Sometimes a few words sums up this scandal best....just the last sentence of todays Wall Street Journal editorial regarding Climategate,"The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim."

The Climate Models are Wrong!!

Let's be clear about facts that are fully supported by direct measurements. No hacked E-mail or computer models have any effect on these facts:

Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990.

Global temperatures have risen in good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Despite lies about recent cooling, this decade will be the hottest on record for tens of thousands of years.

A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate.

Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models.

This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions.

If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly.

Finally, if you want the United States to be a world class power in the next decade we must start competing with China and Europe on electric cars, carbon capture technology, solar panels and solar thermal energy, wind energy (at least we have GE). All of these are multi-billion dollar growth industries.

Biggest result of the delayers and deniers? Guaranteeing the US is a second class economy.

And please spare me the anti-capitalist rants about Al Gore!

Consider this:

Most scientists doing climate research are not/were not involved in setting the basic premise that CO2 is the driver.
That was established by a very small elite group.

The rest begin with acceptance of that premise and proceed to study effects and consequences or correlations to support it.

It is therefore completely plausible that the majority would honestly believe in what they are supporting without ever having had any part in determining it.

They were conned as well.
I feel genuine sympathy for them. They will suffer as well and their only crime was trusting the ring leaders.

We are now seeing many reexamining the issue and coming out against the false consensus.

It’s never too late to admit being wrong and take a stand for integrity in Science.

I would like to point out that even the most ardent supporters of AGW agree that the suppresion of opposition viewpoints is not productive to the science of AGW.
The majority of the skeptics on this blog have,over the years,made known that this is one of the reasons for our skeptism.
And how many times have AGWers work been questioned then soon be proven to have been manipulated to suit the providers viewpoint.
Only a narrow minded person will look at the evidence against AGW and brush it aside as nonsense.

tHOSE OF US ON THIS BLOG THAT ARE

Climate change is an issue that we are about to embark on spending billions, if not trillions to fix. We have to have the facts straight. If, as it appears, there was a manipulation of climate data to enhance personal agendas there should be a thorough review of the climate data, the proccesses by which climate data is collected and interpreted, and the individuals responsible for these processes. Anyone implicated in any wrongdoing should be penalized both financially and professionally.

Gary Walker

HarryL | November 28, 2009 12:51 PM

Only a narrow minded person will look at the evidence against AGW and brush it aside as nonsense.

Scientists (and others) had best heed your advice as such a concept SHOULD be central to their profession. However, scientists and ESPECIALLY others outside the profession ought to also take the converse to heart:

Only a narrow minded person will look at the evidence [for] AGW and brush it aside as nonsense.

As always, between the extremes is where real life--and real science--takes place.

Getting Warm:
Yes, co2 emmissions are up, but co2 ppm are not as high as the early 1800's.
Temps right now are not as warm as the Roman Warm Period, nor as warm as the temps after the D-0 early in the Holocene period.
Sea levels have NOT been rising for 5 years. The long term mean RATE of sea level rise has been approx 1.8mm/year. Within that mean the rise rate has been higher and lower, but the long term mean has not been broken.
The area of sea ice melting in 2007-2009 is not anything new. I will refer you to the American Weather Bureau reports of the 1920's through the 1940's. 1944 was so ice free in the Arctic that the actual Northern Northwest Passage was sailed. Has not been done since.
The temp rise/fall of the late 1900's is nothing new. Ref Alley. I do NOT hope for any rise/fall that he has found to hit anytime soon as well.

I am sorry to burst your bubble, but your facts are not born out with current metrics of measurement.

GettingWarm:
Good Grief man, where have you been?

The only thing you said that is correct is:
"The Climate Models are Wrong!! "

And to state ” Despite lies about recent cooling” only shows you haven’t been paying attention.

Your guys clearly admitted to the cooling and even indicated intense frustration about not being able to explain it.

You will simply have to do Much better than that now.
The jig is up and nobody accepts propaganda at face value any more.

CO2 is plant food and entirely beneficial to the biosphere.

Finally, if you want the United States to be a world class power in the next decade we must start competing with China and Europe on electric cars, carbon capture technology, solar panels and solar thermal energy, wind energy (at least we have GE). All of these are multi-billion dollar growth industries.

REPLY: I CAN'T HEAR YOU??????

Biggest result of the delayers and deniers? Guaranteeing the US is a second class economy.

REPLY: No, wise guy. You want to guarantee the U.S. as a Second (and lower) class economy? Keep voting for people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Gore. That's how!

Love and Kisses from the center of the universe:

Knuckles. Proud member of the MOB.

"The fact is that we can�t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can�t."

Clearly, the reality of CO2 warming is not dramatic enough to suit the AGW activists. They have to manipulate data and the message to make it alarming enough to scare the masses.

