Who is in denial now eh?

Face it, there is now a growing perception of a culture of corruption in this science, and now you've quoted from just one source, a friendly one to AGW at that, how convenient and how typical.

I note too that the report does not say there is no fraud, it says "they do not appear to reveal fraud or other scientific misconduct" that's a long way from "no fraud" isn't it.

It's exactly that sort of cleverness that makes this whole CRU thing smell bad.

There is no evidence it was a hack, it could have been an insider, it could also have been a mistake - that's never happened before has it? /sarc.

To sum up tthe email exchanges as robust scientific politics, when they clearly were trying to skew the peer review process, it may not be illegal, but it certainly not in the "spirit" of scientific openess is it.

Quoting peer review for Jones's data hardly gives one a warm feeling now does it?

Then there is the comments in the actual code, that's not easily put aside, you don't seem to even address that at all, selectively keeping to the emails.

You're clearly frustrated with this Geoff, it's bad luck you seem to be tied up in it.

You may not think the science or these scientists are discredited, but the perception out there says otherwise.

Only today the Australian newspaper published an article claiming a key point about Himalayan glaciers was a quote from aphone interview by a person who admits he is not a glacier expert - that sure helps that credibility stuff doesn't it?

Wow!

I am amazed.

Just how is it possible that any one, who can spin such a nice bunch of daisies, over such a stinking pile of cr4p, as climategate, has not been co-opted for Ruddies personal staff.

Such talents are surely wasted at the ANU.

Hang about, perhaps our unies are even more in need of these talents than Ruddies crook government.

Dr Davies,

Perhaps you can give me an example of a legitimate use of the word "trick" in conjunction with the word "hide" in regard to the display of data.

Or how it can ever be legitimate to threaten to destroy a data set rather than comply with a FOI request?

If the data set in question was covered by a licensing agreement and could not be disclosed there would be ample grounds for declining the FOI request. There would be no need to threaten to delete the data.

To pretend that the hacked emails do not point to hanky panky of the most egregious sort is to be in denial. Any scientist worthy of his position should be calling for an open and transparent enquiry into the affair. The enquiry must include a thorough review of ALL Phil Jones' and Michael Mann's publications.

Any outcome that leaves Phil Jones in his job is a cover-up.

Any future IPCC reports need to be based EXCLUSIVELY on data that is available to all.

If you seek to minimise this affair perhaps you too should be sacked.

NB:

I am not a climate change denier. I need no convincing of the dangers of continuing to pump greenhouses gases into the atmosphere

The emails do indeed suggest fraud. And it was evident there were major problems with the research culture at the UK Climate Research Unit before the emails were leaked.
Here I called for the resignation of scientists even before the emails are leaked:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/
And here I explain how the scientists themselves publically admit that the methodology they have been using may not be sound: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/working-to-develop-more-reliable-methodology-keith-briffa/
[And they can't even predict the weather with the UK Met office wrongly forecasting this last winter in the UK would be warmer than average - yet it has been freezing - the coldest for 30 years!]

"perception of a culture of corruption in this science.."

yes indeed, but as we all well know perception does not always line up with actual facts...

thanx again geoff, good article.

Having read the article, I then proceeded to peruse the comments. Yes. You know my old dead dad useta say that "Sometimes things get so bad that you can't help laughing".

that's the whole point esykes, perceptions are harder to correct once they are established, as any additional data only tends to reinforce the perception.

The perception may be incorrect, but then that's an additional hurdle for the party concerned isn't it?

The perception may be correct too.

The problem for climate science is that they have let this come about isn't it?

Weather forecasters have enough problems with credibility, and climate prophets are going to have even more now.

Skeptics on the other hand, are quite correct to doubt the way they do.

How desperately people like Davies want to believe the scam can go on and on, at least until they retire (and a big hello to dear old Andy, also at the ANU) .

And quoting Pew as an authority on anything?

Pretending it's all just a misunderstanding brings no credit to our wamist clowns.

The CRU at East Anglia University should be closed down, along with the Hadley Centre. And the UK Met Office is about to lose the BBC as a client because its predictions have been so far off the mark.

A vast left-wing conspiracy to promote global warming among the frozen.

We know about Mann-made global warming in the US. Now there's a new scandal which has apparently and typically been given no attention in the Australian MSM. See here: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.html

These trans Atlantic warmists should be looking at jail time.

I'm *so* over this examining the gnat's testicles on this one.
So the man in a *private* conversation was a little extravagant/imprecise/sloppy with his language.

