Climategate

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.”
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2009/12/state_climatologist_john_chris.html

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 ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8398103.stm
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.

Sunmedia Group in Canada Editorial Sunday Dec6,2009
Editors call for Moratorium of Copenhagen until full investigation of Climategate.
Read Here: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2009/12/06/12055286-sun.html#/comment/editorial/2009/12/06/pf-12055286.html

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change refutes ‘climategate’
While divisions between schools of thought on climate change have always existed, the emergence of climategate has given climate change skeptics fuel and presents a threat to the success of the Copenhagen negotiations. The negotiations were already threatened by disagreement among world leaders on how to implement greenhouse gas emission controls, resulting in the coining of the moniker ‘nopenhagen’. Skeptics claim that the Copenhagen conference is not much more than ‘green washing’. Green washing normally refers to product or business promotions which claim the product/business is environmentally friendly, when this is not the fact. Public opinion is now swinging against controlling greenhouse gas emissions, even going so far as to claim that science is at death’s door because of climategate.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283319

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

The AP has an article on Copenhagen. No mention of Climategate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091206/ap_on_bi_ge/climate

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

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.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1207/1224260240126.html

Shouldn’t it be…
‘Climategate Deniers’
……as in those that deny wrongdoing?

Climategate: UK Programmer Explains Problems With CRU Climate Data Software

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.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16421

Additional links to Wall Street Journal editorials and stories for 2009 to date, in reverse chronological order:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574101605007432.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Not all are Climategate-related, naturally, but all are climate-discussion related.