Climate change scandal grows
By Jim Karlock,Some climate alarmists have been calling for trials of the climate criminals -- those that refuse to believe that CO2 is a problem that justifies severely crippling our economy and devastating low income people.
Now it seems that the alarmists have their own criminal problem.
Someone placed over 1000 of their emails (and thousands of other files) on line and it paints a sorry picture of the conduct of our leading climate "scientists", many of whom had top level input to the UN's IPCC reports. This strikes at the heart of the claim that CO2 is causing a climate problem and there are some hints that the Earth may not even have warmed for decades. One of these "scientists" even admitted there has been NO warning for the last 10 years. Will Portland and Oregon now abandon their ridiculous carbon reduction goals?
The emails contain evidence of:
- Adjusting data to get the desired conclusion
- Deleting emails to avoid public records requests
- Asking others to delete emails (remember these are government employees who are required to keep an audit trail)
- Attempts to get peer reviewed journal editors replaced because they published a skeptical paper
- Additional subversion of the peer review process
- Receiving millions of dollars in green corporate funding (including SHELL!) while accusing skeptics of receiving oil money tax evasion.
Several of these actions appear to cross the line into criminality. These include fraudulent use of government money, tax evasion, conspiracy to delete those emails that they were probably required, by law, to keep.
Here are some sources of current information:
http://www.icecap.us/
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
This story has made it to the mainstream press:
Guardian: Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists
New York Times: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
Washington Post: Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center
In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes
BBC: Hackers target leading climate research unit
WSJ: Hacked : Sensitive Documents Lifted from Hadley Climate Center
The Daily Telegraph Climategate : the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
Fox News: Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails
Canada Free Press: The Death Blow to Climate Science
The Oregonian actually had one tiny little mention.
The file of the leaked documents is FOI2009.zip and can be found at many sites.
Here is a sample of email contents from the Bishop Hill link above (the number is the Unix time stamp and a link to the actual email):
• Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.( 1047388489)
• Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results ( 0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
• Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.( 1212063122)
• Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.( 0942777075)
• Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.( 0872202064)
• Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.( 1255352257)
• Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.( 1255352257)
• Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. ( 1051190249)
• Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. ( 1255100876)
• Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. ( 1054736277)
Michael Mann is he creator of the famous hockey stick temperature curve that Al Gore touts. (here is how it was fabricated: Mike’s Nature trick )
Phil Jones in a lead IPCC author and heads the Climate Research Unit in England, a major UN IPCC contributor.
Thanks
JK
- Deleting emails to avoid public records requests
- Asking others to delete emails (remember these are government employees who are required to keep an audit trail)
- Attempts to get peer reviewed journal editors replaced because they published a skeptical paper
- Additional subversion of the peer review process
- Receiving millions of dollars in green corporate funding (including SHELL!) while accusing skeptics of receiving oil money tax evasion.
Several of these actions appear to cross the line into criminality. These include fraudulent use of government money, tax evasion, conspiracy to delete those emails that they were probably required, by law, to keep.
Here are some sources of current information:
http://www.icecap.us/
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
This story has made it to the mainstream press:
Guardian: Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists
New York Times: Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
Washington Post: Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center
In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes
BBC: Hackers target leading climate research unit
WSJ: Hacked : Sensitive Documents Lifted from Hadley Climate Center
The Daily Telegraph Climategate : the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
Fox News: Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails
Canada Free Press: The Death Blow to Climate Science
The Oregonian actually had one tiny little mention.
The file of the leaked documents is FOI2009.zip and can be found at many sites.
Here is a sample of email contents from the Bishop Hill link above (the number is the Unix time stamp and a link to the actual email):
• Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.( 1047388489)
• Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results ( 0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
• Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.( 1212063122)
• Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.( 0942777075)
• Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.( 0872202064)
• Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.( 1255352257)
• Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.( 1255352257)
• Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. ( 1051190249)
• Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. ( 1255100876)
• Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. ( 1054736277)
Michael Mann is he creator of the famous hockey stick temperature curve that Al Gore touts. (here is how it was fabricated: Mike’s Nature trick )
Phil Jones in a lead IPCC author and heads the Climate Research Unit in England, a major UN IPCC contributor.
Thanks
JK
If so, I have a bridge I would like to sell you. These people only want money and power - they only care about their fake warming agenda - it was cooling only 15 years ago if you remember - and on and on it goes.
