Links to everything about Climategate here. Relevant links posted in comments will be added.

WUWT Stories in chronological order, newest first:

When Results Go Bad …


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

Mike’s Nature Trick

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:

416 thoughts on “Climategate

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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: (this coder despairs at the CRU code) (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: (“This isn’t just a smoking gun, it’s a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.”) (Open-Sourcing the Global Warming Debate)
    And lots more in
    And a comment from one of Michael Crighton’s lectures (pity he did not live to see Climategate; he would have loved it): (Secrecy in science is a corrosive force by Michael Schrage; registration may be required, but worth it) (WUWT already has an article on this; still it is one of the best political videos ever recorded) (this guy is a professional statistician and has done models in the past) (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.) (talking about the CRU code and the political consequences of Climategate; some of the comments are really funny) (the dog ate my homework too!) (the Instapundit reflects on Climategate) (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.

  5. Anthony,
    The “Climategate” link on your main page needs to at least be in red, and preferably a lot larger. Just a suggestion.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. “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.”

  11. 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?

  12. 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.”

  13. 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

  14. 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:
    This story in RollingStone by Matt Taibbi is a real eye opener on the investment banker Goldman Sachs

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. Follow the Money
    I Just googled “grants” 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.

  18. The balanced and authoratitive audio file linked here is worthy of a listen:

    The leaking of email correspondence has embarrassed some climate scientists from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK). Aynsley Kellow considers the ramifications of the scandal.

    via Andrew Bolt

  19. Himalaya Glaciers NOT Shrinking
    Just seen this:
    “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.”

  20. “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,…”

  21. 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
    Reply-to: mann@xxx
    Hi Phil,
    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

  22. 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:

  23. More on Climategate
    30 Nov 2009 09:40 am
    Clive Crook
    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.

  24. 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!

  25. Here is a story Fox just broke at least on their website:,2933,577827,00.html
    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.

  26. 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!

  27. Climategate Scandal Heats Up, As Researcher “Accidentally” Deleted Data
    Graham Winfrey
    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’
    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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. The following are Climategate-related articles at The American Thinker”, from 112109 through 113009:
    1 –
    4 –
    5 –
    6 –
    7 –
    8 –
    9 –
    10 –
    11 –
    12 –
    13 –
    14 –
    15 –
    16 –
    17 –
    18 –
    19 –
    20 –
    21 –
    22 –
    23 –
    24 –
    25 –
    26 –
    27 –
    28 –
    29 –
    30 –
    31 –
    32 –
    33 –
    34 –
    35 –
    36 –
    37 –
    38 –
    39 –
    40 –
    41 –
    42 –
    43 –

  33. 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.”

  34. The CRU’s Criminal Conspiracy

    ClimateGate: Britain’s Climate Research Unit now says it will release all its data. Does that include the data that have been shredded, deleted and denied publication?

    When Scientists Become Politicians

    The recent expose of the e-mails from the scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia, revealing the nefarious nature of their global warming crusade, does far more than damage the credibility of global warming activists. It damages the foundation of one of the last bastions of truth.

  35. 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.

  36. 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…” 😉

  37. 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.

  38. 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.
    Related Articles
    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.

  39. 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.”

  40. 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]

  41. 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.

  42. 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’…

  43. Keenan formally accuses Wang of Fraud: Keenan Fraud Allegation v. Wang Doc Links

    2009-11-17 Some files from the Climatic Research Unit in England are stolen and posted on the internet. One of the files is an unredacted copy of the Report of the Inquiry Committee. Another is a submission from Wang to the Investigation Committee, which seems to have constituted Wang’s defense.
    2009-11-26 I posted some comments about Wang’s submission to the Investigation Committee. The comments argue that the submission is obviously and strongly contradicted by the documentary record.

  44. Penn State is going to investigate Climategate (
    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?

  45. 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.”

  46. I thought it would be nice to have a repository where readers of the leaked emails can copy and paste what they have found.

  47. 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 ( 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.

  48. imapopulist (11:00:33),
    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 whitewash investigation.
    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.

  49. 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:
    To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose
    their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at:
    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! )

  50. 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

  51. 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.
    The evidence
    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 ( 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.

  52. 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!

  53. I don’t see the free-for-all part. This is from The Truthorator 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.

  54. Dec 2, 2009, 8:01 P.M. ET
    Climategate: Science Is Dying
    Science is on the credibility bubble.
    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.

  55. ************
    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.

  56. 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.

  57. 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 ,
    From: Phil Jones
    Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
    Cc: “‘David G. VICTOR'” , ‘Katarina Kivel’ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Dear Steve et al,
    I’ve been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid
    points, I
    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,
    though, but
    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
    paleo work.
    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
    from 1400.
    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:
    Dear all,
    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.
    Christian Azar
    Department of physical resource theory

  58. From Pops link above:

    Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center which runs the GISS laboratory, said… he was unfamiliar with the British controversy and couldn’t say whether NASA was susceptible to the same challenges to its data. The White House has dismissed the British e-mails as irrelevant.

    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.

  59. 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]

  60. Here’s a great example of garbage journalism in Time:,28804,1929071_1929070_1945175,00.html
    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.

  61. 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 , titled google gate.

  62. 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

  63. 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
    should I understand that the Arctic in the 50’s was warmer than the average in 1961-90? 🙂

  64. 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?

  65. 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.

  66. 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.

  67. 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:
    …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.”

  68. 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:

  69. L. Gardy LaRoche,
    That is truly a fascinating video. It shows just a handful of insiders orchestrating the whole AGW scheme.

  70. 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

    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

  72. Concerning the UN investigating the CRU –
    It’s like a mob leader saying he’s gonna investigate his own mob.
    “Gee Sid, we aint found nottin wrong.”
    Bang! Bang!

  73. rafa
    “…should I understand that the Arctic in the 50’s was warmer than the average in 1961-90? :-)”
    looks that way to me too!

  74. 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
    and storage?
    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.

  75. 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.”

    Sarah Palin: Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change “Experts”
    Sarah Palin’s Notes
     Yesterday at 4:17pm
    The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.
    Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.
    Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”
    – Sarah Palin

    /Mr Lynn

  76. 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.

  77. 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.”

  78. 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.

  79. 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:
    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.
    [1] 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
    HadCRUT3/GISS average.
    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
    might have?
    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
    specified SSTs.
    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
    detrended data.
    GLOBE (70N-50S)
    hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.94370
    hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.82017
    gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.95284
    gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.85808
    gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.99088
    gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.97383
    GLOBAL LAND (70N-50S)
    cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.85167
    cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.68755
    gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.81469
    gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.60152
    gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.98050
    gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.95316
    NH Land (20N-70N)
    cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.82956
    cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.67989
    gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.79247
    gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.59900
    gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.98001
    gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.95880
    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.
    best wishes,

  80. 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?

  81. 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. “

  82. 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.

  83. 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?

  84. 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.

  85. 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:

  86. 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]

  87. 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.

  88. NBC evening broadcast of 04-Dec-09 finally whispers ‘ClimageGate’.
    Media Research Center
    Bias Alert
    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.”
    . . .

  89. Hello,
    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).
    From: “Bruce D. Malamud”
    Date: Tue, October 13, 2009 18:45
    To: “”
    Cc: “” (more)
    Priority: Normal
    Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version | Download this as a file
    Dear Katya:
    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:
    EGU 2009
    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.
    Regards, Bruce
    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.
    > Sincerely,
    > 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:
    :: e-mail:
    :: 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
    >>> the
    >>> other proposal is still there in red which, I suppose, means that there
    >>> is
    >>> still no decision about this session. I am sure this is a technical
    >>> error,
    >>> so please ask the webmaster to correct it.
    >>> Sincerely,
    >>> 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

  90. 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

  91. 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?

  92. 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.”

  93. 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.

  94. 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 ?

  95. 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 (See third item under News & Events on the home page.)
    The Sierra Club news release is at
    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.

  97. 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.”

  98. 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.

  99. 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.
    Michelle Wiggins
    BBC Complaints
    —–Original Message—–
    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
    news reporting.
    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.

