Links to everything about Climategate here. Relevant links posted in comments will be added.
WUWT Stories in chronological order, newest first:
Telegraph’s Booker on the “climategate” scandal
“Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google
Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review
Understanding Climategate: Who’s Who – a video
The Curry letter: a word about “deniers”…
How “The Trick” was pulled off
The Australian ETS vote: a political litmus test for cap and trade
An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science
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.
Video: Dr. Tim Ball on the CRU emails
Pielke Senior: Comment On The Post “Enemies Caught In Action!” On The Blackboard
Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues
Spencer on elitism in the IPCC climate machine
CRU Emails – search engine now online
Release of CRU files forges a new hockey stick reconstruction
and the post that started it all…
Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released
Sponsored IT training links:
Join 642-357 online course and improve your 642-691 test score up to 100% using certified 70-685 material.
Other relevant stories:
According to this unscientific poll on AOL, the vast majority of folks want Congress to investigate:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/24/hot-seat-global-warming-science/
Try this: type googlegate in the google toolbar. It works! Harold Ambler has an interesting story about the ‘climategate’ word showing up on autosuggest (or not) at http://icecap.us , titled google gate.
From: Phil Jones
To: Kevin Trenberth
Subject: A quick question
Date: Tue Dec 21 11:39:09 2004
Kevin,
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.
Cheers
Phil
All
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
makers.
Chris
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=456&filename=1103647149.txt
Here’s a post on NASA hiding Data
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8392611.stm
UK University to probe integrity of climate data
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CBVM701&show_article=1
Anthony, searching thru the hacked e-mails I’ve found this about Artic temps. Not sure yet about the meaning, maybe I’m just a little bit paranoid
“In the AR4 chapter, we had to exclude the SST from the Arctic plot
as the Arctic (north of 65N) from 1950 was above the 61-90 average for most of the years that had enough data to estimate a value”
you can find it at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=795&filename=1178107838.txt
should I understand that the Arctic in the 50’s was warmer than the average in 1961-90? 🙂
best
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
I am now geting “climate gate scandal” as the first suggestion in Google search after typing “clim.”
6,300,00 hits.
The Wall Street Journal, possibly taking its lead from this page, has published the “WSJ Guide to Climate Change – A collection of our editorials and op-eds.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574574101605007432.html
The Wall Street Journal is a welcome and valuable ally as we peel back the layers and expose the lies of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative.
huzzah!
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
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.
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/03/sen-boxer-and-climategate-the-terror-of-tiny-town/
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/
LiamIAm (18:24:25) : Your comment is awaiting moderation
Use Web 2.0 magic to sprinkle democracy on science
Mike Hulme: Apply the Truthiness patch
“[Hulme]’s looking to apply the Consensus Theory of Knowledge (where the idea with the most votes wins) to science.”
As previously reported on WUWT…
Read NOAA launches new website: climate.gov
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/02/noaa-launches-new-website-climate-gov/
…it seems NOAA is putting this into effect.
“Our plan is to actively gather user feedback through focus groups, usability studies, and informal communications. Over the next several years, we will expand the NCS Portal’s scope and functionality in a user-driven manner to greatly enhance the accessibility and usefulness of NOAA’s climate resources. As this effort continues to expand in future years, partners from outside of NOAA will become involved in this effort.”
http://www.climate.gov/about.html
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:
L. Gardy LaRoche,
That is truly a fascinating video. It shows just a handful of insiders orchestrating the whole AGW scheme.
This might be worth a post!!
Fall-out from ClimateGate
New Rasmussen Poll numbers just released today :
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming.
Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/americans_skeptical_of_science_behind_global_warming
Now even the IPCC recognises there is a problem and a leading UK Govt scientific adviser demands raw data be published. Wheels coming off big time folks!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394483.stm
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
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233121/UN-panel-probes-climate-change-email-row.html
The United Nations panel on climate change is to investigate claims that scientists at the University of East Anglia manipulated global warming data to support a theory of man-made climate change.
Dr Zorita also said that the content of thousands of emails and documents stolen from the University of East Anglia’s computer system and published on the internet confirmed that some global warming research was riddled with ‘machination, conspiracies and collusion’.
this last paragraph
Copenhagen climate conference: ‘climate saboteurs’, including senior Tories, risk a deal
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, has accused two senior Tories who questioned the science behind global warming of being “profoundly irresponsible
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6719556/Copenhagen-climate-conference-climate-saboteurs-including-senior-Tories-risk-a-deal.html
Concerning the UN investigating the CRU –
WHAT A JOKE! WHAT A JOKE!
It’s like a mob leader saying he’s gonna investigate his own mob.
“Gee Sid, we aint found nottin wrong.”
Bang! Bang!
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!
monkeyboy (07:36:43) :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394483.stm
given the tone they have adopted of recent, it sounds disingenuous. Lets see