Climategate

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Climate-Change-Examiner/142504185278

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

Is it possible to place a date reference with each article and keep them in date order? Are the entires in date order?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Climategate-denial-foundering-on-army-of-Davids-8595184-76420732.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-1231024/STEPHEN-GLOVER-I-know-truth-climate-change-I-recognise-trickery-slippery-excuses-I-them.html
http://pamelagorman.blogspot.com/2009/11/significance-of-climategate-deciphered.html

The Strata-sphere has found that surface temperature measurements fail to show twentieth century global warming. The raw CRU data released in Climategate shows that surface temperature readings measure the first half of the last century (1900-1960) as warm or warmer than it is today.
John Pittman has found some interesting science in the Climategate emails: The treeline is an sensitive treemometer, since it is very sharply defined, a few kilometers broad. Trees grow, just barely, south of the treeline, they entirely fail to grow north of the treeline. During the Medieval climatic optimum 750-1450 trees grew north of the present day treeline, indicating that the medieval climatic optimum was warmer than today in the north. During the past century, 1897 to present, there has been no movement in the treeline, indicating no twentieth century warming in the north,none.
Global sea ice area has also remained constant since it has been observed, from 1978 to the present.

A look at the stories I have written on the topic:
http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~topic525937-Climategate
You will also see on some of the stories the logo I whipped up for Climategate. I will see if I can come up with a unique one for here.

IF YOU LOOK IN SPANISH ABOUT ALL OF THIS…
SI BUSCAS EN ESPAÑOL INVESTIGACIONES RELACIONADAS….
http://trukiny.blogspot.com/
http://zeitgeist-argentina.ning.com/profiles/blog/list?user=2gbo1az5auqd0
BIG HUGH FROM ARGENTINA
UN GRAN ABRAZO DESDE ARGENTINA

Examples of the large impact of manual data adjustments in temperature: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/yet-more-stuff-we-always-suspected-but-its-nice-to-have-proof.html
More explanation of “the trick”: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/the-trick.html
The heart of the scandal: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/the-heart-of-the-scandal.html
Response letter to the AMS: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/missing-the-point-perhaps-on-purpose.html
Dangers of a monoculture: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/dangers-of-a-monoculture-reactions-to-the-hadley-emails.html
Catastrophe Denied video: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/catastrophe-denied-video-from-my-climate-lecture.html

OK, do not be scared; I have always been a bit of a hoarder for links. Not all of the links are of the same relevance and some may be repeated, but some are really hilarious (especially those of coders commenting on the CRU code). The following should be in approximate chronological order:
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate.html
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091120_cru_hacked.htm
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/deconstructing-climategates-smoking-gun-email/
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-climate-e-mails-and-the-politics-of-science
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm (this coder despairs at the CRU code)
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/in-climate-hack.html
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/26/11929676-sun.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/295157.php/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018066/bbcs-paleo-news-site-finally-runs-a-real-scoop-story-on-climategates-michael-mann/
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012694.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5565331/green-totalitarianism.thtml
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/myview.html (Eduardo Zorita asks that Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf be barred from the IPCC)
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/27/cap_and_trade_is_dead__99322.html
Eric S. Raymond (esr) is the author of “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”; in the OpenSource community, he is as big as they get:
http://rebootcongress.blogspot.com/2009/11/eric-s-raymond-on-east-anglia-crus.html
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447 (“This isn’t just a smoking gun, it’s a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.”)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1481
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1473
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1436 (Open-Sourcing the Global Warming Debate)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1431
And lots more in http://esr.ibiblio.org/.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/11/underestimating.html
And a comment from one of Michael Crighton’s lectures (pity he did not live to see Climategate; he would have loved it):
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/11/underestimating.html#90730
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html (Secrecy in science is a corrosive force by Michael Schrage; registration may be required, but worth it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09ORzwKrwaM (WUWT already has an article on this; still it is one of the best political videos ever recorded)
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/From+Climategate+Copenhagen/2279430/story.html
http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2009/11/28/11960486-sun.html
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1390 (this guy is a professional statistician and has done models in the past)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e14e6c-dba0-11de-9424-00144feabdc0.html
http://jennifermarohasy.com/articles.php?id=177
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10447.html
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10436.html
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10399.html (For now, we can safely say all the data produced by this CRU code is highly suspect. By the ancient and proven rule in computing of “Garbage in, Garbage Out” this means that all the climate simulations by other teams that make predictions using this dubious data are likewise corrupted. Given that literally hundreds of millions of lives over the next century will depend on getting the climate models correct, we have to start all our climate modeling over from scratch.)
http://vnboards.ign.com/ywain/b23441/112121341/p9/?135 (talking about the CRU code and the political consequences of Climategate; some of the comments are really funny)
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/wow_just_wow.html
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012764.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece (the dog ate my homework too!)
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/11/28/climategate-time-to-postpone-copenhagen/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Climategate-denial-foundering-on-army-of-Davids-8595184-76420732.html (the Instapundit reflects on Climategate)
http://greenhellblog.com/2009/11/24/ny-times-reporter-whitewashes-climategate-story-he-is-part-of/ (Andrew Revkin has a case of conflict of interests)
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjAxYzA3NmI0N2Y1MDVhYzdmM2JkZGIyMjE5ZWU2OTI
This last one is not Climategate-related, but I just cannot avoid sharing it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8379759.stm
It took me 10 minutes to stop laughing.