PT Barnum had it right.
You believe these idiots at your own peril.
Trust me, they are not that smart. Or are they?
They keep fooling the fools who chose to believe them.
Just so their pathetic little lives can matter because they are "doing something".
Give it up.
The Skeptics Are Vindicated
By David Warren
A computer hacker in England has done the world a service by making available a huge quantity of evidence for the way in which "human-induced global warming" claims have been advanced over the years.
By releasing into the Internet about a thousand internal e-mails from the servers of the Climate Research Unit in the University of East Anglia -- in some respects the international clearing house for climate change "science" -- he has (or they have) put observers in a position to see that claims of conspiracy and fraud were not unreasonable.
More generally, we have been given the materials with which to obtain an insight into how all modern science works when vast amounts of public funding is at stake and when the vested interests associated with various "progressive" causes require a particular scientific result.
There is little doubt that the e-mails were real. Even so warmist a true-believer as George Monbiot led his column in the Guardian yesterday with: "It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The e-mails extracted ... could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them."
He went on to rekindle his own faith in the "settled science," however, by revealing that he will not give up on the global-warming hypothesis until he sees an e-mail that reveals a specific conspiracy over the centuries by a secret fraternity of "knights carbonic" to seize planetary power and install a Communist World Government.
Behind this sarcastic little face-saving joke is a disheartening reality. For, as we glean from the hacked documents, supporters of the hypothesis have been able to reverse the onus of proof. In the last resort, their argument comes down to: We say the planet is warming. And anyone who says the contrary must "prove the negative" beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt. And we will be their judges.
Nigel Lawson (a.k.a. Baron Lawson of Blaby), the former British chancellor of the exchequer, who is among prominent persons demanding a full and open public inquiry, summarized the content of the e-mails in this way:
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals. ...
"There may be a perfectly innocent explanation," he continues with that impartial aplomb for which we have always adored British lords, but then he reminds just how much government spending and bureaucracy, in Britain and all over the world, has been mounted entirely upon this dubious research; and thus how far-reaching the implications if the obvious turns out to be true.
For the correspondence that has been hacked is not mere backroom gossip. It includes incriminating exchanges between some of the biggest names in the "global warming" business. In its attempt to resist an inquiry, a British Meteorological Office spokesman effectively acknowledged as much. He fell back on the traditional clinching argument of persons "dressed in a little authority": that the sublimity of their office and the splendour of their robes puts them beyond the possibility of suspicion:
"It's a shame that some of the skeptics have had to take this rather shallow attempt to discredit robust science undertaken by some of the world's most respected scientists. The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."
The same spokesman alleged it was no coincidence that the incriminating materials had been released on the eve of the United Nations' Copenhagen climate conference. But, of course, that is exactly what the hacker was doing: getting a story out that could be released in no other way and at the best possible moment to draw attention. Those would be the first two laws of journalism.
It is amusing to see mainstream media sources such as the New York Times, which thinks nothing of publishing purloined government documents that will endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers in the field, and compromise vital intelligence operations, suddenly become all jowly and uptight about publishing the e-mails in question because they were "illegally obtained."
Other media -- which have played a leading part for years in giving credibility to "global warming" claims -- are now maintaining the silence of Iago on the revelations. We will see how long this can be sustained.
The general AGW adherents are going to lay low for a while and hope this blows over. They know the press will bury this and hopefully not too many people will learn of it. At this point Copenhagen hasn't suffered anything from the email leak. It was always more about Obama to prostrating the US before Europe and begging them to excuse us more than actually getting anything done. AGW has always had a substantial component of guilt relief, through blame America first for its adherents. This is why China and India not having to be a part of any treaty makes sense for them. Whether China and India sign on is irrelevant, as beating America down is accomplished effectively regardless of their presence. At any rate, with the health care debate such as it is, they knew the prospects for passing cap and trade were dim even before the East Anglia leak. Copenhagen still remains a tremendous venue for the American cognoscente to ask the world to excuse the plebian populace of their country.
But what of the AGW clerics? The scientists who have been making a living from the state funds they receive to provide the research allowing the politicians to expand their power? Personally I think they are running scared. For they now know there is a hacker out there who might very well have more to expose than just that revealed with the East Anglia dump. Do they really want to say anything? What if the hacker has more to reveal? Silence is best, lest he hold documents to the contrary that may come out at a future date.