Getting warm,

All of your examples are based, formulated and supported buy the very fraud just revealed in the released emails. The climate has been cooling and to believe your bs you would have to believe that all the weather reporters around the world conspired to report cooler temps on average through out this entire year, not to mention on of the coldest winters on record last season. Talk about a blind and sheeple follower of global warming. What will kill the US economy and prosperous economies around the world will be the very bill,regulations and idiots pushing these lies. Its a fact that only a mental midget would deny now, but I guess when you find out your life's purpose is a fraud people will defend it to the point of making themselves look insane. Using Junk science to prove junk science isn't a like has got to be a definition of insane, lol. Global warming my ,,!,, .

Climategate reveals the 'peer review' process and good-ole-boy club of global warming protagonists for what it is. It is collusion. It is preselecting some data to the exclusion of all data. It is hiding raw data from those who wish to test the validity of the gw theory. It is disdain for all antagonists. It is failure to recognize that when a theory cannot hold up to scrutiny, it is time for a new theory to take its place.

For the IPCC, its contributors and supporters, CO2 appears to have exclusive importance to gw. Meanwhile, the titanic effects of the Sun and planetary mechanics are totally ignored. The elephant in the room is overlooked, while the flea on the elephant's rear end gets all the attention.

How long will this contrived gw non-crisis be perpetuated by the sensationalistic news media, politicians compelled to rescue us from non-existent hobgoblins, the green movement and alternative energy cottage industries that sprang up out of nowhere, and scientists who make a living feeding from the public trough of gw grant money?

Gary | November 28, 2009 12:49 PM --- That bit about CO2 was established in the 19th century. There were not so many physicists back tehn, so yes, an small elite group. Since then matters were reworked quantum mechanically and the same conclusion was reached; this time by a rather larger, not-quite-so-elite group.

You could read about it for yourself in "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
after reading Andy Revkin's review:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63

To Getting Warm:

The "facts" you cite are merely unchallenged statistics that dare not be challenged lest one be branded politically incorrect or a denier or any of the other name-calling engaged in by those who are incredibly certain of their righteousness on this issue. When one is as certain as many who have embraced AGW as their cause celebre, I am reminded of those who were just as certain that post-Katrina hurricane seasons would just get worse and worse. Instead, just the opposite has been true. The bottom line is that human hubris leads us to believe that we understand how a climate system that is dependent upon a multitude of variables, many of which we are unaware, works and that we humans can actually impact such a system. The more we know, the more we recognize that there is more to know.

YOU MIGHT THINK THIS IS CRAZY BUT I PROMISES THE PLANET IS FIXING IT'S SELF.OVER THE NEXT 2 YEARS THE PLANET WILL BE FIX.GOD IS ON THE PLANET RIGHT NOW WALKING IN BETWEEN ALL THE PEOPLE.GETTING TO KNOW YOU AND LEARN ABOUT YOU.HE IS THE END.THE PLANET WILL BE FIX BY 2012.THAT'S WHAT 2012 IS ABOUT .A UNVAILING OF WHO GOD IS.AND YES HE IS HERE.PROMISE,THAT'S WHY THE WHEATHER IS DIFFERENT THIS YEAR.IT'S GOING TO GET GREEN.GOD KINGDOM IS COMING TO EARTH.HE BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE .

THANK YOU PETER

no offense to Katie F., but regarding the accuweather staff, it should be Joe B. doing the interview with Michael M.

however, I imagine Michael M. would not willing.

Anybody with an axe to grind on this issue, no matter how big an axe, can use the purloined emails to advance cogent criticism to a heavily slanted ear ready to hear and echo their complaints. Of course Zorita is going to voice a complaint on Morano's propagandistic-to-the-max site. Collusion? Research colleagues exchange email communications. Blackmail? Ridiculous. Everyone is keying on the Climate Research incident, where a skeptic-friendly editor (de Freitas) was letting lousy science papers get published. If you're playing in a league and you can show that one of the referees is doing a bad job refereeing, don't you have a right to complain to the league office that the officiating isn't fair? One bad umpire or referee or line judge affects every player and every team in the league. Likewise for science. If bad science gets into the journals, it calls into question the validity and quality of the good science in the journals. Thus is the public's perception of the accuracy of science weakenend. And as it declines, then it is possible for charlatans and clowns to publish back-of-the-envelope analyses on this free-for-all we call the Internet, and claim that they have as much validity as anything in an esteemed journal --- and via the network of pass-this-around blogs that are read by a gullible public that NEEDS to be fed this disinformation for constant affirmation of their sociopolitical viewpoint, such chicanery starts to acquire a shallow veneer of legitimacy and thus is bestowed a further power to mislead.

