Climategate

ABC Australia’s answer to Climategate is to roll out a polar bear story. Note “Scientists say” morphs into “Conservationists say”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/05/2762943.htm?section=justin

Wow! After getting the error 999 message, I went back and looked just now and it posted. Ya for Yahoo!!

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?

ClimateGate fallout
Two Academy Award members request Al Gore give back his Oscar.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/al-gore-oscar-global-warming.html

BBC just put this on their website:
Headine: UN hits back at climate sceptics amid e-mails row
image of laptop: “The e-mails were posted on the internet last month”
The UN’s official panel on climate change has hit back at sceptics’ claims that the case for human influence on global warming has been exaggerated…
Full text at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8397265.stm

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]

Oh snap! We’ve been “debunked”… this proves it:
http://www.fightcleanenergysmears.org/NWF%20Factsheet.pdf
/sarcasm off

Amir Khan fought Dimitry Salita last night. Google’s auto-suggest already suggests search terms:
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9494/screenshot20091206at113.png
Meanwhile climategate is is constantly being erased from Google’s suggestion database:
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9494/screenshot20091206at113.png

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).
Subject: Re: MISSING SESSION PROPOSAL
From: “Bruce D. Malamud”
Date: Tue, October 13, 2009 18:45
To: “kgeorg@bas.bg”
Cc: “egu2010@copernicus.org” (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
:: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/geography/people/acad/malamud
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: e-mail for EGU NH Division business: NH-malamud@kcl.ac.uk
:: e-mail: bruce.malamud@kcl.ac.uk
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: See the book: “Language of the Earth”.
:: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405160675.html
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>
>>
>>
>> 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

You got to be worried when a government starts making such decisions.
They’re mad.

CNN – Covers it w/o referring to scandal as ‘ClimateGate’
CNN – Scandal Over Global Warming Heats Up

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?