actually avoid such issues. I have
served as Chief Executive Editor of a journal
where I pride myself on always allowing different sides of an issue to
be heard, and in particular, for those papers
that might be controversial, making sure the reviews and ultimate
acceptance/denial of such a paper are not based
on the controversy, but rather good science. I have continued this
philosophy as President of one of the largest
divisions at EGU, the Natural Hazards division, and continue this
philosophy here as Scientific Chair of the EGU 2010 GA.
At no point did I state that this session was being rejected because of
the issues being addressed.
Rather, I compared it to the programme last year, where in the great
debate that was had, it was stated:
Planetary dynamics and solar activity have a role in climate change and
geodynamics? – A debate dedicated to the memory of Rhodes W. Fairbridge
This debate will discuss these questions:
1) Does solar system dynamics significantly affect solar and planetary
dynamos? If it did, could this affect the Earth’s climate dynamics?
2) Does solar activity result in geomagnetic field variations? Does it
change the Earth’s rate of rotation? Do variations in the Earth’s
geomagnetic field and/or variations in the Earth’s rate of rotation
affect the planet’s climate dynamics.
The fact is, despite what happened last year that you discussed, that on
the books you have down that part of the debate last year would be on
“solar activity and its role in climate change”. This did not happen, as
you mention, because of unforeseen circumstances, but it did raise a
variety of problems, because that is what people were expecting as part
of the session.
I in fact do believe your subject would be an interesting great debate,
but after consultation with a number of EGU Council and Programme
Committee members, do not feel it appropriate to have this occur this
year, one year after a debate with partially the same supposed aims to it.
I am in no way against the idea of bringing this up as a proposal for
the following year (If I am still the PC scientific chair) and giving it
fair consideration, as long as there are clearly a couple of organizers
who can ensure a well mediated debate, defining the question well, and
potentially with a professional moderator brought in to ensure that
different sides can give their opinion. I’d be happy to discuss these
issues with you for the future, but not for the this next general assembly.
On 12/10/2009 15:29 the sender “Katya” wrote the following:
> Dear Bruce D. Malamud,
> Last year’s great debate was focused on planetary influences on solar
> activity. It was dedicated to the memory of Rhodes Fairbridge who worked
> on this topic, and all the presentations of the three panelists (Silvia
> Duhau, Ivanka Charvatova proxied by Pavel Hejda because of illness, and
> myself) were on the two possible mechanisms of planetary influences on
> solar activity: solar inertial motion about the Solar system barycenter,
> and planetary tidal forces. The fourth panelist who was expected to speak
> about the possible connection (or lack thereof) with climate was Leif
> Svalgaard, but in the last moment he canceled his participation for
> personal reasons.
> However, though all the presentations were on planetary influences on
> solar activity, all the questions and discussions following them were on
> solar influences on global climate change, and most of the numerous public
> had come exclusively for this discussion. Unfortunately, no real debate on
> this subject happened last April because this was not the topic of the
> session, and because the panelists who were present were not prepared to
> speak about this. Therefore, we have never had a real debate on
> attributions of climate change in EGU, while there is much interest in
> such a debate both in the scientific community and in general public. I am
> sure a debate explicitly devoted to this topic is inevitable, whether as a
> part of an EGU General Assembly or not, so I felt such a great debate in
> EGU 2010 would answer the scientific and public interest.
> As you know, Kyoto protocol is soon expiring, and negotiations are about
> to start for the new treaty following it. The obligations undertaken by
> the countries which will sign this treaty will mean enormous resources
> spent on reducing greenhouse emissions at the expense of economical
> growth, overcoming starvation, fatal epidemic diseases, illiteracy. Maybe
> this sacrifice is vital for the survival of the civilization because human
> activity is what is causing global climate change, or maybe these are
> futile efforts because climate change is due to natural factors beyond our
> control. As scientists, we have the moral duty to give a clear answer to
> the question whether global climate change is due to human activity or to
> natural factors, and consequently, what measures can and must be taken to
> reduce it or to mitigate it, respectively. Or, if we do not have a clear
> answer yet, we must honestly state this instead of hiding behind the
> nonexistent “scientific consensus”, and postpone the practical measures
> until we reach a higher level of understanding.
> Unfortunately, this problem is strongly politicized, and severely
> censured. There are many examples when purely scientific discussions like
> the proposed EGU 2010 great debate have not been allowed, and the chance
> has not been given for alternative views to be presented. If nothing
> worse, this at the very least casts doubt on the “consensus opinion”, and
> on the scientific integrity of the respective scientific executive bodies.
