The media doesn't appear to be wondering about the identity of the East Anglia hackers.

Does anyone have any information as to who these hackers are, if they were paid...and if so, by whom?

It now seems they may not have been hacked at all. Robert Blacks of the BBC has admitted he received the whole file some five weeks before they were made public. Since the e-mails and reports were in a zipped file these are more likely to have been assembled for internal legal review as part of the CRU's response to a FOIA request.

When they were made public it seems likely that the CRU then acknowledged "hacking" rather than admit to a "whisltblower"

Hope this clarifies.

Poirot,
It's not that the media is not interested in who released the emails,
it's that the media appears not to want to publicise Climategate.
As of 12.45am 5 December, US networks ABC, CBS and NBC had not yet covered the story,
according to the Media Research Center which sent a bicycle courier with the news to each of them.
The BBC sat on it for five weeks before the hacker/whistlerblower gave up on them and released the information elsewhere, as we've already heard from spindoc.
Some people do want to know but not for the reasons you or I might first think.
The lead Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Barbara Boxer,
"believes the criminal focus should remain on the hackers themselves and not on the material uncovered."
"You call it 'Climategate'; I call it 'E-mail-theft-gate,'"
Hell, when you're trying to save the planet you can't afford to let the heretics get in your way.

"Climategate" is a pathetic last-ditch attempt by the climate delusionist camp to try and deflect attention from reality prior to Copenhagen. While some of the hacked personal emails certainly aren't pretty, none of them actually refutes any of the climate science on which theories about AGW are based. I've worked in the academy with 'hard' scientists, and they're people like anybody else.

Hell, even a sweetheart like me has been known to write something horrible in an intemperate moment ;)

As far as I can tell on the latest news, it wasn't so much of a hack anyway, as a deliberate leak. While I'm innately sceptical of conspiracy theories, I think that something about "Climategate" stinks bigtime - and I'm not talking about the climate science.

CJ Morgan is spitting chips.It is important how the emails were obtained.If they were hacked,then they won't be admissable in court.If it was a whistle blower they will be.

The Hadley Centre research is the primary basis for all the IPCC policies.It should be investigated.In fact all their records should be seized immediately and a truely independard board examine their data and conclusions.

CJ Morgan,
Its pretty hard to refute adjusted data when the original data has been conveniently dumped.
I think I'll go with the "delusionist camp" of 31,000 scientists who've signed the petition
challenging the validity of the anthropogenic global warming theory.
As you'd know by now CJ, I respect everyone's religion but that doesn't mean I can make the same leap of faith myself.
I'd like to close in prayer with a word from the guru himself:
“(Global warming) is not a political issue, or a scientific issue or a psychological issue – it’s a moral issue.
If anything it’s actually a spiritual issue.”

Alternatively, Herman could of course consult a current report from some real climate scientists.

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/default.html

But that wouldn't work as well as a troll, would it?

Spindoc,
Looks like the BBC has finally taken up the story.

Nice calm and respectfull interview, enjoy!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8394000/8394669.stm

Oscar, Welcome.

I certainly agree with your last parra about we, the people, having to pay for an ETS. Whether it be direct tax or higher prices, we will have to pay and I suggest quite a bit.

I do not feel a bit sorry for Turnbull. I disagree with you here. Turnbull, in dealing with the government on the ETS was simply pushing his own personal agenda. Frankly I think he is too smart to believe in AGW, so I think his motive was so he and his merchant banker mates could be involved in carbon credits trading here. The ETS is simply a tax on us that does nothing to lower CO2.

His own arrogance was his undoing. His reluctance to accept majority opinion. His chant of "I am the leader", "I am the leader" shows that clearly.

I don't know how you can say our society sustains an ignorance of human rights and social justice that is outdated and obsolete.

I also have not met anyone yet that does not agree that the climate changes and has done forever. However there are plenty that do not consider the changes are brought about by human activity. AGW is still only a theory.

I am a sceptic. I know we cannot influence the tides, earthquakes, volcanos, our orbit or rotation, continental drift, etc. yet some seem to think we are of such importance that we influence the climate. We cannot even accurately predict the weather or make it rain!

Sorry, wrong thread. Its getting late!

CJ Morgan,
I think you have a point - there is something very whiffy about this one.

The leaked/hacked emails seem to have arrived on the world stage at a very opportune moment. They seem to have been selectively released, apparently without the benefit of context.

