Climategate

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzY1YWZhOWZjNWNmODkxZTU2MTg2YTllOTgxOTNiZDU=
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/11/inhofe_on_obamas_trip_to_copenhagen.php
http://fto.co.za/news/man-made-global-warming-scam-climategate-new-zealand-2009112615891.html
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141481/Data_leak_lessons_learned_from_the_Climategate_hack?taxonomyId= (lol)

It might also be worthwhile to provide a repository of PDF’s.
Here’s what I’ve gathered so far:
PDFs
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Pratt-TheProfessionalEdge119.pdf
http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics_handbook_2-0.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2008_JC_Smerdonetal.pdf
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/12312.pdf
http://www.co2science.org/index.php
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Unmasking_Inconvenient_Truth.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_kininmonth.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
http://tech-know.eu/uploads/EPAInput.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy.pdf
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/30/15/64/PDF/nhess-2-83-2002.pdf
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/devi_081119_gcb_ural.pdf

Tim Ball will be posting an article tomorrow (Monday Nov.30/2009) on Canada Free Press that goes through the history of Climategate from the beginning, all the connections among this group, the games played, etc. This from a man who has been marginalized by these very people, and excluded from the peer-reviewed process, even though his research at the time was very relevant to the debate. The Hudson’s Bay records are sub-arctic spanning almost 400 years and their claim is that the Arctic temps are a thermostat for what is going on with the climate. What could be more relevant than this record. Because it did not show what they wanted it to show was reason for dismissal of this research. This is precisely what is wrong with this picture. Please take the time to read. It is an important piece of the Climategate puzzle.

McIntyre & McKitrick 2003 might be relevant somewhere here.
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf

My one and only (so far) Climategate post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/im-honored-i-think.html
Regards

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html
appeared in a large centrespread in the UK’s Mail On Sunday
wouldn’t have known had I not had breakfast at the local café

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?

Additional Articles, and Interviews:
Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
PJTV
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=video&video-id=2748
http://seekingalpha.com/article/175575-global-warming-models-out-of-order

Anthony,
Here is just a 5 min pencil sketch of a logo concept for your ClimateGate site.
If this simple concept is something that you might consider, then it can be refined.
http://i50.tinypic.com/67v6yw.jpg
John

All my posts are here (which in turn link to lots of other sites):
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/category/uncategorized/global-warming/cru-climategate

National Post, Canada.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/default.aspx
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx

Here’s my attempt at a logo http://whatcatastrophe.com/drupal/sites/default/files/images/ClimateGate.png

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.

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.

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:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
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?
JimB

The comment by the Chief Scientist at CRU, Phil Jones, on learning that John L Daly was dead — “… in an odd way this is cheering news” needs to be seen in context to be fully understood. John Izzard has published this sobering story in Quadrant Online: https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/john-l-daly
This story in RollingStone by Matt Taibbi is a real eye opener on the investment banker Goldman Sachs http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/inside_the_great_american_bubble_machine

I say we should call him Deep Decline.

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
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1092

Walt (22:02:50) :
I say we should call him Deep Decline.
Him might be a them.

Follow the Money
I Just googled “grants site:cru.uea.ac.uk” and up popped the following.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm.
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.

Himalaya Glaciers NOT Shrinking
Just seen this: http://yesbuthowever.com/himalayan-glaciers-8136289/
“India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests has released a comprehensive report on the Himalayan glaciers by the eminent Dr. V.K. Raina, ex-Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India. According to his report, the Saichen glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.” In fact, it is growing. Even Richard Armstrong, Senior Research Scientist at the University of Colorado, and the man who briefed Al Gore on glaciers, concluded there was no major melting in Himalayan glaciers above 5,400 meters. Professor Armstrong’s research, as is typical in the field, uses satellite-gathered data. Dr. Raina and his team actually physically sampled 20 of the 200 Himalayan glaciers over a period of many years. They found little “snout” retreat, if any. The snout is the longest extension of a glacier – the finger. They also found no discernible pattern to glacier melt rates. As Raina put it, “ultimately the movements [of glaciers] are due to climate and snowfall in particular, but the factors are so varied that the snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier.”
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report had concluded Himalayan glaciers were receding at such a fast rate they could be gone by 2035 or earlier. Raina’s report acknowledges general glacier retreat, but finds no evidence of direct causation by carbon emission. Some glaciers even grew during periods of increased industrialization.”