As for the 'trick'= the methodology. Hide= eliminate. Neither alternative is necessarily intrinsically insidious, it's all in the context and provable only by the consequential actions. (interpretive at best circumstantial)

I wrote an email recently to my son over one of his stirring antics, I threatened to remove his manhood with a rusty razor. Is he in danger? I *don't* think so. More banter or male chest beating on my part.

Who amongst us, in private, hasn't meaninglessly threatened something as a means of venting, because something/someone annoyed us.
Let's get real he, is a man with all the petty emotions that entails.

The proof is in, *did he?* No. To me, it was a sign of irritation/annoyance full stop.

All this Freudian examination of the man's semantics and his pet's entrails is a bit interpretive and frankly, inquisitorial medieval.

Since when is perception fact? let alone objective proof. Not in any rational world I know.

I'm amused by some of the comments, talk about calling the kettle black. Many of the posters are, of course, paragons of objectivity and rational scientific reasoning (*NOT*).

Clearly, most are talking recalcitrant opinion, no fact required and seeing what *they* want to see. Show me the actual frauds or the destruction not (again) private, chest beating threats and sloppy wording. Where is the proof.
______________________________________
Steven

Idiom changes from country to country, These emails were as much scientific documents as an after conference drinks conversation in the bar. Remind me, to frisk you for recorders if we ever meet for a wine or three. :-| eew!

Yet another whitewash from none other than the ANU boffin who abolished economics; he should have offered his services to Bernard Madoff. The "trick" proposed by Phil Jones that Geoff defends is the combination of proxy (tree-ring) "temperatures" to 1960 with instrumentals thereafter in the SAME curve was to cover up - yes COVERUP - that Jones' tree rings did not correlate with actual temperatures after 1960 or so, and showed relative cooling rather than ever upward warming. If the tree rings are wrong now, why were they right about temperatures in 1066?

Geoff's paper speaks volumes for what passes as academic integrity in Canberra.

Bad timing, Mr Davies

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171

"The IPCC report claimed that the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish inside 30 years... suggesting the melting of the glaciers was "very likely". The IPCC defines "very likely" as having a probability of greater than 90 per cent."

And where did this scary information originate?

"the New Scientist report was based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Mr Hasnain, who was then the chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research."

Well, fancy that.

odo: "Face it, there is now a growing perception of a culture of corruption in this science,"

Garbage, I am a scientist, and I would and have given up my position because of corruption, and it wasn't the scientists, but the liberal minded capitalistic pig greedy mongrels who put the mighty dollar even before human life. I know, I have seen it.

You know them, they are even fighting climate change policy because it will hit them where they hurt, in their fat capitalistic liberal fundamentalist wallets, that became pornographically stuffed with money by raping our land, sea, water ways and air.

I quick drive around rural Australia and you will see where all the liars are, the way our farmers have (unknowingly, heh I was one of them till I woke up) stripped our country of nearly all it's vegetation, damed up all the creeks and streams so our once mighty inland rivers are now just dry gullies.

If any of you opportunistic, gluttonous, greedy and uninformed commentators where to open your eyes and take a reasonable look, you would realise that in another 100 years we wont be able to breath. Oh you wont be here, you and your fat wallets will have finished using and abusing what gifts you say your God gave you and will be with him.

But my grandson will be alive, and by my oath, I will fight until I have been clawed to death. Then I'll come back and haunt anyone who will help this greedy, self centered bunch of no-all no-nothings from letting us clean up the mess you have made while filling your BMW's with petrol or your yachts with diesel.

Dr. Davies may or may not have managed to sanitise the leaked emails?

So now are supposed to believe that all is well with the so called climate science of global warming. The article is clear; the gang operating out of the University of East Anglia is like Caesar’s wife beyond reproach.

Today in the Australian a new climate gate type of scandal has surfaced. It seems that the IPCC claim that the Himalayan glaciers - because of anthropogenic global warming - were set to vanish precisely by the year 2035 was a simple “misunderstanding” of a New Scientist article published in 1999. The article was based on the flimsiest evidence. Yet it was believed implicitly by the environmental group WWF. Finally, it was copied as gospel by the uncritical authors of the 2007 IPCC document. Which brings us back to the University of East Anglia’s climate gang.

You have not read the emails.

They clearly outline the corruption in and of themselves. There is no reason to take anyones wrord for it.