IN the paragraph you included, Curry nails it:

"As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc. The reaction of the climate tribes to the political assault has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation from politicized advocacy groups. The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I'm sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception)."

Got that, everyone out there that keeps asking the same old tired, answered litany of skeptical questions; each of which is thought to be the game-changer, the "ONE" that refutes the foundational aspects of global warming and reverts us back to the Dark Ages when nothing was known and the vagaries of weather were attributed to the emotional lives of a pantheon of gods? What you see in these messages is not the collapse of this science, but the real communications of a group of scientists disgusted to the point of visceral frustration that a public that they are trying to inform is being so misled by forces who have neither foresight or compassion for the generations to come who will suffer from our dance of dithering. Resign? Give me a break. These gentlemen will be vindicated in the short-term and the long-term; unfortunately, their vindication in the long-term will demonstrate to the wrong side, the starboard side, the disbelieving, the unknowing, and the inaptly motivated hordes who are clamoring for the badges and necks of them -- that this targeted group of scientists was actually right. And when that happens, the hordes will abruptly become supplicants, seeking the wisdom of science -- even some of these scientists -- to save them from their previous path of environmental disdain and to somehow salvage a viable future for their progeny on this beleaguered planetary abode.

Funny; I still remember back when the S&C MSU temperature series didn't show a warming trend. This was the keystone, the linchpin that invalidated the influence of CO2 upon the temperature of the Earth. And when lo a trend was suddenly apparent and this bastion fell, the besieged skeptics fell back to the inner Keep, the core of the troposphere, where a supposed necessary signal must be ascertained to establish the validity of theory and model; and if it is not there, they say -- despite the vagaries of model, theory and observation, which they neither understand or care about in their haste to judge and condemn -- then the scientific edifice is invalidated and Apollo and his chariot is the only important influence that need be considered.

Because in fact this is wrong, humanity holds Phaeton's reins (worth the click); if we do not control that which we can control now, the fate of future generations will become uncontrollable.

GettingWarm, repeat after me: correlation is not causation.
Everyone together, now: correlation is not causation.

As I said a few posts back: Show me the study that establishes the percentages of warming due to each of the following: greenhouses gases, land-use changes, the urban heat island effect and the poor siting of stations and I'll look at it with an open mind.

For those of you overjoyed with Climategate, remember that Big Brother won't give up without a fight.
Right now, I've seen nothing about it on my wire for six days. The tactic, comrades, is: Ignore it and it will go away.
You know about it, but you are an insignificant percentage of the electorate.

I saw a great post on a Christian Science Monitor article which said that we now know that "Global Warming is Mann made."

My interpretation of some of the leaked emails is that some of these scientists love the attention they have received and don't want anyone outside of their little group to ruin it for them. No pesky climateaudit.org audits of their models, no pesky papers that dispute the "consensus" can reach the "peer reviewed" and finally no measurable data can interfere with the models they worked so hard to develop. I suspect there is some jealousy of Al Gore who filmed a cheesy powerpoint with a number of points that are unsupported by the "consensus" and received an Academy Award and shared a Nobel Peace Prize with the IPCC.

Stop reporting about what other people think instead of telling us what you think.

Reply: I gave a short opinion early last week on the story. I try to limit my opinions on the subject since my job is "moderator" of the blog.

In this case I do think it is important to see what other climate scientists think about this story.

Sigurdur | November 28, 2009 2:00 PM

1. By all accounts I've researched, CO2 levels are anywhere between 80-90ppm higher than they were at the beginning of the 20th Century. Do you have a different source of information you can refer me to?

2. Do you have a link to the AWB reports that indicate that the Arctic had the same level (or less) of ice during the summer as it does today? I doubt your assertion.

3. Your assertion that the Northwest Passage has not been sailed since 1944 is completely and ridiculously false, as is the implication that it was ice-free that year. The Larsen Expedition of 1944 did not take the northernmost route, nor was Larsen's trip entirely ice-free.

Here's an excerpt from the University of Calgary site on Larsen's expeditions:

"Traveling west along the coast of Alaska, the St. Roch found itself in a battle against the ice as it tried to reach Bering Strait before it was locked in for the winter."

The Northwest Passage has been sailed many times since then, including several voyages through the main northern channel by commercial vessels these past three years. These vessels were not accompanied by icebreakers, nor did they encounter any ice. In contrast, Amunden's Gjoa and Larsen's St. Roch WERE icebreakers, and as historical documents will attest, there was no shortage of ice on either trip.

Gary,
Cite your sources for just one of your opinions!
Try this one:
Most scientists doing climate research are not/were not involved in setting the basic premise that CO2 is the driver.
That was established by a very small elite group.

Almost every major national science organization and 12 international academies of science state this as a given. It was consensus opinion in the IPCC, which won a Nobel prize.

