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.