Whoever the person is who did this, they are nothing short of a hero to the world. The person responsible might not have stopped the AGW movement, but they have definitely done more than any one person to stop the greatest attempted theft of money and liberty from the people of the world.
Expect them to either be silent or show up in short order claiming this is all irrelevant. We will hear phrases like "Gee, haven't paid much attention because the leak doesn't really prove much of anything" or "the whole thing is a red herring, it really is because......( throw in a lot of words here like consensus, vast majority of scientists agree, flat earth... whatever)".
So yes Rupert, pat yourself on the back. Its a red herring, it proves nothing of consequence, its unlikely to change any of the science or the consensus around that science.
Put it this way. Its about as relevant to the topic as Al Gore living in a big house and flying around the world, your usual rant.
I'm not sure it convinces anyone, but it is interesting to see the over use of this strategy.
Finding a whole host of scientists were colluding, just as the non AGW believers had predicted is irrelevant?
Well, if nothing else it does confirm what I have long maintained, AGW is not about science but is more of a religious belief system. You never wanted to question the science, and now that the collusion long alleged has been shown to be true, you regard it of no consequence. Not questioning science is the antithesis of science itself. Disregarding that data which doesn't agree, such as ignoring collusion, is the epitome of a faith based belief system. Welcome to your religion. May tithing to Al Gore bring you the happiness which scientific inquiry could not provide.
First, I don't know what a "whole host is." My understanding is this is about a few scientists, albeit some pretty big names in the field. It may be rellevant politically if it casts doubt on their credibility and ethics. But its not relevant scientifically unless it turns uo something of substance, like false data or erroneous conclusions made knowingly. Think of it this way, if the shoe was on the other foot and the scientists had hacked into the emails of global warming doubters, would they have found some nasty stuff? Probably. Would you conclude that this proves that climate change doubters had colluded to help stall off government action? I doubt it.
"Well, if nothing else it does confirm what I have long maintained, AGW is not about science but is more of a religious belief system."
Sure it confirms what you have maintained. I mean, anything that happens confirms what you maintain Rupert. The sun comes up and it confirms you. It goes down and that confirms you. If it were otherwise your head would explode. But tell me, what in that long body of stolen emails states or suggests that the scientists who wrote them treat the subject as a religious belief? Were they engaged in rituals? Did they meet in secret, burning incense or mumbling incantations? Did they find an indecipherable book buried out in a field somewhere? Have they built a temple? What?
"You never wanted to question the science, and now that the collusion long alleged has been shown to be true, "
That is quite a leap. Scientists communicate with each other, say nasty things about their therefore they colluded to make the whole thing up? If they have managed to make up the melting of polar ice caps they are indeed clever fellows.
"Not questioning science is the antithesis of science itself."
Maybe you just stated this badly. I suspect you mean not questioning scientific "data" or "findings" is the antithesis of science. If yes, then you might be surprised to know I agree with you. That is why before scientific theory is accepted as fact, it has to be reviewed independently, and it has to be replicable. In the case of AGW, this test has been given and the theory passed. No one can prove the future, and there are still lots of unkowns. But for you to suggest that scientists don't question the findings of their colleagues is not backed up by reality.
"Disregarding that data which doesn't agree, such as ignoring collusion, is the epitome of a faith based belief system. "
"Collusion" is your conclusion. It isn't mine based on what I have seen and read so far. But even if it turned out that those scientists engaged in these emails are found to have "colluded," one would still have to ask what findings were wrong or faked, what this amounts to in the large picture of climate science, and whether it calls into question to core issue: that the earth is warming rapidly primarily due to increes in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by humans. You have already concluded that none of this is true, so the emails only reinforce what you already believe. That is understandable. But to charge that others who have accepted the science are guilty of "religion" unless we automatically change our views because of these emails is ridiculous on its face.
On another page you urged people to not jump to conclusions with respect to the cops beanbagging the kid in Portland. You should take your own advice and apply it here.
Boy do I doubt that.
You are clearly not gay.
Not that thats a bad thing.
But yes, I was referring to the "troll", or imposter.