What is the credentials of people your are citing?

The interview with Dr. Mann will not be credible unless it is conducted by Joe Bastardi, IMHO.

As expected, the misinformation machine has been amped up to offset the email scandal. Today in my paper there's a large article, "In Africa, warming leads to warring." Apparently tribes are fighting over disappearing water and pasture land caused, of course, by global warming. Here's a quote, "Maximum readings in Kenya's Rift Valley have risen by more than 5 degrees in the last 20 years" Maximum readings? I'm sure no one really knows what that means. Soon we'll hear that squirrels are resorting to cannibalism because of a lack of nuts.

Interestingly, the largest paper in my state did a little poll, "Do researchers' leaked emails disprove global warming?" 60% of the respondents said yes. And that's in Connecticut, one of the most liberal states you'll find.

"Almost every major national science organization and 12 international academies of science state this as a given. It was consensus opinion in the IPCC, which won a Nobel prize."

ALL of the computer models (as projected 5 years ago) are WAY OFF their temperature predictions. Those models assume CO2 as the driver for warming.
The CO2 level has increased as predicted, but the temperature has NOT.

Do you see that consensus opinion IS NOT A DRIVER FOR GLOBAL WARMING?

GettingWarm:

The Climate Models are Wrong!!

Yes, the climate models are wrong. They cannot make predictions about the futures and are adjusted every 5 years or so by the IPCC to correct deviations from the actual reality.

Let's be clear about facts that are fully supported by direct measurements. No hacked E-mail or computer models have any effect on these facts:

Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990.

Yes, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are higher. So what? CO2 is not a pollutant, is beneficial to plant life on this planet, and makes up a tiny portion of our atmosphere. Also, human emissions account for around 5% of total emissions into the biosphere.

Global temperatures have risen in good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Despite lies about recent cooling, this decade will be the hottest on record for tens of thousands of years.

Wrong. First, you have no objective evidence about the global temperature profile over the past century. After a decade of hiding the data Phil Jones claims to have destroyed it for lack of storage space. The US data certainly does not show any warming since the 1930s. The 1930s were actually warmer than the 'scary' 1990s and the recent warming comes from an 'adjustment' to the raw data that hides the lack of temperature trend in the raw data.

A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate.

First, they do not. At the beginning of 2009 global sea ice level was at the satellite era mean. The fact that 1940s era aeroplanes that landed on the surface of a glacier were found several hundred feet below the surface suggests that the ice sheets are not in danger of melting away. So is the fact that the original Antarctic stations are now buried under several meters of ice.

Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models.

It hasn't. Summer melting is highly volatile and depends on winds and currents more than it does on air temperatures. The current season shows that ice cover increased since 2007 and there isn't very much good data for more than a decade to compare current levels to the past.

The Arctic is melting scare is not new. Newspapers in the 1920s were giving the same story to their readers when warm ocean currents and changed wind patterns accelerated melting for a time. The fears dissolved when conditions changed and the ice levels recovered.

This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

The IPCC models are not very good at predicting anything so it is not surprising that they missed the actual ice cover. They also missed the fact that the warming stopped and that we have had a cooling trend for the past decade.

Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions.

Actually, the satellites show that the sea level increase has stalled and show no evidence of acceleration.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/uc_seallevel_2009r2.png

And I do not see how anyone can look at a 34 cm increase per century as unusual or scary given the actual history of sea level changes during periods in which there was no material human influence on climate.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly.

What global warming? You have no empirical evidence to show a warming trend in excess to what we would expect when coming out of a cold period like the LIA. As I said, CRU has admitted that it has no raw data to support its reconstructions and data from around the world shows that warming is coming from a signal added to the data rather than actual measurements.

Finally, if you want the United States to be a world class power in the next decade we must start competing with China and Europe on electric cars, carbon capture technology, solar panels and solar thermal energy, wind energy (at least we have GE). All of these are multi-billion dollar growth industries.

Great. The US should follow Spain and destroy 2 jobs for every one it created in the green industries. How does that hep Americans again?

Biggest result of the delayers and deniers? Guaranteeing the US is a second class economy.

I think that it is you who is in denial. You ignore the lack of empirical data to support your beliefs and ignore the fact that we are not warming but cooling this decade. You also ignore your own lack of economics and advance an ideological rather than a rational argument.

And please spare me the anti-capitalist rants about Al Gore!

Gore is clearly a capitalist. He will make a log of money from carbon trading, energy subsidies, etc., as will all of the rent seeking capitalists who support him. The issue is not capitalism but free markets.

I suppose the timing and targets of ClimateGate, coming just before the Copenhagen summit, is just coincidental.