They are replete with abuse of the "peer reeview" proce. I would highly recommend the analysis of them at: http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/

John Costells follows them with an explanation of the acroynyms, abbreviations, initials, etc and crross references with links to each email.

Now this is what I want all you Science knocking troglodytes to do.

(after you have read this) Do not use anything that may have come from science.
No TV, radio, movies, internet.
Actually get out of the house, get some logs and build your own hut, concrete and mortar are chemicals.
No soaps, detergents shampoos (so it may be better if you are outside)
No good fresh food, refrigerators, trucks etc.
No doctors, hospitals, medicine, telephones.
No roads, bridges etc. well some of these we still could have, cobblestone roads, logs across streams, bark huts, meat hanging in hessian sacks etc.

You fools that are only too happy to lift us up and praise us when we do something you like. Heart surgery, fertilisers, incecticides, oil distillery etc, are the first ones to deride us if you "Dont Like What We Say"

Stick your faith where your mouth is, don a camel fur robe and head off into the wilderness where you will be able to better commune with him.

Leave all the science and stuff for us sinners, we will see what you have and will want also to come to know the lord.

Dr, Davies<< there is no basis for claims that the case for human-caused global warming has collapsed, nor that these or any climate scientists have been discredited.>>

Perhaps we might table just a few reasons that might provide a basis.

The AGW movement has sold the world on Consensus, Peer Review, Impeachable Professionals, Procedural Compliance, Good Data, Certified Computer Programs and State of the Art Modeling. Every one of these vital attributes is now flawed or has been violated.

The IPCC Assessments have, according to HSBC estimates, resulted in $74 Billion being sucked from our economies in the last ten years, our hard earned taxes. If the UN gets is way and we sign their treaties, we can expect to contribute to the $200 Billion per annum they wish to redistribute to the third world, our hard earned taxes.

Millions of ordinary people have “signed on” for the AGW movement, across all sectors of our communities, not to mention scientists, academics, intelligentsia, politicians, media, entertainment and NGO’s.

Public interest is evaporating; political expediency left on the last train from Copenhagen and 2010 will probably see the last vestiges of IPCC and lead author credibility unwind.

Your article follows similar conclusions drawn by three journalists in the Weekend Australian, and totally ignores the catalogue of blunders that utterly discredit the IPCC.

It is not about the emails, nice distraction though that may be. It is about the conclusions drawn by the IPCC and their methods. The social and economic costs of this obsession with “global warming” and “green energy” are terrifying.

I think you have only two choices. You can tell us that the IPCC assessments are rubbish because of either “incompetence” or “malicious intent”. Mitigation is not acceptable.

Your choice.

All just language games, chums; the signified is never better than ambiguous. There was of course the same hew and cry over evolution. The difference is that instead of Darwin and his tiny coterie, we're dealing with the discourse of hundreds of institutions and thousands of fallible individuals. It's testament to the veracity of climate science and scientists that a few innocent emails is all the denialists can scry among the the electronic entrails. No amount of evidence will ever convince the blind who "will not" see. Come to think of it, evolution is also still contested, is it not? I met a geologist the other day who believed in the resurrection; seriously! ....Of course I dismissed him as a crank :-)

mitchell - if the emails were from oil companies or cigarette companies, do you think it would be as trivial as you imply?

"A few innocent emails" should not be trivialized the way the true AGW believers are doing, if anything it just makes it worse that you all think a nice little cozy cover up is perfectly OK - just a bit of human nature, slip of the tongue, it's costing people Billions of $, it's just not acceptable to hide this or gloss it over.

It doesn't matter how many or how few emails, as if that is rationale in itself for ignoring the obvious. (Like saying one crime itself doesn't make someone a bad person.)

You are correct when you say "No amount of evidence will ever convince the blind who "will not" see." because it is clear none of the true believers sees anything wrong, which is itself unbelievable.

Wbong,
the flaw in your argument is they can *see* the science you mention but not AGW. These people need to *see* the evidence.
________________________________

Pericles, spindoc, antigreen

Look at there sites particularly the map they show before and after pictures.
There are over 100 glaciers in the US that have disappeared.in recent times.
Also note the pickies of the permafrost melts. Given the extensive nature of perma frost melting releasing known greenhouse gas, the loss of pastures, desertification and the obvious consequences of the loss of water from the Himalayan glaciers.
The question is how will all the above effect Spindoc's chances of more emotive 'hard earned' $s?