> I would very much like to hope that the EGU 2010 General Assembly program
> committee will not be another example, so I am asking you to reconsider
> your decision.
> Katya Georgieva
> [Proposer of EGU 2010 Great debate “Global warming: solar variability
> versus human activity”]
> PS. As for the argument that the same people shouldn’t be involved year
> after year in EGU great debates, as a convener of this proposed great
> debate I can assure you that none of the panelists participating in the
> last year’s great debate, including myself, has ever been considered to be
> a panelist in 2010.
> Bruce D. Malamud wrote:
>> Dear Katya Gerogieva:
>> We are still finalizing the programme, however two days ago the
>> programme committee of the EGU General Assembly met, and we decided not
>> to run this great debate this year. There was an overall feeling that as
>> there was a very similar debate last year, with which you were involved,
>> this not be repeated. In other words, great debates are not the sort of
>> item, at a union level, to be repeated year after year, and with the
>> same people involved.
>> Regards, Bruce D. Malamud
>> [Scientific Chair, EGU GA 2010 Programme Committee]
:: Bruce D. Malamud, Ph.D.
:: Reader in Natural and Environmental Hazards
:: KCL Environmental Monitoring and Modelling Research Group (Member)
:: KCL Hazards and Risk Research Group (Member)
:: President, Natural Hazards Division of the European Geosciences Union (2007-2011)
:: Department of Geography; King’s College London, Strand
:: London WC2R 2LS; UK
:: Tel +44-(0)207-848-2466; Fax +44-(0)207-848-2287
:: e-mail for EGU NH Division business: NHemail@example.com
:: e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
:: See the book: “Language of the Earth”.
>> On 12/10/2009 09:18 the sender “Katya” wrote the following:
>>> On 2 September I submitted a proposal for EGU 2010 Great debate entitled
>>> “Global warming: solar variability versus human activity”. Until last
>>> Friday it, together with the other proposal for a Great debate, “Getting
>>> real about energy”, was listed in red as a proposal waiting for a
>>> decision. This morning it is just missing – neither accepted, nor
>>> rejected, as if there has never been such a proposal. In the same time
>>> other proposal is still there in red which, I suppose, means that there
>>> still no decision about this session. I am sure this is a technical
>>> so please ask the webmaster to correct it.
>>> Katya Georgieva
>>> Solar-Terrestrial Influences Laboratory
>>> at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
>>> Bl.3 Acad.G.Bonchev str.
>>> 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
>>> tel +359(2)9793432
>>> fax +359(2)8700178
The real danger to the public is a government that makes such insane decisions. It’s out of control!!!
You got to be worried when a government starts making such decisions.
CBS Evening News (broadcast) finally gets around to ClimateGate…
CNN – Covers it w/o referring to scandal as ‘ClimateGate’
CNN – Scandal Over Global Warming Heats Up
Climategate: Be Skeptical Of Envirojournalism
By: Bradley Fikes — December 5th, 2009
Someone who is paid to find evidence of environmental catastrophes would probably find them more often than someone whose pay doesn’t depend on finding them. That’s something to keep in mind when you read environmental reporting on Climategate.
. . .
Climategate has validated the skeptical position on AGW. So these environmental journalists, who have published story after story about impending doom, can either downplay Climategate as much as possible or take it seriously as a real scandal, which would call their previous reporting into question. Guess which course most are taking?
And with the mondo politico/enviro bash of the Copenhagen summit just ahead, Climategate couldn’t come at a worse time. Environmental journalists are going to descend on the city in droves to warn the world of the dangers of AGW. They’ll attend events, receptions, parties, and just play stenographer. What could be easier? But Climategate might actually force them to do some real work, and ask awkward questions of those who say man-caused global warming has with certainty been proven a global threat. If they’re too diligent, they’ll be ostracized as a “skeptic”.
That’s why you’re not going to see much skeptical coverage from environmental reporters at Copenhagen. A story(*) from Copenhagen by AP reporters Charles J. Hanley and Jan M. Olsen breaks out the knee-pads for the summit, without once mentioning Climategate.
(*) Climate drama climax looks elusive in Copenhagen
evanmjones (19:22:36) :
Lawrence Solomon: Even before Climategate, the public suspected fraud
Nice. The kindling has been ignited by ClimateGate.
Any word yet on how it was leaked to the public?