  100. There is more news coverage on Tiger Woods sexual proclivities, than there is on Climategate and the attempted rape of western civilization

  101. Anthony,
    Is this real?
    email to Revkin yesterday,
    Copenhagen prostitutes?
    Climate prostitutes?
    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.
    Copenhagen prostitutes?
    Unbelievable and unacceptable.
    What are you doing and why?


  102. 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. ”

  103. Katya Georgieva,
    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

  104. Public trust in climate science hit by ‘Climategate’
    The Irish Times – Monday, December 7, 2009
    . . .
    Other things do matter. The e-mails reveal a systematic effort to deny legitimate freedom of information requests. They contain evidence that the rules of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were deliberately broken to include a paper that supports a particular point of view. The e-mails show an intolerance of views and facts that do not support the received wisdom of the people involved. One of the stolen documents reveals that a key result, the instrumental record of the global mean temperature since 1850, cannot be reproduced.
    This is serious stuff. Reproducibility of results and open-minded discussion are cornerstones of scientific conduct.
    The initial response of the people involved was that no judgment can be based on illegally obtained evidence. That is true in a court of law, but not on the internet.
    . . .
    The scale of the political fallout is beginning to emerge. Climategate has apparently pushed a few Australian senators to vote against the climate Bill, which failed to pass by a few votes. Saudi Arabia will table a motion for a full investigation at the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen. The US Senate will probably start an inquiry also.
    . . .
    The CRU may have had us fooled for a while. A risk now now exists that public opinion will follow fools who disregard basic physics and claim climate change is not real. The apparent dishonesty and incompetence of the CRU has further polarised the climate debate, and put a solution further out of reach.

  105. Below are some interesting emails that I found on my searches. I particularly like the idea of Jones being called before Congress:
    Jones refuses to publish data “…mainly because of McIntyre.”
    Phil Jones has a US DoE grant. Get him in front of congress!!!
    Who are they calling a “tosser”
    Eliminating series with negative correlations:
    Instruction to keep quiet about UK’s FoI Act:

    “Star joins global climate crusade one world, one voice As the Copenhagen summit kicks off today, 56 newspapers in 45 countries have united to demand action. The world must kick its carbon habit and we’ll have to change our lifestyle. The transformation will require a historic feat of engineering and innovation. Our survival depends on it”
    So much for unbiased media coverage!

  107. The professor at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair has successfully received more than £13 million in research funding.
    Prof Jones has stood aside as head of the CRU while an independent inquiry investigates thousands of emails and other documents stolen from the university’s computer server and published on the internet The figure is disclosed in a leaked, internal document posted on the internet by climate change sceptics who have seized upon it as evidence of a funding “gravy train” for scientists conducting research into the area.

  108. Questions about impartiality of Climategate investigations arise
    Two universities, the United Nations, and the UK Met Office have all announced investigations of varying degrees to quickly quell the furor resulting from the release of controversial emails written by prominent climate scientists. Before the inquiries even begin, questions have surfaced about their impartiality and ability to come up with anything but a predetermined outcome supporting the scientists.

  109. Good article in the WSJ
    Global Warming and Mt. Kilimanjaro
    For Mrs. Thomas, arguments over the state of the ice are irrelevant. When she was asked by a Copenhagen Consensus Center researcher what donors and the Tanzanian government should do, she doesn’t think for long. “Education is the first priority,” she says, “and it should provide proper understanding of HIV and reduce the stigma. The next priority is micro-finance so people can have the chance to become self-reliant.”
    As she puts it, “There is no need for ice on the mountain if there is no people around because of HIV/AIDS.”

    The Met Office has announced plans to release, early next week, station temperature records for over one thousand of the stations that make up the global land surface temperature record.
    “This data is a subset of the full HadCRUT record of global temperatures, which is one of the global temperature records that have underpinned IPCC assessment reports and numerous scientific studies. The data subset will consist of a network of individual stations that has been designated by the World Meteorological Organisation for use in climate monitoring. The subset of stations is evenly distributed across the globe and provides a fair representation of changes in mean temperature on a global scale over land.”

    “As world leaders gather in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference, a new map has been launched that highlights the importance of limiting mean global temperature rise to no more than 2 °C above those prior to the industrial revolution.
    The Met Office map — The impacts of a global temperature rise of 2 °C — has been produced to complement a similar map, published in October by the UK Government and the Met Office, exploring the impacts on a world if the mean temperature was allowed to climb to 4 °C above the pre-industrial climate average. The two maps together show the range of climate impacts that can be avoided if we act now to reduce global emissions to keep global temperatures below 2 °C.”

    “E1 uses methodology from the next IPCC assessment review (AR5) on using concentrations and forcings (the warming influence of GHGs on the atmosphere) as a starting point. Modellers are then able to establish what level of emissions would relate to the stated concentrations, which lets scientists calculate what the likely temperature change might be. Realistic socio-economic scenarios, such as the level of development of renewable energy sources or population growth are then determined to match.”

  113. Obama cannot make any pledges at Copenhagen that are NOT approved first by Congress. He is NOT a dictator yet and without the approval of congress what he says or does at Copenhagen means NOTHING!
    Obama and Congress are employed and work for me and the rest of the US citizens and MUST answer to us. If they don’t do what we the people want they will soon find themselves out of jobs and on the unemployment line like 20% of Americans now are.
    Those are the undisputable facts and intelligient Americans, not academians, know that Global warming is and always has been a money making, transfer of power HOAX. We DO NOT buy it and never will.

  114. Very nice pre-Copenhagen video interview with Monckton.
    Includes comments on Lindzen/ERBE, on ClimateGate, and on his intentions in attending Copenhagen. Lays out the ‘skeptics’ case very simply.
    I think this video is very nice and would make a good post—IMO. It might give WUWT readers a good feeling knowing that Monckton will be at work in Copenhagen
    12 minute video.
    h/t commenter PhilW

  115. photon without a Higgs (17:06:12) :
    Very nice pre-Copenhagen video interview with Monckton.
    Here’s the same interview on YouTube, h/t Ron de Haan

  116. This is a condensed presentation of the St.Paul address plus a focus on 8 of the ClimateGate players and references Anthony’s work.
    Lord Christopher Monckton speaks at the second International Climate Conference [Deutsche land], addressing the so called Climategate scandal and key players involved in what appears to be one of the biggest science scams of our time.
    Updated with Slides – Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul – Oct’09

  117. Hi!
    Finnish broadcasting company YLE showed last night documentary Ilmastogate (Climategate). You can watch that film via following link (film is publically available 7 days).
    Documentary is very good and reveals lot of stuff. I hope that someboby can generate english subtitle.

  118. The UK Met Office has released a subset of data for Land Surface Station Climate Records at
    The question is how accurate is it. They say: “The data that we are providing is the database used to produce the global temperature series. Some of these data are the original underlying observations and some are observations adjusted to account for non climatic influences, for example changes in observations methods”.
    So is some raw data, and some the “value-added” data? If it has been “adjusted” like the Darwin data (see then the raw data needs to be seen also to see what “corrections” have been made!

  119. I can only conclude, somewhat reluctantly, that Google is deliberately and manually (!) tinkering with its search engine. The tinkering is a shape-shifter, changing guises almost hourly. As of now, only ‘climate-gate’ (with the hyphen) will autosuggest.
    Worse, the first page of Google’s search results looks like Al Gore’s resume. The Huffington Post? It compares ClimateGate to WaterGate in the sense that they both began with evil right-wing ‘burglaries’! Thus the evil-doers will be brought to justice.
    Sure. And so the Nixon Plumbers immediately went public with the dirt they pilfered from the DNC?
    These people all need to get the word; they are BUSTED!
    For a good list of things that are much harder to suppress, search on ‘AR4 suppressed papers jones mann briffa’. But even here, Google puts the ‘defense’ on page one. (Hey, Google! There IS no defense!)
    The Vostok Ice Core data, which show that atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature over a 400,000 year timespan, are also getting harder to find.
    And now, (gotta be a coincidence, right?) the EPA decides that ‘greenhouse gasses’ are ‘dangerous’ to public health? Like water vapor? Do these idiots know that CO2 is the ORIGIN of Green?
    I think I should take a stress pill.