What's next, deniers? Will you take to the streets of Copenhagen with clubs to punish all those "elite" scientists? Do any of you have the courage to reject the mob violence that HarryL and the LaRouchians advocate?

If any of you truly care about science, perhaps you might follow the lead of Judy Curry and realclimate, and actually contribute your energy towards improving the data collection and processing methods. The code is public, the data is public, it's all right there in front of you.

I wonder if any of you read the quote from Eduardo Zorita:
I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

Let's hear the instant replay of that...

They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of.

There is real, difficult, time-consuming work to be done. After you've finished tarring and feathering Michael Mann, I wonder how many of you will put down your clubs and actually contribute.

Most scientists doing climate research are not/were not involved in setting the basic premise that CO2 is the driver.
That was established by a very small elite group.

Actually, it has yet to be established. There is no empirical evidence that shows that CO2 is a major driver of temperature. In fact, the empirical evidence points the other way and shows that it the change in temperature that causes CO2 levels to go up a few hundred years later.

Is the ExxonMobil, CEI, Imhofe/Morano excuse ever to end? No matter how long the screed, and notwithstanding the deft deployment of bold type, there is no excuse for what has been done. And, yes, mann, it doesn't take a climate scientist to understand the implications of "delete them, and tell others to delete theirs." That's inside jargon for what, "Uphold the highest standards so that our work cannot be called into doubt."???

Any resignations yet?

Have climate scientists ever been funded by any political apparatus that has a specific goal in mind? To paraphrase the estimable Carville, "It's about the [command] economy, stupid!"

HarryL:

I would like to point out that even the most ardent supporters of AGW agree that the suppresion of opposition viewpoints is not productive to the science of AGW.

There is no support for AGW if the data used by the warmers is allowed to be reviewed by the sceptics. And if the sceptic papers are allowed to be published there is no way to respond to them because the sceptics' position includes emperical data and methods that are transparent.

David Benson;

Good Post.... But!

The CO2 warming effect is universally accepted.
It is also universally understood that it does not have the capacity to cause the "catastorphic" warming that AGW suggests.
For that, you need Models that use hugh feedback assumptions.
Those Assumprions are the crux of the problem.
They are not universally accepted.
Or proven or even well supported and indeed the latest science suggests they are not even possible.

So pointing to a 19th century science to support your argument wll only work for people who have not been paying attention.

GettingWarm: Stop being silly.
"Prove the obviou"s is a common tactic of bankrupt AGW zealots.

And the statements of organisations have been shown to be political more than oftne enough. they are meaningless and you know it.

And don't get me started on the Silly Concensus fraud and Nobel Prize nonsense.
It's all been dealt with ad nosioum.

GettingWarm:

Just to be silly too. I will use the most common AGW tactic.

You prove I am wrong.

LOL

Oakden Wolf | November 28, 2009 11:02 PM:

"And when lo a trend was suddenly apparent and this bastion fell, the besieged skeptics fell back to the inner Keep"

But NOW we know the reason for the sudden appearance of the trend. It was Mann made!

You however, cling to "boys will be boys" and discredited charts and model outputs. Since you seem to be devoid of any skeptical acuity, we can dismiss you as non scientific. GK

Now... What about all the forged data/graphics or misrepresentations of the climate when they all start on 1998. Tell me no one did that. Tell me that is better than the hockey stick going up. For me it's the hockey stick going down. Is it better ?

So much lies thrown here from people not knowing what they're talking about - just cutting/pasting articles from political organizations or think tank.

Someone said ''Climategate reveals the 'peer review' process and good-ole-boy club . You really don't understand the meening of ''peer review''. Sure you can have a flood of pros - but hell you also get all the cons. An Editor can flawed the process by inviting ''pros'' reviewers, but then he will loose credibility - no one (editors) wants that, it's there bread and butter.

People here think they can have a definite answer to a complex issue like climate or the atmosphere in few weeks or months. These are life long projects - publishing is taking years of work, and the reviews also takes years. You're looking at a process that can take 10, 20, 30 years. Of course you can argue they did tweak the data, but you can't argue that it is warming - travel the world and see for yourself, don't look only in your area in a single year, look elsewhere and on long period.

If someone from the ''Global Colling'' theory has significant scientific informations - then why is he not publishing it ? Is it because he also get the intense frustration about not being able to explain why it is so warm while it should be cooling ?

Early in november all the skeptics and deniers applauded because Oct. 2009 has been one of the coolest one. Now that we know that Nov. 2009 will be one of the warmest ever, you'll see the same group of people shouting about the invalid data, the bias, the weather stations, the sun, and god knows what. Both events/conclusions are from the same source of data. Why is it ok when it suits your needs ? Is'nt the same game you are accusing the AGW proponents to play ?