Also check out the data from the satellite "Grace" it measures the thickness depth or ice and water ...interesting stuff.

http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=626&gid=42&index=0

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
http://asiasociety.org/onthinnerice

These sites show before and after pictures

BTW Pericles The by 30 years was an educated guess from someone who knows the area. What isn't disputable it that the Glaciers around the world are disappearing at unprecedented rates.

What do you think will happen when 2 billion people don't have enough water? Water wars, unprecedented refugees number.

Like the man said "once all the rivers are polluted and the water's gone try drinking $s and eating energy (or the consumer toys)."

I dont know how Davies can say that no scientist has been discredited when Jones is looking down the barrel of charges being laid against him for clear breaches of the FOI Act 2000 Section 77.

I dont know how he can conveniently gloss over the deliberate and unconsciable acts of vandalism against the Peer Review process, to the detriment of people and ideas he and Mann didnt like.

And then we can come to the concealing of computer code to hide the amatuer nature of their work, and the poor state of the data.

....and on it goes.

Pity about the news item concerning the glaciers in the Himalayas and the evidence for the extreme statements that were made were not the product of Peer Reviewed Research---- contrary to the protocols of the IPCC. ie it was based upon a comment made to the journalist and not much else.

Can it get any sillier

pontificator "What isn't disputable it that the Glaciers around the world are disappearing at unprecedented rates." so what, that's just natural climate change.

The issue is what's man made and what do we do if it is - not the natural flow of events.

Unprecedented, compared to less than 200 years of records, oh please, pull the other one.

I don't think that's a good excuse to become hysterical and redistribute the wealth of the west is it, or do you think it is reasonable to go that way?

What really is unprecedented is the CRU scientists corruption of the scientific process and the moral issue that's become obvious of suppressing alternative views - a little harder to digest than natural phenomena.

It would be wise for Geoff to jump off the bandwagon now before he has no credibility left at all.

So now "hide the decline" now means something other than hide the decline.

The emails clearly showed fraud e.g the 'fudge factor' which the author arrogantly didn't even bother to disguise shows a clear mathematical hoax. This has already been established.

Apparently Geoff does not feel that the CRU suddenly 'losing' all the data after Phil Jones constantly refused to hand it over for years is not suspicious?

There's lots of 'smoke' yet the author would have us believe there is no fire and never was. Now he is saying there is no smoke either.

Geoff is a geophysicist who has written a book about economics. The link between Global Warming theorists and lefty social and economic re-engineering is no more obvious than here.

I hear the sound of a collapsing sandcastle.

Well this article exposes the mentality of some who lurk around OLO. I guess ignorance can be sustained for the ignorant, however, when a biologist lurks here – the cheerfully malicious one who provided readers with the crap on DDT, one can better witness the deliberate, downward moral slide into economic recklessness.

While the ignorant are calling for the resignation of the CRU scientists in their persistent bid to remove any obstacles that block their ongoing plans to loot nature, they believe it’s OK for criminals to hack into the confidential emails of the CRU staff. For the ignorant it seems, criminals are men of integrity.

Since the ignorant moralise (24/7) over the “lack” of integrity in climate research, one must conclude that their defence of the fossil fuel industry is instigated by the belief that this industry is flawless, impeccable, exemplary and beyond reproach.

Could it be that those who defend the grim reapers running the fossil fuel industry, are incapable of comprehending the environmental consequences from the operations of this foul industry or even the consequences of the 25,000 square kilometres of oil slick in the Timor Sea perpetrated by FF nincompoops who are "regulated" by political sycophants?

Millions of gallons of foul oil have trashed marine ecosystems in Mexico, Arabia, Uzbekistan, South Africa, the North Pacific, Alaska, Tobago, Russia, Iran, France, Canada, Spain, Kuwait, Italy, Angola, Scotland, Alaska, Australia, Timor etc.

The Prestige oil spill off Spain in 2002 cost $12 billion for the clean up. Five hundred and twenty million gallons were spilled in one incident in the Persian Gulf. Amoco released 69 million gallons off the coast of France. A drunken sailor on the Exxon Valdez trashed the ecosystems in Alaska and Exxon continue to slither out of paying full compensation to the victims.

Yeah right but the ignorant say the “conspiratorial hoax” is in the science establishment?

Yeah right but ignorance is as ignorance does so please spare us anymore of the fake morality.

Protagoras,

'Those who would assert, must prove.'

Those who claim to be genuine scientists, must maintain their integrity, or else they have no better case than their protagonists. Galileo, Darwin, Pasteur, Einstein didn't have to 'hide' or fudge data.

Now, they were genuine scientists.