  120. This is all talk, whikst over in Copenhagen our future is being discussed without any thought to democracy. Everybody I know, work with or socialise with believe that this is just a scam to get more taxes out of us. most people have not heard of climategate and are in the dark of how serious Copenhagen is to their wellbeing . The politicains have done a great job in keeping this quiet but as I said most people are in blissful ignorance. Therefore something must be done to bring this out in the open before it is too late. The envirnmentalists got a few thousand to march on London. I believe, with the feeling of the country, that sceptics could gather thousands more . Look what the poll tax marchers done in 1990. This is the biggest and most unfair tax ever and if this knowledge can be made more known it could stop it.
    If anyone knows how to arrange a march of this magnitude please speak up and lets show how the majority feel.

  121. Pretty naive, Ross.
    Even if you could organize such a ‘march’, it would only be seen as an effort by a few right-wing loons to fight ‘progress’ and discredit the ‘settled science’.
    For every ‘marcher’ you could find, the Left could recruit ten. Most being unemployed, they’re professional demonstrators.
    As you point out, most people could not care less about any of this, and that won’t change. De Tocqueville has been proven correct: democracies fail when the majority begin to believe in ‘free’ money.
    This debate is not about about the environment any more; it’s about the redistribution of wealth. Which, sadly, is about the only ‘consensus’ left

  122. Climategate: Barack Obama’s rule by EPA decree is a coup d’etat against Congress, made in Britain
    By Gerald Warner | December 8th, 2009
    “Who needs tanks on the lawn when you have the Environmental Protection Agency? Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change Nuremberg Decrees shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état.”
    “And what is the justification for this undemocratic action? The allegedly imminent threat from “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. There is always a supposed threat, when tyrants take the stage. The President of the United States has just reduced his moral authority to the level of any Third World dictator heading a “Government of National Emergency”.”

  123. New Zealand TV programme, ‘Close Up’, climate change debate, with author of “Air Con”, Ian Wishart,
    ClimateGate is mentioned
    had interactive phone text poll, result:
    Ian Wishart 77%
    warmer 23%

  124. Report on ClimateGate/Copenhagen/EPA
    Copenhagen not what it was supposed to be for small countries
    Sen Joe Barton says yesterday’s EPA finding will not stand
    Sen Markey makes bizarre statements

    The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.
    More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.
    One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.

  126. Sorry Anthony, as I scroll down on the front page I see you already have the 1700 scientists story. My post was unneccesary.

  127. The big money of climate science highlighted by Climategate and Copenhagen
    Many point to skeptics of the manmade climate change theory and presume they are funded by “big oil” interests and think that should disqualify their arguments. The fact is that there is big money on both sides of the debate coming from oil and energy companies, ‘green’ companies, governments and many other sources. It is big business for all involved no matter which side of the debate they are on.

  128. Hey got a question? Ask Mike:
    Every wonder how the media is able to contact all the experts?
    Take 5 mins and look at “Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation”
    Of course these people are not bias
    And if you really want to have fun
    Please dont hack their emails. No really, I said please…

  129. This has to be aired:
    Armed Response to ‘Climategate’ question at Copenhagen:

  130. That footage is frightening and looked like the sort of thing one would have expected to see in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia if you disagreed with the regime. What are these people scared of ,Loosing their funding?
    They don’t need to worry on that score our unelected prime minister has managed to bankrupt out country a bit more and promised them more billions.
    We in the uk are being subjected to a barrage of goverment proper ganger I have never seen so many adverts on tv about climate change. As usual it’s impossible for anyone to question the facts. It seems the new big idea is keep repeating the mantra and eventualy everyone will believe it.
    I am all for sensible use of resorces but solving a problem that appears to be made by distorting the science is going to end up having the opposite effect on the planet that the greens expect.

  131. If this letter speaks for you: Use it, copy it, paste it, email it, fax it, print it and send it to every one. I use and 567 faxes go out in 3 clicks of the mouse.
    An Open Letter To The President, Congress and Supreme Court:
    Sirs and Mesdames:
    You have ONE JOB: Your only job is to do one simple thing, You SWORE an Oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution. That is your only job: HONOR your Oath of Office and Protect and Defend the United States Constitution and defend the Liberty of the People. Anything else you do is inconsequential.
    1. Prove the eligibility of Obama by showing a real Birth Certificate with real facts. The one on his website is not the official Birth Certificate.
    2. Cease and desist all Co2 and AGW legislation until the Unbiased FACTS are revealed. Do a complete Investigation of Climate Gate.
    3. Cease and desist all deliberation on signing any treaty that cedes US Sovereignty: this includes Copenhagen Treaty, Codex Aliminatarius, Health care legislation, Jay Rockefeller’s internet control bill! This is an act of Direct TREASON ON YOUR PART if you or anyone CEDES US Sovereignty to any entity or acts Contrary to the Constitution .
    4. CEASE and DESIST all unconstitutional laws that do not fall into Article I section 8 of the US Constitution. You have no authority to legislate on issues not specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.
    5. Honor your Oath of office and OBEY Amendment 9 which states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others RETAINED by the PEOPLE”.
    And Amendment 10 which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED to the States respectively, or to the People”.
    6. Repeal the Patriot act! It is unconstitutional because it violates the bill of rights right down the line. Do I have to remind you that Amendment IV states: The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation , and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    7. Stay out of FREE SPEECH! Amendment I clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
    8. Complete Audit of the Federal Reserve. The FED is unconstitutional from the start. The genesis of the Federal Reserve was passed with 3 Congressmen in the dark of night. The constitution is very clear who is supposed to have the authority to coin money: CONGRESS! You must STOP making unconstitutional laws.
    9. It is not Constitutional for you to allow the courts to pass laws according to Article III. You are overburdening the system with bills and laws you KNOW are unconstitutional.
    The Constitution does not give authority to you, our government representatives to lie to us and deceive us, nor does it give authority to the government to act without the consent of the people. When government no longer looks out for the best interest of the people, the government ceases to be the rightful, legitimate government, and as such, it is time to abolish the entire government. “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations , pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”.

  132. Patrick Michaels and Bill Nye on CNN Anderson Cooper
    I used to think Bill Nye really cared about science. Now I see him sacrificing science for his ideology.

  133. This Monckton video is making its way around the internet. It’s top front page at The Huffington Post.
    Lord Monckton Invades SustainUS Booth – Calls U.S. students “Hitler Youth”

  134. at DeSmogBlog
    [SNIP – sorry, I don’t link to them, they are paid to write pro AGW rants, and thus I won’t drive traffic to them anymore. – A]

  135. Pops (03:16:31)
    That Daily Mail article Pops links is outstanding and should be highlighted. The return of proper investigative journalism and the author should get a journo’s award for it.

  136. WASHINGTON – US President Barack Obama is heading to the Copenhagen climate talks with empty promises on curbing US greenhouse gas emissions that he cannot fulfill, a top lawmaker said Sunday.
    “He doesn’t have that power to do that. And people in other countries don’t realize that,” Republican Senator James Inhofe…
    from 1:16 to 1:47 of this video

  137. First this relates to:
    The Scope of Medieval Warming, SCIENCE June 15, 2001
    Bradley, MAnn, Briffa, Crowley, Hughes, Jones
    Hemispheric mean temperatures that have been reconstructed with a wide range of climate proxies indicate that temperatures were warmer in Medieval times than during the subsequent “Little Ice Age” (~1550 to 1850) (1). However, all studies of large-scale climate variations reveal some regions that do not follow the global or hemispheric trend [for example, (2)], so selecting a few data points, as W. S. Broecker does in his Perspective (Science’s Compass, 23 Feb., p. 1497), adds little to resolving the title question he poses: “Was the Medieval Warm Period global·” ….
    The Email I found was from THREE months earlier” Imagine
    their surprise when they see that the ensemble averages you publish
    have much smaller amplitude.”
    From: Chick Keller
    To: “Michael E Mann” , , “Phil Jones” , , tom crowley , “Jonathan Overpeck”, Tom Wigley , Mike MacCracken
    Subject: Some thoughts on climate change proxy temperatures in the last 1,000 yrs
    Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:54:57 -0800
    1. I read with some consternation Wally Broecker’s latest piece in
    Science (23Feb. 2001). First you can all take up some other topic
    since Wally says only Boreholes and treeline changes are accurate
    enough to do low frequency trends. What does he mean by “only two
    proxies can yield temperatures that are accurate to 0.5°C”? and do you
    agree that tree rings and sediments, etc are not sufficiently accurate
    to exhibit correct low frequency trends?
    And this brings up my question. How one averages these records.
    One way would be to note that the temperature amplitude (1000 – 1950)
    for each is ~1.5°C. Thus you could conclude that hemispheric/global
    climate varied ay over a degree Celcius (although with regional
    Another way would be to average the records. The resulting temperature
    amplitude would be smaller because extremes would cancel since
    variability is large and each region’s extremes occur at different
    Thus, if people simply looked at several records they would get the
    impression that temperature variations were large, ~1.5°C. Imagine
    their surprise when they see that the ensemble averages you publish
    have much smaller amplitude. …….]