The data are in the faces of Man-Made Climate Change supporters and they still refuse to acknowledge the evidence.
These same scientists threatened my job with the US Geological Survey when trying to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were natural and caused solely by Earth's physical processes. Additionally, these same scientists would not discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally insult and attack me.
I always knew that when man-made global climate change was shown as insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word "FAITH", in science. But this event and exposure is by far worse for the science community; but "Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)".
Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site. But no outcry and defense for those scientists?
IF you see no problem with this and not wondering if the public has been misled by these scientists, then you are not scientists, you're in denial, and you stand for no moral principles.
On 25 November 2009 at 12:15 PM, I tried to post comments on RealClimate.org concerning this matter. That website refused the posts because they know me; another attempt to silence objective parties and since they were the ones that threatened my job.....
Now, Al Gore PUBLICLY states Mantle temperatures are MILLIONS of DEGREES. The man doesn't have the morality, decency, and/or courage to publicly admit he was WRONG. SO WHY SHOULD these scientists admit they are wrong? They can't, because if they do, the gig is up.
It reflects badly on the profesional ethics of a few individuals
Bob T:
But their mindset and bias has influenced the content of reports that
even our government policy makers have been relying on as gospel.
v person:
and they may end up paying a price.
Bob T:
No - we have already been paying a price for their dishonesty.
v person:
But it does zero to change the reality that the earth has warmed, continues to warm, and will continue to warm if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.
Bob T:
But that's the issue, i.e. that this was not a settled matter even before this
dishonesty was revealed. If the Earth has previously gone through warming periods
without a single combustion engine being fired up, or a factory starting production,
then it stands to reason that it can easily happen again no matter what we are
doing. By the way, if the hockey stock in the graph is fiction (apparently it is,
because of dishonest scientists like the ones you defend), then you cannot
make your above claim without your nose growing.
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Its a red herring, it proves nothing of consequence
Bob T:
Oh, don't be too certain about that. George Monbiot, an activist and journalist in Britian who has supported "dramatic action" to combat global warming, wrote in his ScienceMag.org article that, "It's no use pretending 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."
Unlike you, Monbiot is open-minded and level-headed enough to avoid the knee-jerk downplaying spin tha is essential to those who need the global warming scare.
Bob Tiernan
Portland
without a single combustion engine being fired up, or a factory starting production,
then it stands to reason that it can easily happen again no matter what we are
doing."
No climate scientist I know of has ever argued otherwise. Without science we would know nothing about previous ice ages, fossils, or other evidence of past climates. The point is whether this particular warming episode is caused primarily by greenhouse gasses released from fossil fuel burning, and if so whether we should bother to do anything about it. What if anything in the purloined emails makes a case that it isn't or that we shouldn't?
"Unlike you, Monbiot is open-minded and level-headed enough to avoid the knee-jerk downplaying spin tha is essential to those who need the global warming scare."
From your quote, I'd surmise he is talking about the political fallout, not changes to what the science has concluded. But I would disagree with him that they could "scarcely be more damaging." They could be a lot more damaging if only one of them said something like: "Boy we have really put one over on the people of the earth haven't we? I mean can you believe they fell for our global warming hoax? Church gathering at midnight December 31st to give thanks. Al Gore will be there to give communion."
Now THAT would be really damaging.
From your quote, I'd surmise he is talking about the political fallout, not changes to what the science has concluded.
Bob T:
Political fallout will of course occur, because these scientists have had much influence on policy. But the other damage is in the scientic community as well - for all we know a lot of scientists who've not been on the global warming bandwagon will be encouraged to speak out more. Also, the damage spoken of is also the damage to the theories. After all, one of the e-mail is by a scientist showing frustration that the date is not showing an increase in temperatures. Why would he be frustrated unless he wanted to see the increase showing?
Bob Tiernan
Portland
OK. But the data on temperatures is calibrated by the same scientists, or their colleagues. So if there is some sort of "collusion" going on to mislead or dupe the public (not your word, but Ruperts) then why wouldn't this conspiricy extend to faking temperature data? Why would the data show an essentially flat line from 1998 to the present?
Climate scientists know full well their research findings are crucial to big time political and economic decisions. If they are convinced of AGW, and some of the recent data contradicts or at least casts some doubt on this, then expressing some frustration that this is the case in a private email does not amount to much.