To the Wise Guy Knukkle and the US superiority complex. You're already in a second class economy - you're economy is being held by the Chinese and technically you're almost in bankrupt. Better get used to it, your good right wing's gov. sent you there. Believe it or not, Obama's actions saved you (the US). But there's a price to that - sooner or later you'll have to pay for it. Whyle your struggling to keep afloat, the rest of the world (still your superiority complex) is moving forward at a very fast pace - and you don't have the economics to follow.

Journalista: "Show me the study that establishes the percentages of warming due to each of the following: greenhouses gases, land-use changes, the urban heat island effect and the poor siting of stations and I'll look at it with an open mind."

Based on the latest combined surface and satellite lower atmospheric temperature data graph using 1850-1900 as the base (0C) anomaly level and applying particular temperature offsets between the data sets, global temperatures have basically increased about 0.80-0.85C since 1900: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/offset:0.39/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1850/offset:0.3/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1970/offset:0.54/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1970/offset:0.54/mean:12

GREENHOUSE GASES - (0.75C-0.79C)

Let's look at this graph:
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/figure-3.jpg

that comes from an article put together by Roy Spencer:
http://climatesci.org/2008/04/22/internal-radiative-forcing-and-the-illusion-of-a-sensitive-climate-system-by-roy-spencer/

Based on that chart, the amount of temperature change for the past century is 0.69C. He also calculated the internal radiative term for that change as 1.3 W m-2 per degree K or to put it another way, 0.77K per W m-2. This means that for every 1 W m-2 change, there is a 0.77K temperature change based on the radiative forcing term. I prefer using a range of values to account for some rounding errors of the radiative forcing term. Therefore, using a range of 1.26 W m-2 per K to 1.34 W m-2 per K to represent the original 1.3 W m-2 per K, I derive a range of potential temperature change of 0.75K to 0.79K per W m-2.

Now let's look at the various radiative components that are taken into account in the calculations:
http://www.eoearth.org/image/IPCC_Climate_Drivers.jpg

where the net anthropogenic contribution is shown to occur in a range from 0.6 W m-2 to 2.4 W m-2.

Based on a paper published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society last March:"
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/10.1175_2008BAMS2634.1.pdf

the following chart shows the new update to earth's energy budget based on the latest observations and analyses based on the newly established roles of clouds and greenhouse gases:
http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/kiehl4.jpg?w=480&h=350

and indicates a net absorption of 0.9 W m-2 into the total earth-atmosphere system. This is in the lower end of the net anthropogenic contribution range of 0.6 W m-2 to 2.4 W m-2.

Taking this net anthropogenic contribution of 0.9 W m-2 and multiplying that by the 0.75K to 0.79K range per W m-2 gives you an estimated range of 0.67K to 0.71K.

Since that 0.9 W m-2 net absorption level represents the 2000-2004 period, since then with the additional increase of CO2 concentrations from 372 ppm to 386 ppm, the net absorption is closer to 1.0 W m-2 presently. This would mean that the net warming due to present CO2 concentrations is presently around 0.75K to 0.79K.

URBAN HEAT ISLAND - (0.05C)

Using a web link from ICECAP: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/URBAN_HEAT_ISLAND.pdf
The equation they came up with is 2.2 * LOG (population in billions). Since the world population is now approaching 6.9 billion, the equation works out to be 1.85C

The ICECAP paper tries to address (incorrectly) the world population and land coverage. If you more correctly use the population density from the following web link: http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/popdensity.htm
the world's population occupies approximately 10 percent of the land area (29 percent of the earth's surface). This works out to be 2.9 percent of the earth's surface and not the full 29 percent the ICECAP paper uses to overestimate the potential urban heat island effect.

Taking that 2.9 percent times the 1.85C from the earlier equation, this means that the combined world-wide impact of urban heat islands is 0.029 * 1.85C = 0.05C

LAND USE CHANGES - Most of the likely temperature changes here are already accounted for in the urban heat island effect.

POOR SITING OF STATIONS - Not independently relevant since it is already addressed by the urban heat island effect and the RSS and UAH satellite data is not affected by ground level siting issues. Looking at this shorter time scale global temperature plot, the relative temperature changes for both ground level and satellite data since 1978 are very similar with the satellite data showing more variance from cyclical maximums and minimums:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1978/offset:0.39/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1978/offset:0.3/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1978/offset:0.54/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1978/offset:0.54/mean:12

I agree with those in Christopher Booker's report - just fire em all - don't burn them at the stake just like they did to the skeptics some centuries ago during another little ice age.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009
excerpt
Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, �16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for �14.99 plus �1.25 p & p.

Always remember that:
Liberals always generate the exact opposite of their stated intent.

