Well, the cat's our of the bag, and there may have been collusion, FOI ?fraud?, but surely poor science in the Hadley CRU climate community. This is only one of the stories that will come out of the Hadley CRU file hacking event.

Only the most narrow-minded of AGWers will continue to believe the propaganda after the Hadley hacking.

When talking GW there are too many variables to deal with..it will make your head explode trying to pinpoint the causes of a stall, an unexpected cool down or another set of very hot temps.
The bottom line I feel & one that we can see clearly is the extent of the sea ice. Just using sea ice I think that we hit rock bottom in 05,07 & we are still struggling but we are not getting WORSE.The Northern Hemisphere Snow extent is way above ave on the Asian side which will keep things cool for awhile & when this pattern change comes to bring Snow cover & cold to our side of town I think the Ice will come back hard & stable.I've heard that it is still Thin but looking at sea ice comparrisons it looks thicker than 07 & 08 so I think there is hope for recovery..Just say NO to Global Warming!

The most interesting thing happening right now appears to be the hacked Hadley documents. Most of what I've seen so far has been rather mundane correspondence, but there may be some embarrassing revelations for some people.

3rd coldest October in recorded history! The AMO is on its way to the cool phase, still warm but the peak is well past us. This is textbook if you look at the AMO chart and temperatures for the last 120 years. Cooling should peak around 2030, by that time Mr. Gore will be pleading with congress to pass a Polar Bear kill act.

I have a question. I have heard some say that the measured average global temperature rise is more closely connected to solar sunspot activity than it is to co2 levels. Does anyone have verifiable evidense to show this idea to be in error? Thank you.

Like many others I have been giving quite a bit of thought to the global warming issue.

One thing that struck me today was that both sides appear to be guilty of avoiding the "inconvient truths" of the climate change issue.

On the one hand, the political right tries to avoid the "inconvenient truth" that climate change is occuring; that this change is most likely tied to man made activities; and that it will likely have serious environmental impacts.

At the same time, the political left appears to be avoiding the "inconvenient truth" about the economic costs associated with reducing CO2 emissions. When asked, they make light of the costs, claiming that the horror stories of high costs are being perpetrated by the big bad coal and oil barons looking to protect their profits and bonuses. In so doing, they appear to me to be taking the same path as the political right by choosing to ignore the weight of scientific data on the subject.

I am certainly not an expert on the subject. However, my simplistic view is as follows:

1) Climate change is real, our activities are at the very least contributing to the problems; and there are some very real risks associated with avoiding the issue.

2) The costs of tackling climate change will be significant and will likely result in a net stagnation of worldwide living standards for the next several decades.

These then are the dual "inconvenient truths" of the climate change debate that the political right and political left choose to ignore.

It therefore is a negative sum game in which no matter which path we take we will be worse off than we are today. From a political perspective this is a very difficult situation since although it can be difficult to equitably divide up a growing pie, it is expodentially more difficult to divide up a shrinking one. When faced with such difficulties, the reaction of most political systems will be to avoid addressing the issue which, in most instances, is the worst possible approach.

Brett - what are your thoughts on the hacking of Hadley-CRU and the content of the e-mails?

Reply: I just looked over some of it from the Watts site. Holding my judgment for now. I want to read more about it when I get done with my other shift today.

Brett,

The Climate Skeptic blogger world is abuzz with the supposed release of emails from University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. Have you had any chance to think about it?

Mark

Reply: I read some of it a few hours ago. Will read more about it later today when I get my schedule done. I will certainly follow this, no doubt about that.

While arguments over anthropogenic global warming continue, the media seems to habitually overlook the very real and very damaging effects of pollution other than Carbon Dioxide. It is only when something really dramatic and readily visible happens like a big TVA ash lagoon spill that media takes notice. Meanwhile, particulates from power plants exacerbate heart and lung disease, methyl mercury from mining causes neurological problems and birth defects, fish are contaminated and pigs and chickens raised in the grossest of unsanitary conditions on factory farms provide the perfect breeding ground for new types of flu. There's no argument on this stuff that is mostly or maybe purposefully overlooked.

Brett, you should also exclude political monologue.

I know the subject has political aspects, but when you're only for or against a point of view because your political party is for or against it - this is just becoming very booring to read over and over the same political insults.

Reply: Yes, some of the political rants are getting tiring and I am trying to limit some of that now, but keep in mind, GW and politics are certainly intertwined.

I suspect this leaked correspondence is all anyone will be talking about for awhile. The correspondence does appear to be legit, and will be career ending for a few. The whole affair makes me ill, and damages all professional and scientific standings. GK

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/real-files-or-fake/

Reply: I agree with your first sentence GK, esp. if it is indeed legit.

The entire concept of human-caused 'climate change'is stupid. I've never woken up in the morning and said "Geez it's hotter this year than it was 5 years ago, something must be done". It's all just a scam to promote agenda's and control the masses. Global Climate is a cyclical thing, it gets warm, the ice melts, ocean salinity decreases, Ice Grows, it gets cold, gasses build up, it gets warm...and so on. The Earth can shake us off like a bad habit. Some think very highly of man's effect on a rock that has withstood countless attacks by Asteroids and Massive Volcanic explosions

The party's over
It's time to call it a day
They've burst your pretty balloon
And taken the moon away
It's time to wind up the masquerade
Just make your mind up the piper must be paid

Don't you love Nat King Cole?

Brett,

Based on all the news about global warming (AKA climate change) one would think that it has not occurred before. Has it not been proven that before Ice Ages there are warming periods (Yesterday's blog topic is just one of many articles that touch upon the subject). There is no denying the growing warmth, but are we getting the "whole picture" on the warming that is occurring. Perhaps we are headed into another Ice Age and this is the process that leads us there. Of course, talk of an impending Ice Age would probably not get a researcher much grant money for study--global warming is the HOT topic of the day.

Since this is a global warming blog on a meteorological website, I'd be curious to know your meteorological opinion about this:
http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_20427.html
It's a fairly technical hypothesis by a meteorologist suggesting a connection between AGW and extreme weather events, extreme rainfall events in particular. It discusses issues like changing 500 and 1000 mb heights and how this can affect weather systems.

The Hadley Hackers are going to change the climate of climate debate FOREVER!

The 'science of climate change' has two black eyes this morning...and it wasn't 'deniers' or 'big oil'.

hmmm...this is going to be like an 'O.J.' trial on the internet...atleast at first. Some of the emails appear indicate possible criminal wrong doing.

From one of the documentes: "Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible."

The "not be more than 10,000 USD" is the big red flag for the IRS, FBI and Treasury Dept...and by now likely every Congressmen and Senators office have recieved copies.

Folks - don't lose sight of the fact that this likely isn't CRU "hacked" but an internal leak by a mole who was PO'd at the ignoring of the data requests under the FOI act ... there are numerous references to the requests & the deliberate refusals to release the data. Personally I've thought for years that both Hansen's & Jone's refusal to show their data & methods was a clear indication of "child like" behaviour that was proof of unreliability of the GISS & CRU global warming story. If they knew that their data & science was solid they could have silenced their critics forever by putting the data out in the public domain & having the skeptics prove the case for global warming ... the refusal to go public is proof enough of weak science & fudged results.

While reading the hacked e-mails with their discussions of fudging data, evading freedom of information requests, deleting e-mails, and plausible deniability on non-archiving of data it is good to remember a point often made by Steve McIntyre.

Bad science and even misconduct by AGW scientists does NOT disprove AGW.