  138. Do this artist a huge favor, science guys, and go to
    where they have posted a bunch of drivel about how they KNOW it’s anthropogenic and warming and melting, yada yada. I’m about to have to write an *expletive deleted* science report to the editor at because he clearly isn’t going to come here and learn anything.
    My correspondence below.
    Rosemary Meling wrote:
    Fact Check Article failed to check temperature records
    I see that the writer, Jess Henig, of “Climategate” December 10, 2009
    managed to avoid doing a complete or wide-ranging job of fact
    checking. I know, because he cited his sources below. I suggest he
    consult the *actual temperature data* for the last decade or so – try
    Andrew Watt’s site Watt’s Up With That (
    ) for very easy to understand
    information and links to even further information.
    I’ve quite lost confidence in your site.
    editor []
    Jess Henig is a female
    And here’s some data on temperatures.

  139. Always good to see how well informed greenpeace rent a mob are.
    Now what we need is lord Monkton to start asking the newspaper editors and journalists who print any story put out by the global warming people (he could start at the bbc which seems to parot like run any warming story) where they are getting their information. No doubt the same well informed sorce that Green peace uses.

  140. Bottom has dropped out of the Carbon Trading Scheme
    “Last week, not a single carbon-futures contract was traded.”
    “Indeed, the exchange has registered a mere 257 contracts that commit a buyer to deliver a specified amount of carbon-dioxide emission credits in either January, 2011, or September, 2011, the only two delivery dates traded so far.
    “Chicago’s voluntary market was a pioneer, but the delays in regulation and the recession have undermined it. In mid-2008 – when both Republican and Democratic presidential nominees were backing cap-and-trade – the price for credits topped $7 (U.S.) per tonne of CO{-2} emissions. They’ve since fallen to 15 cents.”
    Always follow the money!

  141. Someone needs to write about this with sources:
    There are four data sets: CRU, NASA, NOAA, and University of Alabama. CRU is heavily compromised and NASA is being sued for the same data manipulation. Only NOAA and UA are ‘free of controversy.’ And the UA data shows ‘no statistically significant warming.’ And please don’t miss the point that each of the individuals in charge of three data sets are government appointees (with the exception of UA).

  142. In Respect to money transfer to poorer nations, You might want to check my math, but wealth transfer will not work at today’s carbon price:
    According to Environment Canada’s Website:
    “Every year, Canada prepares a national inventory of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions from sources (eg. fuel combustion, industrial processes) and removals by sinks (e.g. growing plants and trees).”
    721 megatonnes or 721 000 000 tonnes of carbon at $0.15 tonne equals roughly $108 150 000 dollars on today’s carbon market.
    If Canada is given credit for carbon offsets and taking our current carbon output, $110 million a year should make Canada carbon neutral. Or if we take the money McGuinty wasted on “E Health” in Ontario and wasted it on buying 10 years of carbon credits.
    I say we put $110 million into national parks and rebuilding the pine beetle infested forests every year going forward. With biosequestration roughly 830 thousand (ha) of area affected by pine beetle with a reforestation program it could make Canada carbon neutral in 10 years without shipping money out of the country. We could create our own carbon credits and forestry sector jobs. We could then export carbon credits to offset the national debt to the people that believe in this crap.
    The only problem the activists see is they can’t make any money at it. Sorry David Suzuki.
    On a happy note:
    At $0.15 per tonne here’s my 2 bucks I will light the charcoal briquettes and someone can invite Chicken Little over for the BBQ.
    Tell Chicken Little dinner will be a surprise!

  143. If electricity bills “necessarily skyrocket” this will become more common:
    from 1/29/09
    Marvin Schur, a 93-year-old man from Bay City, Michigan has died after the electric company limited his electric use due to his failure to pay over $1,000 in past-due payments. Bay City Electric Light & Power installed a power-limiting device on his home on January 13….The autopsy performed on Schur’s body concluded that he had died “a slow, painful death” caused by hypothermia….It was less than 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 Centigrade) in Schur’s home when neighbors found Schur dead on January 17. Virani commented that it was his first time performing an autopsy on a body in which “the person froze to death indoors.”…
    To me this is why America needs to go to Alaska to get fossil fuels to lower costs of winter heating.

  144. 12/14/09
    Zogby Poll: concern over global warming/climate change still waning in America
    “…nearly half of Americans — 49% — say they are only slightly or not at all concerned about climate change, while 35% are somewhat or highly concerned…an increase in those who hold this view compared with 2007, when 39% said they were slightly or not at all concerned about climate change and 48% said they were somewhat or highly concerned.”
    Also, issue divided along political lines
    “This latest survey shows more than two-thirds of Republicans (68%) and 46% of political independents say they are “not at all concerned” about global climate change and global warming, compared to just 7% of Democrats.”

  145. Update:
    In Respect to money transfer to poorer nations, You might want to check my math, but wealth transfer will not work at today’s carbon price:
    According to Environment Canada’s Website:
    “Every year, Canada prepares a national inventory of human-induced greenhouse gas emissions from sources (eg. fuel combustion, industrial processes) and removals by sinks (e.g. growing plants and trees).”
    721 megatonnes or 721 000 000 tonnes of carbon at $0.15 tonne equals roughly $108 150 000 dollars on Tuesday’s carbon market.
    Chicago Climate Exchange closed at $0.10 mt CO2
    So to buy carbon offset today would cost 72.1 million a drop of 33% since the start of the “Copenhagen Conference.”
    The price of carbon is also dropping on the Tianjin Climate Exchange (TCX, China) and the European Climate Exchange (ECX)
    Basically you are looking at the carbon market crashing from a market high $7.40 in May of 2008 to $0.10 at today’s open. The value of 1 unit (per metric ton of CO2) is worth 1.3% if you bought in at the market high.
    There are “Privately Negotiated Transactions” or under the table deals so it is unclear as to the total value of the market.
    The World Bank Carbon Finance Unit ( is quoted as estimating “that the size of the carbon market was 11 billion USD in 2005, 30 billion USD in 2006, and 64 billion in 2007.” Today that value might only be 832 million USD and falling.

  146. Leadership change at Copenhagen
    “…She said the move was procedural. Separately, Hedegaard has been criticised by African nations for favouring rich nations in the negotiations.”
    “With the talks clearly deadlocked, Connie Hedegaard, former Danish climate minister, resigned from the conference presidency to allow her boss, Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen to preside as world leaders from 115 nations streamed into Copenhagen. She was to continue overseeing the closed-door negotiations.”

  147. May I suggest (or at least vote for) more articles on good alternative energy, real ideas that are good for the environment, and any topics that help expose the fake enviro-movement for global warming?.
    Anything that exposes how much money is actually being wasted on lobbying/ legislature, when it could have been spent on real environmental issues.
    Practical energy alternatives? Natural gas as a cleaner alternative? Nuclear energy?
    How come we stand back and watch all of this money being spent on legislation, with no real world alternative solutions once we cut those emissions?
    Expose the warmers and all of their hand-waving for what it is. I know Anthony drives an electric car. It would be great to hear what things Anthony is actually in to environmentally speaking. Start a new, REAL environmental movement.