Protagoras - Your attempt to divert the forum by a strange and irrelevant rant about oil companies, pollution and drunken sailors trashing ecosystems is completely unrelated to the fact that there are major credibility issues now facing the AGW proponents.

Oil spills, oil companies and other environmental issues have NOTHING to do with the fact that AGW is a major scam which is rapidly falling apart.

Hacking emails pales into insignificance as a crime in comparison to what the hacking uncovered. Apart from fudging data, the emails reveal your beloved CRU attempted were having talks with oil companies (which you seem to regard as demonic) regarding sponsorship money.

Your post is typical of many AGW supporters; laced with vilification, lacking relevant facts, high levels of emotion and attempts to link the problem to emotive but ultimately unrelated issues.

Global Warming is not about pollution nor is it even about energy efficiency despite the Green left attempting to lump these topics together. We wait with baited breath as to what lengths AGW proponents will go to in an attempt to salvage their sinking ship.

Loudmouth - Unfortunately, your type of arguments are what predominate in the climate denialist world. That’s not to say that there aren’t legitimate skeptics arguing with legitimate science.

I’m told that Phil Jones and friends even published multiple, peer-reviewed skeptics in the last IPCC report (which, by the way, would debunk the whole “they corrupted peer review!” swill, propagated by denialists. Check it out!

And have you ever noticed how many of the ‘big’ names in the climate deniers’ camp are also the people who have claimed and are claiming:

a) that acid rain was a hoax made up by money-grubbing scientists

b) that the hole in the ozone layer was a politically-motivated sham

c) that secondhand tobacco smoke was harmless

d) DDT is harmless

e) man-made chlorofluorocarbons come from volcanoes

and

f) there has been no global warming for fifteen years

That kind of track record should speak volumes: Stupid denialism is no match for the informed type and the rules of nature are the same throughout the Universe.

The CRU team will overcome; there will be more transparency as a result and you guys will need to remove that yellow egg that shows up so vividly after your strawmen are carted off to landfill.

Cheers

Protagoras,

Most of us 'deniers' and sceptics would broadly agree with you on (a) to (e), it's the precise details of (f) we're not sure of. Neither are we now confident that your Gods can deliver them. Not being religious, most of us require evidence rather than faith.

Joe Lane

Examinator

Thank you for referring me to a most enjoyable set of photographs of selected mountain scenery.

I make the following observations.

1. How can you be sure that changes in glacier length are due to man made global warming or atmospheric CO2 levels?
2. Am I correct in assuming that glacial length is a function of precipitation (or replenishment) and the rate of glacial melt? If so is a decrease in precipitation, specifically located at the head of glaciers discussed by IPCC?
3. Are you making the assumption that mountain scenery is static? I would have thought it would be in a state of flux over a period of decades. Surely, glaciers are alternating over time by either growing or retreating.
4. Aesthetically pleasing photographs can not reflect the actual volume of ice that is present. Since this must depend on the depth of the glacier.
5. How do your pictures compensate for the sloppy IPCC science in respect to Himalayan glaciers as reported in the Australian?

I'd like to propose Protagoras' effort as an early entrant to the Mixed Metaphor of the Year contest.

>>you guys will need to remove that yellow egg that shows up so vividly after your strawmen are carted off to landfill<<

Picturesque.

But what really annoys me about all this is that there is now so much heat and noise, the chances of anyone actually discerning the reality of the issues have totally disappeared.

I tend towards the sceptical - some would even say cynical - end of the spectrum, whenever I see legions of folk making a living out of a story that cannot be tested ahead of time. Financial planners do it all the time, they give advice and take your money. If it turns out to be bad advice, you lose, they don't. Drug companies work in a similar fashion. They spin a story, you take the pills, if they don't work, they have your money and you still have the problem you started with.

AGW works in the same way. A prediction is put together that cannot be checked out ahead of time, and before you can say "Al Gore" we have a multi-billion dollar industry.

There is now so much money invested - "other people's" money - that the train has long since left the station. Millions of folk around the world now owe their livings to the existence of AGW, and nobody is going to tell them anything different.

They used to say that in war, truth is the first victim.

I'd add to that. Where there is money, truth is your first discretionary purchase.

That goes for both sides in this discussion, by the way. I am equally cynical of the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry.

Which only goes to make the individual's problem of uncovering the truth, that much more difficult.

>> But what really annoys me about all this is that there is now so much heat and noise,

pericles, the "heat and noise" is a deliberate political tactic.