If your still defending the science of AGW after the following statement.YOU have no CONSCIENCE and YOUR CREDIBILITY is WORTHLESS:

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.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

Dear Gettingwarm,

Winning a Nobel prize is NOT a credential, just means the it has the support of the loony left. Obama won one recently before he even accomplished anything (Obama himself must think winning a Nobel prize is a farce).

And "consensus opinion" is just another nice term for dictatorship (any dissenters are silenced, ostracized, etc). It exactly describes how Stalin and Mao ruled their respective coutries during their dictatorships.

Bill

Even today we are still hearing statements come out of the White House that the science is settled. I believe that it is more like "The Science is Shredded" or likely being shredded right now.

Journalista | November 28, 2009 11:10 PM --- Since the surface of the globe is more ocean than land, the majority of the data going into global temperature products is SSTs; station siting is not an issue with (at least) daily logs from ships at sea; neither is UHI.

Attribution studies can be found in the IPCC AR4 WG1 report; land-use change is minor.

just out of curiosity
why do all the "emails" have the exact (down to the second) same file modification date?
and if they were all taken directly from a mailserver
why do they all have different formats for the header info?
with some only having partial headers, like just the to, from and x-spam value (the x-spam value by the way, only appears in full headers, not partial ones)

- a mailserver admin

It seems Dr Zorita may have an axe to grind as a co-author of the paper at the center of this episode

GettingWarm,
That was a Nobel PEACE Prize, not a Science-based award. You know, the same POLITICAL group that gave the Peace Prize to Obama for doing nothing! If that is your best argument, you just lost game, set and match!

The integrity and honor of those "scientists" involved in this cover up are ruined forever. They cannot be trusted.

Unfortunately for Judy Curry, CRU Director Phil Jones just admitted that the raw data for temps was destroyed. It is all gone, along with his and others' reputations.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The raw data was thrown out. How convenient.

What is the credentials of people your are citing?

Why appeal to authority when you have the objective data to show what is going on? The warmers have no objective evidence so they make up a story about consensus and get a few people to go along because they control the grants that fund research. If they had actual evidence they would not hesitate to use it. The fact that they do not and have to rely on a political organization like the IPCC tells us all we need to know about the subject.

Getting Warm-

Most deniers can't get there minds around anything that tries to change them. They want to drive their cars until all of the oil is gone.

Great radio comment by 'Dave Ross' on CBS radio. He said that America is already entrenched in 'Socialism' by the fact that our military efforts are usually concerned with protecting our 'foreign oil rights', which is Government subsidy of oil through military means.

Sounds like 'Socialism' to me also. Wake up deniers your oil is supported by "socialist" tactics. LOL

Too late for 'climategate', it's not going away.

Gary-"It's never too late to admit being wrong and take a stand for integrity in Science."

GAry-"You will simply have to do Much better than that now.
The jig is up and nobody accepts propaganda at face value any more.

CO2 is plant food and entirely beneficial to the biosphere."

Getting Warm says-"Finally, if you want the United States to be a world class power in the next decade we must start competing with China and Europe on electric cars, carbon capture technology, solar panels and solar thermal energy, wind energy (at least we have GE). All of these are multi-billion dollar growth industries.

REPLY: I CAN'T HEAR YOU?????? (Knuckle dragger)

Biggest result of the delayers and deniers? Guaranteeing the US is a second class economy.

Been following weather for the past 60 years...
Another example of how money corrupts... Hard to believe we can warm the earth but we can't protect crops from a freeze when a cold front moves through.. Look up see the "Sun" at times it is hotter and colder those rays hit the earth..
Sun warms up earth warms..sun cooler earth cooler... Sun spot activity has been low..earth has been cooler..
What has happened to the age of reason.. I was in college in the 70's and remember the mantra about Ice Age.. Seems to me the same fellow who was saying that is now saying Global warming..
Only warming is money lining the pockets of those saying man is making it warm..
I am old enough to know scientific theories change over the years. What was facts then change as more knowledge is gained in subject areas.
Enjoy the warmth as it last, earth goes in cyles and once the cold cyles returns we will be wishing for Global warming...

Zorita-"These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax."

Judy Curry-"As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes (consisting of a small number of climate researchers) were established in response to the politically motivated climate disinformation machine that was associated with e.g. ExxonMobil, CEI, Inhofe/Morano etc. The reaction of the climate tribes to the political assault has been to circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit misinformation from politicized advocacy groups. The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be less about politics and more about professional ego and scientific integrity as their research was under assault for nonscientific reasons (I'm sure there are individual exceptions, but this is my overall perception)."

Sounds like deniers are wrong again. They started the misinformation, and hate it when someone else plays by their rules.

Politicians can question scientists, but scientists can't question politicians?