    The Climate Pool: NASA ends seven-year itch over carbon emissions
    The Climate Pool’s Notes
    NASA ends seven-year itch over carbon emissions
    Today at 2:34am
    The US space agency has just released seven years of carbon emissions data that link rapidly accelerated global warming to increased humidity, a move well-timed to quell growing controversy about data connected to global warming.
    As world leaders prepared to meet Friday in Copenhagen at the end of two weeks of slow negotiations on climate change, NASA researchers in Pasadena, California, said late Tuesday that the data on carbon dioxide had been ”extensively validated”.
    The data was collected by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA’s Aqua spacecraft. It measures carbon dioxide concentrations 5 to 12 kilometres above Earth’s surface and tracks its movement, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said.
    Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, said AIRS observations confirmed climate model predictions that as the climate warms, the atmosphere would become more humid, thus more than doubling the warming effect of increased carbon dioxide.
    ”The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are virtually certain to see Earth’s climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth’s climate system,” Dessler said in a NASA statement.
    NASA did not say why it chose this particular time to release its seven years of data.

  149. Russ Steele (09:50:56):

    The US space agency has just released seven years of carbon emissions data that link rapidly accelerated global warming to increased humidity…

    For the past 7 years the global climate has not been ‘rapidly accelerating’, it has been flat to cooling. Only NASA/GISS diverges from the direct satellite readings: click

    Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, said AIRS observations confirmed climate model predictions…

    Climate models, when fed all available past weather and climate data [hindcasting], can not predict today’s climate.
    Why should anyone believe Dressler when he claims that models are able to predict the climate? The best that can be said is that there was a temporary coincidental correlation, which has broken down beginning around 2003. To say that “we are virtually certain to see Earth’s climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century” is flagrant alarmism, based on always inaccurate models that are unable to make accurate predictions.
    Dressler speaks like a politician because he is on the public payroll, and he has his AGW marching orders. But like every other alarmist, his purported “evidence” is not empirical evidence at all, but simply computer projections. Computer models can be programmed to show anything.
    When NASA provides verifiable, testable and reproducible real world [empirical] evidence based on actual raw data, fully and publicly archived to provide full transparency, they will begin to repair some of their lost credibility. The fact that they still refuse to do so shows that like the CRU crew, they have something to hide.

  150. This could do with a good video to go with it too – just like the original by QUEEN:
    CRUTEAM – Eastanglian Hackstory
    Is this the real line?
    It’s not just fantasy
    It starts as tree rings
    And ends as the real T
    It must rise
    Come on you guys, help me
    We’re just a poor TEAM
    We need more grant money
    Because we’re easy come, easy go
    Make it hide, make this grow
    Anyway the cash flows
    Doesn’t really matter to me, to me
    Mann – he just drew a graph
    Didn’t slope up in the end.
    Added on the surface trend
    Station data – we had tons
    But now we’ve gone and thrown it all away
    Harry, who
    Tells me our code makes him cry
    He fudged it for our paper in Nature tomorrow
    Carry on, carry on as if nothing really matters
    Too late, the exposure’s come
    Sends shivers down Tim’s spine
    Antarctic Ice is doing fine
    Goodbye, everybody
    I’ve got to go
    Gotta leave you all behind to face the truth
    Tata, CRUUEA (Anyway the cash flows)
    I don’t want to fly
    Sometimes wish it’d never been warm at all
    I see a little silhouetto of a man
    SteveMcintire, SteveMcintire, will you to the FOIA go
    Rebutting and indicting, very, very frightening me
    Grant ,where are you? (Grant, where are you?)
    Grant, where are you? (Grant, where are you?)
    Grant, where are you? (Where’d he go?)
    (Where’s Tamino –o-o-o-o?)
    I’m just a poor boy nobody loves me
    He’s just a poor boy from a poor blogsite
    Spare him his life from this Mann’s travesty
    Easy come, easy go, will you let me go?
    Keith Briffa! No, we will not let you go
    Let him go
    Keith Briffa! We will not let you go
    Let him go
    Keith Briffa! We will not let you go
    Let me go (Will not let you go)
    Let me go (Will not let you go) (Never, never, never, never)
    Let me go, o, o, o, o
    No, no, no, no, no, no, no
    (Oh M&M, M&M) M&M, let me go
    “Watts Up With That“ has the asphalt warmed and dried for me, for me, for me!
    So you think you can make me admit we won’t fry?
    So you think you can shame me to quit, even worse – to DENY??!
    Oh, baby, can’t do this to me, baby
    Just gotta get out, just gotta get right outta here
    [Guitar Solo]
    (Oooh yeah, Oooh yeah)
    Nothing really matters
    Anyone can see
    Nothing really matters
    Nothing really matters to me
    Any way the cash flows…

  151. Attendees at Copenhagen reveal their true feeling with long applause. And I thought Copenhagen was about saving the world from global warming.
    When he (i.e. Hugo Chavez) said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
    When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

    They are the most excited about pulling down America, and replacing ‘capitalism’ with Marxism.
    Then back to the foie gras and caviar.

  152. Where is global warming? Purchasing more snow plow blades to deal with global warming?
    “After two harsh winters in a row” Spokane city “purchased an additional 11 plow blades in June to place on water and sewer department trucks.”
    “To improve the snow removal process, the City (i.e. Spokane) purchased an additional 11 snowplows this year. All plow trucks will have chains for their tires, the de-icer is already purchased and private contractors are already lined up in the event the City needs to call them in to help.”

  153. New salt on roads policy in Seattle needed to help keep roads clear of snow in times of global warming. 😉
    Last year:
    December 23, 2008
    Seattle refuses to use salt; roads “snow packed” by design
    They have changed their minds after last years snow removal problems.
    This year:
    December 11, 2009
    …new storm-fight policy…salt.
    story with 2 1/2 minute video:

  154. Bob ogabe
    For liberal leader
    That way the cash can go right
    to……!?!?.. sports
    they need some propin’n up
    round them all up…..
    send them to Alkatraze
    they are within reach
    it has a history
    send them to alaska
    they know what to do.

  155. First of all , I wouldn’t consider Corporate Owned ‘ Yahoo ‘ as being any kind of legitimate information .
    Secondly , your comment ” There must be an innate human need to be scared about some catastrophe or another ” . . . It should be ” There must be an innate Corporate need to make humans scared about some catastrophe or another “

    Criminals – the lot of them. They want control over you and your money so that they can redistribute YOUR MONEY!
    That’s “Bankruptcy that you can believe in!”

  157. Joe Bastardi on ‘the triple crown of cooling’…..’after this winter in the Eastern and Southern part of the United States and in Europe….a lot of people aren’t going to want to hear about global warming’….on ClimateGate, and on a Monckton/Gore debate.
    8 minute video
    It would be interesting to see a guest post from Joe Bastardi on what he sees will be happening this winter. He had it pretty close on what this past summer would be.

  158. I’ve updated the ClimateGate page on my own website, with a number of key outside references; it now stands comfortably alongside my updated Primer (click my name). I’m getting a steady and increasing number of emails of thanks from people who have read the Primer.

  159. Just found this editorial at the Investors Business Daily (IBD) news page
    “To Denmark, From Russia, With Lies”
    Looks like a firm con-AGW ridicule editorial starting with the Russian IEA study. The editorial refers to certain climate experts with the closing sentence “As the CRU e-mails and other evidence reveal, Mann and his unindicted co-conspirators are barking up the wrong one”
    My apologies for posting a tip to this thread. My IE8 browser keeps crashing when I try to open the Tips thread.

  160. Russian TV debate, includes mention of ClimateGate,
    Piers Corbyn vs. a Russian WWF rep.
    the WWF guy says malaria never happened in Russia
    the moderator keeps trying to rush them both

  161. Obama faces new global warming skeptic: Joe Sixpack
    As President Obama returns from Copenhagen, polls show that Americans are becoming more more wary of his global warming agenda – and of global warming itself.
    By Patrik Jonsson Staff writer / December 19, 2009
    . . .
    Polls suggest that Americans have soured on Obama’s climate strategy, and the “climategate” e-mail scandal has highlighted the public’s increasing skepticism of the basic science driving some of the White House’s most aggressive policy prescriptions.
    . . .