>> the chances of anyone actually discerning the reality of the issues have totally disappeared.

nonsense, only if you're looking in The Australian.

pericles, read what scientists say, not what journalists say scientists say.

i don't get it, pericles. you're very smart and very thoughtful. what are you doing throwing out trite "who can know?" lines. why are you slumming with these denialist loons?

examinator, there is little dispute that good research is taking place on a global scale, the seemingly endless streams of pro and anti links provide testimony to this. However, the discussion is not about these, this thread is about the credibility of the IPCC and its lead authors.

It’s interesting that IPCC assessments are no longer quoted? Back to square one, more and more like minded links. This is testimony to the fact that the AGW movement can no longer present a credible IPCC case.

Before you can present a credible case you must repair the credibility gap. This means addressing the fundamental issues of “Consensus, Peer Review, Impeachable Professionals, Procedural Compliance, Good Data, Certified Computer Programs and State of the Art Modeling. Only this can restore credibility to their output, it serves no purpose to try to “substitute” the IPCC assessments.

We could disband the IPCC and its lead authors, but that would mean opening up the AGW issue from ground zero. That however, would mean a different set of “terms of reference” that would return science to its rightful domain, free of politics and causes.

The only people trying to save the IPCC at the moment seem to be the commentariat. Curious is it not?

The origins of collective movements are based upon tribal instincts, the powerful “need” to belong. Those in our society who feel in some way “disenfranchised”, for a variety of possible reasons, are those most likely to feel the need to belong. This goes some way to explaining the selecting of “champions” for your cause.

The AGW cause is losing “Champions” at an alarming rate. This is why it is significant that the movement is relying on journalists to defend the cause until some new champions can be found or the old ones can be resurrected.

Seems like you have elected to look for new champions

"why are you slumming with these denialist loons?"

bushbasher asks

"pericles. you're very smart and very thoughtful"

bushbasher answers his own question

"i don't get it"

bushbasher sums up

yes, we can see that, at least you admit it, while many just dig in, regardless of the obvious evidence.

The UN and IPCC methods are flawed and the CRU emails, "do not appear to reveal fraud", appear is a weak word when clearing anyone of doubt isn't it?

Let's wait for some of the more formal investigations and see what they reveal.

Geoff Davies piece is disingenuous and misleading. In it he claims that Jones at the CRU said in an email he had found a “trick” to “hide the decline” shown in Briffa’s tree ring proxy temperature reconstruction and that the analysis, “was deliberately fudged arises from a misunderstanding.”

Steve McIntyre, an IPCC reviewer, has stated, “Jones deleted the post-1960 values of the Briffa reconstruction, replaced them with instrumental values, smoothed the spliced series and ended up with a reconstruction that looked like an accurate reconstruction of late 20th century temperatures.”

Briffa’s temperature reconstruction shows a decline post 1960, countervailing the notion of AGW. Readers can compare what was deleted by image googling “hide the decline” + graph.

McIntyre continues: “The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001. Nor was the decline shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working on in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email.”

One reviewer of the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report (McIntyre) specifically asked IPCC not to hide the decline: “show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR [third assessment report]; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18).”

The IPCC’s reponse was, “Rejected though note divergence issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Biffra et al. series.”

Rather than discussing this divergence openly in a scientic manner this act was a deliberate attempt by the scientists involved, and by the IPCC, to delete what they felt was inappropriate for others to see, a decline in this proxy temperature reconstruction that might, one can suppose, lead one to question the reliability of tree ring proxy temperature reconstructions, or even the notion of global warming.

Like parts of this article this is obfuscation through omission, tantamount in the scientific world as fraud.

I came across this the other day. It is from the letters of Darwin and shows how good scientists ought to deal with conflicting opinions and divergent data http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2931.

I'm afraid I'm with the majority of commenters on this thread. Nice try Geoff, but it doesn't accord with the facts. I'd also note from a pollster's point of view that while Pew does some interesting work it is generally regarded as being skewed in a left of centre direction when it gets into the area of analysis of political issues.

In another essay on OLO Stephen Keim suggested that a legal action might sort out the differences between Plimer and Monbiot. I think it more likely and more appropriate that a legal action sort the Climategate issues out. You're not going to get anything out of most other sorts of inquiries, short of a royal commission, because they tend to feel socially constrained.

Graham wrote:

"In another essay on OLO Stephen Keim suggested that a legal action might sort out the differences between Plimer and Monbiot".

It is now 35 days since George Monbiot accused Ian Plimer of LYING and FABRICATION. The accusation was delivered on national television.

Monbiot repeated his accusation on the Guardian website.

If untrue Monbiot's accusations are clearly defamatory. When it comes libel or slander cases England is probably the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction in the English speaking world. English courts would have jurisdiction since the accusations were repeated in an English newspaper.

To succeed in litigation Plimer does not have to prove the science in his book, "Heaven and Earth" is correct. The onus is on Monbiot and any other defendants to prove that Plimer was telling DELIBERATE untruths and FABRICATING evidence. This is a heavy burden for any defendant to meet.

On the face of it the odds would be stacked in Plimer's favour were he to sue. Yet so far Plimer, a man who has been ready to resort to the courts in the past, has refrained from suing.

What does that indicate about Plimer's confidence in his own book?

Clearly Monbiot was challenging Plimer to sue. He made it easy for him.

Equally clearly Plimer has failed to meet the challenge. Could it be that Plimer feels Monbiot could mount a successful defence?

>> I'm afraid I'm with the majority of commenters on this thread.

well, knock me over with a feather.

I agree with Grahamy on this occasion Keith.The role of the scientist is to be a sceptic.How can those who question the science possibly be labled as deniers, aligned with the Jewish holocaust for questioning something that has so many flaws?

Even if the West stops all CO2 production,China,India,Brazil etc will continue the expodential emitions of carbon with no beneficial result for anyone.

Apparently it is OK for the environmental movements to drive the serfs into the depths of poverty based on a flawed ideology,but many of them with their secure Govt jobs will not join them.

Raredog,

Methinks you protest too much.

Perhaps you should read (and understand) this, from the horse's mouth.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

There are a lot of misleading comments in this thread, you are only contributing to them.

Protagoras,mostly Pericles and myself are at loggerheads on subjects of economics.On this topic we are as one.It is total fraud based on the prospect of the elites achieving a totalitariarn world govt.

Pericles did you view http://www.ae911truth.org/

Q&A, my last post suggests << This is why it is significant that the movement is relying on journalists to defend the cause until some new champions can be found or the old ones can be resurrected. >>

“Resurrected”? Oh no! Surely we are not resurrecting the “hockey stick” again?

Your link offers a string of “mitigation” of Keith Briffa’s tree ring proxies by whom? Oh! Don’t tell me, Keith Briffa? Excellent.

In the end it is about a possible “indication of the likely history of tree-growth changes”.

An”indication” of “likely”? Powerful stuff Q&A.

I think I can feel a pulse in the hockey stick

If science were susceptible to "common sense" we wouldn't need professionals. The history of science is evidence and theory overcoming "common sense". Anyone who believes that ignorance and common sense will guide you as to the world's climate is just a bit ego-centric and silly.
The evidence is getting to the critical mass stage where the denial lobby will have to change tack. I'm already seeing "of course it's changing, but it's just a natural cycle". Great rhetoric, but I'm afraid the science has already precluded this idea! If it were "natural" then it would occur in a certain way. It hasn't. The changes we are currently observing are consistent with theory: Massively increase CO2 will cause "warming". Soot from Asia has been modifying the behaviour, as has ocean currents, but the *huge* amount of data from upper air and thousands of ground stations have become conclusive.
Folks now accept accurate 5 day forecasts and very accurate 2 day forecasts without question. The models, and the physics they are based on are *very* well understood. Within the limits of Chaotic systems (butterfly effect...), these models have already predicted large effects that are now being measured. We would be stupid, and deserving of extinction ourselves if we ignored science at this juncture.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could put all the anti-science and pro-religious folks on one island and let the rest of the world progress...but parasites always follow the host.

Ozandy is right, I look at it this way, and I am a scientist, biochemistry, molecular biology. too many times have we overlooked warnings, our rivers are dry, the Murray/Darling is a disgrace, primarily because a few large cotton companies have damed all the water with no regard for the fact that thousands of Aussie farmer families are trying to make a living down stream

We cannot just keep on raping our planet to make obscene profits. I see people talking about hard times, no money, we can't afford to fix it, wow, last year we spent over 4 billion dollars on new TV sets, I am sure that will fix the problem, nah exasperate it more likely.

Its time to cut out all the stupid scare tactics, we are poisoning our planet, so in reality we are poisoning our children and grand children.

Like I have said many times, I will do anything I can to assure that my grandson has a good clean free world to live in, so all you people that are trying to stop work on cleaning up this country or gtet out, I am itching for a fight.