Well here you go again. Misrepresetning entirely the issue.
And I contend you're deliberate and dishonest in doing so.
You said upthread,
"one would still have to ask what findings were wrong or faked, what this amounts to in the large picture of climate science, and whether it calls into question to core issue: that the earth is warming rapidly primarily due to increes in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by humans"
While you're here trying to mislead people into thinking there is nothing but the e-mails and loose conclusions about them, you're continuing your pattern of avoiding the extent of the discoveries.
There is no asking needed as there are extensive details on exactly what was faked and how already available and fullly discussed.
As well as on how this all effects the core issue.
The fraud could not be more clear unless there was a audio/video tape of the Team punching in the adustments they needed.
You're a blatant liar like Gavind Schmidt et al.
I'm glad you're still here piling up your dishonesty to be archived forever.
History will show you to be the sleazebag so many in the IPCC/AGW camp are.
Some of which may end up in jail.
Or just do what you do. But don't expect to be taken seriously.
Not taking sides in this particular argument, but I couldn't resist commenting here.
"Or just do what you do. But don't expect to be taken seriously."
You are aware that we're "playing" on oregoncatalyst.com, right? Nobody takes anything said here seriously.
The fraud could not be more clear unless there was a audio/video tape of the Team punching in the adustments they needed.
Bob T:
That's the mindset, and it reveals all we need to know. I once brought up the fact that global warming models predicted an increase in polar ice caps -- this due to the increase in water vapor over the oceans due to temp increase induced evaporation, with the water vapor making its way to the caps and then falling as snow to be added to the thickness of the cap as it gets compacted. Even with rising temps this was predicted because even with a rise at the caps it would still be well below freezing there. But since the opposite has occurred somewhat, the reaction by one GW
advocate was that the model should be changed so it would provide the answer he wanted. Not
mentioned at all was the fact that the model was flawed. The GW advocates seemed interested in obtaining the prediction they desire, and favor changing the methods in order to always get a GW prediction no matter what data is entered.
Bob Tiernan
Portland
Whereas the truth about the extent of the fraud becomes clearer every day.
The warming was fabricated.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/#more-13373
This story is just under 10 days old, and of course had the story been leaked Dick Cheney E-mails the headlines would have been page 1 above the fold for the last 11 days.
But, Climategate? Here is how James Delingpole in the UK Telegraph described the coverage. From the Independent, Nada. And the New York Times? Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among *’skeptics’*. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.
And as James said here’s how the Guardian has reported it: Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace.
James continues, Here’s the Washington Post. Ah, so what the story is really about is ’skeptics’ causing trouble. Note how as high as the second par the researchers are allowed by the reporter to get in their insta-rebuttal, lest we get the impression that the scandal in any way reflects badly on them.
What about the BBC, Ah yes, another routine data-theft story so dully reported – “the police had been informed, he added” – that you can’t even be bothered to reach the end to find out what information was stolen.
Of course we now know that the BBC has had and sat on the story for 20 days. Kinda like the O and the Goldschmidt rape story.
Lets compare Climategate to another recent story, ACORN. The New York Times duly reported the illegal taping of Acorn employees, the Attorney General is investigating. That was on the airplane pages. B 52.
That embargo worked out well for the NYT until Congress suspended federal funding of Acorn. Now the Gray Lady had a story they couldn’t suppress while having not reported the reasons for the cutoff. The red faced admission was followed by a promise to the readers of the Times to assign a reporter to the Internet to catch future emerging stores. How did that work out??
Yet another Legacy Media bloody nose in the making.
The CRU emails show a clear pattern of withholding data, adjustment of data, manipulation of the Pier review process, and collusion to control the IPCC assessment report content.
But will this story die? What has been the reaction?
A series of revelations from the emails over several days. Then digging deeper in the files the damning comments in the code.
Half way round the world in New Zealand the headline.
Uh, oh - raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the "official" one
From TBR.cc Investigate magazine's breaking news forum: The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.
And the story is growing.
CRU scientists shredded vital data
Jonathan Leake in the Times OnLine: 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.
Jonathan Leake, regarding the chronology of the "breaking" of the story:
"It was a powerful and controversial mix - far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones's belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.