The BBC and Climategate: was a reporter put under pressure to ignore the story?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100018243/the-bbc-and-climategate-was-a-reporter-put-under-pressure-to-ignore-the-story/

Climate change data dumped
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

‘Botch after botch after botch’
Leaked ‘climategate’ documents show huge flaws in the backbone of climate change science
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/29/11967916-sun.html

Anthony,
The “Climategate” link on your main page needs to at least be in red, and preferably a lot larger. Just a suggestion.
Jerry

A history of GCM development which discusses the limitations of the early models and the time line of their development for reference.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm
Larry

Another PDF :
Dr David Evans’
A Simple Proof that Global Warming Is Not Man-Made
http://sciencespeak.com/SimpleProof.pdf

“Lawrence Solomon: New Zealand’s Climategate”
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-solomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx
“An agency of the New Zealand government has been cooking the books…The chief cook? Dr. Jim Salinger, considered one of the country’s top scientists, who began the graph in the 1980s when he was at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. CRU, of course, has become ground zero of Climategate at Dr. Salinger has maintained close relations with CRU since, as seen in the Climategate emails.”

Thanks for this resource. While there is a lot of fine work showing the lack of true scientific spirit coming from the alarmist camp, nothing has been so powerful for me as this graph that has shown up several times in WUWT, and an article by Frank Lansner that used that graph.
As Lansner pointed out:”When CO2 does not cause these big temperature changes, then what is then the reason for the big temperature changes seen in Vostok data? Or: “What is the mechanism behind ice ages???”
This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:
First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know.
What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to “mix” and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.”
Note that the warm period we are in, which included the Roman warm, the Little Ice Age, and the Midieval warm, has gone on far longer than any other warm period on the graph. Shouldn’t we be planning on how to survive the more probable cold spell that is coming?
As S. Fred Singer points out in “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years”, “No one alive today, however, is able to recall the alarm that was felt when glaciers advanced. Alan Cutler…described what it must have been like during the Little Ice Age:
The year was 1645, and the glaciers in the Alps were on the move. In Chamonix at the foot of Mont Blanc, people watched in fear as the Mer de Glace (Sea of Ice) glacier advanced. In earlier years, they had seen the slowly flowing ice engulf farms and crish entire villages….Similar dramas unfolded throughout the Alps and Scandinavia during the late 1600s and 1700s as many glaciers grew farther down mountain slopes and valleys that they had in thoudands of years.”
“Humans worry (perhaps excessively) when glaciers shrink but suffer dreadfully when they advance. Picture a mile-thick glacier covering the area that is now the city of Chicago- something primitive human hunters might actually have seen during the 90,000 years of the last ice age.”

The leaker has been dubbed “Deep Climate” over at
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_emails_were_leaked_before.html

BBC Radio 4: Quentin Cooper Talks to Philip Stott & Tom Crowley about CLIMATEGATE Scandal, and details of the emails revealed
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2445
The ONLY good BBC coverage of this AFAIK.
I’ve typed in the transcript.

A crime against humanity
by Walter Starck
November 30, 2009
Climategate: Trivial break in or devastating break out?
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/a-crime-against-humanity

Drudge’s +20 million hits a day front page has this—beneath all the Tiger Woods headlines of course :
” ‘Climate change’ data dumped…”
at link :
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…..The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data….Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Hacker or whistlerblower? An in-depth analysis by a senior programmer, and why he can guess that there has been no violation of the mail server of the University of East Anglia, but rather that the mail and documents were made public by a CRU researcher, presumably American.
Hack Attack! (English language):
http://www.climatemonitor.it/?p=5632

The balanced and authoratitive audio file linked here is worthy of a listen:

The leaking of email correspondence has embarrassed some climate scientists from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK). Aynsley Kellow considers the ramifications of the scandal.

via Andrew Bolt

One for the general public
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Here is my attempt at a logo
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=m748cm&s=6

To whoever gets to sort through these posts: Just thought I’d let you know I changed the title of the post I linked above to “Phil Jones Missed The Point.”
Here’s the link again:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/11/im-honored-i-think.html
Regards

Peter Landesman (author of Spacemazes) posted a good brief summary of the flaws in modeling non-linear equations:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html

More on Climategate
30 Nov 2009 09:40 am
Clive Crook
In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.
. . .
One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson’s study raised, and it was also emphasized in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre’s campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.
http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php

George Monbiot attacks Paul Hudson http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4537&updaterx=2009-11-30+10%3A17%3A22

Pajamas Media now offers a ClimateGate database which allows comments.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climatedate-document-database-from-pjtvpajamas-media/

And the latest BBC propaganda is:
The shrinking Himalayan glaciers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8339269.stm
Whereas the Indian Scientists say:
Indian Scientists Say Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
http://yesbuthowever.com/himalayan-glaciers-8136289/
Quote: “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.”
I wonder who the BBC get their info from!

Are there anyway you could make two categories; those giving weight to the fact that they manipulated the data and another one for those articles that try to defend them? Maybe you could use two colors for the text and still keep the chronology.