Ozandy, must you resort to insults?

I'm a skeptic, and involved in the science field, so am not "anti-science", nor am I religious.

Why is it so hard to believe that being skeptical about the size and impact of man's contribution to climate is not about being against science?

In fact if you want to talk about faith, how many people just accept the general consensus without question, because "some scientists said so", without referring to the scientists notes on caveats, doubts and errors, as well as contrary arguments?

I work with models in another area, and while they are a nice indicator, we all accept they do not represent the real world outside of our limits.

When you talk about anti-science, and we see what CRU and now the IPCC errors coming to light, perhaps the AGW "believers" will be seen as anti-science, hiding the decline, corrupting the peer review process yet forging on "religiously", perhaps indeed you may be parasites who need to be isolated. (that's harsh calling people parasites because they disagree)

Ignoring science, no, we're questioning some, while pointing to other science which is counter to the AGW belief, which the anti science (AGW believers) believers don't like, thus ignore and pour scorn on, that's not a scientific approach, nor is playing the man who points it out e.g Carter, Plimer, Monckton.

It all depends on your viewpoint, and keeping an open not a closed mind, surely?

Amicus, where is the insult?
I have a right to be angry about the deliberate misinformation and downright sad at the sheep like tendency to believe propoganda from the usual suspects. Can you not hear the dollars behind the so called sceptical rhetoric?
I will not apologise for my opinion on religion, it has a lot to answer for and does not deserve kid glove treatment.
Science is inherently sceptical, but unlike public forums it also plays by the rules. Most of the "doubts" about the science come from way outside the field. They are indeed attacking the very methods that make science work while pretending to be objective.
The "real" science *is* settled. This comes not from faith or anything resembling it, it comes from many years of study and *overwhelming* evidence.
I believe I have a right to point out that many anti-GW folks are just not qualified and are not basing their arguments on facts.
I have watched big business destroy my local rivers and bush in the name of tax credits, I've watched big business override health science and even economics. I *will* fight the propaganda machines, especially when it tries to undermine the only discipline that has advanced humanity and achieved real progress. Seriously...10,000 years of religion achieved constant warfare and pretty art. 200 years of science and we can cure most illness and leave the planet. If folks choose to regress to homo-stupidus then yes, you deserve extinction.
Sorry if the truth is insulting, but real life will make you much sorrier than I can!

>> Why is it so hard to believe that being skeptical about the size
>> and impact of man's contribution to climate is not about being against science?

because you're the kind of guy who writes trivial truths like "The UN and IPCC methods are flawed" as if it's a meaningful indictment.

>> mostly Pericles and myself are at loggerheads on subjects of economics.
>> On this topic we are as one.
>> It is total fraud based on the prospect of the elites achieving a totalitariarn world govt.

heh, heh, heh.

bushbasher - I believe your second quote there was from Arjay, not me.

Apoplogy accepted

heh, heh, heh

I stand by my comment, you can call it trivial. I don't mind.

The UN and IPCC have included a flawed data point on glaciers in the Himilayas, and it was used as a "scare", in fact one of the central "scare points" of the 2007 report, wasn't it?

Do you think that's trivial?

It's about science, not fudging or scaring isn't it?

>> Apoplogy accepted

not offered. never claimed it was you. heh, heh, heh.

>> I stand by my comment, you can call it trivial.

please do, and i will.

>> It's about science, not fudging or scaring isn't it?

this forum isn't about science. it's about hack debate and blatant cherrypicking, at the integrity level of Today Tonight.

Amicus - "The UN and IPCC have included a flawed data point on glaciers in the Himilayas, and it was used as a "scare", in fact one of the central "scare points" of the 2007 report, wasn't it?"

This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC.
Re:- http://www.realclimate.org

PeterA, did you check the IPCC report yourself, or just rely on the "believoshere" for your information?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html

I don't normally post links, but I think here your favorite propaganda site is trying to pull the wool so to speak. They are a well known biased site.

Here's another "Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

"a central claim"

Just a newspaper, but you can basically find whatever you like on the internet, so it's best to go to the source.

It all depends where you get your data doesn't it?

cheers

The BBC a long time Global Warming advocate is going 'cool' on climate change albeit reluctantly.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/01/reflections_in_a_confusing_cli.html

Nature the previously aggressively pro AGW science magazine is also becoming less certain.

The IPCC has recently admitted serious errors in its report.

Watching the support slowly fall away is a most fascinating spectacle.