  162. I’m not sure if you have seen the presentation by Dr. Carter posted at Small dead animals? (Scroll down a tad)
    A terrific presentation! Perhaps the best all around debunking I have yet seen. Honourable mentions of both Anthony and Steve.

  163. The time you invest on this information will free you from the popular mind set. YOu will be able to think for yourself again.
    If true we never need to import another ounce.
    I wanted you to see some documentary, actually several them.
    This one is a four hour BBC documentary but once understood you will
    never view popular opinion the same. Nor will you watch the TV the
    same. I have turned my TV off. Only watch one or two specific shows
    and then off again.
    Edward Bernays and the Century of Self
    and the Global warming farce
    This is section one of the Jesse Ventura Global warming Expose… It
    is an hour time investment. Free your self from the Global Warming
    CO2 Fiasco!
    Global warming hysteria is nothing more that the plan for Global
    Government (Check Revelations for details)

    Free your self from the Hysteria of WAR and the Jihad threat with this
    from Richard Gage. Read the declaration on the right side of the page
    scrolled down just a bit. It list about 10 things that are not
    consistent with Gravity alone collapses.
    If you will look at the list of fact about the collapse of the 3 WTC
    buildings you will see clearly that the Collapse was simply not a
    Gravity collapse like the 911 commission report claims.

  164. A suggestion:
    A query of the readership to find if there is even one pro-AGW piece of research that is not tainted. Finding junk science on this topic is too easy and indeed all of it may be junk. Finding solid robust research would be a bigger challenge.
    If every piece is worthless, then there is no more basis for believing in AGW than there is to believe in say Intelligent Design or the Tooth Fairy.
    Steamboat Jack

  165. In the process of digging into the data sets I came across the following report that may be of interest to others that are mining through the “Climategate Information”
    From the World Meteorological Organization
    Dubrovnik 25 March–2 April 2009
    Commission for Basic Systems
    Fourteenth session
    Requirements and representation of data from AWSs (Automatic Weather Stations) page 8
    6.1.26 The Commission reviewed the revised Functional Specifications for Automatic Weather Stations based on input from other technical commissions and adopted Recommendation 2 (CBSXIV)
    – Revised functional specifications for automatic weather stations.
    6.1.27 It requested the OPAG-ISS to develop BUFR descriptors for all the variables listed in the “Functional Specifications for Automatic Weather Stations” and to develop metadata compliant with the WMO metadata profile
    6.1.28 It reviewed the “Basis Set of variables to be Reported by a Standard AWS for Multiple Users” and adopted
    Recommendation 3 (CBS-XIV) – Basic set of variables for a standard automatic weather station for multiple users.
    6.1.29 It requested the OPAG-IOS to continue development of the four AWS metadata catalogues, namely: (a) variables measured; (b) instruments used; (c) data processing procedures used; and (d) data QC procedures.
    6.1.30 It noted that there is no dedicated expert team within the Commission dealing with the operational issues related to the surface observing networks, agreed to rename the ET on Requirements and Representation of Data from AWS (ET-AWS) to the ET on Requirements and Implementation of AWS Platforms (ET-AWS) and agreed on new Terms of Reference for the ET-AWS

  166. 12/22/09
    More than 80 dead in European winter weather
    At least 42 people have frozen to death in Poland over the last three days and another 27 in Ukraine.
    Where the [self snip, but I didn’t want to] is global warming!
    The UN should be warning people about the coming cold instead of trying to squeeze every penny out of them they can!
    h/t crosspatch

  167. Philippine volcano ready to blow, photos:
    Scientists warned that powerful booms emanating from the country’s most active volcano – 200 miles from capital Manila – indicated that a major eruption was imminent….nearly 2,000 volcanic earthquakes and tremors since yesterday….Lava fountains bursting from the cone-shaped volcano overnight rose 650 feet in the air….–villagers-refusing-leave.html

  168. H.RES.954 Title: Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the scientific protocols, data collection methods, and peer review standards for climate change research which are necessary to preclude future infringements of the public trust.
    Sponsor: Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] (introduced 12/8/2009)

    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that–
    (1) the establishment of scientific protocols and a robust oversight mechanism governing an infrastructure of observing, monitoring, measuring, and verification technologies, data collection methods, and peer review standards is necessary to preclude future infringements of public trust by scientific falsification and fraud; and
    (2) climate change research information provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should meet United States Federal standards for scientific research as defined by the National Science and Technology Council and the National Academy of Sciences before being used as the basis for action by the United States Government.

  169. more weather is not climate:
    snow, severe cold from Moscow to Milan, Italy, and more deaths in Europe from cold:
    More than 100 people have been killed in the cold snap across Europe…Authorities in Romania said 11 people had succumbed to the chill, and in the Czech Republic the toll was 12. In Germany, where temperatures have fallen to -33C in certain parts, at least seven people are known to have lost their lives…In Frankfurt, where snowfall prompted delays and cancellations, 3,000 people were forced to spend last night inside the terminals at the city’s main airport….After a weekend that brought the heaviest snowfall in about 100 years, Moscow was gridlocked…

  170. After a weekend that brought the heaviest snowfall in about 100 years, Moscow was gridlocked…
    so much for Moscow not being hit with cold and snow

  171. The Weather Channel is saying the storm now hitting the Central USA will last until Christmas weekend and will break records.

  172. A lot of thanks for each of your efforts on this web page. Kim enjoys doing research and it is easy to understand why. A number of us learn all relating to the powerful form you provide very important tricks through your blog and as well encourage contribution from visitors on the matter and our favorite daughter is without question becoming educated a whole lot. Take advantage of the rest of the new year. You’re doing a first class job.

  173. Has there been a notice at this website yet that Michael Mann’s work has been completely cleared — twice now — against all allegations that he published false data. Same true for his British counterparts at East Anglia. The effort to politically attack climate scientists for publishing their findings is clearly losing. Charles Monnett is the latest victim of this kind of ideology fueled harrassment and intimidation. He, too, will be vindicated.

  174. A) it is acceptable to use copyrighted material for economic gain as long as proper credit is given to the author.. . B) all original work located on the Internet is to be considered copyrighted.. . C) only items marked with the ? symbol are considered copyrighted.. . D) all Internet content is free for anyone to use..

  175. Also would like to correct Pat’. You mention that “Elizabeth I of England and James V of Scotland were 1st cousins. Henry VIII’s sister, Margaret Tudor, was married to James V of Scotland.” maybe it was a typo

  176. what is really sad is that apparently in order to wake people up to do the right thing we have to resort to producing a pack of lies and stupidity. does the earths climate change? Yes, core samples and known history shows this. is man capable of destroying earth or saving earth? Hell no. This is egomaniacal hubris. Can man make earth virtually uninhabitable for mankind? Certainly, and we have history to show this fact. It is a story to be continued…whether man is capable of learning how to live in harmony in his place. This of course requires being. A challenge yet to be known of its outcome as the experiment continues…

  177. Are the visitors to this site aware that WUWT’s Anthony Watts (NOT a climate scientist) has been bought and paid for by the energy industry. This site has absolutely no credibility and when you really start checking out the claims made you quickly realize they are false. Peace!
    REPLY: Ah, the usual talking points fabrications from the usual anonymous idiots. I think I’d know if I’m getting checks from the energy industry. Kindly provide citations, or kindly STHU. – Anthony

  178. Funny, I disagree and you call me names. Funnier, you didn’t dispute my assertion that your claims are false.
    Citations: (check them out for yourself)
    More citations?
    Honestly I would like to hear why I should believe your unsubstantiated claims and disbelieve substantiated claims? If you dispute the above citations please provide citations.
    If you are so concerned with “anonymity” why don’t you disclose who your donors are and were? I left my last name on your contact form but what WTH. My name is John Benton and I am NOT a scientist nor have I ever claimed to be one but I can sure tell when smoke is being blown up my floopus!
    REPLY: Thanks for coming into the light Mr. Benton. Again, none of these show any energy companies, I have no energy company donors, never have. The website I’m putting together related to Fakegate (which was a private donor, solicited by Heartland for this one special project), and I’ve only gotten half of the project funds) will be online next month and you have a look at that.
    You are right about “smoke is being blown up my floopus” except it isn’t coming from me. You are a victim of headline thinking. For example, I’m not allowed to provide any information to the Sourcewatch page or to the Wikipedia page. I’m locked out of being able to state my own case or offer them any references. Do you think that is fair, that a person isn’t allowed to provide their own biographical information? They have an agenda, and that agenda is denigration and you’ve bitten on that hook line and sinker sir. I’m sorry, but I know you won’t accept it. but that is the reality. It really doesn’t matter if you believe it or not. It doesn’t matter in the larger scheme of things.
    Meanwhile, Rio+20 has spent 8 million ina week…no complaints there I suppose, nor any complaints about Greenpeace getting checks for Exxon?
    A note – I really don’t believe people who shout Peace with an exclamation point, actually mean that. – Anthony