Then again, don’t waste you’re time watching 2 climate bimbos going at it.

A list of articles from Is It Getting Warmer?:
http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2009/11/30/scientist-calls-for-barring-mann-jones-and-rahmstorf/
http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2009/11/27/interview-with-both-sides-regarding-stolen-emails/
http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2009/11/26/professors-singer-and-watson-on-east-anglia-cru-stolen-emails/
http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2009/11/25/dr-balls-thoughts-on-cru-emails/
http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2009/11/24/no-scientist-had-email-stolen-from-east-anglia/

http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html
If you are concerned about this issue and are a Canadian, please sign this petition to establish a royal comission to investigate the cause and extent of Gloabl Warming. Feel free to advertise this where ever you feel it may do some good and webmaster please contact me via e-mail if you are willing to put a link on you awsome blog.
Thanks

There are quite a few more links at this address:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/20/do-hacked-e-mails-show-global-warming-fraud/

And The Whitewash Begins…
Climategate: the whitewash begins
1) Lord Rees (Royal Society) to be asked by UEA to investigate CRU leak.
The appointment of Lord Rees, if confirmed, is especially worrying. It’s the rough equivalent of appointing King Herod’s grand vizier to investigate a mysterious outbreak of mass baby killing in Judaea.
First, Lord Rees – formerly Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal – is very much of the catastrophist mindset which helped launch the whole AGW scare in the first place.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018144/climategate-the-whitewash-begins/

The following are Climategate-related articles at The American Thinker”, from 112109 through 113009:
1 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_ghost_of_lysenko.html
2- http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html
3- http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/oh_my_another_warming_advocate.html
4 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/sen_mitch_mcconnell_remains_si.html
5 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/un_climate_expert_what_me_worr.html
6 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmists_and_a_wave_of_disease.html
7 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
8 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/politics_and_greenhouse_gasses.html
9 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
10 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/climate_fraud_and_the_environm.html
11 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/acorning_the_climate_change_mo.html
12 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html
13 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/deliberative_analysis_rip.html
14 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html
15 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climategate_an_inconvenient_wh.html
16 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_emails_were_leaked_before.html
17 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/the_warmist_pr_con_job.html
18 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/calls_to_ban_cru_scientists_fr.html
19 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climategate_the_stones_cry_out.html
20 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_scientists_shredded_vital.html
21 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/down_under_global_warming_is_a.html
22 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/greens_are_blue_about_black_fr.html
23 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmist_denial_wont_work.html
24 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/tear_down_the_warmist_wall.html
25 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/does_the_worlds_fate_depend_on.html
26 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/on_to_copenhagen_for_obama_and.html
27 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/mccain_silent_on_global_warmin.html
28 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/thanks_again_president_bush.html
29 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/technology_writer_charlie_mart.html
30 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/rnc_remains_silent_on_global_w.html
31 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/science_frauds_may_face_crimin.html
32 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_emails_spur_lawsuit.html
33 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmists_using_suicidal_animal.html
34 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/violating_the_principle_of_sci.html
35 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/monbiot_phil_jones_should_resi.html
36 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/more_weather_hypocrisy_at_the.html
37 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/kiwi_challenges_gores_settled.html
38 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/drink_coca_cola_save_the_plane.html
39 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climate_change_blamed_for_incr.html
40 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climate_fraud_continues_unrave.html
41 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climategate_heats_up.html
42 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmings_pentagon_papers_conti.html
43 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/todays_media_ethics_award_goes.html

Climategate: The Phil Jones University could break into children’s television, big time
Damian’s revelation that Futerra has gone so far as to train even CBeebies researchers in “green” communication may offer a lifeline to embarrassed academics at the beleaguered “University” of East Anglia. The ever-helpful BBC might be able to channel them towards a less challenging audience than those brutal sceptics who are holding the Phil Jones University up to so much painful ridicule. Might there not be very promising alternative careers for Phil Jones and Michael Mann if a happy collaboration between CBeebies and, say, Blue Peter could be devised?
“And now children, here are Phil and Michael to show you how to make your own global warming statistics at home.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018373/climategate-the-phil-jones-university-could-break-into-childrens-television-big-time/

Fallout from ClimateGate?
—–
Australia opposition elects new leader, ETS laws set to fail
Mon Nov 30, 2009
CANBERRA, Dec 1 (Reuters) – Australia’s opposition elected a new leader on Tuesday, Tony Abbott, who is opposed to the government’s carbon-trade laws, ensuring the embattled legislation is almost certain to be defeated in a hostile Senate.
The carbon-trade scheme would be the biggest outside Europe, covering 75 percent of Australian emissions and start in July 2011.

The following article is dated 9th November but it is an interesting insight in to how GISS works (cooks the books):
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/gistemp-a-human-view/
Go to the home page for up-to-date stuff on Climategate.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/

Just my twopence worth.
I hope this will become a resource for TWO main categories:
(1) the human side of ClimateGate:
the news, the politics, the corruption, and the possibilities for sweeping reform
(2) the science issues:
basics for newbies (simple and advanced), refutations of the classic AGW “debunks” of “contrarians”, and specialized topics in detail.
I wrote my “Primer” (click my name) essentially for newcomers, people who were shocked and waking up, and though it has gotten a bit long and a tiny bit out of date, I think it can help people still – pictures help a lot. Also there may be lots of other relevant specialist issues written for non-specialists on my website if you look at the index – eg what really happened to the Wegman and North reports, and their misrepresentation by the MSM. And if you want any that need a bit of editing, please let me know, or please, feel free to edit yourselves.