Several hours later, however, it reappeared - this time on an obscure Russian server. Soon it had been copied to a host of other servers, first in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and then Europe and America."
Calls to ban CRU scientists from IPCC process
Dr. Eduardo Zorita, a UN IPCC Contributing Author of Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 and since 2003, has headed the Department of Paleoclimate and has been a senior scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research of the GKSS Research Centre in Germany, is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues "should be barred from the IPCC process." In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: "CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process."
Australia Warwick Hughes shows how Jones selections put bias in Australian Temperatures
Jones et al 1986 methodical insertion of warming bias
"Jones et al 1986 looked at 86 Australian stations and rejected 46. The 27 short term stations were mostly only quoted from 1951 onward – regardless of what data was available. It just so happens that the years just post WWII were not prominently warm in Australia so an “automatic” warming trend was reinforced into the CRU Australian component."
So while the New York Times and Real Climate hope the story will die, it just grows biger.
Again in Australia. Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax
"ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia's opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd's Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.
The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme."
Back in D.C. Climate czar rejects doctored data claims - Washington Times
"Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner on Wednesday rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show climate scientists trumped up global warming numbers, saying she considers the science settled.
The White House said Wednesday that Mr. Obama will personally travel to Copenhagen to commit the U.S. to greenhouse gas reductions."
So the US will follow Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to Copenhagen on Rudd's hell bent crusade to snatch oppression from the jaws of liberty.
And that is just a smattering of what is in the Climategate news.
I will close with two points. Back in February of this year Roger Pielke, Jr.in The Collapse of Climate Policy and the Sustainability of Climate Science stated;
"The political consensus surrounding climate policy is collapsing. If you are not aware of this fact you will be very soon. The collapse is not due to the cold winter in places you may live or see on the news. It is not due to years without an increase in global temperature. It is not due to the overturning of the scientific consensus on the role of human activity in the global climate system…"
"The current shrillness that has been put on display by many politically-active climate scientists and the feeding-frenzy among their skeptical political opposition can be explained as a result of this looming collapse, though many will confuse the shrillness and feeding-frenzy as a cause of the collapse."
"The climate scientists (and their willing allies) have taken their battle to the arenas of politics, waging a scorched earth campaign of bullying, name calling, threats, and obnoxiously absurd appeals to authority. The skeptics participate in similar fashion, and the result is an all out brawl that we see escalating still before our eyes. The skeptics think they are unraveling a mythical scientific consensus imposed by an evil elite, while the climate scientists think they are waging an all out battle of righteousness against know-nothing hordes. They are both wrong."
"Climate politics is collapsing because of political realities, and not real or perceived changes in how people see the science. As I have often argued, in the ongoing battle between climate scientists and skeptics there will be disproportionate carnage, because the climate scientists have so much more to lose, and not just as individuals, but also for the broader field, which includes many people simply on the sidelines."
Very recently J.R. Dunn authored Global Warming Fraud and the Future of Science
"Scientists were once among the most trusted figures in Western public life, similar to bankers, priests, and doctors, but in a real sense standing above them all. Scientists were honored as truth-tellers, aware that their reputation for veracity and seriousness was their only real asset. And while exceptions existed,.. the public took them at their own valuation."
"That is ended, one with the scholastic monasteries and the academy at Athens. Scientists today are well on their way to becoming an amalgam of the cheap politician and the three-card monte dealer. They are viewed by the less educated as a privileged class making alarming and impudent claims for their own benefit. The better informed find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of being unable to defend something we once admired."
"The next set of questions in physics cannot be answered without equipment costing billions at the very least, and possibly much more. Will a disbelieving public pay for that? We are facing serious dilemmas concerning breakthroughs in biology, not only in stem-cell technology but also in neurology and synthetic biology, breakthroughs that threaten to distort the very nature of humanity itself. Should we leave the solutions up to people who want us to pick a card, any card?"
"The collaboration between science and democracy is one of the great achievements of human history. It is now threatened by the behavior of people at the very heart of that collaboration. If it is destroyed, something of unparalleled value will have vanished, something that will be nearly impossible to replace. If the Western world wishes to continue its magnificent upward journey, we will have to save science from itself. An errant and corrupt climatology is the place to start."
I recommend both articles
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/the-collapse-of-climate-policy-and-the-sustainability-of-climate-science-4939