Take for example the subset of climatology or paleoclimatology where trees, sediment varves and other proxies are researched to estimate past history. An example is the infamous Mann 1998 hockey stick. Showing that it is based upon faulty algorithms and that any red noise dataset can be made to generate a hockey stick using Mann's algorithm merely shows that the paper does not prove its assertion that todays climate is warming than the Medieval Warm Period. Such a debunking proves absolutely nothing other than showing that the paper is incorrect and does not properly support its conclusions. The conclusion may be correct. Or the conclusion may be incorrect. It is really just as if the paper had not been written. It definitely does not prove the opposite conclusion from what the paper originally claimed.

Keep things in perspective. The science is very definitely not settled. In either direction.

I really don't think Global Warming is occuring. The weather patterns this century could have easily swaped. Now, insetad of a really cold pattern, it is a little warmer pattern.

One cannot look at a warm winter and yell, Global Warming! since that particular winter was just set up where the area just couldn't get any cold air in.

Matthew

The lies and mistruths of Global Warming/Climate Change are exposed in ClimateDepot.com. The data has been contrived by pseudoscientists as part of the grand strategy for a new world order and to punish the industrial countries and provide payouts to the Third World. Should the draconian measures of the Copenhagen Accord be implemented, the world would be much like the the nineteenth century of Charles Dickens. This is what they are trying to impose through guilt for "what we have done to destroy the earth".

A meteorologist, climatologist, and an astrophysisist walk into a bar...

If the emails are legitimate, the entire AGW movement could hit one giant brick wall - well, at least over here in the States.

Real Climate (RC-gavin) are involved and have just now posted a response.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/#more-1853

It invokes privacy issues (there is no doubt peoples expectation of privacy was violated), however that genie is out and can never be put back. They admit that the memos are legit but MAY have been edited.

"Nonetheless, these emails (a presumably careful selection of (possibly edited?) correspondence dating back to 1996 and as recently as Nov 12) are being widely circulated, and therefore require some comment. Some of them involve people here (and the archive includes the first RealClimate email we ever sent out to colleagues) and include discussions we've had with the CRU folk on topics related to the surface temperature record and some paleo-related issues, mainly to ensure that posting were accurate."

Excuse me, I feel an upchuck coming. GK

I will try to talk mostly science here, if that is permitted.

The Earth has clearly warmed over the past few decades. There is an interesting leveling off of the warming the last 10 years or so, but recent statistical tests indicate it is not statistically signficant. Surface temperatures have not gone back down to previous levels of a few decades ago.

Greenhouse gases warm the Earth and make it much more habitable than it would be otherwise. Increasing greenhouse gases should warm the earth.
How much is the key question. To answer that you need to do the math. That's where climate models come in. They are an expression of the laws of science that govern the atmosphere and ocean climate system expressed in simple enough form to
run on available computers.Climate models have errors in them, the question is are the errors big enough to change the results drastically.
Is there some feedback in clouds that would change the result signficantly? There have been some mechanisms proposed but none verified to my knowledge.

The climate models reproduce many aspects of what has been observed. They indicate that much of the observed warming is due to manmade increases in greenhouse gases and indicate much more warming if greenhouse gases continue to increase.
I regard that as highly likely 80-90%, although I really don't know how to measure the likelihood.

There are some interesting questions that I believe need to be addressed. The role of changes in the land surface, as advocated by Roger Pielke Sr., is one. Another is the possible role of changes in solar output. The third is the last 10 years of global mean temperature. Does that mean natural variability is larger than the models think? These may not be adequately included in climate models and may mean the effect of increasing greenhous gases is exagerated by the models. I certainly hope that is the case. In fact it would be nice if global warming really is not going to be a serious problem, just as it would be nice if swine flu or AIDS certainly disappear. I have no realistic hope that any of the three will simply go away.

I have more reservations about the models' ability to portray the regional effects of global warming. Certainly trying to predict the effect of global warming every 10 km seems a stretch to me.

It would be nice if we could completely understand the problem and be 200% certain about it and how to handle it before we act. We rarely if ever have that luxury.

I believe global warming is a real problem and needs to be addressed. How to do that is another problem. I've spent 35 years studying and working on forecasting the atmosphere, I have much less experience in economics and social sciences.

Recently the American Physical Society reconsidered its stand on global warming and ended up endorsing its previous stand that global warming is real and primarily caused by man-made emissions of global warming. So too did 18 other scientific societies in a recent letter to US Senators.

The Chamber of Commerce also said recently in a letter on its web site that it believes in acting against climate change; it disagrees about how we act.

I know personally many of the scientists who work on global warming . I find it very irritating to see them brutally attacked.

I refuse to acknowledge anything unless it is first uttered by the infallible Hansen. Interesting thought by rick about a possible inside job at CRU, though. There was this fellow at EPA who released some internal memos questioning the basis for Cap'n'Trade, causing some minor embarrassment. I've forgotten what Hanson had to say about that, so I am unable to comment further...

Zip file can be downloaded here:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T

You must wait 60 sec for countdown timer, etc and then hit regular download. 62 megs of embarrassing data. There are some problems with the zip, but most here can overcome. GK

In case anybody was still under the impression that "global warming" had something to do with New Orleans' damage during Katrina, the recent judge's ruling on the USACE construction and operation of MR-GO should eliminate any doubt that this was largely a man-made failure unrelated to gobal warming.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aqCpPgqB_0ck

Hmm. Lots of glee from our deniers already.

Another demonstration of the true morals of the rightwing denier crowd.

I wonder if they have the same reaction to the sites who published the illegally-obtained spycam videos of Erin Andrews -- and those who downloaded them. I wonder how this site would react to similar videotapes made of, say, Ms. Fehlinger and blogs who published them -- or promoted them as "news." Would the internal emails among the professionals of Accuweather withstand similar scrutiny if they were stolen and published? How would Accuweather react to a high-profile blog who published them?

Thank you, Brett, for not publishing them here. I frankly wish you take down the link to them that is currently in the thread-starter. I think that by leaving it there, you are enabling (if not promoting) the very worst aspects of a mob.

HADLEY
The tea
Just got thrown
Into the sea
AGW Doublethink
Will shrink I think
No party hardy
At Copenhagen
AlGore lost
His rhythm
Obama lost
His wallet
HADLEY

There seems to be an assumption among many of the blogs above that warming cannot be anthropogenic (caused by humans). There are other things happening on a massive scale that can definitely be linked to humans. To wit: a growing dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico hundreds of miles across, ocean acidification, a huge increase in jellyfish in for example, Chesapeake Bay. A huge die off of coral near Florida. The death of spruce trees atop the highest parts of the Appalachians as in Smoky Mountain National Park...one can drive a car to these places. There are historical events like the near extinction at one time of the American Bison and the transformation of the North American prairie from grass to corn and wheat. It is somewhat arrogant to presume humans cannot also affect the weather.

My oh my,what have we here.Why it's VINDICATION!! for the skeptics of course.Although it's not time to gloat yet,I for one am feeling pretty good right now though.
You can have your hand in the cookiejar and get away with it for so long,but eventually your gonna get caught.
The constant and ever increasing shananigans going on for the last year or so by various government agencies that have tried to further the AGW LIE,has been exposed here daily.Only to be ridiculed by the Alarmist few who congregate here.
And Regg you cannot separate the politics from the so called science of AGW,It's part and parcel for crying outloud.The UNITED NATIONS started the ball rolling.And it's the most corrupt government body in the world!
Wake up people!just as scripture prophasises,A world run goverment is to rule in the last days!!

rd: "In case anybody was still under the impression that "global warming" had something to do with New Orleans' damage during Katrina, the recent judge's ruling on the USACE construction and operation of MR-GO should eliminate any doubt that this was largely a man-made failure unrelated to gobal warming."

Yes, I can agree with you that Katrina and New Orleans was mostly a man-made created disaster in all respects. Mainly due to the misdirection and obstructionist delaying of our so-called leaders and decision makers. The result is no action was ever taken and as you so rightly stated, a man-made failure resulted.

The disaster resulting from Katrina has been rightly concluded as due to man's inaction despite the correctly forecasted series of events that transpired. The point is those decision makers didn't do anything with that information the researchers were presenting to them for over 40 years. The key question is, will the decision makers take this decision and the forecasts the scientists are currently presenting to them about the consequences of the potential environmental changes expected to occur due to the effects of global warming, or will those same obstructionists leaders(?) continue push their heads deeper into the sand (or someplace even darker) before the next man-made created disaster happens?

When I worked down in Texas back in the late 70's as a senior meteorologist, forecasting for the offshore oil rigs and barges in the Gulf, I was always keenly aware of the potential disaster looming for New Orleans someday. I read numerous research studies conducted by local universities in that area at the time that kept on telling the leaders and decision makers that a catastrophic event such as Katrina was going to happen there someday.

As a weather forecaster, every time that I would see a potential hurricane forming or moving into the Gulf, I always had New Orleans in the back of my mind thinking, is this going to be the storm? I was becoming increasingly frustrated at the time because I could see that nothing was being done despite the obviously ominous scientific valid series of events and forecasts being given to them. I am sure those decision makers in New Orleans thought they had the political will of the people down there as they were able to say they saved some capital by not spending on those "unnecessary" projects.

I must say however, I have a greater feeling of frustration today compared to what I felt back 40 years ago, simply because I can see almost real-time on this site alone how the political manipulation of public opinion is taking over and scientific research findings are being considered almost irrelevant in today's fragile economy. Sadly, not much has changed in those 40 years on the political front regarding our decision makers. That is until the latest forecasts by the climate scientists and researchers actually transpire and any needed decision to act on those forecasts goes unheeded due to political manipulation and another judge's opinion of a man-made failure is again concluded sometime in the future.

when someone can tell me what the temperature will be in my city accurately next week then I will start to believe what people are predicting 10, 20, and even 100 years from now. Too many variables to predict anything with certainty. The science should go on, but changing the global economics based on a scientific theory seems like a bad idea to me. The economy is messed up as it is.

I still don't understand how when the earth was much warmer millions of years ago it seemed as the planet thrived and supported large animals (dinosaurs) that could never survive today.

Weather oldie,
Extremists highjacking organizations like the AMS or APS is nothing new.
And your glossing over the political, anti-science motives of those whohave done the highjacking is not suprising, but is still disappointing.
The 'savaging' the AGW promoters who have been outed by the e-mail release is entirely due to their unethical, fradulent behavior.
I find it inrritating that scientists have mistaken themsels as some sort of error free immaculate source of wisdom.

Ah...the latest denier soapbox. Personally, like most people, I'd be a little ticked if my personal emails from the last 10-20 years were stolen and broadcast everywhere (go figure if something is found that might be mildly embarrassing, or construed that way without context), yet RC has a calm response, even injecting some humor...

"More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. "

So thousands of personal emails from scientists dating back nearly 2 decades have been stolen and distributed, and the best contrarians can find are a few selective clearly out-of-context or ambiguous quotes? Ironically, the heaps of information provides evidence against their conspiracy theories. Surely there must be loads of substance there...

Anthony Watts never ceases to reveal hypocrisy. In correspondence with a commenter at RC:

"Fair warning – this communication is private. and
As I said before this communications (sic) is private, share it with Gavin or anyone online at your own risk."

Hmmm...

Computer hacking is illegal. Fleecing taxpayers and profiting by creating mass hysteria over a globull warming hoax should be as well.

Being that we haven't seen any warming for the last 11 years, may I suggest a name change for this blog? How about... Population Control?

Let's just cut to the chase already -- right progressives?

"mike gore :
3rd coldest October in recorded history! The AMO is on its way to the cool phase, still warm but the peak is well past us."

Where is the proof of this? Did you see the post from a couple days ago with the sattelite weather data? Surface measurements roughly correspond. Sorry I am not saying there can't be mistakes but that is quite a stretch don't you think?

Much ado about very little.

I've been able to get a copy of that zip file. Quite frankly, there's absolutly nothing new - from the oldest email (1996) to the newest (dated last week).

For any person that has read about the subject for the last 10 or 15 years - at least read what those persons wrote or said, then there's nothing new in those emails or files - no big news - no secrets - no nothing that was not already known.

It does'nt look to be a hacked system, but looks like a hard disk that has been replaced and someone forgot to erase it. Put some secrets and cute phrases about it and you got that big story.

Now... I see you giggling about some juicy secrets being revealed - bad news for you, there's none. Unless you make words mean something else as some conspirationist usually like to do. By the way, no email talks about the ''plan'' or the ''big financial plan'' beside looking for funding to do more research. LMAO

And judging by the size of the file, this might only be a backup that ended in the wrong hands.

If the emails I am seeing on WUWT are accurate it would seem that there is a good case for criminal charges. Conspiracy to circumvent the Freedom of Information laws is a criminal offence in many countries and it is very evident throughout the emails. Considering that there are very different rules of evidence in the United Kingdom it could get interesting.

Since when did denialists need a bunch of emails to validate their suspicions about anything? Most of them are quite willing and able to operate in an evidence-free environment anyway,judging by the rote ignorance,outrageous claims,leaps of faith and dumb gloating being passed off as insight around the place.

Denialist/doubters/skeptics/climate realists..whatever you want to call yourselves,you're still going to be reliant on real scientists to explain the meaning and context of most of these communications,and the science,so that you can carry on putting your fingers in your ears. It's the perfect relationship.

Ken Lee writes:

"1) Climate change is real, our activities are at the very least contributing to the problems; and there are some very real risks associated with avoiding the issue.

2) The costs of tackling climate change will be significant and will likely result in a net stagnation of worldwide living standards for the next several decades. "

Agree with #1. #2 is not correct, particularly the second part. See non-partisan economic analysis of emissions reductions being proposed.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10262/hr2454.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html

Also keep in mind the economic costs of climate change will be significant. The above analysis doesn't even include the benefits of mitigation, the economic benefits of reduced pollution and less dependency on fossil fuels. So while mitigating global warming isn't "free", best estimate for the the net costs (costs - benefits) over the next few decades are likely manageable (no stagnation of economic growth or standard of living) and over the longer-term, it's a net economic benefit.

Brett writes:

"Real Climate (AGW scientist blog)"

Actually, it's a climate scientist blog. Many issues that are discussed don't involve human causation. Some keep falling into the political trap of dividing the issue into "AGW" vs "AGW Skeptic".

G. Karst writes:

"The whole affair makes me ill,"

...yet you eagerly posted a link to the personal emails. Are you trying to spread your illness, or by "makes me ill", do you mean "gives me a false sense of glee"?

It occurred to me that if personal emails of global warming denier organizations were stolen and propagated, I wouldn't take anything more than mild passing interest in it. Deniers seem to work a different way. The politically-based soap box stuff interests them at least an order of magnitude more than the science itself. Dr. Schmidt, in response to a comment from someone hoping that someone would hack into the emails of denier organizations in response, wrote:

"Surprising as this might appear. I don't think this should be encouraged at all. Private communications picked over by a hostile audience can make a saint look like a sinner, and so while there might be some karmic justice to that, I would not wish it on my worst enemy."

Keep that in mind when some political website says "here is proof of data fabrication!" and then posts one of these emails that discusses a potential data adjustment with other scientists. I know it's hard for some to do, but seek to understand the context of and issues around why the adjustment is being made rather than filling in gaps in knowledge with conspiracy theories.

I found this. If this is true this would be a bombshell!!!

The Day Global Warming Stood Still
Buzz up!6 votes Send
Email IM Share
Delicious Digg Facebook Fark Newsvine Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Twitter Yahoo! Bookmarks Print Related Quotes Symbol Price Change
^DJI 10,318.16 -14.28
^GSPC 1,091.38 -3.52
^IXIC 2,146.04 -10.78

Ibd Ibd – 2 hrs 34 mins ago
Climate Change: As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.

It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.

The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate's version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.

"I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard," Inhofe said to Boxer in a Senate speech. "Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked."

Inhofe added: "Today I have been vindicated."

The Ada (Oklahoma) Evening News quotes Inhofe: "So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, 'Yes. We're going to pass a global warming bill,' I will be able to stand up and say, 'No, it's over. Get a life. You lost. I won,'" Inhofe said.

Now we have the German publication Der Spiegel, which is rapidly becoming the house organ for climate hysteria, weighing in again with the sad news that the earth does not have a fever so we really don't have to throw out the baby with the rising bath water.

In an article titled, "Climatologists Baffled By Global Warming Time-Out," author Gerald Traufetter leads off with the observation: "Climatologists are baffled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years." They better figure it out, Der Spiegel warns, because "billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."

We are told in sad tones that "not much is happening with global warming at the moment" and that "it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year." But how can it be that the earth isn't following all those computer models? Is the earth goddess Gaia herself a climate change "denier"?

The article gloomily notes that a few weeks ago Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research pointed out that the earth had in fact only warmed 0.07 degree Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degree Celsius predicted by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

An even more inconvenient truth, according to the British experts, is that when their figures are adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Nino and La Nina, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degree Celsius. No, that's not a typo.

As if that weren't enough, it seems hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data.

While we don't condone theft, the hacked data and e-mails have spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world's leading climate change study centers, aren't scientifically objective at all.

Indeed, in e-mails, they boast of twisting scientific data to suit their views and to "hide" the truth. At one point, a scientist actually gloats over the death of global warming skeptic John L. Daly, saying, "In an odd way, this is cheering news."

If true, this is massive scientific fraud.

To add to the warm-mongers' woes, patron saint Al Gore, the man who claimed to have invented the Internet, might also have claimed the discovery of Photoshop. Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, formerly with NASA, has taken a look at the pictures used to illustrate Gore's new book, "Our Choice: A Plan To Solve the Climate Crisis."

Gore Photoshopped NASA imagery of the earth for the fold-out cover photo, adding four hurricanes at once, including one spinning in the wrong direction next to Florida and, in a physical impossibility, one on the equator next to Peru. Somewhere in the process, the island of Cuba was deleted.

It is the warm-mongers who are spinning in the wrong direction. We win. You lose. Get a life.

Unbelievable that suddenly all the blogs and sites that for years screamed at us that the earth was melting and the climate was dying are now suddenly finding it inconvenient to post the hacked emails.
POST THEM!
This stuff is damning! They discuss circumventing the Freedom of Information Act for starters, as well as taking revenge on those who were proving them wrong. They even ADMIT they are wrong but unable to explain it - so they start fudging the data again.
This blog should do the right thing and take a stand against BAD SCIENCE!
There is NO OTHER WAY TO SPIN THIS! What these academics and 'scientists' were doing is plain wrong!

Oh pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseee Brookline Tom. Give me a break. You are comparing planets and suns when you compare emails and videos of some woman.

Hacking into the computer and stealing those emails are definitely illegal and despicable and whoever did it should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

But what were the scientists/climate people thinking? I thought they are suppose to be smartest people on Earth, well according to BT anyway. They appear to be as dumb as rocks based on some of the info (if it is true) that I have read in the email. It is common knowledge and common sense at work that you should only put something in an email that you wouldn't mind anyone reading, including the public. It doesn't mean some hacker can steal your emails but we are warned that our emails are saved and they are backed up and if necessary guvment can ask to see them as legally required.

And then BT, you throw in the "mob" and then act like Mother BT to Brett (now Brett, I wish you wouldn't show a link, blah, blah), oh for goodness sake, grow up.

MarkB;
wow.
Uber SPIN.
Of course nobody believes you anymore.
But hay.
Good try.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

Some will just never admit to what is obvious.

BrooklineTom:

"I wonder if they have the same reaction to the sites who published the illegally-obtained spycam videos of Erin Andrews -- and those who downloaded them."

Interesting perspective. So the climate scientist's e-mails are the equivalent of someone standing in front of a mirror naked.

I don't think I could have said it better myself.

I guess you would have felt the same way if these were hacked e-mails from Exxon Mobil. In fact, I'm sure you would have.

It's kind of like prosecutorial and police lab misconduct.

Sometimes district attorneys and the police just know somebody is guilty, even though the evidence is weak. Sometimes those with weak ethics and morals enhance the evidence a bit. Add a little piece of evidence here, claim a stronger match on a fingerprint/footprint/carpet sample/etc. than there really is. They feel they are doing the right thing, even though they are lying.

That's my analogy for what I see being discussed on how to "hide the decline" in the proxy data for the cover graphic of the WMO report on Global Climate in 1999. Phil Jones of CRU, Michael Mann of U of Va (now U of Penn) and others found that continuing the smoothed plot of proxy data didn't look right, since it declined for the last couple of decades. So they just replace the proxy data (which diverged from intrument data in that period) with thermometer data. Then use some innovative end point treatment (a forerunner of Rahmstorf's innovative techniques used to doctor the curve in the recent Copenhagen Synthesis Report). Viola -- now the line is a rapid upturn as desired.

After all, they know what should be shown. Why let the actual facts get in the way of selling the story.

---------------

Tom Wigley of UCAR and Phil Jones have a similar sort of exchange in 1254108338.txt . The problem is that inconvient rapid upswing in global temps in the 1940's. Tom Wigley points out to Phil Jones that dropping the global sea surface temps by exactly 0.15C is the thing to do. That will bring down the global temps as desired, yet leave enough of a upswing in the SST that they won't be too far out of whack compared to land trends.

The discussion isn't about canvas buckets vs wooden bucket vs sea water intake sampling and relative corrections needed. It's about what desired result we want as we go back and "adjust and correct" historical records.

Well, I don't know. On the one hand, the news media take pictures of the shrinking ice cap complete with displaced wandering polar bears. On the other, scientists are saying that the earth has not warmed this year and may not do so for another five. At the same time, I wonder how much impact we can have either way to effect an outcome.

I suspect that the global warming has been overstated.

The biggest scandal of all about climate isn't today's news, it's old news, so old that it goes back almost 400 years!

Explain how AGW can be occurring while failing to show up in actual THERMOMETER records?!

http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg

When the buzz around warming dies a natural death, the super growth of cereal crops over the last few decades will certainly wane with it.
Unless we see new GM developments rolled out quickly,the world my regret the decade science wasted on this nonsense.

The leaked emails don't surprise me. They only confirm what was already made obvious, through the actions of Hansen, Briffa, Mann, Gavin, and others.

A true scientist should welcome data which adds to knowledge, even if it in some way casts doubt on a conclusion one has reached. In a subject as complex as climate, there will always be factors one hasn't considered. If one is focused on something like the thermohaline circulation, one likely will not be as focused on the influence of upper atmosphere chemistry. Therefore, when one learns about some influence upper atmosphere chemistry has on the totality of climate, one is likely to feel a degree of surprise. This should add to ones sense of wonder and astonishment, and not be seen as an attack.

The group of Climate Scientists who apparently call themselves "The Team," (I thought this description was invented by McIntyre, but apparently they call themselves "The Team,") does not welcome fresh ideas. This has been quite obvious for years, just watching how they respond to valid points brought up by many, many skeptics.

In these leaked emails we see differing views are seen as "opposition," rather than the work of fellow scientists. Opposition is called, "Bad Science," and efforts are made to divert funding away from those with differing views and to those with similar views. This is against the very spirit of science and truth-seeking, and also is illegal.

This has been going on for years. On this site and others, and also in letters to my Congressman, I have long urged there be an investigation of Hansen and others. I have urged congressional hearings, and urged that the Freedom of Information act be used to force records, including emails, be made public, (for, after all, the work is done using my tax-dollars.)

The amount of tax-dollars that has been diverted to The Team is staggering. The fact they have failed to prove their "cause" is just, despite the huge amount of money they have gone through, should indicate their "cause" has either no basis, or a very flimsy one.

Investigations should have started, at the very latest, three years ago, when Hansen was caught "adjusting" data to make 1998 look warmer than it was.

I think it is a great pity that Congress has failed to investigate, and the investigation has been left to the general public. However, as Lincoln stated, "You cannot fool all the people all the time," and there should be little wonder that more and more people have taken a hard look at Climate Science. It has been measured and found wanting.

When public records are withheld from the public, and then a person "steals" those public records and makes them public, I believe it is called "whistle blowing." It is not the best way at getting to the truth, and it would be far better if people were honest and respected scientific openness in the first place. However in this sad and particular case I believe whistle-blowing was necessary.

i tried to tell you guys years ago that agw was a hoax...that speaking the truth like bastardi does instead of posting articles of doom and gloom was the path to financial success...now look at anthony watts and his ratings mr big cheese at accuweather..you should thank your lucky stars you have bastardi who stood up to the agw hoax and at least accuweather can claim some credability...to all you warmers, the conspiracy has unfolded...how does it feel to be duped?...how does it feel to have supported policies that will wreck the lives of many?...al gore, hansen, mann, jones are all liars out to make a profit from others...the chickens have come home to roost...

I certainly do not endorse hacking into a computer and getting personal correspondence out of it. However, I will point out that in the litigation world, aggressive attorneys will demand such information, and get it. I have recollection about certain “smoking gun” memos getting out in tobacco lawsuits, nobody seemed to mind that they were not intended for public display.

Never-the-less, as someone said, the genie is out. I suspect this will be a non-news event years from now, because no matter what the e mails say, mother earth will behave the way she chooses.

Go get him Mary.

You to anonymous.

LOL....

The "Liberals" are so predictable.

Pretend injury by those evil criminals that stole evidence of our FRAUD!! How dare they. They should be locked up!

So anyway, now that their comments are irrelevent and the truth is out, what do we do about it.

The time for debate is over, the time to act is now!!!

The Politicians must now be stopped!

They will of couse try to keep going in the same direction toward ruin because it suits their power ambitions.
Leave them no room to move this forward.

It must be stopped now.
As Tom Roach said so well, We have wasted an entire generation on this.

All any of this confirms for me is the level of disgust I feel when politics gets mixed too much with science and science gets mixed too much with politics.

My personal feelings and opinions about politics and climate science on their own remain unchanged.

MarkB | November 20, 2009 9:19 PM

...yet you eagerly posted a link to the personal emails. Are you trying to spread your illness, or by "makes me ill", do you mean "gives me a false sense of glee"?

I feel no glee! This is a blow to all science. These flesh wounds are bleeding out. Ignoring the wound will not slow the bleeding. The wound must be properly cleansed and bandaged before healing can take place.

It is important that people comment on the actual documents... NOT RUMOR! The privacy issue has already sailed and no amount of Mark's efforts to put the toothpaste back into tube will help.

I posted the following advice to Gavin and his colleagues:

"I think people must remember, the claim, was this, was only a portion of the documents leaked!

I see a crowd assembling with a rail, bag of feathers, and a bucket of tar.

If anyone is close to this, they are well advised to come completely clean, and lay out the entirety (all dirty laundry), so that they can avoid the tar brush. This is not the time to be shredding documents (oops - too late). There are just too many, in various places to get them all. Best to come clean and polish the image later. Fess up - own your mistakes and let's move on."

Mark, I know this doesn't make you feel better but if you are involved in any way, please consider my above advice. GK

I have recollection about certain “smoking gun” memos getting out in tobacco lawsuits, nobody seemed to mind that they were not intended for public display.

Randy apparently forgets that said memos were produced during court-ordered discovery. They were not stolen. I suggest that a better example for Randy was the Pentagon Papers, stolen by Daniel Elsberg and subsequently published by the New York Times (and others). That one went to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of freedom of the press (to the great chagrin of the rightwing).

How about it Randy, are you making a first-amendment defense of this behavior? If so, then please do so. Really.

Mary doesn't like my reference to mob behavior. When merchandise was removed from smashed store windows by mobs during the riots of the sixties, some folks called it "looting". Others called it "liberating." Which was it Mary, "looting" or "liberating"? Do you object to calling those groups of people flagrantly violating the law "mobs"? What word do YOU prefer?

Has anyone seen this story anywhere but on the internet? The MSM isn't touching this.

BrooklineTom | November 21, 2009 12:21 PM

"...said memos were produced during court-ordered discovery."

Wouldn't be a bit surprised if that's next.

Wonder what else is out there.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

CO2 will never cause catastrophic warming/climate change except in computer programs and in the minds of radical politicians and environmentalists.

Not surprising the lamestream media hasn't covered this story since they're in on the scam as is Hollywood.

It is sickening that the AGW crowd hides and distorts data and doesn't provide access to its research and databases. That's anti-science.

It is also anti-science to claim a consensus on climate science then conduct ad hominen attacks on anyone who disagrees, or ignore them as the lamestream media does. In science, skepticism is healthy and necessary.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

The planet has been cooling for a decade.

We should be planning for long-term cooling and the adverse effects of it including shorter growing seasons, failed crops, and starvation - actually, the environmentalists and Socialists running the government would enjoy the decrease in population from global cooling.

Can the zelots scaring all the moron's on global warming now stop? we have people living in streets, family's losing there homes and being forced to go along with this new president(obama),lets all start to worry about our family's and friends, enough with scaring all the little children,about killing polar bears and no,body will ever ski again/
get a life

What a complete waste of time!

This is something they don't want anyone to know about. before we had the internet this would not be a big deal and in fact no one would have ever known about. It wil be hard for them to dimsiis th as jsut somee hackers who wanted to have sme fun,there is moe to it then that and I a glad for once people are not afaird to speak their mind about how wrong global warming is. I have been wating for this day for a long time,keep it up to konck this idea and it's supporters off it's perch!!

Those on this site and this includes myself that have tried in vain to point out that the AGW movement was and is fueled by politics,would appreciate an apology from the alarmists who still to this day,despite what has occured at CRU,want to seperate the two.Hello BrooklineTom!!!

Here's an excerpt from liberal skeptic Thomas Fuller,SF Environmental Policy Examiner.

But while global warming is not controversial, the amplification of its range and extent via feedback loops (where increasing CO2 leads to increasing water vapor and hence increasing temperatures) is controversial. In fact it is unproven.

The feedback theory was introduced conveniently at a time when the U.S. was debating the Kyoto Treaty, and in 1988 proved a convincing way of increasing the stakes in the climate debate. General circulation models originally had the feedback mechanism built into the assumptions, which guaranteed projections of dramatic temperature rises. And in 1998 Michael Mann emerged with a Hockey Stick chart based on proxy reconstructions that appeared to show that the period 1975-1998 was the warmest, not just in history, but stretching back to the last Ice Age.

Mann became defacto leader of The Team, a group of paleoclimatologists and climate scientists who were convinced that the IPCC had been too conservative when they predicted moderate temperature and sea-level rises in the upcoming century. And when Mann's work was essentially discredited by Steve McIntyre and Ross Mckittrick, it became a political necessity to find other proxies that would replace Mann's questionable choices and restore the pristine beauty of the Hockey Stick shape.

And that's what Climate Gate is about. A political imperative pushed scientists into making ever more desperate professional choices on what data to include in their studies, what methods to use to analyse that data, which media sources would give them preferred and friendly treatment, and focussed them on a politcal, not scientific, imperative.
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m11d21-Evidence-of-a-desperate-push-to-pump-global-warming-up-and-up

Of course the leftwingnuts have no shame and will beat the unethical drum as to why the right should discount the evidence due too the illegal way in which it was obtained,therefore absolving all guilt by the holier than thou decievers who got their dirty finger prints all over the cookie jar.and foolishly thought they could get away with it.
God says that in the end times the unbelievers will be deceived by LIES,well this is just one of many that belivers will be observing in the months and hopefully not too many years to come.

now just consider how widespread the conspiracy has spread...its like an octopus with a 100 tentacles...al gore made a fictional movie based on lies of a now broken hockey stick temp graph...he was awarded the nobel peace prize...what a bunch of dolts they seem to be now...the u.s. congress wants to invoke a cap and trade system to destroy the economy...corporations like ge and midland archer daniels make a living bilking taxpayers for co2 reduction...the U.nited N.incompoops want to establish a new world order with treaties bilking the rich countries...climate scientists jet around the world bilking the taxpayer, spreading voodoo science and immient doom with only two months to save the world...the liberal media is just as complicit with the lack of investigative reporting on the matters surrounding the global warming hoax...the u.s. has set up its own taxpayer funded global warming department giss a space studies entity that refusing to rely on satellite data, prefering to adjust faulty landbased thermometers...we have a president of the u.s. that promotes this malarky to redistribute the wealth...greenpreaceofcrap makes a leaving crying wolf about polar bears, walruses and melting ice...to all you warmers i can only say this...first comes denial, then embarassment, then enlightenment...why dont you skip number #2 and go straight to number 3...dont given into the darkside, fear and hate will undo you...seek the truth and you will be set free...have a nice day!!

Recent data suggests that Global Warming is still occurring, consider the following: The total amount of ice in the Arctic as of Oct. 2009 was the least ever recorded for that month. And, Oct. 2009 was the 10th warmest Oct. on record for Alaska. A recent scientific report on Greenland shows the rate of the ice sheet melt to be increasing. In the Southern Hemisphere, much of Australia experienced record high temperatures in the Oct.-Nov. 2009 timeframe. The average temp of the Worlds oceans reached an all-time high during the Summer of 2009. Moreover, it now appears that much of the US is on the verge of a mild Winter despite a number of initial long-range forecasts to the contrary. To deny GW is to discount the sum total of the information listed above.

BT:
Give it up!
Nobody cares about your indignation.

YOur guys lied! They got caught!

Its over.. move on.

From a quick glance at some of the emails, there is much to embarrass CRU. I would not be surprised if both Biffra and Jones lose thier positions there; but, then again it is a British matter in many respects. AGW has a much broader public acceptence over there.

But what could get some in trouble here is at least the appearence of fraud. Jones et als. clearly sent emails to many scientists here encouraging subterfuge at best, and fraud at the worst. But the folks on this side of the Atlantic can at the very least thank thier lucky stars that it is Reid and Pelosi running Congress. If this was 2005 and not 2009, Senator Inhof would have already convened an Congressional investigation with the likely call for a special prosecutor. Hiding or deleting FOI information is a felony, not to mention using fraudulant information to influence Congress and the Executive. If anything Reid, will use this episode to push very hard for a Cap and Trade Bill before the 2010 Midterms.

To Brookline Tom:

"The Team" decided to play in the big pool over a decade ago. They moved into the world of politics and media deliberately. As they are finding out, the rules in that pool are somewhat different from university cloisters.

"The Team" has been stonewalling requests for data and analyses for years now, even though most of the work has been done using public funding.

While I don't believe that hackers do things the right way, the fact is that they have exposed some information that people have been requesting through official channels for a while now. As many politicians have learned to their chagrin, secrets are not necessarily secrets if you write them down where somebody else can get to them, legally or illegally. Stonewalling often simply delays the inevitable and may result in it being exposed in a way that you can't control.

Brookline Tom. You are quick with the ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions the so-called settled science. Here is a test of your intellectual honesty. Now that we know the source of funding for CRU scientists (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html) tell us how it is different from skeptics' funding.

Climate change has been the norm since the beginning of time. Temperatures go back and forth over time and man does not affect it. Climate change is being used as a political tool for control. Someone recently said that those creating the hysteria on climate change are the new communists. I happen to agree. Green is the new Red - people need to wake up!

Wiki has made "climategate" somewhat official:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate

Just the facts! Ma-am!
GK

The timing could not be better, coming as it does before the Dec Copenhagen conference. As the cap n trade would fund the Goldman Sachs crowd into a global government takeover of natural resources, what happens now that AGW is exposed for what it is.

Please check out www.infowars.com for more data & opinion. The EndGame and Fall of the Republic are interesting videos that show who is behind this, and their plans.

Thanks

Brett...Do you remember when AGW believer Prof. Bleen accused you of posting material merely "to incite the peanut gallery"? In retrospect, don`t you believe your so-called legit sources were using you to post their propaganda? Your credibility, integrity and reputation is more important than anything. Don`t allow them to use you.

GAry | November 21, 2009 11:34 AM --- E-mail theft is a criminal act in Britian and UEA has indeed informed the police.

The e-mail messages give no indication of any actual illegal activity.

None of this has any bearing of the state of climatology.

Lee:
"when someone can tell me what the temperature will be in my city accurately next week"

But Lee they did.

10 years ago, they told us exactly what the temp would be right now.

woops, nevermind, they were wrong.

Then they tried to cover it up.

Then they tried to fake it.

Then they got caught.

Apparently some of the countries that need to be saved don't know that they need to be saved:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102010.html?hpid=topnews

I think the battle lines are being drawn between developed and developing countries.

David Benson:

Give it up man, it over.

This "hacking" was probably the best example of Civil disobedience for a just cause in years.
If Green Peace morons can get away with their idiocy, this guy or girl should be a medal.

This was not just a hack of a company, it was a retaliation against government tyranny.

And it does indeed have bearing on the state of climatology.
It shows clearly that it has all been a scam from day one.

The religion will take some time to kill, but kill it we will. It gives all of science a bad name and climate science as well as environmentalism in general will be decades recovering any respect or credibility.

This Hack has brought a new day.
Accept it or be irrelevant.
Your choice.

Landon and RICH-

I recommend adoption if you really believe what you are saying, millions of orphans worldwide.

Life of Brian (Monty Python movie;"hilarious")-

Opening sequence and song "Every sperm is sacred".

Idecline-

Enough with your rants and banter. Why aren't you convinced that facts can change based on whether emails have been hacked or temperature records are flawless (hardly). Get with the program- politics and taxation are what this 'fraud' is all about. The fact that climate is being influenced by mans pollution, deforestation, fossil fuel usage, chemical fertilization, and overall abuse of the planet means nothing. Do not think for yourself..that takes too much effort...

signed ideclines' mind

Climate change and environmental concerns should be separate issues. Many environmental issues not related to climates are of deep concern
and deserve more attention. The idea that man can control nature smacks of hubris and rhetorical stampede and invites skepticism. Aren't we intelligent enough to be adaptable? One would think not if listening to the roar about controlling climate. I wonder if we had solid evidence of cooling if the same alarmists would be calling for creating a stronger greenhouse effect to control the cooling? I suspect so as their control issues seem to include others actions. It seems to me that should the earth become static and not change then it would indeed be in decay and human future in doubt.

Ronnie

The debate revolves around climate change and climate does and always has changed over the years. The biggest sin being committed by so called scientists is to ignore any real current data and continue down the route of Global warming caused by Man's activities. They have not looked at cooling, nor have they looked at alternative solutions (if there are any) to counter either warming or cooling. CO2 emissions by man make comparatively little difference to the forces of nature and only the arrogance of Scientists and politicians allows them to think they have that power. It would be more useful if they actually came up with ideas to help the populations of the world meet the future.

And the judge said to the jury, "You will disregard that last testimony." Ain't gonna happen!

What kind of dumb #@@%@ would keep such incriminating emails? Either the emails are contrived, or we are being informed about climate change by a real bunch of dummies! To my knowledge, nobody has claimed the content to be phony.

I think we can dispense with the fiction that this data was hacked off a CRU server. At least to me,it looks lie the purloined data was copied by a disgruntled employee and posted to a Russian FTP site. Perhaps said employee believes he/she is protected by various whistleblower laws.

For an anonymous hacker to a)breach the DMZ security, gain access to file server security (get possession of security certificates, user or group file system or directory rights, etc..) and b) that the Univ of East Anglia would have such lousy security is very doubtfull.

I seriously doubt the Team had this data sitting on some lone file server without any security.

Three conspirators caught 'red-handed'. It seems that the famous 'trio' of 'climate bandits' are to blame. Their real names are not known but they are referred to as 'Cosmic Ray','Sunspot', and 'negative PDO'. Their mission has been to cool the earth, but they have been 'found out'. Global temperatures are still rising in spite of their 'notoriety'. Unfortunately a young South American boy nicknamed 'El Nino' and his sister 'La Nina' were in the getaway car. 'El Nino' and his sister 'La Nina' claim to be the main drivers of the 'Global Warming' phenomenon. It is a sad day for all who really 'know' the truth.

Gotcha.

Brett, you should also exclude political monologue.

I know the subject has political aspects, but when you're only for or against a point of view because your political party is for or against it - this is just becoming very booring to read over and over the same political insults.

REPLY: Quit your complaining, Regg. Now that the TRUTH about your sides FRAUDULENT activities are globally known, YOU CAN'T STOP IT!!! I laugh at it. The FRAUD'S Chickens....Have Come Home.....to ROOOOOST!!!!....I LOVE IT!!!!!.....

MMMMMMMMM.....MMMMMMMMMMM......MMMMMMMMMM.......

Knuckle Dragging Flat Earth Philistine,

This episode is no laughing matter, but you made me laugh despite myself when you said, "The FRAUD'S Chickens....Have Come Home.....to ROOOOOST!!!"

But actually it isn't chickens.

It's something that walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, smells like a duck...

The emails are disgusting. Especially damning is the one urging everyone to destroy emails before the FOI act is enacted.

This had to be an inside job. No hacker could stay in their system long enough to carefully go through the emails and exclude all the ones that said, "Honey, please pick up the laundry."

However the emails are nothing, compared to the blocks of computer code in the released files. That is what McIntyre was after. It will be interesting to see what he "audits."

People on other sites who are good at writing code state the code is appalling, in the released files.

Especially interesting are the comments on financial sites. It seems likely "green" stocks are going to crash, if not on the Monday markets, then during the week. Already some small-scale "dumping" is occurring.

Eli Snyder over at RC gave the following advice to Gavin:

"Keep in mind that you are genuinely, without hyperbole, here to save the world."

It is exactly this attitude, that we must save the world, that has caused these people to forget their scientific training, so that the end justifies the means, and science violations occur. You are not helping anybody. Keep your secret knowledge of impending doom to yourself, and let some real science ensue. This is not an anti AGW statement... just a call for reason. After all, everything is justifiable when "saving the world".

There are a few people here which need to think on this.
Maybe Dr. Tim Ball says it best (10min) in his latest CRU interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=player_embedded

BTW - it looks like RC's temporary policy of publishing all comments has ended.

GAry | November 23, 2009 12:14 AM --- All you have to do is to look at the climate changes for the past 50+ years. Somehow, it seems, nature says (again and again) that it is warming, all without reading a single paper, e-mail or even a thermometer. Why is that, od you think?

Regg:

Brett, you should also exclude political monologue.

I know the subject has political aspects, but when you're only for or against a point of view because your political party is for or against it - this is just becoming very booring to read over and over the same political insults.

Reply: Yes, some of the political rants are getting tiring and I am trying to limit some of that now, but keep in mind, GW and politics are certainly intertwined.

Counter point by id:
Intertwined by politicians, fame or money seekers, scientists gone 'bad', etc. The problem with that outlook is that it steals the credibility of climatology away from the science.

Global Warming is occurring, in some way , shape or form, that is fact. The extent of mans contribution to the warming is 'x' amount, it may be less or more than the predictions say.

The real problem is that politics is about 'fixes' and 'research', whereas Global Warming is just one of a multitude of problems caused by mans ignorance in not recognizing his own plight as a human species. We are forced to see things personally first, then if we can reason well enough we can begin to see a larger worldview of our actions as human beings.

Individuals should strive to make intelligent personal choices in their own lifestyles because, as this debate has shown on this site, political activity is about stalling, arguing, and taxation as a form of 'fixing'. If people wait for politicians to agree on anything, this issue of Global Warming may become a 'crisis' even to the biggest skeptics of climate change.

A more efficient lifestyle would benefit all, empower individuals rather than government, and help society to advance in technology to achieve a 'cleaner' world for generations.

Headline: Accuweather to change its blog from global warming to global governance.

Being that there has not been any warming for the past 11 years, and that the warming "blanket" theory of CO2 has been debunked, officials decided to stop beating around the bush and call a spade a spade.

There is no imminent threat from global warming. Alarmist fears are changing just like the climate.

According to commentator Timid-Timmy, "Now that we have your attention, let's focus on the bigger picture: The consuming and ever-growing population."

Disclaimer: The is headline is a hoax -- just like the threat of AGW.

Yours truly.

GAry-

"The religion will take some time to kill, but kill it we will. It gives all of science a bad name and climate science as well as environmentalism in general will be decades recovering any respect or credibility.

This Hack has brought a new day.
Accept it or be irrelevant.
Your choice."

idecline says- i know this is taken out of context, but it sounds like the 'Spanish Inquisition'. Environmentalism has nothing to do with this, it is intelligence, to conserve and use wisely. you advocate indulgence and abuse of resources, unwise behavior.

Who really is irrelevant... GAry?

David Benson.

Good Grief David.
You can look at any time period you want and see some sort of climate change.
You know that perfectly well.
You know perfectly well that there were at least 4 periods in the last 7500 years that were warmer.
You know perfectly well that the temps have gone up and down in 30 year cycles even in the last 100 years.

What you point out means Exactly Nothing to the real question.
Actually its not even a real question now that we know the whole thing was a manufactured crisis.

GW is, was and always will be Natural.

Deal with it.

"Michael:
Has anyone seen this story anywhere but on the internet? The MSM isn't touching this."

That is one of the most interesting statements made on this entire thread!

Idecline:

Can you show me where exactly I have advocated "indulgence and abuse of resources"?

I just can't seem to recall ever have advocated that.

I certainely don't advocate the wholesale wast of limited resources fighting battles against non-problems.

Could that have been what you meant?

I'm sorry, I'm still waiting for the intergovernmental panel report on how AGW isn't happening. Or did that get published, and I just missed it?

Gary | November 24, 2009 10:15 AM --- Actually, I know quite a bit about the global climate of the Holocene. At no time since at least the Eemian interglacial has the globe been so warm as it is now. Here is a direct obersvation from coastal British Columbia that (a few years ago) it was warmer than at anytime in the past 7000 years:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Fast-Melting-Glaciers-Expose-7-000-Years-Old-Fossil-Forest-69719.shtml

Next, there are no 30 year cycles to be found in any temperature record, instrumental or proxy; you have simply been mislead. If you would actually care to begin learning some climatology, I suggest reading "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

idecline,

Whatever happened to Hansen's Super El Nino?

Another false prophecy. That's the inconvenient truth.

RICH-

Hansen, Gore, etc----Who cares?

The fact is 'Global Warming is happening, no matter how much you stomp your feet, shake your fist, or bury your head.

I am not personally responsible for what 'they' say or do, i have 'free will' and am not subject to the whims of political viewpoints. Personal choice is mine, hierarchy is obsolete.

The Lamb

ps- El Nino is on its way this winter. Even Brett says so......that's really SUPER, mate.

David Benson;

Try again. You might start by expanding out from the propaganda sites you frequent.

There have been several warmer periods in the last 7000 years.
Romand optimum and MWP are but two.
Of course the Discredited AGW Science will try desperately to mislead you by "Hiding the Decline", but Facts are Facts.

As for cycles, I am sure you would look right at them and not see them.

Blind Faith will do that to you.

Its over David.

Gary | November 25, 2009 10:49 AM --- I know my paleoclimate and you do not. MWP was not global; at least Antarctica did not participate and I don't think Patagonia did either. MWP was not co-temproal at all the sites which experienced some amount of warming within several hundred years of the European MWP. (Roman warming too shrimpy to bothr with.)

You could actually bother to learn about the climate of the Holocene, but no, you prefer to spout anti-science that you picked up somewhere.

And by-the-way, do try to stick to the peer-reviewed scientific literature; it is much more accurate than web based stuff.

Deniers...........

What you don't realize, in all your shouting and back-slapping, is that you only demonstrate your own ignorance. Nothing has changed. The code and its comments aren't shocking, the "tricks" aren't shocking, nobody but deniers care about any of it.

Data is data. Equations either hang together or they don't. Models either work or they don't. A group of stolen emails doesn't change anything. I particularly enjoy the excitement over some comments in code. In my thirty-plus years as a programmer, I've seen a lot of comments. Programmers play games with each other and their managers in comments *all the time*. If the code in question mishandles data, the mishandling will be exposed. The comment doesn't mean anything.

Meanwhile, discovering that scientists occasionally have low opinions of critics and speak those opinions candidly in private correspondence is akin to discovering that handsome men and pretty women fart and pick their nose. If you've ever been with a handsome man or pretty woman, you know this. The fact that it's surprising to a specific audience says more about that audience than about anything else.

I hope all of you -- deniers included -- have a great Thanksgiving, eat far more than is healthy, and enjoy the time with your family and friends.

David B. Benson | November 25, 2009 5:42 PM

"And by-the-way, do try to stick to the peer-reviewed scientific literature; it is much more accurate than web based stuff."

The CRU leaks show that the peer review system was breached and controlled by "the team". Why would anyone consider peer review documents as anything but the "team's" propaganda red sheets.

"I know my paleoclimate and you do not. MWP was not global;"

ONLY IN YOUR OWN MIND! You are proving yourself as a stooge for the AGW falsifying team. GK

hide the decline,

"Hansen, Gore, etc----Who cares?"

These people are propelling a quickly sinking vessel. My suggestion: abandon ship.

"Global Warming is happening"

Perhaps, but not lately. What is your biggest concern? What are you so afraid of?

"i have 'free will' and am not subject to the whims of political viewpoints. Personal choice is mine"

In your dreams. Reality continues here. Where it ends depends on policy.

The Lion

BT,

Still clinging to the sinking ship? Apparently you approve of governments and organizations deceiving the public to pursue an agenda. We wouldn't want some emails to leak to expose a scandal. How awful. If a government was committing some kind of atrocity, we wouldn't want information regarding that obtained illegally, right?

I always thought that we in America prided ourselves at getting to the truth. Apparently some would rather be lied to than have emails leaked.

There does seem to be some denying going on.

David Benson:

You really have some balls to suggest now that Peer Reviewed Climate Science is accurate.

LOLOLOL

Brett,

The origin of the actual screw propeller came from Archimedes. The first screw propeller to be powered by a gasoline engine was installed on a boat by Frederick Lanchester.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller

There was no reason for you to edit my loose screw analogy.

Respectfully,
Rich

G. Karst | November 26, 2009 2:33 PM --- Hmm, those reports of claciers melt back also appear in press releases. One of the most famous was the appearance of Oetzi the Iceman, long before most payed any attention to AGW.

Gary | November 27, 2009 10:38 AM --- I just wrote "more accurate", which is correct. I even shoud have written "much more accurate". But perfect? No.

BT get somthing Right!

For faithful AGW believers, nothing has changed.

They have never cared a wit about the science anyway, so exposing AGW as a fraud is of no concern to them. They knew that when the party started.

The Green Agenda remains.

AGW = Politics and Power and Money.

End Of Line.

Why do they call it Greenland? Because the vikings named it that when they landed there in the 10th century because of its green fertile appearance. Go there now and tell me how green it is. Oh yeah, Brokaw went there in the middle of summer and said, Get this, "Theres ice melt".
900 to early 1300's was quite a warm up. 1300's to mid 1800's was quite a cool period. In 900, who's cars and factories were causing all that polution? What co2 was causing the warm up?
That is simply why the man made argument is arrogant and will never hold water.

The problem of the global warming issue is, having it rammed down our throats. Data is only becomes useful if is collected, and analyzed scientifically. Presenting data that has been collected scientifically will stand up in a court of law. The global warming advocates often say that the entire scientific community agrees. They agree about bits and pieces of data. Drawing conclusions based on individual pieces of data is like saying "It's been a warm winter so something must be up." With out compiling and presenting even scientific data scientifically no conclusion can be draw from it. What was the cause of the heat of the 1930's? A simple X bar and R chart would clear all of this up. Expecting me to take your conclusions as fact based completely on how smart you think you are is a peril that many failed businesses have suffered.