Climate change: ‘Hefty taxes and monitoring needed’, says expert
The West must undergo a radical lifestyle change to prevent a global warming disaster, the world’s leading climate change scientist has said.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said imposing hefty taxes and increasing electrity monitoring is needed to combat the ways of adults who have been “corrupted” by their daily routines.
Dr Pachauri caused controversy last year after suggesting people should eat less meat due to the levels of carbon emissions associated with rearing livestock.
Related Articles
Consumers unlikely to benefit from smart energy meters His latest suggestions include curbing car use, increasing London’s congestion charge to £25, putting electricity monitoring equipment in hotel rooms and implementing hefty aviation taxes to stop people flying.
In an interview with the Observer Dr Pachauri said: “Today we have reached the point where consumption and people’s desire to consume has grown out of proportion. The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable.
“I don’t see why you couldn’t have a meter in the room to register your energy consumption from air-conditioning or heating and you should be charged for that.
“By bringing about changes of this kind, you could really ensure that people start becoming accountable for their actions.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6683735/Climate-change-Hefty-taxes-and-monitoring-needed-says-expert.html
and
The Great and Powerful Climate Oz
Global warming fearmongers say restaurants must stop serving ice water.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574569922635570260.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Lord Stern (economist) calls ‘deniers’ “confused and muddled over Global Warming”.
The comments after the short article make for interesting reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6701828/Climate-change-sceptics-are-muddled-says-Lord-Stern.html

This may or may not be a stealth response to ClimateGate, but the EPA has delayed their E15 Ethanol decision until Summer 2010. They say they want to do more tests.
Excerpt:
Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Bob Dinneen had a more negative view on EPA’s announcement. Speaking at the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association’s summit in Vancouver Tuesday, Dinneen said the EPA continues to send mixed signals about what it expects from the ethanol industry.
Dinneen said he doesn’t understand how EPA can push forward on a low-carbon fuel standard that penalizes ethanol for so-called international indirect land-use change effects, based on theory, yet also push for additional studies on a proposed move to E15.
An example of the theory of indirect land-use effects is that corn acres used for ethanol displace soybean acres, which boosts acres of soybeans in Brazil. Those increased soybean acres in Brazil displace pasture land, prompting cattle producers in Brazil to take down more rainforest land. Therefore, corn-based ethanol is a cause of rainforest depletion.
The EPA is considering land-use changes in developing low-carbon emissions standards for ethanol. Including ILUC calculations would make ethanol a more carbon-intensive fuel than if ILUC wasn’t taken into account.
“On one hand, we allow indirect land use to undermine ethanol on theory,” Dinneen said. “On the other hand, we have to test every weed whacker and lawn mower in the country. We’re not asking for the moon here.”
– http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=cdc37f49-a12b-4710-8d92-f41326abfc58

http://www.cbc.ca/photogallery/diversions/2799/

monkeyboy (07:36:43) :
Yes, titled ‘Show Your Working’: What ‘ClimateGate’ means – seems to be providing some real discussion at last, and mention of the term everyone else has been using for days.

Criminal investigations into scientific fraud in the UK:
http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/too-late-for-resignations-in-climategate-as-requests-for-charages-are-being-filed/

ClimateGate is back at the top of page Drudge’s +20 million hits a day front page
the 3 headlines
CLIMATEGATE: Scientist at center of e-mail controversy to step down…
Penn State Professor also under investigation…
Inhofe Asks Boxer to Probe Potential Scientific ‘Conspiracy’…
http://www.drudgereport.com/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Rigging to get a “Consensus”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html?_r=2
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/

Penn State is going to investigate Climategate (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html)
Particularly interesting is this paragraph:
Penn State officials, who will not discuss the matter, are investigating the controversy. If anything requires further inspection, the school will handle it, a spokesman tells the Daily Collegian. A panel will read every E-mail leaked and determine if climate change critics have any ground for their accusations, the report says.
“I would be disappointed if the university wasn’t doing all [it] can to get as much information as possible” about the controversy, Mann tells the Daily Collegian.
— So it looks like the school will follow the CRU crew practices of keeping everything undercover.
— Is Dr. Mann calling for Steve McIntyre to contribute testimony in the investigation?