“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.”
http://blog.mises.org/archives/011105.asp
…-
“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,…”
http://mises.org/daily/2267

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….
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
………
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

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:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6690110/Leaked-climate-change-emails-wont-bias-UN-global-warning-body-says-chairman.html

PSU investigates ‘Climategate’
Laura Nichols
Collegian Staff Writer
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx

Climategate – The Introduction
http://climateclinic.com/html/introduction.html
Climategate – Part I
By: Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
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!

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/4731#more-4731

Here is a story Fox just broke at least on their website:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.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.

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.
http://www.businessinsider.com/climategate-scandal-keeps-heating-up-2009-11
[Quotes from Washington Times article below*]
EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
Climate-change researchers admit their data is ‘garbage’
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
The climate-gate revelations have exposed an unprecedented coordinated attempt by academics to distort research for political ends. Anyone interested in accurate science should be appalled at the manipulation of data “to hide the decline [in temperature]” and deletion of e-mail exchanges and data so as not to reveal information that would support global-warming skeptics. These hacks are not just guilty of bad science. In the United Kingdom, deleting e-mail messages to prevent their disclosure from a Freedom of Information Act request is a crime.
The story has gotten worse since the global-cooling cover-up was exposed through a treasure trove of leaked e-mails a week ago. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been incredibly influential in the global-warming debate. The CRU claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report.
. . .
*We read and reread these CRU documents in stunned amazement. But rather than investigating all the evidence of so much academic fraud and intellectual wrongdoing, the University of East Anglia is denying there is a problem. Professor Trevor Davies, the school’s pro vice chancellor for research, issued a defensive statement on Tuesday claiming: “The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”
Unlike these global-warming propagandists, we expect research to be done in the open. Scientists who refuse to share their data, who plot to destroy information and fail to tell other scientists how their results were calculated should be severely punished.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-global-cooling-cover-up/
—–
Seems ClimateGate, the ‘The global-cooling cover-up’, may gain some traction prior to Copenhagen.

http://video.foxnews.com/11937685/the-one-thing-1125#/12083845/settled-science/?category_id=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749

Hey, has anyone contacted Al Gore? I’m sure he could explain this. If we could just stay awake while he droned on.

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
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/global-warming-partisan-divide.html

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm
This is a link to a 15minute audio interview with Aynsley Kellow, Prof. and head of Government at the Uni. of Tasmania. A very calm clear exposition of why the leaked emails are disastrous for science. A transcript may follow ,but this was only broadcast yesterday. Recommended.

The money trail is given in the Wall Street Journal of Nov 30, 2009 (section is Opinion Europe).
Headline and sub-head states:
“The Economics of Climate Change
The stakes are too high to treat Climategate as just another academic spat.”
see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559491076961008.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

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.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/international/Document_Reveals_UNs_Goal_of_Becoming_RuleMaker_in_Global_Environmental_Talks_30263957

Climategate: Follow the Money
Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Lindzen at the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

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.

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…” 😉

Another good effort from Christopher Monckton over at SPPI:
Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html
He’s good; very good.

this from the BBC. Clearly feeling forced to lift their head from the sand. Sorry if a re-post.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm

Interesting…
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-fraud-is-everywhere-suny-albany-and-queens-university-belfast-join-climategate-pjm-exclusive/
Dendro damage?

just saw this 12-1-09
National / World News 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, December 1, 2009
UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/uk-climate-scientist-to-221080.html

U.K. climate scientist investigated
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/01/tech-climate-east-anglia.html#socialcomments-submit

Science or Nonscience?
“By now, anybody who is serious about the possibility of global warming knows that the “hockey-stick” theory promulgated by the UN a few years ago is bunk.”
http://mises.org/daily/3899

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]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/

Lord Christopher Monckton releases the definitive report on ClimateGate
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Monckton-Caught%20Green-Handed%20Climategate%20Scandal.pdf

Yahoo top science searches for 2009, more searches for “Bermuda Triangle” than “Climate Change”
“Climate Change” is #9
Oddly enough “Bermuda Triangle” is #8, ranked higher in searches than “Climate Change”
http://yearinreview.yahoo.com/2009/madscience#8bermudatriangle

Some people just don’t get it: read Stern’s comments …. and be afraid, thuis guy advises the UK Government …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/01/climate-change-scientist-steps-down

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513989

Fallout Over “ClimateGate” Data Leak Grows
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/02/taking_liberties/entry5860171.shtml
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm
podcast
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/11/cpt_20091130.mp3

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/02/universities-take-action-on-climategate/

This was buried a bit as an update on the NYT Dot Earth blog just in case you did not see it.
[UPDATE, 5:05 p.m.] Here’s a statement issued on Tuesday by Pennsylvania State University on the issues raised in the emails:
University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information
Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann’s research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann’s seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions. In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574568834054939774.html

Time is getting short and it is coming down to the fact, that soon I will have to pray to the good Lord to maintain our freedoms and not allow our leaders to sign the Copenhagen Treaty, which will take away our liberties, let go and let God-this being a challenge to our Lord and Saviour? However, while there is still time to prevent the loss of a lifetime, perhaps loss of life it’s self – I will do what I am able to fight for our freedoms! The whole Climate change agenda is a proven fraud and racketeering, but the United Nations and Globalist governments don’t care as that is just the excuse instrument they have used to ensnare us! Has everybody out there become a tree hugger? The tree will be standing 100 years from now, but will you be looking at the tree, from inside the fence of a Concentration Camp? Anyone out there want to fight and maintain their freedom anymore? Please do all you can to preserve freedom in North America!
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose
their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at: pm@Peter Mullans.gc.ca
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! )

Ross McKitrick on Channel 4 news
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1184614595?bctid=53709235001
via Bishop Hill’s Blog.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/02/copenhagen-climate-change-james-hansen
In an interview with the Guardian, James Hansen, the world’s pre-eminent climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.

Stubborn aren’t they?
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6743
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 (climate.nasa.gov) regarding climate change. They include:
Levels of carbon dioxide are higher than at anytime in the past 650,000 years.
Global sea levels and global surface air temperatures have been on an upward trend (yes, with a few yearly declines mixed in there as well).
The Antarctic report
This week, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research released what it called “the first comprehensive review” of Antarctica’s climate, based on the work of 100 scientists from eight nations.
Responsibly, the group wanted to make sure leaders in Copenhagen would have more complete information before making decisions that could result in spending billions of dollars to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Not all the report’s findings were doom and gloom. In fact, the study is a prime example of how scientists must approach the topic of climate change.
For instance, the authors concluded that the manmade ozone hole over Antarctica had actually shielded much of the continent from the effects of global warming. And that sea ice was actually increasing in parts of the continent.
But the report also said carbon dioxide levels were rising at an “unprecedented” rate and the continent is predicted to warm by slightly more than 5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
Copenhagen and the future
The effects of the leaked e-mails could be felt many ways.
In the long term, scientists doing climate research should be more open about how they get their data and how they draw their conclusions. That could make the complicated issue more understandable to the public.
It is the short-term impact of the incident that hangs in the balance, though.
As we noted, it’s clear that the United States and other countries should continue pursuing the best ways to set goals for reducing harmful greenhouse gases.
It would be disastrous if a few e-mails traded among some imperious scientists could derail essential efforts to deal with global warming.
Submitted by Yael T. Abouhalkah on December 2, 2009 – 4:28pm.

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!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232722/Professor-climate-change-scandal-helps-police-enquiries-researchers-banned.html
An piece and a interview with a Dr Eduardo Zorita on climategate and Prof jones helping police with inquiries.

************
Nic (14:58:05) :
I refer you to an article on the BBC site ;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8388485.stm
Authors;
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.

Good column by Debra Saunders (syndicated from SF Chronicle, I caught it today in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune)
http://townhall.com/columnists/DebraJSaunders/2009/12/01/the_inquisition_of_global_warming

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.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

EPA rejects Inhofe’s call for delay on finding
Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson declined Inhofe’s request.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20091203_16_A1_WASHIN159098&allcom=1

The BBC continue to ignore Climategate…this has appeared on the main news page as a Feature: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm
A quote from the end of the article:
“For the final time period covered, the temperature data is sourced to the Met Office Hadley Centre and Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.”
Yet no mention of the doubts over the validity of said data!

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/gop_turning_up_heat_over_mail_scandal_TgOHH2Rflu3x84QYVMuOnI

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]

Try this: type googlegate in the google toolbar. It works! Harold Ambler has an interesting story about the ‘climategate’ word showing up on autosuggest (or not) at http://icecap.us , titled google gate.

