Steven,
I Don't attack INDIVIDUALS unless provoked by the same. I do attack Actions the two are separate. I was questioning the apparent lack of objectivity from someone of your background. i.e. speculation at this stage.

True, scientific integrity is paramount in the published, peer reviewed data AND when there is *corroborated evidence* to talk about.

Untill the details have be verified and that it has been shown there is something that HAS impacted the end result.

*This is an Observational science which is largely dependent on judgement and that pin point accuracy is moot*.

Realistically, on the surface it is an ACADEMIC scandal only.
One that I'm sure would be present in other areas too.

If proven that the scientific integrity of the result can be shown in the final results then, I agree that careers should suffer accordingly. My understanding is that the integrity of end, published
peer reviewed result is where the crime is.

So far from what I've seen this correlation is currently lacking.
I agree with the others speculation is premature.

I lament the likelihood of the rabbit brigade using this to discredit ALL AGW research. Watch the 'sceptics' (sic) overstate the case wildly.

JBowyer.
The whole AGW thing just so Rudd can impose a new tax hey?
Gee! Like I always say if you're going to think up a paranoid conspiracy theory why not make it a doozey.

Psst aluminum foil coated colanders as hats don't work people can still see you.

Examinator Thank you for the usual gratuitous insult but you are the nong who believed all this nonsense. You and your dopey mates swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Rudd never dreamed it up he just took advantage of the opportunity backed by idiots like you. If you are so keen on more tax why not suggest public servant and politician pensions are taxed see how keen rudd is then.

I’ve been following the breaking news about the CRU since last Friday. As I understand it the UK Telegraph lodged a request under the FOIA for their climate data in July 09, this was rejected at appeal in August 09. It is possible that the files which were subsequently made public (hacked) were neatly “zipped” as a package for the CRU’s defense against the FOIA request. It looks increasingly like either an inside job or at least some collusion to direct an outsider to the location and content of these files.

CJM, all the 1,000 plus emails and reports are available at:

http- -www.anelegantchaos.org-cru-.url.

There is even a basic search engine to assist navigation of the large volumes of content.

Sadly for science, the level of self incrimination by the CRU scientists is self evident. It is even sadder that the cornerstones of the AGW case that have been hammered at the public have been irrevocably shattered.

Scientific Consensus? They clearly don’t agree on warming or no warming, they are frustrated that the real measurements don’t agree with their modeling.

Computer Modeling? Futile by their own admissions and those of the IPCC.

Geoengineering to mitigate carbon emissions? In their own words “hopeless”, can’t measure it so can never know if it works.

Peer Review Process? Comprehensively adulterated.

Not to mention references to “inventing” the 1995 temperatures, changing data sets to “hide the decline”, hiding behind “personal” contributions of research data. (non reviewed and outside formal channels), admissions that the “data are surely wrong. Our observing system inadequate”. Allegations of preselected sampling in tree ring research to force desired outcomes. Changing historical timelines to force desired results and admissions that the MBH method is “disastrously wrong” and the real “errors in proxy reconstructions”

For those concerned about such references being taken out of context, avail yourselves of the correspondence before making such assertions.

CPRS anyone?

“Look out [Steven] it's somethin' you did
God knows when but you're doing it again”

Don’t you know by now that there are certain issues that are too important to be left to the plebes.
Decisions on such are best made in back rooms away from the public eye: it’s called “showing leadership”.
Throwing such issues into the public arena –as you have irresponsibly done – is plain and simply “a dog whistle ” and can only stir one or other of those virulent primal forms of “ISM” that afflict common folk.

I was impressed by The Guardian's , “balanced” coverage, giving over the latter half of its article to “climate scientists”* to recite their articles of faith : ( there is a) “ huge body of evidence” & (any thing that says other wise is) “that taken out of context” .(* apparently one is only climate scientist if one believes in AGW, if one has the same qualifications but doesn’t believe, one is merely a sceptic).

I can understand the ABC & SBS, being style manuals of proper behaviour, might be reticent to cover the story.

And I can well understand certain persons who shall remain nameless , counselling caution, and there is wisdom in that. Though I do wonder if they’d be as careful if it was the reverse, with “sceptcs “ being outed?

It seems to me that whether or not the emails are a ‘random sample” has no bearing.--one (if shown to be accurate) would be damning enough for its author.

Examinator

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, 3 February 2005:

Excerpt:

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

"They" is apparently "The two MMs" whoever they may be

This is extraordinary. A scientist threatening to destroy a data set, one that was presumably acquired at great expense, rather than comply with an FOI request. This goes beyond a robust exchange between scientists.

I wrote the above earlier today but was unable to post it because I was up to my limit. Since then I have watched Lateline try to spin this statement. The excuse that these data sets were acquired under contract and were confidential will not wash. If that were the case Jones would have had a legitimate reason for refusing the FOI request. There was no need to threaten to delete the data set.

If anything the attempted whitewash of Phil Jones troubles me more than the email I quoted.

Horus

We are still stuck with some basic facts. Increase the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and, ceteris paribus global temperatures should rise.

Did we observe an actual increase in temperature?

We did. The rise has now plateaued. No one is sure why. It could be because we are in a period of low sunspot activity. (Google "maunder minimum" and "little ice age").

Is the case for AGW made beyond all reasonable doubt?

No.

But the preponderance of evidence points in that direction.