American LameStreamMedia quiet but curious about what others are reporting about ClimateGate.
—–
Climate Change E-Mails Cry Out for a National Conversation
“Despite all this, ABC, CBS, and NBC have failed to even mention anything about this scandal on their news broadcasts. CNN has covered it, but has minimized any concerns. The Obama administration has also either dismissed these events as either irrelevant or just completely ignored them.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/30/john-lott-climate-change-emails-obama-copenhagen/
NBC and CBS Researching Climategate; Still No Coverage
“[O]ne of my stories got some attention from both NBC and CBS. The blog that they were so interested in was “Why is “Climategate” Getting Little to no Coverage?” CBS and NBC are looking at a story ridiculing the lack of coverage of climategate, while they themselves have not covered the story.”
– http://politicallore.com/blog/?p=597 –

Article on slashdot December 2.
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/12/02/1836208/Scientists-Step-Down-After-CRU-Hack-Fallout
Related article November 20.
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/09/11/20/1747257/Climatic-Research-Unit-Hacked-Files-Leaked

Global Warming Climagate, Fixing the Climate Data around the Policy
http://marketoracle.co.uk/Article15471.html

McKitrick on flawd Data in FinancialPost
http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2056988&p=1

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

Anthony (and the Mods),
Here is my logo design:
http://www.channelcatalina.com/cglogo
Tks! Jim

I don’t see the free-for-all part. This is from The Truthorator
Truthorator.com. The web site is very bare, so I’m not sure exactly who wrote it, but here goes:
Global Norming Concensus Proves Climate Strange Is Real
December 2nd, 2009 by admin
Using a highly reliable measuring system know as the five senses, human
beings in their billions have come to the conclusion, that the only
certainty about the weather on planet earth, is that it keeps on
changing in very strange ways. Some times hot, sometimes cold, sometimes
wet, sometimes dry. This mind blowing discovery that affects all our
lives has been dubbed Global Norming. Otherwise know as Climate Strange.
What effects this will have on future generations nobody knows, but one
thing everyone agrees on is that the effects of Global Norming will be
devastating.
To help alleviate the terrifying effects of Climate Strange a panel of
experts has been formed to collate scientific research from around the
world into a series of reports to the United Nations, detailing exactly
how strange Global Norming might be. As a result it has been found
without doubt, through a data modelling process called normalisation,
that the normality of strange climatic behaviour will continue for ever.
Everyone with a brain and even those without, now agree that this will
result in the complete annihilation of mankind at an unknown point in
the future. To ensure that this does not occur a system of global
governance or Globatorship has been formed to organise the
pre-annihilation of all peoples likely to be affected by the devastating
effects of Climate Strange – which politicians agree will occur in
direct relation to the amount pigmentation in their skin and/or money in
their bank account or pocket.
This is to be financed by a Hardon tax that will help facilitate the
study of the constantly rising and falling temparature and moisture
levels at the very center of the Global Norming phenomena. But
opposition is mounting as humans and animals alike, complain that Hardon
is essential to all life on earth. But the absense of Hardon in the
creation of plant life and in the upper atmosphere has left the
pro-human lobby without a voice at the negotiating table.
Agreement on action to combat Climate Strange, is being sought at the
highest levels at a summit in Copenhagen, where world leaders are
meeting to discuss how far they are willing to go to save the planet.
Through a show of normal behaviour that includes blocking out all
information to the five senses, while demonstrating their own Hardon
emission limits, they hope to convince each other and the world that
Climate Strange can be controlled by the members of a coming
Globatorship.
However concerns are growing that Global Norming theory is a sham after
scientists were caught acting extreme abnormally themselves, by
falsifying results and corrupting the review process to get more
funding. The climatology community has rallied round, stating that this
is in fact perfectly normal behaviour for scientists and therefore
confirms the Global Norming hypothesis, even as their credibility
continues to melt.
Despite this, world leaders are attempting to reassure the public that
should Hardon emmissions exceed mandated levels, the merging of the EU
and the UN into an EUgeNic Globatorship will guarantee pre-annihilation
for all, after the capture and trading of emissions, before Global
Norming gets out of control and things become even more strange.
Please forward this message via links and emails to all the presidents,
prime-ministers, senators, commissars, member of parliament,
ambassadors, rabbis, priests, imans, gurus and real people that you
know, to help them understand the absurdity of the United Nations
climate change agenda and open their senses to the strange
climatological normality that is the weather.

Dec 2, 2009, 8:01 P.M. ET
Climategate: Science Is Dying
Science is on the credibility bubble.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
Surely there must have been serious men and women in the hard sciences who at some point worried that their colleagues in the global warming movement were putting at risk the credibility of everyone in science. The nature of that risk has been twofold: First, that the claims of the climate scientists might buckle beneath the weight of their breathtaking complexity. Second, that the crudeness of modern politics, once in motion, would trample the traditions and culture of science to achieve its own policy goals. With the scandal at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, both have happened at once.
. . .
What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences. Postmodernism, a self-consciously “unprovable” theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences.
. . .
If the new ethos is that “close-enough” science is now sufficient to achieve political goals, serious scientists should be under no illusion that politicians will press-gang them into service for future agendas. Everyone working in science, no matter their politics, has an stake in cleaning up the mess revealed by the East Anglia emails. Science is on the credibility bubble. If it pops, centuries of what we understand to be the role of science go with it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html

Some more articles to peruse:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/
Good Op Ed by Dr Lindzen:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

CSIRO scientist resigns after climate report censorship.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-e6frfku0-1225806539742
Dr Spash advocates a direct tax on carbon.
The CSIRO said the report was in breach of its publication guidelines, which restrict scientists from speaking out on public policy.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JillianBandes/2009/12/03/democrats_censor_climate_skeptics_in_congress