  179. Thanks for indulging me with your time Anthony, I didn’t mean to spend so much of yours or mine. I will be very interested in your Fakegate site. I can admit it when I am wrong and if you show me I am, I will admit it right here (you don’t stay married 27 years if you can’t admit when you are wrong…Doh!). For example, I said “energy companies” when I should have said “Heartland Institute”. It has been demonstrated and I believe you are still influenced by money from energy companies, polluters etc…perhaps not directly. The Heartland Institute is connected with ALEC neither of which has my, your, or the Earth’s best interest in mind.
    As far as being locked out I honestly don’t know about that but do agree, it seems unfair on the surface to not be able to defend yourself. That being said though I don’t think everyone should be given the chance to rebut everything said about them. There is also way more information and citations on those pages than just the headlines, I’m not exactly sure what you meant by “headline thinking”. Feel free to provide citations demonstrating Scourcewatch’s agenda of denigration against you. Aren’t the denialists guilty of denigration too Anthony? Aren’t you? Isn’t that the number one tactic the Denialists use?
    Is it easier to believe thousands perhaps tens of thousands of scientists (not to mention my own five senses), are involved in a global conspiracy to get research money or that the largest corporations in the world are lying to protect their profits? I know who I trust and it aint the guys that hired the same PR firms as Big Tobacco, It aint the Heartland Institute, CATO Institute or ALEC.
    We can probably come to some middle ground here. Agree with AGW or not I have yet to see a real solution that isn’t motivated by profits.
    Clearly we disagree but I do wish you Peace Anthony! I had too many years without it and I do wish it for everyone, honestly. I hope I am wrong about AGW, I really do. I just want to die without worrying about my new grandson’s future. Nothing would tickle me more than having to change what I honestly believe on this issue.
    Thanks for your time again Anthony. Okay, okay no peace.
    REPLY: I understand where you are coming from, because I used to be in the exact same position you are in. I was actually a climate activist in the early 1990’s, inspired by Jim Hansen. My path to 180 degrees was a long one, about five years, and comes from finding out myself why certain things didn’t add up. I agree money corrupts everything, but when you see what I’m doing, perhaps you’ll see it was money well spent – Anthony

  180. This old non issue still here? Haven’t you heard it was a storm in a teacup? Two investigations found nothing amiss, didn’t that make it over the pond to American deniers? You’d think you’d all have found out by now, it’s a non-issue, depite all the hot air and links here. Put simply: climate scientists in the UK were beseiged with ‘freedom of information’ requests by non-scientist deniers and reacted by becoming defensive and secretive in order to get on with their work. Who would have behaved differently when attacked by people who are trying to prevent you working? The data wasn’t understood by these people, but the process was designed to slow down progress – now who would do that? Surely not a sceptic who would want to have the research concluded and papers presented? Despite two government enquiries, no scientists were judged to have behaved unethically, and going over emails to find an odd phrase to highlight is not science.
    ‘I was actually a climate activist in the early 1990s’ I suggest what made you change into an anti-environmentalist was your inability to cope with reality, stay sane and not fall into depression rather than ‘certain things didn’t add up’. The more you learn, the more concerning it is.I personally have never been able to stick my head in the sand though. I just have to face reality, however scary.
    So for all those deniers who still think ‘climategate’ is relevent, it isn’t, it never was. You should just quietly remove all mention of it here if you don’t want the label denier, because to deny it’s been dismissed and disdn’t contain anything damaging is inane. Go google it if you’re still unconvinced, I’m sure there’s plenty on it if you really want to find the truth.
    REPLY – Ever read ’em? #B^j ~ Evan

  181. Has anyone noticed that Britain’s bee (honey) industry is in trouble because the bees are having trouble surviving a cold, wet summer. The people who should know, the apiarists, are really concerned that yet another cold winter will decimate the bee population. For the ignorant, no bees doesn’t just mean no honey – it means no food for man or beast. (the rhetorical question is omitted so as not to insult the residual intelligence of any GW alarmists).
    On another subject, Tim Flannery, who is Australia’s Climate Change Commissioner (appointed by Julia Gillard), is an actual, real scientist – a palaeontologist. Apparently the theory that the dinosaurs perished due to climate change qualifies him as an expert on all things climate. If anyone wants to check on how that’s working out, you can check out his alarmist predictions against actual outcomes. Just Google the man and his failed predictions to see how un-funny this joke is. The evidence suggests that the recent SE Queensland floods became the “natural” disaster it was because a flood mitigation dam was being used for water storage – Flannery predicted we wouldn’t get enough rain to supply our water needs and bad decisions were made as a result. Many bad water supply decisions have been made in recent years. There is a long list of failed predictions – check it. Here is one list of global warming alarmists’ failed or ridiculous predictions .
    Check out Australia’s $23/tonne “carbon tax” applied to coal, diesel (but not petrol), and methane (eg. From garbage dumps). There is no actual plan to reduce the amount of coal burnt. Check out the major businesses going bust and the extent of job losses, but of course there is no connection with the carbon tax.
    I’m not a climate change sceptic. I know the climate is continually changing. The unproven hypothesis is that man’s contribution is making the difference and that by enabling the money-men to get richer via carbon taxes, carbon trading schemes and “green industries” is somehow going to fix it.

  182. @oneworldnet
    What is the point in your post? You just contradicted yourself and stuck your head in the sand. WE CAN READ THE LEAKED EMAILS OURSELVES. They outright say they manipulated data to make the temperature appear more dramatic to the uneducated. I don’t need a government-funded inquiry to tell me these people did nothing wrong. If they did nothing wrong then why resign in shame? Pull your head out please and start thinking objectively to what the establishment is pushing.

  183. does generic diflucan look like diflucan 150 prima o dopo pasti [url=]diflucan sale no prescription[/url] how many fluconazole tablets can you take [url=]what is diflucan and where can i buy it[/url] what is diflucan 100 mg [url=]buy diflucan without prescriptions[/url] can you buy diflucan over counter ireland [url=]is diflucan generic[/url] diflucan 150 mg 3 days [url=]diflucan 150 mg cost[/url] generic diflucan 150mg generic diflucan doesn’t work

  184. All Climategate 3 will not now come up for me when subsequent postings do. Has it been taken off for some reason?

  185. I have the same issue as George, above. What happened to the CG3 thread? Why no mention of it anywhere? Have the UAE legal team succeeded in suppressing it?
    No mentio of it on any other sceptic sites either..? Was I dreaming that it happened?

  186. I have no idea if the man made global warming theory is true or not. I do know with 100% certainty that global biofuel production is the biggest scam and crime of the 21st century.
    Global biofuel production has killed far more people worldwide than all wars and acts of terrorism combined during the 1993 to 2013 time frame. The higher the cost of food, the more innocent people die of malnutrition and related illness. The equation is that simple. Most biofuel victims have been children under the age of 12. Biofuels have skyrocketed the cost of fertilizer, farmland, and food all over the world, and have dramatically increased deforestation, greenhouse gas release, water pollution, and topsoil erosion. Half of America’s prime Midwest topsoil has already been lost to erosion. What will our grandchildren eat when the other half is gone?
    Please see The Renewable Energy Disaster at:

  187. The same goes for Climategate. For instance, one of the most attacked emails was one that was simply misunderstood by its attackers. The email referred to “Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline,” and it was assumed on this basis that scientists were doing something underhanded to suppress the fact that temperatures were supposedly declining. But that’s just incorrect, as you would have known if you were part of the community of scientists doing the research. The “decline” being referred to wasn’t even about global temperatures at all, but rather, a decline in the growth of certain trees whose rings were being used to infer past temperatures.
    “What the scientists meant by ‘trick’ was ‘a neat trick’—’Hey, that was a really good piece of science,'” explains Collins. “Whereas the public were interpreting it as something tricky, disreputable, and underhand. So you’ve got to know the context in order to interpret what the very words mean, and you can only know the context by once again, being part of the oral culture of science.”
    You can read more rubbish about the subject of Science Studies at:
    The interesting thing is that the chap who writes all this nonsense is not a climate scientist. He’s a sociologist. But if you are a pro-climate alarm sociologist you are allowed to write about climate whereas if you are a climate sceptic you would not be.