Here’s a post on NASA hiding Data
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

Wonderful job you are doing! Please see the following to find out how far fanaticism gan go.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html
Michel Lafontaine

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?
Link:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2009/12/harvard_professor_weighs_in_on.html

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.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/02/mike_hulme_truthiness_science/

Visualizing the East Anglia Climate Research Unit Leaked Email Network:
From
:http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m12d3-NASA-may-be-Americas-CRU
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:

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
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming

Tough crowd in Boston.
Check out the responses at boston.com’s “Green Blog” to comments from Harvard professor James McCarthy who was a former Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author.
“Harvard Professor Weighs in on Climategate”
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2009/12/harvard_professor_weighs_in_on.html

Copenhagen climate conference: ‘climate saboteurs’, including senior Tories, risk a deal
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has accused two senior Tories who questioned the science behind global warming of being “profoundly irresponsible
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6719556/Copenhagen-climate-conference-climate-saboteurs-including-senior-Tories-risk-a-deal.html

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!

Here is a Poll from the pages of British Climate Change Minister, Ed Miliband’s own public website.
Poll
Coal
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.
http://www.edmilibandmp.com/

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/03/the-science-of-global-warming/

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
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=188540473434

/Mr Lynn

Eric Raymond at Armed and Dangerous has some perceptive blog entries. He is an open source person.

BTW Anthony and Team… congrats on the mention in the NYT!!!!!

The Anti-Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) community already knew that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would eventually launch it’s own investigation (Damage Control) into the leaked/hacked emails and documentaion from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit two weeks ago . ClimateGate , as it is called , has finally gotten onto the Mainstream Media’s program schedule only after it’s attempts of ignoring and/or downplaying the story has been unsuccessful .
And as the Anti-Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) community already knew , the IPCC would outfit their committee with pro-global warming proponents in again , another pointless effort to control the momentum of Climategate’s critical importance to the decisions that will be made at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copanhegan next week .
The leaked/hacked data from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit has made it clear to the world that manipulation of data to “hide the decline” in global warming was stated in the obtained emails. The most Prominent proponent of Anthropological Global Warming , Al Gore has gone as far as to cancelled his high-profile appearance at Copenhagen only days after the ClimateGate evidence has placed doubt on the legitimacy of the pro-Anthropological Global Warming arguement .
Phil Jones , Director of the East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit where the emails and documents were ‘ aquired ‘ has also stepped down . Micheal Mann , a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty on climate change research is also being investigated by the Penn State University review . Both of these men are in the emails talking about doctoring and tricking the numbers in climate tempertures to make it seem that the planet is heating up , rather then cooling down as the raw data shows .
The Watergate Scandel in the 70’s began with 5 men breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at Watergate Hotel and ended up the the Resignation of the President of the United States , Richard M. Nixion due in part to tape recordings of conversations in his offices , implicating that president Nixon’s staff conspired to cover-up the break-in because of ties that the Watergate ‘ burglars ‘, had with the White House and in turn , the president also attempted to cover-up the break-in that ended up with his resignation . Whether President Nixon had pre-knowledge of the break-ins was never clearly established .
What was clear is that Watergate was and is the Biggest Political Scandal in United States History . It was uncovered not by Political Committees , not by members of Congress or the House of Represenitives but by a Once obidient Mainstream Media .
We have a similar case with ClimateGate today . We have found in emails leaked/hacked from East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit that proves that several prominant scientists were manipulating scientific data in relation to pro-global warming . As with the tape recordings that ended up being The President of the United States demise , we have the leaked/hacked emails that will eventually be another’s downfall . The Purpose of the manipulated data is left up to the reader to determine.
How high the Conspiracy will go in ClimateGate will not be determined by one-sided invesigative committees formed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) , nor by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) . The Congress of the United States are also calling for hearings into this scandal. Although we have only a handful of Congressmen and Represenitives that the knowing public can deem Trustworthy , it will be the voice of the people not only in the United States but a Global Voice of the people in which this Crime Against Humanity was obviously directed toward.

Big three networks highlight own irrelevance by ignoring Climategate email scandal
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m12d4-Big-three-networks-highlight-own-irrelevance-by-ignoring-Climategate-email-scandal

Three hundred and sixty comments (and counting) on this article already. News is spreading in the US.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/70653-rep-issa-white-house-refusal-to-investigate-climategate-is-unconscionable-

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

UK Met Office to publish raw data
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8396696.stm