Return to the index page | Earlier Emails | Later Emails
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice – YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please ! I’m trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
kettle
black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
message
so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
more
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Cheers
Phil
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:37:29 +0000
To: Christian Azar , christian.pfister@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
From: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: AW: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice
Cc: “‘David G. VICTOR'” , ‘Katarina Kivel’ ,
N.W.Arnell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, frtca@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, d.camuffo@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, scohen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pmfearn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jfoley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, pgleick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
harvey@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ahs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rwk@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rik.leemans@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, diana.liverman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mccarl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, lindam@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
rmoss@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ogilvie@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, barrie.pittock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
pollard@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nj.rosenberg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, crosenzweig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
j.salinger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, h.j.schellnhuber@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
F.I.Woodward@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, gyohe@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, leonid@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Steve et al,
I’ve been away this week until today. Although the responses so far all make valid
points, I
will add my thoughts. I should say I have been more involved in all the exchanges
between
Mike and MM so I’m probably biased in Mike’s favour. I will try and be impartial,
though, but
I did write a paper with Mike (which came out in GRL in Aug 2003) and we currently have
a long paper tentatively accepted by Reviews of Geophysics. With the latter all 4
reviewers
think the paper is fine, but the sections referring to MM and papers by Soon and
Baliunas
are not and our language is strong. We need to work on this.
Back to the question in hand:
1. The papers that MM refer came out in Nature in 1998 and to a lesser extent in GRL
in
1999. These reviewers did not request the data (all the proxy series) and the code. So,
acceding to the request for this to do the review is setting a VERY dangerous
precedent.
Mike has made all the data series and this is all anyone should need. Making model
code available is something else.
2. The code is basically irrelevant in this whole issue. In the GRL paper (in 2003 Mann
and Jones), we simply average all the series we use together. The result is pretty much
the same as MBH in 1998, Nature and MBH in 1999 in GRL.
3. As many of you know I calculate gridded and global/hemispheric temperature time
series
each month. Groups at NCDC and NASA/GISS do this as well. We don’t exchange codes
– we do occasionally though for the data. The code here is trivial as it is in the
paleo work.
MBH get spatial patterns but the bottom line (the 1000 year series of global temps) is
almost the same if you simply average. The patterns give more, though, when it comes to
trying to understand what has caused the changes – eg by comparison with models. MM
are only interested in the NH/Global 1000-year time series – in fact only in the MBH
work
from 1400.
4. What has always intrigued me in this whole debate, is why the skeptics (for want of
a better term) always pick on Mike. There are several other series that I’ve produced,
Keith Briffa has and Tom Crowley. Jan Esper’s work has produced a slightly different
series
but we don’t get bombarded by MM. Mike’s paper wasn’t the first. It was in Nature and
is well-used by IPCC. I suspect the skeptics wish to concentrate their effort onto one
person as they did with Ben Santer after the second IPCC report.
5. Mike may respond too strongly to MM, but don’t we all decide not to work with or
co-operate with people we do not get on with or do not like their views. Mike will say
that MM are disingenuous, but I’m not sure how many of you realise how vicious the
attack on him has been. I will give you an example.
When MM came out, we had several press calls (I don’t normally get press calls about
my papers unless I really work at it – I very rarely do). This was about a paper in
E&E, which when we eventually got it several days later was appalling. I found out
later that the authors were in contact with the reviewers up to a week before the
article
appeared. So there is peer review and peer review !! Here the peer review was done by
like-minded colleagues. Anyway, I’m straying from the point. Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
and I felt we should put something on our web site about the paper and directs people
to Mike’s site and also to E&E and the MM’s site. MM have hounded us about this for
the last four months. In the MM article, they have a diagram which says ‘corrected
version’ when comparing with MBH. We have seen people refer to this paper (MM)
as an alternative reconstruction – yet when we said this is our paragraph MM claim they
are not putting forward a new reconstruction but criticizing MBH 1998 !! We have
decided to remove the sentence on our web page just to stop these emails. But if a
corrected version isn’t a new or alternative reconstruction I don’t know what is.
So, in conclusion, I would side with Mike in this regard. In trying to be
scrupulously
fair, Steve, you’ve opened up a whole can of worms. If you do decide to put the Mann
response into CC then I suspect you will need an editorial. MM will want to respond
also.
I know you’ve had open and frank exchanges in CC before, but your email clearly shows
that you think this is in a different league. MM and E&E didn’t give Mann the chance
to
respond when they put their paper in, but this is a too simplistic. It needs to be
pointed
out in an editorial though – I’m not offering by the way.
I could go on and on ….
Cheers
Phil
At 10:36 15/01/2004 +0100, Christian Azar wrote:
Dear all,
I agree with most of what has been said so far. Reproducibility is the key word. If the
Mann el al material (to be) posted on the website is sufficient to ensure
reproducibility, then there is no compelling need to force them to hand it out. If not,
then the source code is warranted. Also, even if there is no compelling need to make the
source code public, doing it anyway would clearly be beneficial for the entire debate.
Yours,
Christian
——————————————————————–
Christian Azar
Professor
Department of physical resource theory
Chalmers
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=387&filename=1074277559.txt

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

http://www.henrypayne.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/1127ClimategateFictionUFSCOLOR.jpg

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/

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

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8392611.stm

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

I am now geting “climate gate scandal” as the first suggestion in Google search after typing “clim.”
6,300,00 hits.

huzzah!

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/

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

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

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

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!

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

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=570e6fbc-802a-23ad-4fe9-2dc2fcac8475&Issue_id=

How Much Longer Before Climategate Explodes?
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17535

One way to reach those not being served by the MSM might be to post to Yahoo Finance stock message boards. If you don’t have a Yahoo ID, it is free to sign up. After you post a few links, you will be locked out for a day or so, but it is worth it to get the word out. Just get on Yahoo finance and enter a stock symbol or name of the companey, then on the left margin click on “Message Board” Larger companies have higher message board activity.

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but interesting commentary at NYT…
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/03/climategate-as-rorschach-test/
Sorry if this is a repeat

I’m not sure why, but I don’t see Tips and Notes on my browser. I use Ubuntu with Firefox, Epiphany, and Galeon. Don’t see it on any of the three. Oh well …
Some guys want Algores Oscar. Sweet!
”
Top of the Ticket
Politics and commentary, coast to coast, from the Los Angeles Times
« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »
Take back Al Gore’s Oscar, two Academy members demand in light of Climategate
December 4, 2009 | 2:03 am
Ex-VP Democrat Al Gore clutches his 2007 Oscar–from his cold dead hands
No, it wouldn’t do anything for the environment.
But two Hollywood conservatives (yes, there are some) have called on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to rescind the prestigious, profitable gold Oscar statuette that it gave ex-Vice President Al Gore two years ago for the environmental movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”
Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd, both Academy members, are among a small, meandering pack of known political conservatives still believed to be on the loose in the liberal bastion of movie-making.
In 2007, the Academy sanctified Gore’s cinematic message of global warming with its famous statue, enriched his earnings by $100,000 per 85-minute appearance and helped elevate the Tennessean’s profile to win the Nobel Peace Prize despite losing the election battle of 2000 to a Texan and living in a large house with lots of energy-driven appliances.
Chetwynd and Simon were prompted to make their hopeless demand this week by the …
… leak two weeks ago of a blizzard of British academic e-mails purporting to show that scientists at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit systematically falsified data to document the appearance of global warming in recent years.
The university is reportedly investigating the claims, which added dry fuel to the never-ending political debate over whether the Earth really is warming as a result of human activity or if it’s just normal natural cycles and the debate is what’s heated. The demand to withdraw Gore’s award provides yet another opportunity to argue.
The startling leak comes at an inconvenient time, just before next week’s United Nations climate change meeting, which will cause an immense carbon footprint with thousands of people flying up or over to Denmark to talk about saving the environment.
These airplanes will include Air Force One with its primary passenger, President Obama, who’s returning to the Copenhagen scene where he didn’t help win the 2016 Summer Olympics for Chicago, which could do with a little global warming at this time of year.
Simon, a screenwriter who is also chief executive officer of Pajamas Media, a network of conservative online blogs, conceded he knew of no precedent for the Academy withdrawing a previously awarded Oscar, despite decades of Hollywood high jinks and worse. But, he added, “I think they should rescind this one.”
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/al-gore-oscar-global-warming.html

http://media.www.westerncourier.com/media/storage/paper650/news/2009/12/04/Opinion/Global.Warming.Theory.Doesnt.Hold.Water-3845870.shtml

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/post.aspx?bid=354&bpid=24483 an email that is being sent around APS members aparently. WUWT has covered the APS stance in the past so thought it may be relevant.

Skeptics Handbook II! Global Bullies Want Your Money
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics-handbook-ii/the_skeptics_handbook_II-sml.pdf

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/03/the-science-of-global-warming/comment-page-5/#comment-243313

I hope some of the climate guru’s here will take a look at this leaked email and see if it comes across as it does to me – a rather clear example of the ‘Team’ saying they are going to fake data. Not to mention it seems an admission that they’ve no clue with regard to why past temperatures don’t don’t support their preferred vision of a clear later 20th century rise in temps greater than any previously occurring… it also sure seems to me that its one more example of people supposedly doing independent research who are instead collaborating on how to fix the results to their preferred outcome.
Please see if there are any other even halfway reasonable explanations? In case there isn’t, I wanted folks to be aware of this set. There’s more at the thread, but I’ve copied a few of the emails below rather than the entire thing.
I’ve tried to bold what appear to me to be the most questionable statements, and added [my comments] in brackets (hopefully I don’t mess up the coding). I haven’t searched the emails for other possibly related emails/threads yet, but wanted to get this posted so some who understand the details discussed far better than I can take a look.
The email is at: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1069&filename=1257874826.txt
——————
From: Phil Jones
To: Gil Compo
Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data – One other thing!
Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009
Gil,
One other good plot to do is this. Plot land minus ocean. as a time series.
This should stay relatively close until the 1970s. Then the land should start moving away
from the ocean.
This departure is part of AGW. [or is it evidence of urban heat island? Are they saying ocean temp rise lags, therefore the divergence is reasonable and AGW? Or ?]The rest is in your Co2 increases.
Cheers
Phil
Gil,
These will do for my purpose. I won’t pass them on. I am looking forward to the draft
paper. As you’re fully aware you’re going to have to go some ways to figuring out what’s
causing the differences. [I believe they’re referring to why the temp reconstruction doesn’t match CRU & GISS in terms of the ‘hot’ years in late 1800, the 20’s & 30’s, etc.]
You will have to go down the sub-sampling, but I don’t think it is going to make much
difference. The agreement between CRU and GISS is amazing good, as already know. You ought
to include the NCDC dataset as well.
[1]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html the ERSST3b dataset.
In the lower two plots there appear to be two types of differences, clearer in the
NH20-70 land domain.
The first is when reanl20v2 differs for a single year (like a year in the last 1960s, 1967
or 1968) and then when it differs for about 10 years or so. It is good that it keeps coming
back. For individual years there are a couple of years in the first decade of the 20th
century (the 1900s).
The longer periods are those you’ve noticed – the 1920s and the 1890s. There is also
something up with the period 1955-65 and the 1970s. [something up with? Like, those years are hotter than they’d like, perhaps?]The 1920s seems to get back then go off
again from about 1935 to early 1940s. Best thing to try and isolate some of the reasons
would be maps for decades or individual years. For the 1920s I’d expect the differences to
be coming from Siberia as opposed to Canada. I think the 1890s might be just down to
sparser coverage. The 1890s is the only period where the difference brings your pink line
back towards the long-term zero. All the others have the pink line more extreme than the
HadCRUT3/GISS average.
Rob Allan just called. I briefly mentioned this to him. He suggested maps of data input
during these times. He also suggested looking at the spread of the ensembles. Your grey
spread is sort of this, but this is a different sort of ensemble to what Rob implied you
might have?
One final thing – don’t worry too much about the 1940-60 period, as I think we’ll be
changing the SSTs there for 1945-60 and with more digitized data for 1940-45. [CHANGING THE SST’s?? What could justify that? This looks like smoking gun to me, but not at all sure if I”m not just reading into things?] There is also
a tendency for the last 10 years (1996-2005) to drift slightly low – all 3 lines. This may
be down to SST issues. [low, therefore it must be wrong. All 3 of them. Right? Because that doesn’t look as good for AGW, does it]
Once again thanks for these! Hoping you’ll send me a Christmas Present of the draft!
Cheers
Phil
At 20:45 09/11/2009, you wrote:
Phil,
1. I didn’t get the attached.
Both version1 and version2 use HadISST1.1 for SST and sea ice.
2. time-varying CO2, volcanic aerosols, and solar variability (11-year cycle until 1949,
“observed” after that) are specified.
Attached is a research figure. Please do not share.
In it, I have plotted the annual average (top panel) 50S to 70N global average 2m
temperature from 20CRv2, SST/2m temperature from HadCRU3, SST/2m temperature from
GISTEMP 1200km, and the 90% range of 2m air temperature from 25 CMIP3 models that can be
extended beyond their 20C3M runs with SRESA1B. The ensemble mean is the thick gray
curve. Averages are July-June.
(middle panel) 50S to 70N land-only 2m temperature from 20CRv2, 2m temperature from
CRUTEM3, 2m temperature from GISTEMP land-only 1200km. CMIP3 data is the same.
(bottom panel) same as middle panel but for Northern Hemisphere land-only (20N to 70N).
Anomalies are with respect to 1901-2000. period is July 1891 to June 2005. The CRU
(HadCRU) curves are supposed to be black.
No data has been masked by another dataset’s observational availability, but missing
values are not included in that dataset’s area-weighted average.
Your ERA-Interim finding about it being warmer seems to be the case in the late 19th
century but not the early 1920’s.
Note that the only thermometer data in the magenta curve (20CRv2) is the HadISST1.1 over
oceans. The two landonly panels are independent of thermometers, aside from the
specified SSTs.
There are some very interesting differences, particulary late-19th century, 1920s, and
WWII.
Correlations (I told you this was research, right?). The second pair is for linearly
detrended data.
GLOBE (70N-50S)
reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun
hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.94370
reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun
hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.82017
reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun
gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.95284
reanl20v2.70n50s.landocean.juljun
gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.85808
hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun
gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.99088
hadcru3.70n50s.landocean.juljun
gistemp_combined1200.70n50s.landocean.juljun 0.97383
GLOBAL LAND (70N-50S)
reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun
cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.85167
reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun
cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.68755
reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.81469
reanl20v2.70n50s.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.60152
cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.98050
cru3.70n50s.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.70n50s.landonly.juljun 0.95316
NH Land (20N-70N)
reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.82956
reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.67989
reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.79247
reanl20v2.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.59900
cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.98001
cru3.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun
gistemp_land1200.nh_nohigh.landonly.juljun 0.95880
I thought that correlations of 0.8 to 0.85 were high for an independent dataset this
long. I think that these are higher than the proxies?
The global isn’t that fair because we have the HadISST.
The correlations are about the same as for AMIP runs, though. See
Hoerling M., A. Kumar, J. Eischeid, B. Jha (2008), What is causing the variability in
global mean land temperature?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L23712,
doi:10.1029/2008GL035984.
It will be interesting to see if the masked numbers change.
Let me know if you need anything else on this for your essay material.
best wishes,
gil