I would be the first one to say that Climate Science is much more than recent dendro studies and temp reconstructions; however, that being said, how many researchers are willing to scrap MBH9x and attendent reconstructions, as well as HadCUT, and GISS temp series? You remove them and what do the Alarmists have? A few charts on polar ice caps, tropical storms, and studies concerning prostitutes.

GettingWarm -

You can have your Noble prize.

It is not worth the metal it is made off.

A perspective on Zorita:

"But while Z's dislike of Mann and Jones has a history, why exactly does he hate Rahmstorf so much? What has poor Stefan done so much to offend, apart from being distinctly more handsome? I may not have been paying close enough attention, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen R's name coming up in connection with the email hacking. Z is rather coy in his posting. He has read the emails - I think it is not unethical to read them is his rather weaselly way of putting it, as though a double negative can save him - but he doesn't quote from them. Perhaps he imagines that we all have read every nuance and have attended to his every grudge, and so can know exactly what Rahmstorf's sins are.

The answer is likely to lie in a 2004 paper by Z/vS, which contained serious errors as detailed in A Mistake with Repercussions. Eduardo "Holier than Thou" Zorita doesn't come out of this episode too well; it would appear that he has been waiting for a chance to stick the knife in. Perhaps it would be interesting were he to publish his correspondence on the subject? That might be "not uninteresting", and for someone as interested in transparency as he is, it would be a natural step."

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/zorita_goes_for_the_jugular.php

Good post by Oakden Wolf.

LOL!!!!

This is just too rediculus not to share.

This guy do "stand up".
(Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)

Pachauri said the large number of contributors and rigorous peer review mechanism adopted by the IPCC meant that any bias would be rapidly uncovered.

"The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/ipcc-climate-change-leaked-emails

OK.... Is ANYONE willing to admit that they believe this guy?

Brett: Maybe you should put up your own statement of Belief here on behalf of Accuweather before its too late...LOL

Reply: Again, I am not in the position to do that.

This is what happens when science becomes politicized. Unless you already have an agenda, anyone with half a brain can see this hoax for what it is: an attempt to take the economy of the United States down to a level on par with less successful ones. The debate is OVER. The guys on the other side cheated. The sun may now have to be have to be studied and scrutinized for its roll in the change in global temperatures. Imagine that.

Remember how that lady on The Weather Channel was saying any meteorologist who expressed any sort of skeptism should lose their licence, a few years back?

That sort of bullying had a chilling effect on people honestly speaking their mind.

In the Boston area a weatherman has stated, off the record, that he was told that if he expressed his skeptism on the air he would be fired.

Brett deserves credit because he hasn't bowed down to the bullying, and has moderated one of the few sites where both sides get heard.

What I fear is that some Alarmists may now get a taste of their own medicine. People who have been bullied tend to lash out, once the bully loses power. (What goes around comes around.) I urge Skeptics to stick to the science.

Robert Mahfouz | December 1, 2009 9:49 AM --- The debate among scientists was over with the 1977 CE Charney report. Read about it in "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
after reading Andy Revkin's review:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63

David Benson:

Again with the "Debate is over" Crap.

Do you really think everyone is just plane stupid?

That's not even a good try, it's just insulting at this point.

geeze.

G. Karst:

"But NOW we know the reason for the sudden appearance of the trend. It was Mann made!" and "Since you seem to be devoid of any skeptical acuity, we can dismiss you as non scientific. GK"

Karst, I may not have any skeptical acuity and you can dismiss me as non-scientific, but at least I know the difference between the MSU lower troposphere temperature trend compiled over the past 30 years by Spencer and Christy and the paleoclimate proxy reconstruction made for the last millenia. I may not have skeptical acuity, but you apparently need to learn how to read.

I believe these envirogroups count on people being stupid, ignorant, or just plain too lazy to think for themselves. When we have political leaders pushing this agenda of global warming, we are being set up for the greatest "Pied Piper" story of all time. Only this time we are being drowned in a sea of debt.

Oakden Wolf | December 3, 2009 1:33 AM

"...but you apparently need to learn how to read."

I probably deserve the "slap", sorry if I vented in your direction. My point still applies, however misdirected. I do believe, that you are capable of being objective and welcome many of your perspectives. GK

You need think about it. Despite the emails, the overwhelming evidence showing global warming is happening hasn't changed.
"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus . . . that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told a House committee. She said that the e-mails don't cover data from NOAA and NASA, whose independent climate records show dramatic warming.

The tree ring data is a hoax, I have been a horticulture major and observer for thirty years.Temperature is but a small fraction of what influences growth,amount of sun , moisture,co2 actually makes plants grow.Quit with trying two fool the uninformed,Mann prayes on the uninformed.
Im old enought to remember the inpending ice age in the 1970s.Love science and a clean earth,man made global warming is largely a hoax.Lets keep science open and honest, not a closed no debate allowed ,is that science