  188. As I was putting the tree-ring calibrations into scrutiny, I grew more in the conviction that its real problem is not in any of the regular counter-armuments. The system is really robust. Its problem, however, lies in the very principal point of dating the samples. The selective attitude (or the copyright work as dubbed by Michael Billaie himself) is a suspected decisive element.
    I did not have a smoking gun until I came by Climategate. It is as someone said a mushroom cloud
    rather than a smoking gun 🙂
    Case rest !
    Deacon Basil (aka Christopher Mark)

  189. Learn how to write evaluation literature.
    Подробнее читайте здесь – официальный
    What is overview of literature?
    Writing the introduction
    Writing your body
    Writing concluding
    What is evaluation literature?
    The format of evaluation literature are vastly different from discipline to
    discipline and from assignment to assignment.
    A review could be a self-contained unit — a conclusion in itself — or even a preface to and rationale for undertaking
    primary research. A review can be a required component of grant and research proposals and infrequently
    a chapter in theses and dissertations.
    Generally, the purpose of the review is usually
    to analyze critically a segment of the published body of
    info through summary, classification, and comparison of prior studies, reviews of literature, and theoretical articles.
    Writing the introduction
    In the introduction, you must:
    Define or identify the overall topic, issue, or
    section of concern, thus providing the right context for reviewing the literature.
    Point out overall trends of what has been published about the
    subject; or conflicts on paper, methodology, evidence, and conclusions;
    or gaps in research and scholarship; or possibly a single problem or
    new perspective of immediate interest.
    Establish the writer’s reason (perspective) for reviewing the literature; explain the factors to be used in analyzing
    and comparing literature plus the organization on the review (sequence); and, at the appropriate time,
    state why certain literature is or possibly not included (scope).
    Writing your body
    In your body, it is best to:
    Group studies and other varieties of literature (reviews,
    theoretical articles, case studies, etc.) in accordance with
    common denominators including qualitative versus quantitative
    approaches, conclusions of authors, specific purpose or objective, chronology, etc.
    Summarize individual studies or articles with as often or very little detail as each merits
    based on its comparative importance from the literature,
    remembering that space (length) denotes significance.
    Provide you with strong “umbrella” sentences at beginnings of paragraphs,
    “signposts” throughout, and brief “so what” summary sentences at intermediate points within the review to assistance with understanding comparisons and analyses.
    Writing the actual final outcome
    In the actual final outcome, you ought to:
    Summarize major contributions of significant studies and articles to your body of information under
    review, maintaining the target established within the
    Evaluate the actual “state on the art” for that
    body of information reviewed, indicating major methodological flaws or gaps in research, inconsistencies the theory is that and
    findings, and areas or issues pertinent to future study.
    Conclude by giving some understanding of the relationship involving the central topic with
    the literature review as well as a larger part of study
    for instance a discipline, a scientific endeavor, or
    even a profession.
    For more information see our handouts on Writing a Critical
    Review of any Nonfiction Book or Article or Reading a Book to Review It.
    To find out about literature reviews, check out our workshop on Writing Literature Reviews of Published

  190. Haven’t the CRU emails been extensively investigated by several independent sources and no one was found to have acted scientifically unsound?

  191. At Brian April 23, 2015 at 5:30 pm, the witnesses and questions to those witnesses were cherry picked. Nice try with the appeal to authority though. If they questioned scientists and investigators that were or became critical due to the evidence found in the CRU leak, the conclusions would have been damning for the CRU and the University of East Anglia as a whole.

  192. Now I am pretty sure there are some Alaskan climate sceptics on this site who are still saying, ‘nope, we are libetarians – anything connected to global heating is restricting our rights and increasing the financial burden on us so we do not support any kind of environmental legislation in any way associated with global warming.
    Well, here are members of the Alaskan community who are suffering from the impact and who have basically been shafted by the new administration in Washington – but not that you care it seems:
    Alaskan towns at risk from rising seas sound alarm as Trump pulls federal help – Communities in danger of falling into the sea say assistance from Washington has dried up: ‘It feels like a complete abdication of responsibility on climate change’

      • Your just like the Donald – anything you don’t like immediately branded ‘fake news’ – pathetic my friend. Follow your own path in life and think for yourself …

        • Sea level rise is observable. A correlation between sea level rise and climate, perhaps. A cause and effect relationship between sea level rise and climate change is a matter of truth, not fact, and climate change over a 30 year period is not established. Fake, misleading (misinformation), or deceptive (disinformation) news.

  193. Oh my, THIS is still here? Haven’t any of you numpties heard? There were three investigations into the so-called climategate, and each found that nothing as alleged had happened, that researchers were falsifying nothing, and that the hacker [still being investigated by the police] thing except extreme frustration on the part of professionals trying to do their jobs and having to waste precious time answering FoI requests placed by denier shills to do precisely that. What a load of wasted efforts and time spent on nothing.
    Still, everyone should have a hobby, eh?
    Future miners of the web, if it and they even exist, will have a ;laugh reading all this fictional nonsense.

  194. A critical review of Earth’s Energy Balance and the Greenhouse Gas Theory

    Eddie Banner 18/10/19

    As a physicist, I have long had doubts about the Greenhouse Gas Theory for global warming, and I recently came across a paper on this matter which enhanced my difficulties. This paper seems to base the theory on consideration of the global annual mean energy budget of Earth’s climate system, and shows a diagram by Trenberth and Fasullo.(1)

    Several other published figures can be found on this topic on the internet, including some by NASA, with similar values.

    There are a number of items here that I’m concerned about, but the main one is the claim for the downwelling back radiation of 333 Watts per square metre of Earth’s surface.

    1. Where does all this extra energy come from, since the figure shows only (161+78), that is 239 Wm^-2 entering the Earth’s climate system from the Sun, and 239 being emitted to space, as required for energy balance?

    2. The downwelling back radiation (333) is shown coming from the Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, it is well known and fundamental in GHG theory that photons of energy emitted by GH gases are radiated equally in all directions; therefore there is equal energy radiated upwards and downwards. This upwards energy flux is simply not shown in the Trenberth figure, but it cannot be ignored. It must be 333 Watts per square metre, and together with the unexplained 333 downwelling radiation, this makes 666 Watts per sq.metre to account for, because this is in addition to the 239 shown emitted to space in the diagram, as required. But the TOTAL input from the Sun is only 341.

    Moreover, the upwards energy would add to the 239 already shown emitted, making a total of 572 emitted to space, which clearly is nonsense.

    So what is the explanation? I should be grateful for any helpful comments.


  195. In 2006 I visited Glacier Bay in Alaska, and was handed maps with lines on them showing the melting of that 65 mile glacier which originally occupied the entire bay. They indicated that it started to melt prior to the year 1800, and the better part of it was gone by about 1900. All that was prior to the invention of the airplane, the mass-production of the automobile, and with earth’s population 1/4 or less than that of today.

    Recently I checked the Glacier Bay website and did not see the lines on any of their charts showing that melting. Is this another case of erasing some inconvenient data? My understanding is that the data on the melting had been obtained from the early charts made by the seafarers documenting the coast for navigation purposes. I still have copies of what I was handed back in 2009.

  196. I like your chart showing three different precipitation results. I see that all the time in my research. So much overlapping data out there.

    Larry Berg

    P.S. Your other Comment areas don’t work. They give an error message in the Website area.

Leave a Reply to Francine Pipe Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *