Norwich, we still have a problem -

Norwich, we still have a problem


Laymen who have understandably decided to accept what much of the media now treats as axiomatic–that humans are causing potentially catastrophic global warming–must now be suffering some anxiety over the leaked e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit. Is an opinion leader like George Monbiot right to view this as a serious matter, or should they believe the reassurances of somebody like, say, Toronto Star environment columnist Peter Gorrie?

I ask solely as a matter of media-consumer interest, because, realistically, what Gorrie writes doesn’t matter to a climate-change skeptic, or to anyone with the time and the quantitative training to follow a scientific debate on his own. It matters to the guy on the subway who avoided Stats 101 as if it had horns and fangs, and that guy is now getting conflicting signals. I presume Gorrie would agree that his job is not just to confirm that reader’s prejudices–though people do like having their prejudices confirmed, and any argument a columnist can make will confirm somebody’s.

Like other columnists covering the CRU leak, Gorrie zooms in on just one “example” from the e-mails; although the etymology and sound of that word “example” would seem to imply some element of randomness in the selection, many of these columnists are choosing the same e-mail, because it contains an apparent faux pas that is relatively easy to explain away:

In one email, the research unit’s director, Phil Jones, refers to work by another scientist, Michael Mann, published in the journal Nature: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series … from 1961 … to hide the decline.”

“Trick” doesn’t refer to sleight of hand; it’s jargon for a good, useful solution to a research problem. The problem in question relates to the fact that one method used to estimate temperatures over centuries – measuring tree rings – doesn’t give good recent results. But actual observations, the “real temps,” were available.

It’s much easier to understand “scandal” than even that simplified explanation.

He’s right about the word “trick.” Scientists do use the word to describe simple solutions to sincere research problems. It does not, on its own, imply deception. The real problem with the Jones e-mail is the part about “hiding the decline.” The issue, really, is right there in Gorrie’s paragraph: tree rings appear to have serious problems as a means of inferring global surface temperatures from before human records were kept. As an abstract of the Briffa study Jones was discussing notes:

…tree-ring density records become de-coupled from temperature after 1950, possibly due to some large-scale human influence that caused wood densities to decline. Thus, the reconstructed temperature record after 1960 is considered unreliable.

Jones’ “trick” was to graft observed temperature data from after 1960 onto a line showing temperatures merely inferred from tree rings. If you just reported the tree-ring data straight-up, they would suggest that the earth has cooled since 1960, which conflicts with what we know was happening (assuming there are no biases in the temperature observations, but that’s another battleground several miles away).

In one sense you could argue that this is a “trick” in the innocent meaning of the term, a real answer to a real problem: Jones only meant to “hide” a presumptively nonexistent “decline”. But an ordinary person looking at a graph doesn’t expect the underlying data to be spliced together from two different sources if the point of the graph is to highlight what one source (the tree rings) tells us. Moreover, the divergence between the predictions of the tree-ring model and real post-1960 temperatures is a legitimate problem in paleoclimate reconstruction. (“Some large-scale human influence” on “wood densities”? Oh, hell, what about the fairy hypothesis? Couldn’t woodland sprites have sprinkled magic dust on those trees?)

In “hiding the decline”, Jones was thus proposing to “hide” a weakness in the research itself. IPCC peer reviewers squawked about this “hiding” when it was done in another way, by simply cutting off the data at 1960. As a matter of scientific ethics, Jones’s “trick” sucks. Though it’s still probably not one of the four or five most ethically troubling statements in the leaked CRU e-mails, even considering just the ones made by Jones.

Gorrie could have minimized the offence in dealing with this cherry-picked example of malfeaseance; instead, he handwaved it away completely. But then there’s a lot of handwaving in this column, like the obnoxious complaint that environmental reporters are being asked to “parse e-mails” (which, as described above, he goes on to do in a tendentious, half-hearted way) instead of “focusing on the evidence of human-made climate change”. As if the debate over the CRU e-mails was anything other than an argument about the provenance and quality of the most important body of a posteriori evidence for human-made climate change.

Gorrie also says, sympathetically, that climate scientists “resent having to respond to skeptics.” Well, who the hell doesn’t? That’s like saying that prosecutors resent the threat of having unfairly acquired evidence excluded from the courtroom, or that ballplayers resent the danger of getting picked off first base. They can resent it all they like, but it’s there in the rules of the game, for good reasons. Q: What do you call a scientist who can’t accept criticism from “skeptics”? A: Anything you like, as long as it’s not “scientist”.


Norwich, we still have a problem

  1. Never trust anything a politician is trying to sell that includes the word SCHEME .

    • "Scheme" has negative connotations for us North Americans, but it England it is considered perfectly neutral (a common synonym for "plan").

      • Colby, if you're buying that right-wing crap-tastic science fiction then you should be truly worried. I guess the most likely conclusion for everything falling apart, if its not our gluttonous and mass consumeristic nature, is that the rapture's upon us. I'd hate to be a really guillable writer when that s%*+ hits the fan…

  2. The laymen who only get their news spoon fed to them by the nightly newscasts probably still don't know about ClimateGate at all. Unless the CBC has relented and caved in to the protesters?

    But agree with you on those focussing on the "trick" email. Let's look at the code instead, where the real scandal lies, and where the media will never go since this can't be explained away.

    • The rest, with several duplicates snipped.

      ./osborn-tree6/mann/; version has already been artificially adjusted to reproduce the largest
      ./osborn-tree6/summer_modes/; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
      ./osborn-tree6/summer_modes/,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
      ./osborn-tree6/summer_modes/,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
      ./osborn-tree6/summer_modes/; artificially high for the calibration period, but are fine for the
      ./osborn-tree6/summer_modes/; Now apply a completely artificial adjustment for the decline

  3. I agree with this article. When data has to be tweaked to fit the conclusions, there is a massive problem. Instead of improving the research and re-examining the hypotheses, and submitting them to other points of view and scrutiny, we have all missed the opportunity to discover what exactly is going on with the climate. We are proposing to retool the global economy on what might prove to be faulty "science". I support us being better custodians of this planet. However, I am alarmed and resentful of how this issue and the genuine and sincere concerns of the citizens have been hijacked and manipulated by those who want to restructure global economies for their own political goals that have nothing to do with improving the environment

    • What data specifically has been tweaked to fit the conclusions?

      • The base temperature data all have "adjustments" from the raw temp data. For instance in NZ it came out the without the 'adjustments', there was no noticeable increase in temp whatsoever. Satisfactory explanation for the adjustments have gone unanwered.

        Being able to manipulate data in this was is not science. Fiddling to get results is not the scientific method.

        I'd be happy to provide numerous links to this if you like, though it could take you a few seconds if you choose to go there.

        • Robert McClelland is not exactly what you'd call open-minded on this or most issues folks. This is what he wrote on his blog 3 days ago: "Keven Grandia at DeSmogBlog has all you need to know about the climate change deniers latest efforts to swiftboat climate scientists."

          I'm sure he did a thorough analysis of the situation before he decided that "climate change deniers" were "swiftboating climate scientists" He's made up his mind and the facts and evidence won't move this socialist ideologue one iota. Ideology always trumps facts and reality when you're dealing with these incorrigible left/wing types.

          • Robert is hampered by his habit of facing facts. You rightwingers run away from facts squealing like frightened children.

          • Robert is hampered by many things, including the maturity of a sullen thirteen-year-old and his frequent tendency to scream insults at people who calmly disagree with him, but a "habit of facing facts" doesn't seem, on the evidence, to be one of them.

        • Are you referring to this? If so you do realize that it was an example of fraud on the part of climate change deniers, don't you?

          • Yes Robert, he is referring to that.
            The major adjustment happened because the observation sites chagned elevations.

        • Biff,
          Do you consider this:
          to be not 'satisfactory'?


          Do you seriusly think that a thermometer at the bottom of a mountain and at the top of a mountain should be treated as if they were at the same average temperature? Been up any mountains recently?

      • Are you asking to be specific due to the large number of instances that there apparently may be you are having difficulty figuring it out for yourself, or are you just trying to drag everything out until most people give up and go onto the next shiny thing?

        Please contribute something in the future or just listen from the sidelines RM.

  4. Other than editorial commentary, the MSM is ignoring this issue. One Sun Media journo had this "news" article this morning: "Hackers skewed research e-mails." —

    More than a week after the real news broke, I finally saw one article in my local paper — and they simply dismiss it all as "skewed."

    First of all, stop centering on the emails. They're bad enough, but the real devil is in the data. And the manipulation of such is overwhelming. We're going to have cap and trade rammed down our throats. We'll see the cost of everything go sky high, including taxes. All in the name of the junk science and political collusion that created this epic scam.

    • What data has been manipulated? Be specific.

        • Do you have any credible sources?

          • I see: So the actual CRU programmer's files aren't acceptable to you. In his own words: "stop in 1960 to avoid the decline", etc.

          • No, a stream of internal communications, dense in technical terms and jargon, interpreted by a bunch of people unqualified to do so who ignore the scientists' own explanations of what they were talking about? Not acceptable.

            If you had any understanding of the topic at hand – all of it freely available – you would understand why he used that approach in analyzing the data.

            You would also know that the "trick" was well-documented and not a "trick" in the colloquial sense.

            Sheesh, you people are just like every other set of conspiracy theorists.

          • I was quoting from a document containing CRU programming code, using the programmer's own words. That document was not one of the emails — it was NOT part of CRU internal communications. The quotes came from CRU climate research data that has formed the basis for the IPCC reports forcing us into this climate change scam.

        • Ah yes, the massive info dump; here's ten thousand boxes of papers, you figure out what I mean.

        • I need to sleep…..and I need to work on learning my own (very basic code)….but a quick reply;
          The tweaking of the modelling/programming code post-1960s isn't exactly a huge contentious issue here. The divergence problem needs to be dealt with in some way. Did this model choose the best way? Probably not- there will undoubtably be better ways later.
          Unfortunately, there isn't robust data on to why the 60s divergence occurs- so no matter what way the programmer treates the problem, it will be less than ideal.
          However, the specialists in thie field of dendro-proxies will specific knowledge that the post 60s dendro data can't be relied upon.
          -The IPCC commetns re: the divergence problem show that they do.

          Should the IPCC report have been more open source about the presentation of their data?

          For the sake of science- yes definately. However…….that report shouldn't get any longer, and the kinds of issues brought up in the CRU are present pretty much everywhere…….which is why the IPCC commenting processes is so extensive.

          If one really wants to comb through and look at very specific uncertianties- then the reviewers comments are very illuminating (Much of the specific uncertainty in the TAR that climate skeptics used was picked up from the comments section)

    • To be fair, I would pretty decisively count Maclean's and the National Post as "mainstream media".

      • The only MSM coverage in Canada thus far has been in editorial comments like the one above (that goes for the editorials in the National Post as well). It should have been front page news. As I said, "other than editorial commentary…"

        • I'm pretty sure that's not true.

        • A headline that says:
          Climate Models Contain Uncertainty?
          None of the stuff comign out from the CRU emails does anything but put further emphasis on the fact that climate models (like all models!) have uncertinaty.

          Not exactly banner headline material! (May they could run it right after 'DOG BITES MAN')

  5. As if the debate over the CRU e-mails was anything other than an argument about the provenance and quality of the most important body of a posteriori evidence for human-made climate change.

    The bluster over the emails isn't about the science of climate change. It's only about the perception and politics of climate change. If it were about the former, people like you, your colleague Potter, Lorne Grunter, Michael Coren, etc, who clearly know nothing about the science, wouldn't be leading bluster brigade.

    • Either you haven't read what's out there or you are deliberately attempting to spread misinformation. I willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and encourage you to read what is continuing to come out on this.


      • Biff, its the latter if you follow RM's MO on this topic.

    • Well perception is everything.
      And it 'looks' like the Global Warming fraud is busted.

      There will be investigations and inquiries.
      All those scientists who have been muzzled will get their day in the court of public opinion.
      In the very least, this money sucking socialist wealth redistribution scheme will lose it's momentum.

      • "Well perception is everything. "

        Thank you for single-handedly explaining why some of the scientists were sometimes reluctant to publicly address the specific charges of people who had deliberately misrepresented their work (see McIntyre)

    • "The bluster over the emails isn't about the science of climate change"

      WHAT science? The science where they process and analyze raw data? Where data is accessible to all in order to replicate results independently? Where the knowledge is imparted via peer reviewed journals that have critcally looked at the research in question to see if the metho passes muster?

      Nope, instead we have"scientists" who fudge data so that it matches up to the theory (back-asswards), refuse FOI requests so that others can replicate their findings, and have intimidation of journal editors to rubber stamp those projects that back of GW theory and shut out those projects that don't?

      Guess what? THAT AINT SCIENCE. By all means, if you still want to believe in GW, have at it. But don't you dare try to couch that belief as scientific fact when it obviously is not so.

      • I'm guessing that you've never done anything sciency yourself.

        1) "fudge data so that it matches up to the theory"

        These emails don't describe anything of the sort.

        2) "refuse FOI requests so that others can replicate their findings"

        Actually, these scientists have been inundated with FOI requests from deniers who have systematically lied about what the data say. Also, any given scientist's dataset could contain a huge mix of freely-available and proprietary data from all over the world. They don't necessarily have the right to release the data at all.

        3) "have intimidation of journal editors to rubber stamp those projects that back of GW theory and shut out those projects that don't"

        Source, please.

        • @ your points TJCook

          1) The e-mails don't describe fudging data, but the "HARRY_READ_ME" file that was included in the hack sure does. I don't expect you to look it up, but I hope that other people do.

          2) What's your point? Sure the scientists been inundated with FOI requests, but they've stonewalled them all until now. How do we know the research is good if no scientists can replicate their findings? How do you know the skeptics are lying about the data they have acquired? Perhaps the skeptics' analyses are more accurate than the original ones. They can't hide behind the "proprietary data" canard either. This isn't pharmaceutical company research, it's weather station records and tree ring counts!

          3) How about these quotes from Phil Jones' leaked e-mails: "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" There are plenty of other examples if you look.

          • I assume that when you say "fudge" data, you mean "misrepresent". There's no evidence of misrepresentation. The scientists did have to manipulate the data since it came from multiple sources in multiple forms, but they described their manipulations clearly in their paper.

            2) "they've stonewalled them [the FOI requests] all until now". Bullsh*t. They've stonewalled ALL requests? Have they even delayed a majority of the requests? Prove it.

            "How do you know the skeptics are lying about the data they have acquired?" Here, look for yourself at the analysis of a few skeptics' work:



            Are these leading skeptics lying or incompetent? Who cares? Their work is not useful or reliable.

            As for proprietary data: of course some scientific data is proprietary. Have you ever worked in science? This is very, very common.

            How about those quotes? Yup, they sound damning. Have you contacted the people in question and asked them for an explanation, or are you jumping to your own conclusion? How very unscientific of you.

          • 1, The read me file describes how a model deals with part of a data set that can't be modelled, because the scientific community doesn't know. The whole point of a model is to deal with gaps in data- that is why modellers model……so finding evidence of how they dealt with the gap is like saying:
            "Look they're doing they're jobs!"

            2.(a) The CRU results ARE replicated by the other independant climate modelling groups……Hadley, Nasa-affiliated, the Germans…..
            (b) Believe it or not, the work that scientists do, in this case, bulding a model, is worth money……which is why we pay scientists to do it!
            Despite this, most scientises (including the CRU group) exchange their models quite freely with other models….because everyone benifits.
            However, they don't exchange them with non-modellers who lack the knowledge to understand any model (e.g. M & M).
            If you're willing to build models for free……and know how to……I know lots of people looking for you.

            3. Yup-Phil is an asshole in this quote. Fortunately, it isn't possible to 'redefine' the peer review process into anything other than…..the peer review process.
            Is the email ugly? Does it indicate that some researchers are lashing out against the huge volume of hate mail they recieve? Yes………
            However, Brave scientists like MOnbiot have already acknowoledged that there is a problem….and this isn't the first time (nor will it be the last) that this kind of thing happens in science.


        • Why the attack on me personally? I have been doing the "sciency" thing for over 15 years – thanks for asking.

          Fudge data: read the harry.txt file. I'll give you an example of the documentation within the code here. Please know this is only one of MANY such comments within the file.

          ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
          2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

          Science is nothing if you can not replicate. Since CRU has the largest dataset around, this is not proprietary stuff – that would suggest that someone is paying for the research….I think you'd want to avoid that.


    • people like you, your colleague Potter, Lorne Grunter, Michael Coren, etc, who clearly know nothing about the science,

      What just became obvious is you clearly know nothing about Colby Cosh. My advice to you: Google around a bit.

  6. One of the heads of the University of East Anglia is now admitting the IPCC tends toward "authoritarian" and concedes that the IPCC has "run its course."

    Another IPCC author has come out about the fraud that is AGW, and the punishment he may (though less likely now given the walls crumbling down) for going public with it.

    That came out today, among a plethora of other startling revelations,

    which is now everywhere on the blogs,

    but virtually nowhere in the mainstream.

    Austrailia's Andrew Bolt at the HeraldSun's blog, notesthe above and the media's ideologically drivin decision to withold reporting it, while it spreads everywhere nevertheless. He concludes the media are killing themselves, destroying their credibility while ensureing readers go elsewhere (like his blog) to get this important news they desperately crave. His post is here, I encourage interested readers to read it all:

    • Great link Biff!

      The "Peer Review at the Climatic Research Unit" youtube clip was hilarious and probably not that far off the mark.

      • "Great link Biff! "

        And the cycle completes itself again.

    • Anyone who would quote Monckton is completely out to lunch.

  7. Well, if my last post generated 420 comments and counting, and Potter's generated 250 and counting, I suppose I'd be going back to the well just as quickly (especially if my last post bombed at 2 comments, and who cares).

    I don't have any problem with people arguing over such matters – if they think that's a productive use of their intellect – "a climate-change skeptic, or to anyone with the time and the quantitative training to follow a scientific debate on his own."

    Now, I've taken statistics, and have an applied science background (amongst other things)- but these fields of study are very narrow and specific – and those that excel in these endeavours often cannot see the forest for the trees.

    You suggest "I ask solely as a matter of media-consumer interest". Very well, but you also live in Edmonton, gateway to Fort McMurray, and resident of a province that has bet its future on continued unfettered expansion of the oil sands. In other words, it seems to me you have a horse in this race.

    So, why should we care about tree rings and emails? Is there some economic armageddon we are facing if Canada and other countries in the world come to some sort of agreement in Copenhagen to control/reduce fossil fuel consumption? How about a blog on this topic – the economic cost to Canada of this "new world order" as some like to describe it. And give us facts – not some spun rhetoric.

    • Ah , the old Cosh is in the employ of Big Oil , well played .

      • Not saying that but he is a "media-consumer" of such "objective" papers as The Edmonton Journal, Calgary Herald, and their respective Suns. Been there. Read them.

        • Yes, and I assume Cosh also has the internet which means he is a media consumer of the world's newspapers.

          Why do you question only Albertans/Edmontonians? Feds collect a lot of cash from oil fields and the Northern fields also seem to provide employment to people from across Canada. Every frakin Canadian has a horse in this race, according to you.

          • I used to be a Calgarian/Edmontonian/Albertan and have worked in industries directly related to the major activities there. That's why I am confident in calling a spade, a spade.

          • I'm a Calgarian and a lifelong Albertan, never employed the oil industry and I am sick of rightwing dinosaur politicians giving our resources away cheap to foreign-owned corporations who will leave us with nothing but a poisoned desert. We have been betrayed by Klein, Stelmach, Harper and Prentice.

    • "And give us facts – not some spun rhetoric."

      Dot, you have it exactly backwards. AGW is an unproven hypothesis. The onus is on those pushing this theory to prove it is correct. And speaking of armageddon. The over the top rhetoric pretty well comes from the AGW backers. Again all unproven.

    • Someone will have to explain to me how the CRU's malpractice discredits the work of every scientists who came to a pro-AGW conclusion.

      It really didn't long for the AGW deniers to pin "Climategate" to their opposition on a loosely related issue, as if the entire scientific community took sides instead of just reporting their findings as it is.

      • It doesn't, of course. The hysterical denialists are getting desperate.

        • Hysteria and desperation are, happily, being seen rather more on your own side nowadays.

      • There is no scientific consensus on AGW and it's supposed effects.

        • You say this in your role as a climate scientist? This is based on your thorough review of the data?

          • See my post below in the comments TJ. This is more about politics and science. There is absolutely no consensus about any doomsday scenarios with our changing climate. The earth's climate has been changing, getting hotter or getting colder for millenia.

          • Jarrid, politicians earn the support of their peers by skilfully lying to get themselves elected. Scientists earn the respect of their peers by figuring out how real processes really work.

            Scientists tell the truth about what is happening to the world right now. Politicians lie about it.

          • And who told you there's no consensus?

            Because every *actual* climate scientist I read is crystal clear: there is consensus that human activity is causing global warming.

          • "there is consensus that human activity is causing global warming."

            Just because you write something does not make it so. Maybe you should expand your reading material.

            "At present, however, the warming is taking a break," confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact." Der Spiegel, Nov 19 '09

            "It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point." Der Spiegel, Nov 19 '09

            "A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

            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." Eduardo Zorita

          • Gosh, not one, not two but THREE cherry-picked quotes!

            This totally demolishes the IPCC reports on climate change, which was only reviewed by 2500 qualified climate scientists from around the world.

            Who needs data when you have quotes, especially those stripped of context and specifically NOT denying the existence of AGW?

          • About Mojib Latif: "…Even well-meaning and thoughtful commentators and reporters have misinterpreted the recent comments and work of Mojib Latif, the Kiel University climate scientist whose remarks at a session on prediction at the World Climate Conference in Geneva set off the latest furor. Somehow those writers have managed to overlook the fact that Latif, despite projecting less near-term warming than most climate modellers, is still looking for warming close to 0.2 deg. C in the coming decade…"

            "…Things really careened out of control once Lorne Gunter got hold of the story. Gunter, who can't seem to write a single paragraph on climate science without getting something wrong (for instance here, here and here)…"



          • About Mojib Latif: "…Even well-meaning and thoughtful commentators and reporters have misinterpreted the recent comments and work of Mojib Latif, the Kiel University climate scientist whose remarks at a session on prediction at the World Climate Conference in Geneva set off the latest furor. Somehow those writers have managed to overlook the fact that Latif, despite projecting less near-term warming than most climate modellers, is still looking for warming close to 0.2 deg. C in the coming decade…"

            "…Things really careened out of control once Lorne Gunter got hold of the story. Gunter, who can't seem to write a single paragraph on climate science without getting something wrong (for instance here, here and here)…"



          • For the record; there are a few climate scientists who think that anthropogenic forcings are close to negligable.

          • "You say this in your role as a climate scientist? This is based on your thorough review of the data?"

            I ask you same questions TJ. May I have an answer please?

          • I'm not the one making claims of a global conspiracy to falsely portray AGW as real.

            If you deniers want to take potshots at cherry-picked bits of data, emails and graphs, the burden of proof lies with you.

            Me? I believe people with credentials as actual scientists.

          • Like Al Gore and David Suzuki and Phil Jones, science-manipulator.

            Even that unabashed lefist George Monbiot, (who did a citizen's arrest on John Bolton) things Phil Jones has to resign.

          • Al Gore does not claim to be a scientist. David Suzuki is an actual scientist but makes no secret of the fact that he's now working as an advocate and educator. He does not claim status as an active climate scientist.

            Nice try.

            As for Jones, if you had any experience at actual science whatsoever you'd realize how ignorant and slanderous your interpretation of that email really is.

          • TJ,
            Monbiot is issuing the bugle call for scientists to march towards the Popperian ideal.
            Phil Jones clearly wasn't reaching for the Popperian ideal.
            (Monbiot was right)

            Of course, Jones did an incredible job of his own science when fighting in a siege mentality which is a huge testament to his personal integrity.
            However, he still could have, and should have, ignored all the attacks against his person, and focused only on the data.
            He didn't.

          • There is no scientific consensu on how this so-called AGW will affect our climate in the futur.

            None whatsoever.

          • "I'm not the one making claims of a global conspiracy to falsely portray AGW as real."

            So it's worldwide global conspiracy to defraud on the one hand, or it's hard science, pure as the driven snow on the other. And there is no space at all in between those two positions, at least as far as you are concerned.

            The leaked emails and data reveal a pattern of distortion and manipulation of data. You don't need a PhD to question the distortions. Screaming invective at people tends to increase rather than decrease their level of skepticism… if you're interested in actually convincing anyone.

          • Please specify where I was "screaming invective".

            Also, perhaps you could specify where I defined this ridiculous back-and-white world of total conspiracy or total purity that you describe.

            The leaked emails reveal a pattern of manipulating, or as scientists would say "analyzing" the data, for sure. Distortion? That's a strong accusation. Prove it.

          • Disprove it . See what I did there ?

          • "See what I did there?"

            Uh… dodged the question like a pre-teen?

          • Please specify where I was "screaming invective".

            Right here in this thread… calling people "deniers," "jackasses," "pre-teens" and so on…

            perhaps you could specify where I defined this ridiculous back-and-white world…

            Right here in this thread… every legitmate objection that is raised is met with the same challenge to either disprove the AGW theory in toto or accept it without question.


          • Distortion? That's a strong accusation. Prove it.

            It's been proved to my satisfaction but I doubt very much that it could ever be proved to your satisfaction. You have uncontested evidence that troublesome results were either minimized, adjusted or simply ignored. You have uncontested evidence that some of the leading figures in the IPCC were contemplating deleting data to avoid it;s disclosure. You have uncontested evidence that at least one database was denounced as meaningless by the very person who compiled it. You want to quibble with the word "distortion?" Knock yourself out.

            The problem I see with this data is that it reveals that these gentlemen were not dealing with problems of science, they were dealing with Marketing issues. It was not inquiry, but advocacy.

          • Igarvin,
            The emails definately show that data was manipulated……but all data is manipulated.

            The important quesiton here is whether or not it was distorted to show increased climate sensitivity.

            The literature seems to indicate that the data which wasn't included DID show increased sensitity (have you read my commetns re: Briffa et al 1998 in Cosh's last piece?)……so when Mann et al left it out, they were actually being cautious, and not assigning too much certinaty to a higher climate sensitivity. Ditto for leaving it out of the IPCC.

            I certianly agree that scientists perceptions/personal bias COULD have distorted the data…..and the tone of the emails suggests that most people, in Jones/Mann's position would have…..(MOnbiot is calling foul on Phil JOnes for allowing himself to get into such a position- too peronsally invested)
            …..however the evidence shows the opposite, that Jones & Mann cautiously excluded data that indicates AGW is more of a problem than currently acknowledged.

            I actually had a chance to talk to one of the authors of the AR4 (he was my prof). Although he wasn't a lead author, and therefore avoided the thankless tasks of making the kinds of choices Mann did, he had been in the room when the scientists were coming to a consensus on levels of certainty for the WG1 AR4 (The working group that does nothing but work on what climate change is acutally happening, and why—-all physical science).

            Interestingly, the scientists were leaning towards "virtually certain" for the overall report (i.e. the conculsions on how and why climate is changing, and that AGW is a major driver)……but they didn't, because they know (more than anyone else) that hard science, pure as the driven snow, should always be treated with skepticism.

            I'm actually interested in convincing you- you seem a half reaosnable soul…..

        • "There is no scientific consensus on AGW and it's supposed effects."

          You're right there is no consensus. Out of the hundreds of thousands of science teams covering AGW a good portion's work support AGW, and another portion's work refute AGW. The malpractice of one team changes nothing in the grand scheme of things.

          • The scientific consensus is that AGW is 'very likely' (95% certain, I think).

            Scientists who produce evidence which reduces the evidence for AGW aren't all malpracticing.

    • Ideally, both the raw and adjusted data would have been graphed followed by a paragraph that thoroughly and clearly explained the changes. A really good researcher would also have predicted the skeptics response to the adjustments and addressed them in the paper. Instead the "trick" to "hide the decline" was secretive. They refused to release data, discussed deleting info and meddled in the peer review process. The raw data…..lost. Sloppy is the best term that could be used. The balance of evidence in the UEA CRU teams handling of of climate science trends towards an organized effort to pervert the science and hide their tracks.

      As for the "it's an isolated incident" argument – how do you know that until all the data is examined? For years the public and skeptics were told that all of the data was good but now we find evidence of prominent scientists using questionable techniques to prove the AGW case. Just the meddling in the peer review process and "loss" of raw data warrants a thorough investigation of all the material involved in the climate science debate. If scientists have nothing to hide then there is no reason to withhold raw data, methods, computer process etc.

      • ".Instead the "trick" to "hide the decline" was secretive" False. They published a paper explaining exactly what data they did not use and why.

        See #1 here:

        "…In their original article in Nature in 1998, Briffa and colleagues are very clear that the post-1960 data in their tree-ring dataset should not be used in reconstructing temperatures due to a problem known as the "divergence problem" where their tree-ring data decline in their response to warming temperatures after about 1960.

        “Hide” was therefore a poor word choice, since the existence of this decline, and the reason not to use the post 1960 data because of it, was not only known, but was indeed the point emphasized in the original Briffa et al Nature article. There is a summary of that article available on this NOAA site…"

        And be sure to visit his links before you make any more false statements.

        And for data, here:

        Knock yourself out, if you have any idea how to handle data.

        • But Mann refused to release the raw data supporting his claims. Jones also refused and the "lost" the raw data. If this data can not be analyzed and replicated by others then the conclusions and explanations are worthless.

          • What evidence do you have of this? Just repeating all the crap you read at denialist websites?

          • Frankly, if you can't be bothered to do a little digging yourself then perhaps you are not qualified to discuss these issues.

            But I will get you started – For Mann's hockey stick try googling Caspar and the Jesus Papers for a relatively easy read, from there you can go to more technical papers.

            For CRU – just read P.Jones own e-mails. He refers to deleting info rather than comply, meeting with FOIA reps to prevent releasing data and "hiding" behind confidentiality agreement. Of course now the raw data is irretrievable… how convenient.

            "Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:
            Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data."

            No raw data means no replication = worthless research

          • Supplying quotations without a proper citation = worthless research. You want to argue facts, provide links that back up your claims.

          • See comments 187 and 824 and the responses:

            From 824:
            "…[Response: No data has been destroyed, the original files and numbers are with the national weather services that provided them. Removing a copy of a original file because it is not useful for my purposes is not 'deleting data' – gavin]…"


            In case you did not understand them, CRU did not own some of the data and so they could not give it away to anyone. If you want that data go to the Natiohnal Met offices which own the data.

          • Most of the posters at Realclimate are implicated in this so any comment or post should be highly suspect . Again , see what I did there ?

          • "Most of the posters at Realclimate are implicated in this…"

            Really? Which ones? Prove it.

          • Let me quote LC Bennet: "Frankly, if you can't be bothered to do a little digging yourself then perhaps you are not qualified to discuss these issues."

            Dude, think this through. YOU are making a claim. It's YOUR job to convince others, not to accuse them of laziness for not proving you right.

            By the way, a blog post favorably quoting Steve McIntyre is immediately questionable. Be careful who you associate with.

          • Nah, turnabout is fair play, Holly's obnoxious behavior was just returned to her.

            Dude, save your lectures about claims and convincing others for the the CRU. Refusing to reveal info is their M.O.. I can't believe you fell for my "trick" (and I mean trick in in P.Jones scientific definition, of course – "…the term "trick" to refer to "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. RealClimate)

            BTW, McIntyre has proven to be quite a big player in these events so his inclusion is essential. In fact, the attempt to exclude him has resulted in the release of these embarrassing e-mails.

          • Asking for evidence is "obnoxious behaviour"?

            Demanding that she prove you right is "fair play"?

            By the way, how about you apply some of your misplaced skepticism to Mr. McIntyre? Let me help you with that:

          • Why is a post that speaks positively of Mr. McIntyre immediately questionable? Was he fudging data, hiding the decline, losing raw data etc. etc. etc.? Please explain, has he exhibited some ethical gaffe or do you just not like his viewpoint (which is REALLY not anti anything for the most part, he just wants the numbers to speak for themselves rather that for them to be beaten into saying something different than the truth).

          • "Was he fudging data, hiding the decline, losing raw data etc. etc. etc.?"

            Yes. Yes he was. He has committed multiple acts of incompetence and/or mendacity that would have had him run out of town by now, if he were held to the standards of ordinary scientists.

            Here, I keep posting this:

            Have a look and decide for yourself whether this is the sort of person you'd follow in the climate change debate.

          • McIntyre isn't THAT bad.

            This whole us. vs. them is why we're in this problem TJ.

            Yeah, McIntyre's analysis is usually flawed…….but making a personal attack on someone because they are presenting bad data//analysi is EXACTLY why this brouhahaha exists.

          • LC Bennett,

            You are confusing 'raw' or 'primary source' data and intermediate data.

            The raw data was avilable from Briffa et all 1998, as Holly said.

            Jones/Mann refused to release intermediate data.

            Anyone else was free to take the raw data, and build their own model, and make their own intermediate data.

        • How many trees did Briffa depend on for his reconstructions?

          If tree ring data does not correspond to measured temperatures, when has it ever?

          If someone says there is consensus on this stuff, someone is lying.


          • dbk,
            I don't know, but a huge dataset of tree proxies exists, all over the world (or at least the continents that grow trees!), and has been collected for decades.

            The tree ring data corresponded to the instrumental record pre 1960 (though there is always variation). Briffa has a 2002 paper wiith more discussion.
            Just see which papers cite the 1998 paper (and Briffa's 1996 paper, and the 2002 review paper)…..and you'll get a good idea of how there is a lot of debate, but that more and more data comes in every year, and more can be explained (there are several reasons why the post 60s divergence could have taken place) every year….

    • A quick explanation of Cap & Trade;

      A polluter is given allowable CO2 emissions, if the polluter exceeds this limit it can than buy carbon credits from a company that is polluting less. Sounds fine right, here's the problem the polluters also own companies with low pollution therefore it transfers money from one of their companies to another, that company then transfers that money to another company. usually a holding company owned by the major polluter. FSLR(First solar) is a perfect example of this the controlling share holder Walton estates also owns an oil company. GE another major solar company GE electric also owns GE Oil and Gas therefore will not not be affected by Carbon Tax laws because it can just shuffle the money and carbon credits around to maintain it's current level of production. The Alberta Trunk Line is yet another example of this it will suck CO2 out the atmosphere be sent to the Alberta Oil Sands via the pipe line and will actually increase production. Tax the air, then tax you for collection, then sell it back to you at an inflated price(In the name of climate change) and the cycle repeats. Only the people will be paying carbon tax and the major polluters will continue to do business as usual all the while being able to track you via a GPS device in your vehicle and charging you per km after exceed you personal carbon footprint limit and you can't travel after that unless you have lots of money. "Well, I seen on the news that this is a good thing" Who owns the media? I know it seems alot to wrap your head around this but it is happening. Spread the word and produce this evidence and the climate gate information.

  8. "not just to confirm that reader's prejudices"

    I don't agree with its politics but I like the fact that TorStar has a world view and is upfront about it. More than just about any other paper in Canada, TorStar writers confirm their readers prejudices. I believe the average Star reader does not want to be challenged with skeptic arguments because they are 'all in' as far as global warming goes.

    "assuming there are no biases in the temperature observations,"

    Mighty big assumption. I think Anthony Watts has done some yeoman work photographing/documenting temperature stations across America and it did not look good. There were also emails talking about how bad temp centres were across Russia, I believe it was. Corrie is not arguing in good faith, I don't believe, because even IPCC members are talking about how 'warming is taking a break'.,1518,…

    However, what concerns me most is Yandle's 'Bootleggers and Baptists' phenomenon. We now have big business, government and environmentalists – not natural allies – working together to achieve their ends. Too much money is involved to let facts and/or skepticism to get in the way of their plans for the future.

    It is not a coincidence that the more focus put on the IPCC's, and other orgs, shoddy work the hysteria gets worse. I am far from convinced that it is entirely coincidental that 'revised' predictions are making possible effects of global warming to be even worse than first predicted.

    All I know is Canadian reporters have got to be the most incurious bunch of people that is possible to assemble. All emails and files that have been leaked show that scientists behaved like they have things to hide. If the science is settled, why are scientists behaving like this?

    • " More than just about any other paper in Canada, TorStar writers confirm their readers prejudices."

      Speaking of prejudices, can you back this up at all? Climate change denial notwithstanding, you ought to have some data before making a declaration like this.

      • Are you a TorStar reader/fan? I bet you are.

        I don't know what 'data' I am supposed to provide but I speak from experience. I don't believe it is coincidence that every lefty I know thinks TorStar is the bee's knees, at least for Canadian progressive journalism.

        • Nope, not a regular reader.

          If it's an opinion, label it as such. For god's sake, if right-wingers were a little more rigorous, we wouldn't have half the disagreements we do. I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's exhausting dealing with an endless stream of off-the-cuff declarations presented as irrefutable fact.

          • "But these "skeptics" are behaving exactly like creationists attacking evolution:"

            If it's an opinion, label it as such. For god's sake, if left-wingers were a little more rigorous, we wouldn't have half the disagreements we do. I don't mean to be pedantic, but it's exhausting dealing with an endless stream of off-the-cuff declarations presented as irrefutable fact.

          • There's no point following that link. Here is one the exposed emails:

            From Michael E. Mann of Penn State University:

            Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC [ – A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

          • I'm not talking about opinion. I've been through the Evolution vs Jesus debate from the scientists' side and I've seen the tactics used to "discredit" evolution. They're *exactly* the sort of tactics being deployed here by the deniers/conspiracy theorists.

            As for McIntyre and McKitrick, I posted two links earlier leading to a systematic demolition of their work. In some cases, only mendacity could explain how they got things so very wrong. This is much more than my opinion.

            Sanctimoniously quoting my own words back to me and being wrong in doing so: screw you.

            By the way, you wrote "More than just about any other paper in Canada, TorStar writers confirm their readers prejudices." I quite specifically called out that baldfaced claim, not your uninformed (but properly labeled) opinion that followed.

          • TJ,
            There are many, many cases where preconceived notions (like M&M's) lead to people getting things 'so very wrong'
            M&M aren't the first scientists to work in an unfamiliar field with a very set, very wrong, idea to srtart out with….and never be able to punch out of their own handicap.
            True, they could be delibatelry lying…..but without convincing proof, I'm just going with 'stupid.'

    • Jolyon,

      I looked at the Watts' link.

      Yup, their are a lot of bad temperature sensors out there…..however, there are lots of good ones too.
      If I took pictures of all the ones in the forest I worked in this summer (a biosphere reserve) and wrote about they couldn't possibly be biased – I wouldn't prove that there was no bias in temperature.

      Conversely, Watts' picture of one sensor which is clearly just measuring the temperature of surrounding buildings doesn't prove much.

      What does tell the story is whether or not Urban Heat Island effects are accounted for properly when average the whole instrumental record. Undoubatably, manhy observing stations are thrown out, and others weighted less- the scientists have known about the UHI problem with heat sensors a very, very long time.

      By now, people who actually do the adjutments for the UHIs are quite confident in their work. People like M&M may not be……but they don't even know how to do it themselves.

      I do agree that the confluence of Bootleggers and Baptists can have some really negative results. However, big business, and most 'environmentalists' have very little influence over the physical scientists who compile the WG1 reports.

      Listening to an indoctrinated enviro-greenie who has no idea how the physical systems actually work argue with physical scientists have form some of the most entertaining parts of my career (I sometimes take that role myself).

      However……the physical scientists are also worried as hell about AGW…..they just recognize that the bootleggers and baptists attempts at addressing the problem are freakin hilarious (e.g. everyone replace you lightbulbs, and the problem will go awaY).

    • Random aside about newspapers….
      I think the post is in very close running with the torstar in the category of 'succesffuly confirming readers prejudices'
      Also, the Tyee has a very similar upfront leftwing editorial slant to the torstar-often even more so.

      Have you seen the yes minister clip about newspaper readers? If you haven't, google 'newspapers yes minister'…..absolutley hilarious.

    • "All I know is Canadian reporters have got to be the most incurious bunch of people that is possible to assemble. All emails and files that have been leaked show that scientists behaved like they have things to hide. If the science is settled, why are scientists behaving like this? "

      1. I think the science is still settled but……

      2. You're right that reporters should be damned sight more curious- it is really unfortunate that we don't have na environmental jounralist of Monbiot's calibre in Canada.

  9. Dot,

    I'd be interested if you have any experience in computer modeling?

    It seems nearly unanimous among such experts that only the simplist of mechanisms can be "predicted". Complex, fluid dynamic ones are impossible to predict, which is why even monsoons from the past, couldn't be modeled to reproduce the results using the IPCC models after numberous attempts. And which also explains the divergence of reality vs. prediction over the levelling off of temps over the last ten years which Mann et al find so frustrating in the emails.

    Your thoughts?

    • Not computer modelling in the context of what you describe – you'd need to pursue a PhD and have been involved in a research facility to be conversant at the level of this debate. I have however done financial computer modelling on investment opportunities in the resource sector etc. and am familiar with the impact of taxes, regulations, price and production forecasts etc and sensitivity analysis.

      The fact that most of these climate models require the latest and fastest supercomputers should indicate the level of complexity – and multiple scenarios that are under investigation. But like any complex model, they are evolving, and will experience hiccups over time. For me, it's the trend that's more important – but others better qualified will more properly focus on the "noise" – in an attempt to attenuate it.

      • Yes, I apologize for not having a PHD. It seems (as discussed by many others who do have phd's in this area) that models that cannot forcast simpler mechanisms, and the computer model that failed in its temperature prediction since the models inception thus far is therefore unreliable.

        Perhaps they teach PHD's now that experiments/models that fail to show what was predicted as somehow validating the theory rather than disproving it, but I'd venture to guess, that the scientists who agree that the failed models are unreliable are following the scientific method,

        whereas the "scientists" who attempt to make after-the-fact explanations are not following the scientific model.

        What's remarkable is the divergence between the honest frustrations expressed in the emails between the cooling/levelling not following the models, and how those same individuals proclaim to the world that there's no problem at all.

        Thank you for indulging me, not being "conversant at the level of this debate", and all.

        • I'm not conversant either – so don't feel indulged.

        • Biff,

          I've run a modelof Lovelock's original 'Daisyworld' —– that qualifies me as modeller right? (I wish!!!)

          Seriously though the master's and PHD's and postgrads and profs do all spent a LOT of time assessing whether or not their models have predictive value. I mean, no modellor could possibly expect to pass a M.Sc. PhD, get a fellowship, publish a paper which gets accepted……..unless their model can actually predict real world behavour.

          I think you have a misconception about whether or not these same scientists report how accurate their models are. Have you looked through the AR4 WG1 report? The actual report quantifies uncertiaintiies all over the place!

          Of course, there are very, very few journalists who convey the scientific uncertinaty (which the vast, vast majority of scientists are very, very upfront about) to the public in a meaningful way.

          Usually the journalists are just looking for sexy sound bites like "so you're sure then?" vs. "So you don't really know what is going to happen at all?"…….and kind of ignore the fact that science, and modelling in particular, fits in between those tow polar opposites.

          Colby Cosh's piece is a pretty prime example of this- at least he prefaces his blog with a 'media consumer perspective' (COP OUT!)………but many journalists won't even admit that their reporting is a very poor reflection of the science itself.

          It makes me think that maybe their is an undeveloped market for journalists who can understand and communicate the hard scientists accurately….so maybe my aspiration to be a science journalist writing for a popular audience (Colby Cosh's man on the subway) isn't hopeless.

    • "It seems nearly unanimous among such experts that only the simplist of mechanisms can be "predicted". Complex, fluid dynamic ones are impossible to predict,"

      It's impossible to accurately predict the location of a single electron, yet atoms still work and molecules behave predictably to create compounds and materials so much so that things continue to "probabilistically" work reliably and predictably.

    • I'm gonna take exception to the use of "fluid dynamics" to describe monsoon modelling. The two terms are worlds apart. Fluid dyanmics is a governed by a series of well-known and confirmed equations of motion, which isn't easy to model, but certainly doable with a high degree of certainty. Climate models that include monsoons, of course, are much more applied and difficult to construct reliably.

      • :)
        Yeah, Biff was definately fudging what Global Climate Models are…..but GCMs do include fluid dynamics….

  10. Maclean's Blog Central has hit a home run with the addition of Mr. Cosh to the roster. Thank you so much sir for your thought-provoking posts.

    With the likes of Kady O'Malley we had the usual left/lib mainstream drivel. Which is why she's really found her home at the CBC. The CBC, the place where groupthink is the mantra. The place where left/lib commonplaces are recited in zombie-like fashion.

    The unproven AGW hypothesis has become one of the seminal issues of the day. I commend you for continuing to post on this issue.

  11. Peer review , for dummies .

    • Yes, for dummies indeed.

      What theory will I choose to believe:

      1) Global warming has been manufactured by a worldwide conspiracy involving the entire body of climate scientists, to the point where peer review itself loses its value. The motives of this global conspiracy read like every conservatives' Red Dawn wet dream.

      2) The climate is changing. The global climate is so big and complex that laypeople can't jump into the data and see simple, cartoonish graphs. Some people who lack the qualifications and integrity of actual scientists are cherry-picking raw data to misrepresent/minsunderstand what it means.

      • Well, for point 1 if you get a core of the AGW movement to publish crap. Then the poor suckers who build on top of the crap but don't know the numbers are fudged also turn out crap and they don't need to be in on it, they're just rubes.

        • So it's not a global conspiracy, you say. Rather, a small number of researchers can publish distorted results and the rest of the scientific community will be led astray by these polluted results.

          You, mungman, have no idea how science works.

    • Yeah, Steyn appeals to dummies alright.

  12. Colby, why didn't you note that the source of your link is Climate Audit run by Steve McIntyre, a statistician who is not a climate scientist, and who has been attacking the real climate scientists for years. Why don't you go to the real scientists like Mann:

    • Why not point out Suzuki and Gore are both patently unqualified to speak on this subject …….. oh, never mind .

      • Because it is irrelevent in this case. Because I am referring to actually climate scientists. Suzuki and Gore are good, intelligent, knowledgeable publicizers of the problems that global warming is causing; but they are not actual climate scientists.

        • All I hear is APPEAL TO AUTHORITY APPEAL TO AUTHORITY APPEAL TO AUTHORITY APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. If the whole of your argument is "No one is qualified to question experts except those they also recognize as experts," you've already lost.

          • Dude – we're not saluting a fascist leader here, it takes a lifetime of specialized study to keep up with modern climate science.

            Who do recommend – who's not a climate scientist – to assess the quality of modern climate science?

            That's kind of like saying that brain surgery is not all it's cracked up to be, and that things would totally get better if only they'd let some laypeople in there with the scalpel.

    • Ooh, yes, you mean Michael Mann, the great "hockey stick" genius?

    • Yes, lets go to the "scientist" who is being investigated by his university (read possible ethical lapses)

      , or the statistician that I frankly think at this point still hasn't had anything stick to him.

      • Actually, from your own link: "The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases."

        That's not an investigation, that's a review of the stolen emails. You're *already* putting the word scientist in "scare quotes" – good thing you're not part of the team tasked with impartially assessing whether there's any reason to investigate this man's work.

    • Holly,
      Colby is trying to get an idea of how the marketplace of ideas ("media consumer interest") is responding to this……
      Unfortunately, M&M have already become the 'goto' skeptics for Canadian journos.
      Yeah, he should have pointed out that Climate audit is incompetent……but Colby definately doesn't have the knowledge to inform his readership of which particular voices on climate are accurate…..and I don't think he cares overly much.

      Its not that relevant, because he knows people like M&M already have a significant part of the ;market share' in the skeptics/good science marketplace…..and he is trying to figure whether they will gain or lose.

      Unfortunaetly, whether or not they will gain or lsoe seems to have little to do with who is right……which has always been the achilles heel of science journalism- the correct message foten isn't the sexiest, so the wrong message gets signalled from scientists through journalists (like Colby does here) to the public,

      Instead of directing him towards good science (which he doesn't really investigate anyway), perhpas it might be more valuable to get at what I think is the missing 'sexy' story in the media discourse- here it is:

      The data that the CRU group was excluding/hinding supports the idea that AGW is worse than it is currently claimed. So all this fuss about the CRU group hiding data… about the CRU group essentially agreeing with climate change skeptics- since they are refusing to rely on data that has a high degree of uncertainty.
      I've already shown how this is so in previous comments (the Briffa discussion in 1998 and 2002)

  13. At the risk of diverging from the topic at hand, which I think is important and believe Mr. Cosh to be doing a nice job of covering, the following passage caught my attention:

    That's like saying that prosecutors resent the threat of having unfairly acquired evidence excluded from the courtroom…but it's there in the rules of the game, for good reasons.

    I dunno, I've always had a problem with throwing out evidence because of the way it's been obtained. How is hiding the truth an example of pursuing justice and truth in the courtroom?

    I know a few people here and there suggest this every once in a while, but why not punish those who obtain evidence unlawfully, instead of throwing out the evidence altogether.

    It just seems that we sometimes throw out the baby with the bathwater in the pursuit of defending criminal rights, then champion it as some sort of high-minded achievement of advanced societies. In the process, criminals get let go on technicalities, however serious they might be. They're still technicalities.

    Again, I know I'm sidetracking, but I think it's an important issue, and one I'd love to get some clarity on at some point. Rant over.

    • How do a few stolen emails produce truth? Remember that the thief selected these emails, so that the context of conversations may have been lost. The thief may also have altered some of the emails; certainly there seems to be funny stuff with the modification dates.
      And perhaps the mainstream media has ethical problems with publishing someone's stolen private emails. Where are all the law-and-order rightwingers now?

    • I am not a lawyer/judge but my impression is that Canadian courts are actually pretty good about not excluding evidence that might not have met evidence collection criteria 100%. I believe it is the Americans who are making it ever more difficult to collect, and introduce, evidence.

    • In what way would our freedom against unreasonable search and seizure have any meaning at all if our homes could be searched without cause, and any evidence found in them could then be used against us in a court of law, so long as the people who searched our homes without cause were punished? It's not always about punishing those that do wrong, sometimes it's about preventing a wrong from being done against us.

      If my home can be searched illegally and anything found in it can then be used against me at trial then at least one of my constitutional rights has been rendered essentially meaningless.

      And how far would we take this? Should we admit confessions beat out of suspects in to court so long as the police officer is prosecuted for the beating? That's an awfully slippery slope you're standing on.

    • As others have alluded to, this approach has significant dangers- because the police don't effectively police themselves.
      Right now, the big disinctive for illegal evidence is that it can't be used in courts…..however, police still do obtain evidence illegally on a regular basis, and although they are theoretically suppoused to be punished severerly…..they have such a strong in-group cohesiveness that the punishment is rarely effective.*

      *Of course, when your job invovles getting assaulted by people on a regular basis, the police attitudes are understandable, though disappointing

  14. The whole global warming debate roughly divides down a left/right divide on the political spectrum. You see it here in our little Blog Central community. Basically the left-leaning commenters support the AGW theory and want to take drastic action while the right-leaning commenters are much more sanguine about dealing with this issue if indeed they think it really is an issue. Most don't. What can we draw from this? It tells me that this whole issue is much more about politics than about science. If it was about science, there wouldn't be so much passion about this debate. That there is tells me that this is mostly about politics.

    Is it any surprise then that science gets manipulated to achieve politcal ends? The Soviet Union suppressed scientific ideas when not convenient. For example "the Ukrainian agronomist Trofim Lysenko refused to accept the chromosome theory of heredity usually accepted by modern genetics. Claiming his theories corresponded to Marxism, he managed to talk Joseph Stalin in 1948 into banning population genetics and several other related fields of biological research; this decision was not reverted up to the 1960s." (Wiki)

    • Basically the left-leaning commenters support the AGW theory and want to take drastic action while the right-leaning commenters are much more sanguine about dealing with this issue if indeed they think it really is an issue.

      More like left-leaning commenters want to take reasonable action while right-leaning commenters want nothing to be done by anybody.

      • right-leaning commenters want nothing to be done by anybody

        I'm fine with you and your friends picking up litter, as you keep citing. Massive public spending boondoggles on the basis of shaky science? Not so much.

        • It's only shaky to a fringe group who thinks its all a big "socialist conspiracy" designed to prevent them from exploiting the planet to make scads of money.

        • You mean like the Alberta government pouring two billion into carbon capture by Big Oil?

    • "The whole global warming debate roughly divides down a left/right divide on the political spectrum. "

      For once, Jarrid made sense, at least with this sentence.

      On the left we have the vast majority of the world's climate scientists. On the right they have bloggers, meteorologists, rightwing politicians, rightwing dittoheads and the world's carbon (ie oil, coal) industry.

      The left is concerned with taking action because the scientists tell us it is necessary to avoid global catastrophe. The right is "sanguine" about the problem because the status quo is just fine for those with power and money and besides, the really bad effects will hit the third world long before it affects their grandchildren.

      "If it was about science, there wouldn't be so much passion about this debate. That there is tells me that this is mostly about politics."

      There's the jarrid we all know and have to tolerate. That's completely nonsensical. Consider the passion inspired by the study of evolution. Consider Copernicus. Consider medical science with its stem cells, safe abortions and high-tech fertilization techniques. Passion? You betcha.

      • Is that why we have so-called scientists ruining their professional reputations trying to "hide the decline"?

        • That's a gross and – by now – deliberate misinterpretation of the meaning of that email.

          There was nothing "hidden", the scientist was producing a graph. He described his "hide the decline" actions completely in the text of the peer-reviewed article.

          Seriously, that's all you deniers have, coming out of this. A small amount of deliberately misrepresented information. Well, at least your "standards" are consistent. Me, I value intellectual integrity but diff'rnt strokes.

          • You 'value intellectual integrity' but don't mind when scientists "deliberately misrepresented information"?

          • Read my post again, jolyon: I accused jarrid of deliberately misrepresenting information (not really out on a limb here, am I?), not scientists.

            Jarrid and many other deniers are deliberately reading the worst possible interpretation into those three words, and ignoring the very reasonable explanations that have been published. The deniers also seem to always fail to mention that the steps taken the "hide the decline" were explicitly described in the article. The decline wasn't "hidden" at all.


          • "If [Stephen McIntyre pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go through my emails adn he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all.."

            Phil Jones

            Breaking England's Freedom of Information laws. All in a day's work for the leading global warming, I'm having trouble calling them, scientists.

          • "Read my post again, jolyon:"

            Sorry. I understand now.

            I am curious, are you really this sanguine about info that's been released so far? Monbiot might been have been a bit overwrought but have you started to ask yourself similar questions?

          • Honestly, I think the work of these scientists should be re-reviewed with a fine-toothed comb (pardon the failed metaphor) by anybody who published it and certainly by anybody who funded it. I say this partly because it should be questioned after this information is released and partly because – if the work is still solid – the best response will come from a proper review.

            After enduring the Creationists' attack on evolution, I'm very sympathetic of scientists who have to contend with ill-informed outsiders with a political agenda. And I've seen the damage a bunch of non-scientists can do when they get their hands on raw data that they're not equipped (or interested in) to understand.

            I draw the analogy to the Bush White House getting access to raw intelligence from the CIA. Cheney et al were able to cherry-pick things that sounded damning in a press release but came from unreliable sources, or meant something different in context.

            Science works within the community of scientists, but its very nature leaves it vulnerable to abuse by people with political agendas. The few times I've seen science corrupted from within have been isolated examples, caught by the scientific process, and have ended the careers of the people who committed the acts of corruption.

            These emails and data sound like the inner workings of science, not conspirators. Raw data *always* has to be twiddled, or fudged, or manipulated, or cleaned or tweaked. The point is that all techniques to do so must be part of the publication. Talk of "tricks" etc. sounds like the day-to-day to me, and I say that as someone who spent much time in the ultra-geek world of natural sciences.

          • Obviously we will never agree but thank you for answer.

          • TJ,
            Again, keep in miond that Jarrid is walking in with very strong pre-conceived notions about what the emails contain.
            He is looking at them under a lens (and so are you and me, but are lens aren't so foggy :)).

            I definately think it is possible that Jarrid honestly believes that the data was hidden to bolster the AGW argument…..I don't think he is deliberatley misrepresenting his perceptions.

            Jarrid- the data that was hidden actually supports the idea that AGW is worse than the IPCC states. I've repeated why too many times alrady on this commetn board to type it agian, so here is the short version
            -see briffa et al 1998 original tree ring data, nature 1998, february 12, letter (I can email you the full pdf if you are really honestly interested in whether or not hiding the data works for or against bolstering AGW).

  15. Didn't you get the memo? Conservatives are pro-torture these days.

    • …in a situation of extreme necessity, the possibility, even a slight possibility, that it [torture] may reveal some life saving result would almost certainly overwhelm any consideration that it is evil." – Michael Ignatieff, The Gifford Lectures, University of Edinburgh, January 2003

      "The use of coercive force in a liberal democracy…is regarded as a lesser evil. This particular view of democracy does not prohibit emergency suspensions of rights in times of terror. But it imposes an obligation on government to justify such measures publicly, to submit them to judicial review, and to circumscribe them with sunset clauses so that they do not become permanent." – Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil: Political ethics in an age of terror, Princeton University Press, 2004

  16. Ok, but my point stands. You're not qualified to interpret technical jargon in the field of climate science, are you?

    Perhaps you could post a CV that demonstrates your experience and education in climate science, and convinces people that you're a credible source of opinion.

    • I know you can do better than an argument from authority. C'mon. Taking faith in what our betters say is the opposite of science. You're a smart guy, let's see some analysis.

      • "I know you can do better than an argument from authority"

        It's not up to him to support the claims made by other commenters. And mere linking isn't much of an argument either. I'm sure you're smart enough to detect the evasion.

      • I'm not arguing from authority – have you read a single word I've written?

        Just the opposite – my whole point is that nobody here is qualified to assess AGW data, and a tiny, out-of-context peek into densely jargon-packed data is nowhere near proof of anything at all.

        I don't know who these "betters" are that you speak of, but you're asking me to accept the lunkheaded interpretations of random bloggers and decide that the global practice of climate science must be wrong. Give that a thought, will you?

    • TJ,
      Lord Bob is right.
      Arguments from authority are Ballocks.

      If moose actually finds evidence that the model was used to decrease climate sensitivity… doesn't matter what it says on his CV.

      Evidence is independant of its producer.

      Of course….your point that he is highly unlikely to produce such evidence if he can't parse the sci jargon is true. :)

      I'm sure he'll try though………

  17. Right answer + bad method = bad science You cannot nor should not base policy on bad science. AGW was "sold" which is a disservice, and apparently on a false premise.

    The foundations for the case, which was always based on increasing CO2 meant a lockstep increase in temperature. This is apparently not the case. It doesnt mean there isnt AGW, it just means it doesnt work the way the "settled science" said it did.

    It means going back and doign the research and making the case the proper way. How in the world can you expect there to be a rational policy, in the trillions of doallars of effect and expenditure, if the core science isnt well understood or more importantly well founded.

    Like mining core samples, salted results don't mean there isnt gold there but you wouldnt make your investment based on it. You want clear results from methods and people you trust. Hiding inconvenient truths like apparent declines in temperature or campaigns of historical revision, get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, really brings up questions of method and integrity.

    • Do you actually think that a few emails from one scientific institution can prove that all of the AGW science is wrong? Are you not aware that every major scientific institution all over the world has recognized that AGW is happening now, including the Royal Society, the oldest one still around:


      The 2007 IPCC Assessment, the most comprehensive and respected analysis of climate change to date, states clearly that without substantial global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions we can likely expect a world of increasing droughts, floods and species loss, of rising seas and displaced human populations. However even since the 2007 IPCC Assessment the evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened. The scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is very strong. Without co-ordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilisation could be severe. "

      • "It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

        (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."

        President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817

        Holly Stick – Do you think what President of the Royal Society was writing about was caused by humans?

        • I don't know about that, but this is caused by humans:

          "…“In 2008 and 2009 satellite data showed a growth in Arctic sea ice extension leaving some to reckon global warming was reversing,” states a summary of the research. “Contrary to what satellites recently suggested, we are actually speeding up the loss of the remaining, healthy, multi-year sea ice.”

          The replacement of older, thicker ice with weak first-year ice has been noted by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, one of the leading trackers of the annual ebb and flow of Arctic ice cover. .."

        • Shorter Jolyon: 'I found this random quote from 200 years ago. Address THAT, liberals! Hahaha!'

          This from a guy who thinks Jonah Goldberg should have a NYT column.

      • I didnt say it was disproved, see my comment re salting core samples, it just means it isnt proved. And to rely on quotes from the Royal Society when the royal Society would have relied on data from Mann, Briffa and the Hadley Centre hardly prove anything.

        This isn't a few emails, this is also bad models, cherry picked data, manipulated data etc. And given that these guys did the "groundbreaking work" this is a foundational crack. Once again it doesnt say it isnt happening just that the proof used to substantiate it is tainted.

        The bad data and models, which have been suspected, combined with the elbows up tactics is what undermines the credibility of the whole enterprise. As I said, right answer + wrong method = bad science. They may well have the right answer, just going about it the wrong way. The faster people looking into the AGW hypothesis accept their error and do things the right way, the faster we will get to the consensus they seek, assuming their data, models and process stand up to the normal everyday scrutiny any other hypothesis has to go through.

    • VInce……AGW was NOT SOLD.

      Excluding the data actually made the case for AGW less robust by decreasing the climate sensitivty that could be extrapolated from the proxy record.

      See briffa et al 1998 (see a few comments above for full reference for the nature paper)

  18. "an ordinary person looking at a graph doesn't expect the underlying data to be spliced together from two different sources"

    Well then, perhaps an ordinary person should read the whole article, including the footnotes and appendices, and including the part that explains why the graph includes data spliced together from two different sources. If we want scientists to start publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals in a way that said articles can be easily understood by "ordinary people" (and not only that, but in a way that is SO easily understood that all graphs contained therein speak for themselves and require no actual words to describe what they represent!) then we might as well just stop publishing peer-reviewed journals all together, and fire all of our scientists.

    It seems to me, in this specific example, you appear to be arguing that scientists should not be allowed to include graphs in their articles, because reading the accompanying text explaining what the graph actually shows is just too darned hard for "ordinary people". The implication of this line from the post is that Jones included a graph showing X in an attempt to fool people in to thinking the graph shows Y. This completely ignores the fact that the article explains explicitly that the graph shows X, and why it shows X. That "ordinary people" want to just look at the graph and base all their conclusions on the picture, and ignore things like footnotes and appendices shows exactly why we should look to scientists to settle these controversies, not "ordinary people".

    Perhaps a first step in that direction would be deciding that we're not actually faced with a choice between believing journalist (and not climate scientist) George Monbiot or believing journalist (and not climate scientist) Peter Gorrie. I'm not entirely confident either one of them has a firm grasp on what they're talking about.

    • Well, they both know more than Cosh.

      Maybe we need to start a peer-reviewed Journal for Dummies explaining science for pundits and other ignorant people.

      • A jury of our peers ? I hope Mann et al are so lucky .

    • Yeah, I'm finding Cosh's comments on "laymen" or "ordinary people" and their knowledge of science a bit confusing, given that (unless I'm mistaken), he has no scientific training himself.

      • I don't know what's confusing about it, but you're not mistaken.

        • What's confusing is that you impose a mentality on laypeople, without including yourself in that group despite being, in this situation, a layperson.

          The implicit accusation here is that Jones and Gorrie are misrepresenting things to people who don't have the expertise to properly judge the data – but you don't have the expertise to properly judge it either, so why should we be taking your interpretation of the e-mails and the data over those who are better qualified (ie the climate scientists or just scientists in general who dismiss this e-mails as saying virtually nothing)?

          • In the blog entry (which, honestly, isn't getting addressed much as such in this comment thread), I talk about a specific kind of layman who depends entirely on the media to report on developments in hard science. I'm a journalist who generates his own science stories, and who does have relevant training in statistics and the history of science. But I don't ask anyone to believe me on that basis, and I don't worry about my credentials when I write about science; I worry about the actual limits of my knowledge. What I write can speak for itself (and I guess my track record could speak on my behalf, for better or worse, but understandably not many in this new audience are aware of it). I do notice that no one with any number of science degrees has actually said one word here in defence of Gorrie's column.

          • You haven't answered my question, but I'll accept that you take more of an interest in the subject than many.

            But, let's cut some pretenses here – this is not an article about science, it's an article about the e-mails of scientists. That's an important distinction – a science article would be discussing the hypotheses of scientists with respect to available data. You're discussing the scientists themselves – it's a social commentary.

            On the last point, I doubt you'll find many people here with science degrees of any sort – sadly, I might well be the closest. So, I'll weigh in – Gorrie's dead on. His point that "they especially resent having to respond to skeptics ", that you've focused on, is key. People get resentful when they're faced with their own guilt, this is true, but they also get resentful when they're faced with injustice or (scientists especially) when they're forced to deal with people who do not see reason or logic.

            Rather than assume which it is, let's start at what we know – these scientists are resentful of skeptics. That doesn't necessarily mean that the skeptics are right and that makes the scientists resentful, it doesn't necessarily mean that the skeptics are raving lunatics and that dealing with them makes the scientists resentful. About all it means is that these scientists are human and whatever the cause, they respond like humans. How terrible.

          • The "They're only human!" defence is used on precisely those occasions when somebody's behaviour is indefensible on any other grounds.

          • Except it's not a defence. It's an explanation. And it's brought out on precisely those occasions when somebody is trying to expect non-human perfect behavior.

          • Exactly.

          • Colby,

            So you did some history of science from an arts perspective?

            Helps explain why you are one of the few journalists who is picking up on Monbiot's Popper reference eh?

            I think you did a good job of framing the 'dude who failed stats 101' perspective.

            For the record , I'm finishing off a science undergrad……and I'd say there isn't anythign wrong with Gorrie's column…..its just that Monbiot's arguments for the Popperian ideal outweigh everything.

            Monbiot presents "this is how science should work', Gorrie talks about the actual imperfect reality……but we're all too busy caught up in a silly debate about AGW to listen to what MOnbiot is pointing out- science should always be strivign to be free and open, to resists the tenedency to close the doors on intermediate data and reasoning and assume that the intermediate induction is correct.

            I've actually been dying to read Popper- so I might be a little off on my characterization?

            It is really tragic how science undergrads can graduate without being terribly conversant with the philospohy of science.

            In case you're curios about how you sound to new readers….you sound like someone who is well informed about science, more than the average bear, but definately not a trained scientist.

    • An ordinary scientist doesn't expect the plot to have spliced data either. It's misleading. Different data sets are always denoted with clearly different traces.

      • An ordinary scientist reads the whole thing.

  19. Hey climate change deniers. I'm still waiting for specific details regarding the data that you're all claiming has been tweaked, manipulated or cooked. I'll even help you out. Here's a list of data sources. Show me the fraudulent data.

  20. Hey climate change deniers. I'm still waiting for specific details regarding the data that you're all claiming has been tweaked, manipulated or cooked. I'll even help you out. Here's a list of data sources. Show me the fraudulent data.

      • The urban heat effect has already been accounted for.

        Adjusting for Urban Heat Island effect
        When compiling temperature records, NASA GISS go to great pains to remove any possible influence from Urban Heat Island Effect. They compare urban long term trends to nearby rural trends. They then adjust the urban trend so it matches the rural trend. The process is described in detail on the NASA website (Hansen 2001).
        They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg – a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records. More on Urban Heat Island…

        Aside from that, Watts' Surface Station project was shown to be nonsense when NOAA used Watts' own data (from the 5 minute mark on) to show there was no difference between the overall data and data from the stations Watts concluded met the standards.

        [youtube dcxVwEfq4bM youtube]


        • NOAA admits the numbers collected by their monitoring stations are suspect but they 'adjust' them.

          How persuasive do you think your answer is? All your sources have done is confirm that numbers are suspect and are being manipulated.

          • That's what is meant by "tricking". In this particular instance the data was distorted due to the urban heat effect; a phenomenon that is easily quantifiable making it possible to adjust the data to remove the distortions. This is done not only in science but in many fields that interpret data (ie. ever notice unemployment numbers have something known as seasonally adjusted statistics), all the time and does not make the data suspect.

          • Two emails from Harry Read Me file. You don't have any questions when guy writes about hopeless database that he can't be bothered to fix because no one cares. Do they give you confidence in IPPC work?

            "What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no )'supposed', I can make it up. So I have … So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option – to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don't think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it's the main reason the project is nearly a year late."

            "OH FU*K THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
            hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
            data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

          • You don't have any questions when guy writes about hopeless database that he can't be bothered to fix because no one cares?

            First of all, nice non-linkage gambit. Secondly, why do you think none of the problems this person was frustrated with were never addressed? I've been involved in plenty of projects that were nothing but problems piled atop more problems and frustration was a 6 course meal. But we plowed through them all one at a time until order emerged from chaos.

            Anyway, I since you've given up on challenging the the actual data or the science and are back to humping the emails of griping scientists I'll just assume I won this challenge.

          • I am not giving up, I am just bored of these circular arguments of yours. We are all in agreement that NOAA 'adjusts' numbers because they don't like the numbers. Even the anon emailer questioned his own team's databases.

            We just reach different conclusions about what the facts mean.

  …. – there's the link that you are keen on. Knock yourself out.

          • We are all in agreement that NOAA 'adjusts' numbers because they are suspect.

            If by we you only mean you then I agree. The NOAA does not adjust the numbers because they are suspect. They adjust them because there are, in some cases, instances where the data is skewed by other factors such as the urban heat effect. This sort of thing, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, is a legitimate practice in any field that interprets data.

          • I just did a quick search to find another example of data adjusting to show you how common it actually is.

            Title;Adjusting Interval of Track Inspection Data and its Application to Track Quality Management…
            Abstract;In JR Central, track inspection data including track irregularities, vehicles agitation, and train noise is measured by high speed track recording car. The track inspection data has the deviation of a sampling interval because of wear of a wheel, or the influence of idling and gliding. We have devised a new method of adjusting the deviation by combining cross-correlation and up sampling processing. Moreover, it has become clear that the track inspection data from Tokaido Shinkansen can be adjusted with high accuracy by the method. Advanced analysis of track inspection data and efficient maintenance work using tamping machine are expected by application of this method. In this paper, we introduce the algorithm of the method and data flow by explaining the software which we have developed. Furthermore, we describe some examples of application to track quality management utilizing this method.

          • "The Marysville station is located behind the fire department building on a patio and is probably the worst site visited so far. In addition to the sensor being surrounded by asphalt and concrete, its also within 10 feet of buildings, and within 8 feet of a large metal cell tower that could be felt reflecting sunlight/heat. And worst of all, air conditioning units on the cell tower electronics buildings vent warm air within 10 feet of the sensor."

            Description of one where one monitoring station was located (and there are dozens more just like it). NOAA and other orgs have urban and rural standards/regulations on where the stations should be located, McClelland. And surprisingly enough, ten feet from air warm vents on on top of asphalt parking lot does not meet standards. Then, instead of locating sensors in areas that meet their own standards to get proper measurements, we get twaddle about models and 'urban heat effect'.

          • This was addressed in the video I posted. The surface stations weren't initially set up to measure data for climate change. The new set of stations are so the data from them won't have to be adjusted to correct for other effects.

            And once again, the placement of these stations does not negate the value of the data when the measurements can be adjusted quite accurately to filter out the effects of their placement.

          • They are not adjusted individually, but as a collective, so they should be thrown out. It isn't prudent to base trillion dollar decisions on generalized corrections.

    • Go to Anthony Watt's site,

      and just keep scrolling.

      That'll be a good start for you.

      • The name of a blogger is not data.

        Come on biff, are you a climate scientist, or are you just another rightwing dittohead?

      • Biff:
        I replied to the UHI point upthread, when you first mentioned it……it has been accounted for pretty successfully for a few generations of climate models

    • If your really interested you can find the challenges…..come on Robert, you are never one that has been afraid to go into the Lion's Den. You know where to find it. Go and read, see what it says and come back after you have a more considered opinion.

      If you dont understand how serious this potentially, emphasis potentially, is then you are taking this stuff on faith.

      To repeat, none of this says AGW isnt real or happening, but the charges laid at these guys who provide such foundational data and models should really make you wonder. Cold Fusion, as an example may yet still exist, but what Ponds and Fleischman did was not proof of its existence.

      right answer wih right process……no chicanery and no "salting the samples". Do it right, be open to critics, thats how the best science has will always be done….it just didnt happen here.

      • In other words, you're not in a position to point out any actual, flawed data.

        You challenge RM to prove you right. Typical.

        • No I just refuse to play the "show me" game. When it is just a ridiculous tactic to avoid the issue.

          The assertion is that that the data is wrong, you seem to be familiar, as is Robert. So if you are familiar with the assertion then I suspect you have read some of the reports, if you havent then do a quick google and you should find it. This of course is different from you saying, "someone is saying that Mann and the others are incorrect?…I hadn't heard this, can you point me to the links."

          Finally, I dont ask RM to prove me right…I just ask Robert to inform himself. I am sure he is doing so…I dont know if it will affect his opinion one way or another, just hard to have a conversation otherwise. Only when there are some agreed upon facts about the situation, or the content can you even have a discussion. Seems like you dont want to look, thats your choice. However, if I wanted to understand what all the hub bub was I would go and look, so I could at least rebutt from an informed position.

          • But you're not a climate scientist!

            Wash, Rinse, Repeat Ad Finitum.

          • Given recent events I am not sure anyone is a climate scientist.

            I will say again, right answer + wrong method = bad science

          • But you're assuming that the handful of cherry-picked quotes in these hacked emails amount to bad science.

            You want to assess the science? Read what was published. You don't even know whether the data in question made it to a journal, much less whether the methods were questionable.

          • I am not assuming anything. The emails were confirmed as real. The large number of quotes is hardly cherry picking, it is a pattern.

            But you are proceeding from an assumption I think this disproves AGW, I dont. Again, just because the drilling results are alsted doesnt mean the gold isnt there… You keep missing my point which is that using shortcuts doesnt help anyone. So if you want to continue giving AGW opponents fuel, keep defending the indefensible.

            Calls of "the science is settled" and use of the denier label, the bullying the bullhorn tactics tells you this is about politics not science. There have always been legitimate criticisms of the evidence and legitimaie criticisms o the process, there have been illegitimate ones as well. If this crisis leads to more openess and accountiability in this debate then it will ultimately be a good thing.

            Judith Curry is hardly a denier and yet she sees the same problems. Time for the little group to open up, let the community have the data and methods and let science take its course….ultiimately we will all be able to make better decisions. But we cant under the previous circumstances.

    • I don't mean to be offensive, but your "list of data sources" from your link (via who is lookup) leads to DC based lobby group, Environmental Media Services, and is run by Al Gore's Presidential campaign communications director from 2000. If that is where you are getting your information it is no wonder your view is skewed. I am responding not offend you, but hopefully to get you to reconsider your position, fruit of the tainted vine and all…

      • Who are you addressing?

        • Robert (and those who agree with him), oh by the way the leader of "real climate news" is also the founder of Environmental Defence so i am certain he is unbiased :)….but let's not let any facts get in the way of the propaganda. Btw check out the fenton group while you're at it.

          • Well, you sure have no facts. Just wild accusations pulled out of your butt.

      • Why does it matter whose site the data is stored on, Peter?

        • Selection bias. Career environmentalist hitches on to career pol. For facinating reading from a source you are unlikely to take issue with check out Ken Wilber and "the mean green meme".

          • There's no selection bias here, Peter. The data is the same whether it's stored on Al Gore's website or Lord Monckton's website.

          • In the exact same way that "the data" the Conservatives use for public policy is stored? You are way smarter than this Robert. (I don't say this to bash those I support as the best of a bad lot, rather to have you challenge your assumptions). Trust me your 'belief system" is a product, packaged and sold to you through an interlocking network of liars whose end game I fear to speculate on. The global public policy which the whole AGW is supporting is being gamed as we speak and will unalterably affect whatever future our children and grandchildren may hope to enjoy. We've already left them in penury, is slavery next?

  21. Hey climate change deniers. I'm still waiting for specific details regarding the data that you're all claiming has been tweaked, manipulated or cooked. I'll even help you out. Here's a list of data sources. Show me the fraudulent data.

  22. Hey climate change deniers. I'm still waiting for specific details regarding the data that you're all claiming has been tweaked, manipulated or cooked. I'll even help you out. Here's a list of data sources. Show me the fraudulent data.

  23. You're ragging up MacLean's, Cosh. Don't ruin it the way every other defunct rag you've ever worked for was ruined as well.

  24. "Denier's"

    If I'm in agreement with the leading scientists' own internal emails highlighting the cooling which the models predicted opposite, (which reaffirm what I and others have been linking to, and refuting what many others here have been saying that this cooling was a farce)

    what exactly am I improperly denying?

    Perhaps Jones et al are the deniers!!

    Someone want to try and square that circle?

    • The scientists' emails did not refute global warming.

      Its status as the consensus opinion of the world's climate scientists is unchanged. You're in denial of that consensus, and therefore a denier.

      You're welcome.

      • If by "consensus" you mean a thightly controlled cabal of researchers with a bunker mentality, adverse to a basic principle of peer review and openness, who sought to discredit legitimate scientists who had very legitimate concerns regarding the processes and data,

        then I think you are correct.

        I suspect the average person, and the non-politically motivated pure scientist, has a very different definition of "consensus".

        • You do understand that the IPCC report on climate change was reviewed by 2500 credentialed, experienced scientists, right?

          2500 climate geeks, about as easy to "tightly control" as 2500 cats. How exactly does one organization create a bunker mentality among 2500 scientists around the world, most of whom have never met, and demand that they allow deliberate misrepresentations go ahead with their blessing?

          The bigger the conspiracy theory, the less likely it is to have happened.

    • Biff,
      The 'cooling' was cooling of the atmosphere, not the entire earth system. The previous generations of the models did a pretty crappy job of coupling the ocean/ice system to the atm system.
      Two big weakness in the models were heat transfer to the ocean (the ocean pumped heat downwards much faster than anticipated, letting the top layer absorb more heat from the atmosphere)- so the atmosphere warmed slower. Second weakness was heat that was expected to stay in the atm. also got used to convert arctic ice cap to water (state change of huge volume of h20 is very energy intensive). The scientists know that both these things would happen eventually, they just didn't know it would happen so fast, which is why the ocean guys are like 'wholly cow the currents are changing really fast', and the ice guys are like 'egads, the arctic going really quick'

      Essentially, the atmosphere definately didn't heat up during the past decade like the models predicted they would……but the ocean did, and the ice melted… the radiative forcing is confirmed- and climate sensitivity was revised upwards?

      Does this make sense to you? I can explain the coupling of the atm/hydrology system more if it is unclear……

      By the way, the bad news is that the ocean warming up, and warming up all the way through (.i.e deep down, is evidence that climate is having a very strong radiative forcing, and the paleo records of past events like this are ugly)

  25. …most mainstream media and serious science groups have dismissed this interpretation of the e-mails as mischief. …The Economist, a conservative global news weekly, analyzed the e-mails and decided "none of this is evidence of fraud,"

    Found in the London Free Press today.

    • Most mainstream media won't touch this with a ten foot pole , not being part of the(ir) narrative and all .

      • Alcan Inc. would like to thank you for your support.

        Please tell me where's the money in *not* reporting a controversial story?

    • Interesting headline. "Hackers skewed research e-mails". At no point do the hackers skewing anything come up in the article. In fact, the only mention of hackers is that they took the e-mails, which isn't exactly news.

    • In marketing this is called 'framing the debate". If you can't refute you try and destroy credibility, not on the merits of the argument, but by cross affiliations with other "discredited" ideas…ideas in which the well has been poisoned, so to speak, by the inclusion of all sorts of ridiculous crap in the corpus of legitimate debate. I have personal experience with the pros who do this for a living, so this is not some "conspiracy theory", it is overt policy.

    • Ah yes, very good. Dismiss the critics as nutjobs on the basis of two claims: one from the Sierra Club and the other from a climate change program. That way you don't even have to discuss what the emails say! Well done. Keep up the good progressive work.

    • BTW, even the hopelessly conflicted wikipedia thinks the Economist is a globalist rag

  26. Also, a clarification: the London Free Press just seems to be carrying a Sun Media wire story. Peter Zimonjic, the author, spends a great deal of time working the climate change beat.

  27. I really hope some of the commenters here who can still think criticaly soon realize that there is unlikely to be much change in the trajectory of events…in spite of overwhelming evidence that the AGW hypothesis is bunk.

    By way of illustation, let's review some other "beliefs" which coincidently support bank accounts and geopolitical gain. Let's start with Wall St./The Fed and bailouts…anyone see a change in the policy which led to the problem? The Iraq invasion? Something about making the facts fit the policy come to mind. Bush 2000…one-off Supreme Court decision. Ohio 2004? Peak oil? Illinios corruption and Obama and his chief of staff?…nothing to see here citizen. How about the flu shots and the great H1N1 scare…oops. How about GMOs being "substantially eqivalent" to natural products. How about the global push to demonize natural health products?

    • If you have overwhelming evidence that AGW is bunk, you should really present it in a scientific paper.

      After all, that means you've either proven that mankind doesn't create CO2, or that CO2 does not increase radiative forcing on the climate.

      • Funny thing about that, I tried to get the raw data to hypothesis test the AGW theory, but to my consternation discovered it was "absent" as in deleted. When I inquired as to the propriety of deleting the raw data the AGW projections were based on I was branded a denier and vilified for doubting…."but science isn't about faith", I protested. "It's supposed to be about proof".

        "Like the almighty Oz says, 'don't look behind the curtain', everything is just as we say", I was admonished.

        Clearly I'm making this up in the personal sense, but this is exactly the trajectory of events…and you're buying it?

        • Funny thing about that.. try going to the original sources instead of asking CRU to violate the agreements they have with the original sources.

  28. cont. (sorry)
    Each of these "issues" shares a common denominator…"the perverse golden rule…he who has the gold rules". If you drill down far enough into the BS you will find the same interests are behind all these "conundrums". It has nothing to do with any idealogy other than "power at all cost"… I shudder to contemplate the "end game" because we are all in love with ideas we don't understand that have been marketed like cornflakes for generations.

    Politicaly all that needs to be done is appeal to one standard deviation either side of the mean in public opinion and we have consensus. sadly almost no one seems to understand that "their" phiosophy is just a product, marketed for gain by someone. The real ruling class has two thousand years (at least) of private data to draw on.

  29. After reading Canwest's take on the closing of the Jonquierre plant, I am more and more confident in my choice to accept the word of scientists over journalists.

    • They both work fo the same funders. Both are constrained from having "public thoughts" other than those approved by their funders.

      • Again, climatologists get funded largely by NSERC, the government-run funding agency.

        Even for a conspiracy theorist, claiming that the Conservative government is squashing research funding of AGW skeptics is a stretching things a bit, given their continued stance on the issue, and the Conservative's funding bases.

        • Show me the financial staements and the total amout invested by the feds. BTW what the "government does" and what the party and many individuals (up to and including the PM) think are NOT the same thing.

          Then my disingenous friend explain the Soros, Rothchild, hedge fund positions.

          • Oh for god's sake peter.

            If you're going to make a bunch of claims, at least *try* to prove them yourself first. At this point, you're demanding that Craig O try to figure out what the hell you're talking about, then go and prove you right.

            Take some responsibility for what you're claiming.

          • Craig O is very likely a "propagandist", high probability he works for a PR company, or is in the PR department of either a university or biotech concern (or a hedge fund). He made two utterly outrageous statements, just today. 1. there's no money in AGW and 2. that the analogy between the corruption in medical journal publishing and the current kerfuffle in climate science are somehow unrelated. They are peas in a pod.

            As to the finacial positions of the above mentioned organizations try some reading beyond the Star or G &M. George Soros is the money behind The Penton Group built the reputation of both moveon and real climate science. Real climate science is run by the founder of Environmental Defence, who also was Al Gore's communication director in 2000. I'm sure this level of coziness is comforting to you but it makes my skin crawl.

            The Economist and Nature have both also been cited here as authoritative, do some digging and see who own and runs them and where their funding comes from.

    • I hope you don't uncritically take anyone's word. Particularly not someone paid to give it to you.

  30. People that want to hear both sides of the global warming issue should look up

    It is a good clearinghouse for articles on this issue.

    • That actually does look like a decent website. But you should have figured out by that there is a consensus that AGW is happening.

    • And for people interested in the ongoing Round Earth/Flat Earth debate, please visit

      Lemme see if I can site a place with a good debate of Evolution vs God's Divine Intervention, gotta be one somewhere.

      • I hope any good Darwinian would be appalled by the implication that global warming has the same sort of evidence behind it that Darwinian evolution does. Let's leave poor Charlie out of this.

        • See Ben Stein's "Expelled"…the phenomena is the same. AGW relies on a post-modern-nihlist world view where there is no such thing as "truth", only consensus.

          The older I get the more I am confronted by the lies I was sold in my youth…and used to support.

          • "See Ben Stein's "Expelled""


            Ben Stein's 'Expelled' was a perfect example of the kind of shameless charlatanism behind the global warming denials. The phenomenon is exactly the same: take a bunch of right-wingers committed to an agenda, give them access to science they don't understand and stand back while they make asses of themselves with gross misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

            Honestly Peter, you really should seek better sources.

          • I suggest a short course on Thomas Aquinas TJ. His deductive and inductive reasoning has challenged the best and brightest for around a thousand years. With the power of mind he intuited the divine nature of creation. If I recall correctly from 35 years ago, start with Summa Contra Gentiles sp? (ch.13)

        • Thanks – as a qualified (but not practicing) biologist, I know what I'm talking about.

          It's the tactics of the creationists I'm talking about here. Those people were not arguing in good faith. And neither are the climate change deniers at large, who are employing the same shameless tactics.

          For example, while the existence of the process of evolution hasn't been in question for a very long time, the fine details of how it happens are the subject of ongoing passionate debate among scientists. Creationists frequently cherry-picked quotes from that debate and misrepresented them as "proof" that evolution itself doesn't exist.

          Sound familiar? Ultimately, there is no debate worth having with these people. They don't hold themselves to any standard whatsoever, but they hold science to a ridiculous standard that excludes jargon, informal communication and the day-to-day back-and-forth of very human people.

          • "but they hold science to a ridiculous standard"

            Presenting your work so others can test your conclusions is a ridiculous standard?

          • No – but nice try.

            The ridiculous standard is to take anything – anything – that can be misrepresented as evidence that the science is a scam. Any stupid, sh*tty act by any scientist, any juvenile insults, and (in the case of AGW) any jargon that can be waved like a bloody shirt is good enough for the deniers.

            Meanwhile the deniers (of evolution or of climate change) will never hold themselves to the standard of scientists. Just look at the crap consistently turned out by McIntyre and McKitrick. If they were scientists, they'd have been laughed out of the profession now, either for incompetence or dishonesty. But here they are today, as deniers, being favourably quoted by Cosh as though their work was valuable and reliable.

          • I didn't quote either McIntyre or McKitrick. But, since you mention them, McIntyre's nitpicking was responsible for the discovery of a significant flaw in realtime GISS temperature-data reporting two years ago, a flaw which GISS acknowledged, corrected, and thanked McIntyre by name for spotting. The Goddard Institute and James Hansen are just as passionate about this debate as their "human" colleagues at the CRU (to say the least), but somehow they were able to overcome their "humanity" and act like grown-ups toward a critic. How is such a thing possible, I wonder?

        • Evolution: large and growing body of evidence for it, gathered for more than a century
          Creationism: ignorant, irrational and/or dishonest

          AGW: large and growing body of evidence for it, gathered for more than a century
          AGW denialism: ignorant, irrational and/or dishonest

        • I think I'd argue that our understaning of Climate is roughly equal to Chucky D's 19th century understanding of natural selection.
          The reception of the Lovelock/Margulis hypothesis is a lot like the natural selection reception- natural scientists, both young and old, flat out denied that the natural systems, in both cases, could have that much agency. Within a fairly short time, natural scientists didn't really have any other choice but to accept the new paradigm, but the transition was incredibly bitter.
          Perhpas it isn't a coincidence that society is reacting in similar ways.

          So sure, leave poor Charlie out…..but their is a very, very good chance that our grandchildren will speak about Lovelock in the same terms we speak about our intrepid ship-borne naturalist

      • Yup, global warming is as evident as the world is round.

        Then why does Professor Phil Jones want to keep out those who dissent?

        "We will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" – Phil Jones.

        Wow! This is staggering. That man should be fired. Why is he still employed?

        The tide will turn on this AGW hysteria. It will go down in history as one of the biggest con jobs imaginable and some people's reputations will never recover.

  31. This situation is starting to look very bad.

    • What I am finding interesting is some global warming scientists are speaking out against other climatologists. The scientific method has been corrupted by many and proper scientists, ones who believe in agw but are not well known like Mann or Jones, are appalled.

      • That is exactly what needs to happen. Since the media (excepting journalists like Cosh) has bought the scam hook, line and sinker, and the media themselves are the last people to question things these days, we need to scientists that have a reasonable amount of integrity to start making noise. There has been some noise in the past but it has been drowned out by the scammers.

        • Whistle blowing is a career destroyer. Guys like Health Canada's Chiv Chopra, his recent book is titled "Corrupt to the Core, My 35 years at Health Canada" explains in agonizing detail his journey after he blew the whistle on a Monsanto bribe he was offered to approve rGBH.

          • No doubt you are correct. there comes a time when someone may ask themselves whether it's better than playing along with a scam. In this case, it will be easier to blow the whistle if others are doing it as well.

            And also, in this case, the fraud will be obvious in 10, 20, 30 years as the predictions of the climate doomsayers continue to be proven false in the same way they have for the last 20 years.

      • Please name the scientists who have "spoken out", and describe their qualifications.

        Then please let us know what proportion of the world's climate scientists these people represent.


          Is Freeman Dyson or Richard Lindzen good enough for you? Jesus, you're obtuse. You keep repeating the same things over and over again.

          As for their proportions, I really don't care what proportion they are. What matters is the truth. There was a time when 99% of scientists thought the earth was flat. There was a time when 99% of scientists thought that ulcers were caused by stress (that time was a few years ago).

          • Ah scf, with your usual ignorant/triumphant tone, off-the-cuff insults and ridiculous sources.

            Seriously, the Heartland Institute? How credible is the Heartland Institute, Wikipedia?

            "Heartland has been criticized for employing executives from such corporations as ExxonMobil and Philip Morris on its board of directors and in its public relations department."

            "The Heartland Institute received $561,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. This included $119,000 in 2005, its largest gift to Heartland in that period. Nearly 40% of funds from ExxonMobil were specifically designated for climate change projects."

            Thanks Wikipedia! A rightwing "think tank" funded by the carbon industry? I think they're probably not very credible at all.

          • They're one of the sponsors, not the speakers, you idiot. I answered your questions and now you've gone off with some completely off-topic and irrelevant tangent.

        • "Based upon feedback that I've received from graduate students at Georgia Tech, I suspect that you are confused, troubled, or worried by what you have been reading about ClimateGate and the contents of the hacked CRU emails. After spending considerable time reading the hacked emails and other posts in the blogosphere, I wrote an essay that calls for greater transparency in climate data and other methods used in climate research."

          Judith Curry
          Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
          Georgia Institute of Technology

          Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process

          Short answer: because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.

          A longer answer: My voice is not very important. I belong to the climate-research infantry, publishing a few papers per year, reviewing a few manuscript per year and participating in a few research projects. I do not form part of important committees, nor I pursue a public awareness of my activities. My very minor task in the public arena was to participate as a contributing author in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

          Eduardo Zorita
          Scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research

          There's two for a start.

          • "There's two for a start."

            Well, except that both those quotes are about public relations, not the actual science.

            And 2 climate scientists represent .08% of the 2500 who reviewed the IPCC report on climate change. Not much of a start, really.

          • "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."

            It would be helpful if you took time to read what I actually wrote and not what's in your feverish imagination. It would also be helpful if you took time to read what those two scientists wrote because they deal with more than presentation.

            The two scientists I mentioned are agw-believers and are not happy that others let themselves be corrupted. Why does that bother you? All they are saying is that they wish Manning was more worried about proper science than Siemans cash.

            "I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measur[e]ments here in the UK — looking promising," wrote Andrew Manning, a climate-science research fellow at the University of East Anglia, "so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases."

          • Ok – so in your earlier post there was nothing relevant to the science of AGW. In your most recent post, you have some awkward accusations of conformist pressures in the science.

            And – what? I'm suppose to discount the massive and diverse body of science which supports AGW based on that? From one guy? Even if it is true, there's no evidence here that the actual data have been impacted by these alleged (by one guy) pressures, much less that the overall conclusion of the IPCC is incorrect due to this.

            Let me make a suggestion for you Jolyon: build a strong anti-AGW case. Step 1: hold the deniers to these sorts of standards. As usual, the scientists are held to the purest, lily-white standards by a bunch of unqualified nobodies, while any convincing-sounding wanker with a blog is suddenly the Premier Expert if their conclusions are in line with what you want to believe.

            Oh, and the "fevers" of my imagination, having nothing to do with global warming, are nobody's business but my own.

          • The qualifications of deniers/skeptics is discussed at some length in the Financial Post today. I’d say at least two or three have credentials that make them worth a careful listen, moreover the uneasy coughing of a few AGW-supporters speaks volumes too.

            At some point everyone will have to realize that this is an EXTREMELY large elephant, and dwelling on just one point of the anatomy is ridiculous. Meanwhile the ice-caps aren’t exactly roaring back.

            Me, I’m going to keep harping on ALBEDO. Hell, some renegade scientist on the CBC Link the other morning even thinks like Cerebral Old Me: saying that having devices on all sea-going ships to turn sea-water into mist could compensate for a DOUBLING (I’m almost wondering if I REALLY heard that…) of atmospheric CO2. Wonky as it seems, it still sounds better than shutting down the world economy on a semi-educated hunch that this might help…

      • Jolyon,
        I think you're right that there are a lot of scientists wh are like Monbiot, and are appaled at how dissenting views are handled by some of their peers.
        I think sinking ship is taking it alittle too far though……I think scientists may fight a little about the exact course to plot, and spend a great deal of time figuring out how to rig the sails without murdering each other in rage every time some pulls a sheet instead of a halyard….
        …..but I'll bet you they all still agree on the general directions

  32. Good post Cosh, you've probably generated as many comments in two posts about this issue as some of your fellow bloggers generate in a year.

    • "Honest and objective observers know that this science is very inconclusive and in many ways flawed"

      Perhaps you could name these observers. I'm sure they're qualified and experienced climate scientists, no?

      • Stop appealing to authority on this topic, the authorities are the ones wearing the ethical dirt. Dr. Mann is being investigated by his university on this now.

        • So I shouldn't "appeal to authority", I should just take *you* at your word?

          Anybody who claims to "know" what these emails mean is neither honest nor objective. Following your link, the university is reviewing these emails now to determine whether an investigation should be held. That's not the same thing as an investigation, now is it?

          Anybody leaping to conclusions like you AGW deniers has never been honest or objective and should not be trusted to draw conclusions on the topic.

          • Sooner or later it is going to dawn on you that this is now a political issue that was brought about by corrupred scientific method .

            Anybody leaping to conclusions like you AGW <s>deniers </s> scientists has never been honest or objective and should not be trusted to draw conclusions on the topic.

            Savour the irony .

          • No, people who are ignorant of the science have tried to make it into just a political issue, because they are not willing to face reality. It's the result of the corrupted, dishonest partisanship which infests what rightwingers mistake for discourse these days.

  33. The Cult of the Amateur – Andrew Keen – Books – Review – New York …
    29 Jun 2007 … Andrew Keen points out in his provocative new book that Web 2.0, … who had edited thousands of Wikipedia articles and was once one of the …

    Many on here are no doubt familiar with this gentleman. If not you should be. Not by any means the final word of course…but nontheless a healthy dash of cold water on the modern day phenomenom of the “instant” expert. I certainly hope journos like Cosh have given his views some consideration. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing Colby,as i’m sure you’d agree.
    As a scientific neophyte i’ll start to pay real attention to these kind of stories when i see blogs like this full of qualified scientist debating these issues…not blogs full of the half informed skeptics and occasionally loony conspiracy theorists. The more i see of folks like Steyn and maybe Cosh[ i not that familiar with him] the more i’m inclined to tune out. It’s not the raising of uncomfortable ideas and tilting at sacred cows up windmills that bother me, it’s the army of sycophants that seem to feel “their” views, or those of their favourite critic should be given equal billing along side people who are qualified to have an opinion.

    And to save some of you the effort, no, this not an aplogia for bad science, unethical behaviour or thoughtful skepticism.

    • Spoken like a statist fer sure…and what is your opinion on elections? Let me guess, they're fair and honest as long your guy wins? Oh sorry there's no substance in elections and no complex concepts are involved in national governance…we peons are too stupid to tell liars from flakes from fascists.

      • It pretty much ends trial by jury too. That legal stuff is just too complicated. I am sure that bureaucrats and other suitable professionals would be a much better choice for rendering proper judgments. I mean look at the success of the CHRC, except for recently, they have a 100% conviction rate.

        • 'I am sure that bureaucrats and other suitable professionals would be a much better choice for rendering proper judgments"

          Did IQs suddenly drop around here? where did i mention bureaucrats at all? I guess i should have said climate scientists…my bad. Of course i meant no one else should have a say. All it needs now is for avr to drop by and start yelling; APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!!!

      • Well, well. I knew i’d attract someone.

        ‘…we peons are too stupid to tell liars from flakes from fascists”

        Yep, yep. That’s exactly what i meant…carry on…i believe you were busy with some conspiracy or other.

        • Where can I get a kc color poster? I need to pay homage to your "wisdom". For the record do some cursory google searches on Jimbo Wales and the rampant corruption at Wikipedia. May I suggest "Patrick Byrne" +naked short selling +wikipedia. Since you are quoting a source who was/is an active participant in a proven fraud perhaps it's possible you are merely duped and not just another fanatic in love with an idea you haven't thought through.

          Elsewhere I showed the connections between Realclimatenews, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore and George Soros. When you dig down you find the same crooks who have been involved in a series of scams and shady deals for the past twenty years…all revolving around cash and geopolitics…nothing to see here citizen, move along.

  34. We have a real Canadian hero in this whole controversy in Stephen McIntyre.

    • He does not seem to get as much attention but Ross McKitrick also deserves recognition.

      Makes me proud to have two Canadians fighting the good fight.

      If McKitrick/McIntyre had done as much for agw as they have to reveal it's shoddiness, I think they would be order of canada appointees by now.

      • Ah, Jolyon, jarrid and scf. The True Believers congratulate each other for their excellent work. Story at 11.

        Has anybody here applied any skepticism to McKitrick's work?

        How about the work of the celebrated Mr. McIntyre:

        Makes me ashamed to have these two Canadians as lead charlatans in a shameless, baseless attack on AGW.

        Go on, read some of the analysis behind those links. I dare you. Those two are incompetent at best and dissemblers at worst.

    • Unquestionably.

    • "…But now McIntyre has admitted that he had the data all along. The data wasn't Briffa's and back in 2006, Briffa referred McIntyre to the original source…"

      "…He had it all along and despite writing thousands and thousands of words about Yamal somehow somehow failed to mention this until now…."

      and What's the difference between degrees and radians, McKitrick?

    • He's the guy who debunked Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick Graph". Mann collaborates with Phil Jones, the serial e-mail deleter at CRU.

  35. What about Phil Jones' comment about wanting to redefine peer review to keep competing viewpoints out? Oops! That's quite a horrendous comment. Explain that baby away TJ.

  36. "you idiot"

    Par for the course with you, scf. I've come to expect little more than juvenile insults and sh*tty data.

    Hey Jolyon, you pleased with the company you keep?

    • And one more thing, you a**. Jolyon does not keep my company any more than you do. If he happens to agree with me, then that's up to him. You seem to be incapable of debating an issue, all you ever do is try to divert the discussion to a innuendo about the participants.

    • And where's the link to media matters? That's your modus operandi. Let's have the link.

      • Oh, I know how you "operate".

        You're making your usual amount of sense here. Thanks for the value-add dude. Your mom's just about to call you for dinner anyway.

  37. What's your next tangent? Are you gonna start going off about the hotel? Maybe the caterers? How about the taxi-drivers? I'm sure they're a giant conspiracy funded by big oil. We have the president of the Euro Union and representatives from universities like MIT and you're talking about the sponsor!

  38. The "hide the decline" part of the comment is just as misleading without context as the "trick" part. In reality, nothing's been hidden at all, it's presented in the report that the scientists are discussing.

    The whole thing was published in Nature (… arguably the most widely read and respected scientific journal. Cosh's comments here, about tree rings, are exactly what's in the abstract of the article. Far from being hidden, or part of a plot, this information has been available for 10 years now, in a journal that is extremely prestigious to be published in.

    • Link to the Nature article. (Abstract only, subscription – or pay by article – required for full text)

    • I suggest a quick read of Marcia Angell's (former editor in chief of the NEJM and a Harvard academic) "The Truth About The Drug Comapnies: How they Decieve Us and What To Do About It "

      As the ultimate insider in professional journal publishing, her blistering critique of the rampant corruption in academic/peer review publishing, from ghost writing to data manipulation for private gain, her book should be required reading for all who still think "science' is some sort of "public trust". It may have always been a "whore's Bazaar" but if not so much in the past that is what it has become today. Like the old car adverisement "this is not your fathers Science."

      • A claim I always hear from climate skeptics is that I should "follow the money", to see corruption.

        The problem is that climatologists get their funding from NSERC, not private enterprises, and their research supports policies, not products. There is no incidence of ghost writing and data manipulation has been nothing but conjecture, including with these e-mails, when it comes to climatology.

        I read Angell's report a while back. It's a good read, and an important lesson about keeping corporations out of the way of science, especially ones who are particularly rich and have vested interests. In the AGW debate, where do you think the money is? There aren't many successful companies with truly environmentally friendly products and those that are successful aren't exactly large or rich. Furthermore, while research on drugs deals directly with the products in question, no climatologists publish papers about specific products on the market, meaning there's little incentive for companies to buy off these scientists (if they had money, which again, they don't).

        But there is money on the other side of the debate. Oil, gas and coal companies are large, well funded and would definitely be against any moves to cut carbon emissions. If there's any threat of corruption for personal gain, follow the money – because it doesn't lead to AGW theory supporters.

        • As documented by Jim Hoggan:

          "Starting in the early 1990s, three large American industry groups set to work on strategies to cast doubt on the science of climate change. Even though the oil industry's own scientists had declared, as early as 1995, that human-induced climate change was undeniable, the American Petroleum Institute, the Western Fuels Association (a coal-fired electrical industry consortium) and a Philip Morris-sponsored anti-science group called TASSC all drafted and promoted campaigns of climate change disinformation…."

        • No there's no money in the biggest proposed re-distribution of global wealth in history in the midst of the death throes of theold finacial order. No I must be stupidly reading the WRONG economic projections. Angell's report is far more than a good read, it is a petri dish of this exact phenomena…careerists and sycophants combined with "big money and the promise of more" whoring out for personal gain because "all the successful scientists are doing it."

    • The point of the journal paper is that the tree ring data can't be relied on, and therefore that global warming may be worse than originally predicted. It's nuts. On the one hand they admit that the tree ring data is unreliable, and on the other hand they proceed to conclude that the prior conclusions are not only valid but even more so.

      As to Nature, yes it's a highly respected journal. That does not mean that it is immune to junk papers and politicized review. I've seen at least one case of this personally, in another Nature journal.

      • Cite the article.

      • I know most people don't have access to the article, but since I do, I decided to take a read through it. For one, the authors are very up front about the apparent inconsistency of tree ring data. The reason they say that global warming may be worse is that models at the time assumed that the trees the scientists were studying (mostly boreal ones near the northren tree line) were strong carbon sinks. This research casts significant doubt on that assumption – meaning any further emissions would exacerbate AGW even more than previously thought.

        It's an important distinction – they've used temperatures to predict tree ring data, and found it to be lacking. This invalidates either the temperatures (which were found using other means, not tree ring data), or the model. Given that the model is an abstraction from data and the temperatures are empirical data derived and confirmed by various sources, it makes far more sense to discard the model, rather than the data, which is what they authors proposed in their conclusion.

        Furthermore, I got to see the "hiding" of the data. Turns out, it's not really hidden at all. In the plots, a decline is noticeable – in fact, they've gone out of their way to shade areas in which there is a decline.

        • Huh? Phil Jones wasn't referring to the Briffa paper when he referred to "hiding the decline". He was talking about preparing a chart for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate (1999). No presentation of the data made by Briffa at any point is at issue. Of course Briffa's own paper about the decoupling would mention the decoupling fairly prominently.

          • The point is that the trick used to "hide the decline" is the same used in Briffa's paper. Why would a technique be completely legitimate in one article, but suspect in another?

          • Because in the context of the paper the necessity for the "trick" is highlighted and explained, exactly as you have been describing. In the other context it's just a scary-looking line on a chart; the "decline" in temps implied by the recent tree-ring data has literally been hidden.

          • Actually, reading the article, I couldn't find any explanation of the trick. They show a decline in tree rings, and a rise in temperatures, no explanation for the data of the temperatures. Rather, it's the decline in tree rings that is discussed, and contrasted against what would be expected in current models.

            I think you've got things backwards – in Braffa's paper, the temperatures are assumed true (not derived from tree rings) and the tree ring data diverges from what we would expect. Basically, temperature is treated as the independent variable, not the dependent variable.

          • Except that for data prior to 1880 they are assuming tree ring data is either accurate or biased high, after admitting that it's basically crap for the 20th century and they have no idea why.

          • Gaunilon, you're misreading it. They don't assume that tree ring data maps to temperature, they're saying that's what they used to assume and that, with the new data, the assumption is wrong. They speculate a correction, based on the new data, which then leads to the conclusion. This is good science – it takes an established theory, finds and inconsistency and then attempts to correct for the inconsistency.

            You act like this is some obvious logical flaw, that the editors of Nature, as well as hundreds of climatologists and just as many graduate and undergraduate students have missed. You've read the report incorrectly and your interpretation is flawed.

            I've already explained why the conclusion makes perfect sense, but I'll do it again – if climatologists assumed tree ring data was well correlated with temperature and CO2 levels, they incorporated its extra power as a carbon sink into the models for projections. This research invalidates that assumption, because it seems that the trees will not adapt to higher temperatures and CO2 levels as we expected. This means more CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans (the bad CO2 deposits) and less in the biosphere (the good CO2 deposit) accelerating the effect of increased carbon emissions because of the weaker-than-expected natural buffer.

            The temperature data in Briffa's paper is not derived from tree ring data, it is used to judge the correlation. The correlation is invalidated, not the temperatures.

          • (random carbon cycle geekiness)

            have you seen some of the experimental forest co2 under higher temperatures papers?

            There is still a eck of a lot of contradictory information, but I think there are some robust results from Scandinivan boreal experimental plots thats are finally givign some solid empirical basis for the theory that increased co2 uptake with temperature has a temperature threshold.

            ….but I can't remember the reference :(

          • I haven't seen that, but it sounds pretty interesting and would confirm this paper, which would be pretty exciting. I also wonder what the results would be from a temperate or tropical forest – maybe it's just boreal forests that fail to thrive under higher temperatures?

          • I'ts been years since I looked into experimental design, but Craig O's dissembling above reminds me of the "null hypothesis" ie, AGW Null hypothesis: no correleation between tree rings and temperature. Conduct experiment (collect tree ring data), run statistical test for correlation. Eureka! there is a correlation. Ergo Null Hypothesis invalid, thus tree rings/temperature valid area of study, start applying for grants to continue study.

            I could be off here a tad as I am admittedly no science star and it has been ten years since I worked on clinical trial design, but this is the methodology in medicine that leads to "correlation is not causation" arguments (ie zero incidence of autism in never vaccinated Amish children doesn't mean their absence of symptoms is related to never being vaccinated, but must be some other causal factor).

            So for obvious correlations like high blood serum vitamin D levels and absence of "flu like illness" much of thel research community will blow off the correlation because it is not causation, ditto for the correlation with autism.

          • gaunilon,
            There is about a century and a half of really good instrumental temp records for the northern hemisphere. More than two centuries for Europe.
            So out of the century and a half of high quality instrumental, 2/3 of the data maps well, and the last third (post 60s) maps poorly.

            The tree rign data is also mappable to other proxies too. In fact, some proxies can map really well to each other- like pollen from trees and pollen rings. The fact that 50 years of tree rign data diverges from temperature doesn't mean that there is no relationship. In fact, by using the other proxies (which have no divergence post 60's) to reconstruct temperature backwards for millenia, they can compare all the pre60s tree ring data to the reconstructed temperature, and presumably found that it still mapped well.

            So I'd argue that it is still a logical conculsion- but we would need to run some good stats models and partition out the variation ourselves before we could safely ocnlude whether thier answer was logical.

            Regardless of whether or not they got it right, your point that they could have honestly thought they got it right is waht is important here.

          • Colby,
            I agree the lack of explanation for hidign the data is ballocks. Although the is weak justification in that the the source data and citation was clear……it should definately have been more explicit.
            The thing is , its not as if these kinds of things are uncommon- all of us who have deconstructed papers in seminars find problems of roughly this magnitude in the vast majority of papers,
            My point is that the flaw, in and of istelf isn't a huge deal- most papers are flawed in some way.

            However, I do agree that the subsequent actions, like not being open about the truncation/rewieghting is a "BIG DEAL"…..MOnbiot hit the nail on the head when he said it could only be described as 'unscientific.'

            Bittersweet irony given that the truncation actually lowers climate sensitivity…..

      • Have you read the actual article, Gaunilon? Front-to-back, not just the abstract?

        No? Well then I doubt your summary of its conclusions is complete and accurate.

  39. The eco-fascists are spinning faster and faster.

    "Hide the decline!"

    • The denialists are spinning. The realists are posting real information. Too bad you haven't the wit to understand it.

  40. I actually think the defenders and detractors of AGW theory here are not that far off.

    It seems that the defenders of AGW here, do not appear to be directly refuting the utter lack of scientific method, which is a prerequisite to any form of legitimacy (in any other paradigm that is),

    it is just that they profess the truth of AGW in spite of the use of the scientific method (which method appears to simply be unnecessary details).

    Which seems to agree to many critics concerns, that AGW is far more of an ideology (closely aligned to socialism [eco socialism if you will]) then the search for truth using the scientific method.

    From that standpoint, the complete lack of concern regarding these earth shattering revelations, makes perfect sense.

    • "the utter lack of scientific method" – You are ignorant.

      "they profess the truth of AGW in spite of the use of the scientific method (which method appears to simply be unnecessary details)." – You are incoherent.

      "these earth shattering revelations" – You are over-excited.

      • Holly,

        do you still deny that the earth hasn't warmed in the last ten years,

        or are the released emails ranting about this fact not jiving with the computer models some nefarious right wing plot?

        I love how AGW theory goes:

        I predict the model will show X. If it does, my theory is correct.

        If it doesn't, my theory is still correct.

        If it shows the opposite of X, it is still correct, and you're a heretic for even being skeptical of the theory.

          • I think you may be one of the very few "yawning"

            "climategate" on google renders ten million hits.

            Ten million.

            The traffic at SDA alone is going through the roof.

            Not to mention my own blog.

      • Ahh good, you seem to be wearing down. Now you're attacking the messenger, you looked better when you were appealing to authority (as ethically challenged as they currently appear)

        • So just how many times should she respond in good faith to ignorant, incoherent attacks?

          "Ahh good, you seem to be wearing down"

          Well, I guess you could count that as an accomplishment, if all you want to do is be such a persistent jackass that intelligent people stop wasting their time with you.

  41. Cosh, I see you’re still using nutters to inflate your blog hit rate. So, what’s next for you? A posting on the 9/11 conspiracy? There’s lots of “truthers” out there with time on their hands.

    I sure do miss Kady.

    • Comment numbers aren't some linear reflection on how many visits a blog entry is receiving. It's sort of like the relationship between tree rings and temperature.

      • Well, Maclean's may want to weight your hit rate with a "nutter coefficient" which tracks how many back-and-forth sustained exchanges there are with people who use lots of capital letters, and claim to know the absolute truth about climate change, abortion, 9-11, black helicopters, etc. etc. The nutters are clearly your intended audience.

        • Thanks for the ad hominem attacks. Without fail, when one resorts to them, it is a sure sign he cannot win the debate on facts alone.

  42. Oh boy, this is gonna leave a mark:

    "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.

    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building."

    From the UK Times Online, just release.

    It's the new scientific model:

    Trust us, we're with the UN.

    • Destroying data. Deliberately destroying information they know people need to verify their work.

      This looks like something you'd see in the former Soviet Union which subordinated science to politics.

      Heads have to start rolling at the University of East Anglia. This is outrageous conduct.

    • So you're of the mind that we should quintuple the funding we give to scientists so they don't have to throw out as much data any more?

      I agree!

      • See my post here on this. The cost saving argument is rediculous:

        That you find nothing wrong with the destruction of the most important data mankind has ever created, is not surprising in the circumstances.

        The non-ideologically blind, I assure you, is shocked indeed.

        • Wow, don't you guys ever fact check? The data has not been destroyed. But CRU did not own that data nor have the right to share that data; why keep it when they did not need it anymore, The original data still exists in the possession of the original owners.

          This has been explained repeatedly in the RealClimate posts about the CRU hack; so I'll leave it to you geniuses to find it. Maybe you'll learn something in the process, unlikely as that seems.

          • Holly: Some of the older data has been destroyed. Quite simply, the amount of raw data they get is huge, and considering how far back these emails go, remember what the price of storing data was? It wasn't so long ago that 640K on a computer was considered more than we'd ever need. Now? Good luck reading this website in that amount.

        • Who said I found anything wrong with it? I was agreeing that they should keep it. And I'm willing to pony up for it in my taxes.. are you?

          • Yeah, it's scary storing data, a terabyte server runs around 1,200 bucks. But don't worry I'm sure it's standard procedure to scare the world with "science" and then shred the data the "science" is based on.

            If you're buying this I want to know where you live because I think I may want to go back into sales

          • Is it comfy living under that rock?

            Because out here in the real world, we know that the price of memory has dropped incredibly over the past 12 years or so. Hell, 12 years ago, most people didn't even have email and we were just figuring out that 640K probably wasn't going to be enough memory to last us til all time.

            Sure, it's cheap to store that much data now but funnily enough, they've been doing this science for a lot longer than that.

    • Sen. Inhofe. Maybe his wife took him seriously. Once.

  43. This is a great overall post….
    …..but, I'm pretty sure that M & M are arguing in good faith (their invitation for a guest editorial from realclimate on their own climate audit site is one example of their good fiath).

    Are they massively incompetent? Yes. Annoying? Yes. Arrogant? I dunno, I havne't met them personally, and everyone who participates he us. vs. them ends up sounding arrogant.

    However, just being stupid and annoying doesn't mean they are being delibrately dishonest.

    Personally, I think they are just unable to accuratley perceive data that doesn't agree with their own preconceived notions. Given that they are working way outside their own field….this isn't exactly novel, and we shouldn't assume they are being dishonest.

    Of course, if hackers provided us with their email correspondance on a platter, than we'd know better ;)

  44. You can also find the basic argumetn in the publically avialbel abstract- google scholar should deliver it in a jiffy

  45. Decent article summary, you got the majority right…..but you missed some stuff:

    "Shorter version: the tree ring data does not correlate well with temperature."
    The correlation with temperature doesn't just depend on the post 60s data- there is the instrumental record that stretches back to the 1700s (in Europe anyway), and many, many proxies that stretch back millenia. The tree ring data diverging from the temperature for forty years doesn't mean that it isn't an overall good predictor of temperature- it means it isn't a perfect one.

    Also, they have clues as to why the post 60s divergence exists. There is much more robust discussion in the 2002 Briffa paper, and the discussion fo the divergence is cited in many other papers….

  46. EnterIn the emails, Phil wrote that he would rather delete his work that give it up in an FOI request. As a scentist, I would expect he would want to share his data with the world so it could be replicated by others and have its authenticity proven. Since it seems (from the comments contained within the harry read me file) phil et al have trouble even replicating within their own offices, I could see why the FOI hesitation.

    As for the intimidation with peer reviewed journals, here's a link on one of a few examples:… text right here

  47. cont. Meanwhile the identical "correlation proof" of AGW is the basis for the greatest change in the abrogation of property rights and broadening of taxation policy in history. When logic is stood on its head this way and seemingly the same financial/power interests benefit in both circumstances, I cry foul on the pattern observed. Something about having your cake and eating it too comes to mind

  48. Thank you Mr Cosh for eliciting some very stimulating discussion. I'll admit, it is very difficult to sort through this with any "certainty" , as both sides make very valid points – and I am no scientist. I did find the change in "tone" between the climate change and political posts of some of the regular contributors very interesting. Some who demand fair play in politics can be dismissive of arguments disputing AWG, while some who are quick to reject any whiff of government impropriety suddenly reach out for calm evaluation of all the evidence on climate change.
    Quite a contrast, say, from the Colin affair to the leaked emails.

  49. EnterIn the emails, Phil wrote that he would rather delete his work that give it up in an FOI request. As a scentist, I would expect he would want to share his data with the world so it could be replicated by others and have its authenticity proven. Since it seems (from the comments contained within the harry read me file) phil et al have trouble even replicating within their own offices, I could see why the FOI hesitation.

    As for the intimidation with peer reviewed journals, here's a link on one of a few examples:… text right here


    If you are concerned about this issue sign this petition to establish a royal commission to establish the cause and extent of the global warming issue. With climategate we know that the research was fudged and the peer review process was corrupt. Let get to the bottom of this before we committ billions to this issue.

  51. I keep on hearing this argument that the oil companies are going to lose money over this is not the case.A quick explanation of Cap & Trade;

    A polluter is given allowable CO2 emissions, if the polluter exceeds this limit it can than buy carbon credits from a company that is polluting less. Sounds fine right, here's the problem the polluters also own companies with low pollution therefore it transfers money from one of their companies to another, that company then transfers that money to another company. usually a holding company owned by the major polluter. FSLR(First solar) is a perfect example of this the controlling share holder Walton estates also owns an oil company. GE another major solar company GE electric also owns GE Oil and Gas therefore will not not be affected by Carbon Tax laws because it can just shuffle the money and carbon credits around to maintain it's current level of production. The Alberta Trunk Line is yet another example of this it will suck CO2 out the atmosphere be sent to the Alberta Oil Sands via the pipe line and will actually increase production. Tax the air, then tax you for collection, then sell it back to you at an inflated price(In the name of climate change) and the cycle repeats. Only the people will be paying carbon tax and the major polluters will continue to do business as usual all the while being able to track you via a GPS device in your vehicle and charging you per km after exceed you personal carbon footprint limit and you can't travel after that unless you have lots of money. "Well, I seen on the news that this is a good thing" Who owns the media? I know it seems alot to wrap your head around this but it is happening. Spread the word and produce this evidence and the climate gate information.