John Christy on ClimateGate
December 06, 2009
The 51 references (in ClimateGate emails) made Christy second only to Canadian global-warming skeptic Stephen McIntyre as a subject of discussion….Christy said he knows the e-mailers personally and has worked on committees with them. He knew they disagreed with him, but admits being hurt by the personal attacks in the e-mails…..”I was harmed,” Christy said. “My credibility was harmed. I was kept out of some publications. Some of my proposals were rejected.”
Fox News Sunday had a topic on cap and trade. Climategate was brought up during the discussion. Good points were made about the shakiness of the science that has been revealed. During the panel discussion, even Mara Liasson of NPR noted that the emails brought down the credibility of the science behind global warming. Earlier in the show, I was disappointed that John Cornyn didn’t respond to a question that included the possible effects of the Climategate emails. He answered the question while avoiding the Climategate part and global warming. He took the opportunity to push nuclear as a green alternative. Not a very production tack.
The Met ( Meteorological Office ) is the United Kingdom’s national weather service, and a trading fund of the Ministry of Defence.
How can The Meteorological Office plan to re-examine 160 years of temperature data when it was said by Phil Jones at the CRU that the raw data was destroyed ? How is it that the raw data suddenly re-appeared out of thin air ? Because it was never destroyed . I would still rather re-accumulate the raw data from offices Outside of the Meteorological Office but it is no longer necessary because the result will still show a Global Cooling .
The Meteorological Office says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data ??? What’s wrong with the old way ? You don’t need a ” new and fully open method ” , just do it right the first time ! Put the numbers in the boxes and don’t manipulate them ! How Lame is that statement ?
The Meteorological Office’s states a new analysis of the data will take three years for them to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012 ? No Need , THERE’S NO WARMING ! another Lame statement .
The Meteorological Office says results by the end of 2012 ? Do they mean December 21, 2012 , the end date of the Mayan Calender . Another subliminal remark to their Canon Science .
This is obviously another Damage Control Campaign by the The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) .
First , if The Meteorological Office works closely with the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which is being investigated after the leaked e-mails show manipulated temperature data , then The Meteorological Office should also be Investigated . This is just a feable attempt by the Powers that Are to alternate the responsibility for the Manipulated Data to “hide the decline” in Global Warming and to distract from the very Ones who are solely responsible for this Conspiracy against the people of the world .
Like the Watergate Scandal in the U.S. in the 70’s , 5 seemingly ordinary ‘ burgulars ‘ that broke into the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel ended up having , after extensive investigations by the Washington Post Direct ties to the then , a Republican White House which resulted with the resignation of the President of the United States !
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) is the regulatory body that established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in which the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit , and now a new player , the Meteorological Office reports to .
Like the 5 seemingly ordinary ‘ burgulars ‘ that broke into the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel which was labeled WaterGate , we now have ClimateGate . The 5 ‘ burgulars ‘ in ClimateGate , Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann , Kevin Trenberth and Gavin A. Schmidt , all of these men were in contact with one another in “hiding the decline” and manipulating data for the pro-Global Warming arguement .
The WaterGate scandal ended up at the White House , will ClimateGate end up at The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) , the ‘ White House ‘ and Regulatory Body of Global Warming and Climate Change Sciences ?
The Sierra Club of Canada has called for a criminal investigation of the Friends of Science Society (FOS) for providing information on the Climategate emails on the website http://www.friendsofscience.org/. (See third item under News & Events on the home page.)
The Sierra Club news release is at http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/media/item.shtml?x=3020
The Sierra Club sent letters to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Calgary Police Service requesting they investigate the Friends of Science for possible violation of sections 341.1 and 430.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada (regarding the unauthorized use of computer systems and data, and mischief in relation to computer data).
The FOS website includes links to the website “Watts Up With That?”.
FOS Scientific Advisory Board Member Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology, Carleton University said “Groups like the Sierra Club are trying to hide the truth revealed in the hacked emails by attempting to bully groups like FOS.”
Miliband said, quote, “My answer to it is maximum transparency, let’s get the data out there. The people who believe that this is happening, that climate change is happening and man-made, have nothing to fear from transparency.”
Okay, Mr Miliband, do the following:
Demand that those scientists so certain of the merits of AGW sit at a computer and, in the full glare of public scrutiny (not the BBC) and using only the raw data they are so proud of having tampered with (value added?); reproduce exactly what they have already predicted.
You never will, of course. Why not? Because, should such an exercise be undertaken, they will once more shoot themselves in their collective feet because their models completely failed to predict the lack of warming over the last decade even as CO2 levels have continued to rise. It will be the ultimate Catch 22. If they produce the same results, they’re damned; if they produce the cooling, they’re damned; if they refuse to even attempt it, they’re damned.
Oh, Mr Miliband, and you too will be damned.
Another Marketwatch article about Copenhagen with no mention of Climagegate. This one highlights the billions and even hundreds of billions of dollars the developed world will have to give to the third world.
“In short-term financing, I think we need 10 billion for 2010 and 10 billion for 2011 and 10 billion for 2012. That’s in prompt-start financing,” de Boer told the press conference.
“Clearly, though, over time, by 2020 or 2030, we are going to need more significant sums, in the hundreds of billions of dollars, to deal with both mitigation and adaption. But the first priority for me at the moment is prompt-start financing to deal with urgent needs.”
Sunmedia Group in Canada Editorial Sunday Dec6,2009
Editors call for Moratorium of Copenhagen until full investigation of Climategate.
Read Here: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2009/12/06/12055286-sun.html#/comment/editorial/2009/12/06/pf-12055286.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change refutes ‘climategate’
While divisions between schools of thought on climate change have always existed, the emergence of climategate has given climate change skeptics fuel and presents a threat to the success of the Copenhagen negotiations. The negotiations were already threatened by disagreement among world leaders on how to implement greenhouse gas emission controls, resulting in the coining of the moniker ‘nopenhagen’. Skeptics claim that the Copenhagen conference is not much more than ‘green washing’. Green washing normally refers to product or business promotions which claim the product/business is environmentally friendly, when this is not the fact. Public opinion is now swinging against controlling greenhouse gas emissions, even going so far as to claim that science is at death’s door because of climategate.
The reply to my complaint to the BBC about the lack of coverage concerning climategate.
Dear Mr Dickson
Thanks for your e-mail regarding BBC News.
I understand you’re unhappy that we haven’t featured coverage of the Climate change issues that have been discussed recently and I note you feel this subject should be newsworthy.
Whilst I can appreciate your concerns the choice of news stories on our programmes is frequently very difficult since editorial staff always have more reports than can be fitted into the time available.
Their choice has to be selective and no matter how carefully such decisions are made, they are always aware that some people may disagree with them.
The order of our news stories is based on what is deemed to be in the greatest public interest on that date however, this does not mean we consider any event more or less important.
I’m sorry to read you’ve been disappointed on this occasion.
Of course you may still be unhappy with our news coverage so I’ve registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback which we compile daily for all programme makers including our news team. It ensures that your complaints about news choices are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us.
Why is there so little coverage of the climategate topic on TV
or radio news programmes. This is worldwide and extremely important to the
general public, Whom, in the Uk, pay for this very same service of non bias
This is the most talked (blobbed) about subject on the internet at the
moment, which goes to show how important it is to the general public. Is the
lack of air time on the BBC proof of political bias?
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
There is more news coverage on Tiger Woods sexual proclivities, than there is on Climategate and the attempted rape of western civilization
Is this real?
email to Revkin yesterday,
Shame on you for this gutter reportage.
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
The AP has an article on Copenhagen. No mention of Climategate.
ABC News did a hack job for the UN Socialist Party and the Hockey Team. No mention of Climategate, but bemoaned the “climate refugees” on the island of de Jean Charles, La. Of course, no link was demonstrated between global warming and the diminution of the island, but it was a convenient straw man.
“”It will be hard for us to move because we’re used to living here,” said Doris Naquin. “We have our roots here, and it’s kind of hard to pull an oak tree out of the ground and set it somewhere else.”
But that’s just what Chief Albert is calling for his tribe to do — to uproot the few families left on this island, reunite with those who have already left, and head for drier, more secure land 20 miles north.
In the process they will become some of America’s first climate refugees, fleeing for higher ground and leaving their ancestral home behind. ”
Sadly there do not seem to be any follow-ups to your post. I am not a climatologist, just a simple pilot with a lifetimes interest in Meteorology. From most of my readings, I am convinced that the factors affecting climate are too complex for us to make any hard and fast decisions regarding human activity. I therefor believe that any research or debate which will widen our understanding can only be for the better. The one thing that “Climategate” has done for me, is to develop a profound mistrust of this cabal of so-called experts. I would assume that in your country and in your field there are not huge amounts of money at stake or available for research, and I am saddened that what would have proved an interesting debate has not been allowed to happen. I only hope that you continue in your field of expertise as one day, I am sure, you will get a hearing. If Climategate achieves on thing, I hope it will be openness and honesty in the debate