Those who deny climate change appear at once to be skeptical of anything that refutes their point of view, and yet seem quite credulous at the content and timing of this so called "revelation"

Herman is spot on. It is about who controls the world. It has always been about power. God has the power and the devil convinces man that he is the man by twisting the word. The OPEC leaders at their resent summit anounced that there could be no consesus on climate change in Copenhagen so instead would look to implementing a political solution which is the implementing of a world government not elected by the people but all sovereign powers ceded to the new emterty by the signators to the treaty. That is what it is all about.
A left wing socialist led, power grab. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways {good at procrastination} not good at leadership or decisions and most of the wests democracys leaders believe in God but practice evolution {double mindedness} a sure recipe for disaster. When we were facing the red under the bed you knew that he was an agnostic but with the present politicialy correct bunch they act like a cork screw and it is hard to figure out what they stand for unless you look at the big picture

Poirot, my apologies I got the name of the BBC person wrong. It is Richard Black not Robert Blacks.

Banjo, thanks for the BBC link. Interesting that Robert Black allows the AGW expert to say his piece then constantly interrupts and talks over the skeptic, a bit like Kerry O’Brien.

The damage to the AGW case is tragic, I say this because there are no winners when the trust we place in the scientific community is brought into disrepute. Regardless of which side of the fence one sits (or even on it).

The case for AGW has four main pillars. Those are “Scientific Consensus”, “Computer Modeling”, “Peer Reviewed Process” and “Data Integrity”. Since all of these have been badly tainted the whole process must now be examined because GW “could” indeed be a serious problem and there “might” be some basis for blaming human activity.

I often wonder if the UN is part of the problem or the solution. The UN has a less than glorious history. They blamed mankind and demanded action on CFC’s, acid rain and DDT. They got those completely wrong, so wrong that the forced withdrawal of DDT tripled the cases of malaria in Africa resulting in millions of extra deaths.

The UN in it’s role as “global policeman” has “officially observed” the extermination of millions of people in Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kosovo, Bosnia and South Lebanon just to mention a few.

Those who believe in the UN have every right to feel angry. For the believers, this will manifest as mitigation, ignore the facts, trivialize, increase the alarmism and crank up the vilification. This will happen because fundamentalism is based upon ideology and has nowhere else to go other than to hit rock bottom and start digging.

One that amuses me is “the e-mails are taken out of context”. Reality clearly shows the dates, times and sequences of over 2,000 e-mails. One has to ask just how much context one needs.

The establishment will defend, the “movement and the cause” will prevail and we will add yet another “whoops” to the UN’s list.

spindoc,
You've made my day!
More religious analogies:
The four pillars of AGW.
The five pillars of Islam.
Don't you love it?
Even funnier is the story of Obama's science czar, John Holdren
(whose emails have also emerged in Climategate).
In the seventies he was warning of the devastation awaiting mankind from the coming ice-age,
anthropogenically caused funnily enough.
Fast forward to the 21st century and he is now at the forefront of the AGW movement,
preparing us all for the coming man-caused heatwave.
But who bothers about the minor details when they're on a mission from Gaia to save the planet?
Holdren's proposed measures included forced mass-abortion and forced mass-sterilisation.
Seems reasonable considering the stakes involved.
After all, who wants to freeze or fry to death (take your pick).

That's just a little misleading, HermanYutic

>>story of Obama's science czar, John Holdren (whose emails have also emerged in Climategate). In the seventies he was warning of the devastation awaiting mankind from the coming ice-age, anthropogenically caused funnily enough.<<

What he predicted was that "human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a consequent reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster"

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=112317

He's really just a population-control advocate, though, using climate as a bludgeon. Any change, hot or cold, would cause a disaster.

"Whatever adjustments in crop characteristics and cultivation patterns might eventually be made in response to rapid climate change would come too late to save hundreds of millions from famine"

Just another distraction, among many.

The sad part is, that as the battle between AGW enthusiasts and deniers gets increasingly emotional, the chances of us lerts being able to separate fact from fiction rapidly approaches zero.

Being a "keen observer" of the arguments pro and con is also becoming a reviled status - we apparently now occupy that most reprehensible, and uncomfortable position of "fence-sitter".

Since when has insatiable curiosity become evil, that's what I'd like to know.

Trouble is, there's now too much personal intellectual capital invested in being firmly in one camp or the other, that the chance of anyone actually changing their mind is also decreasing rapidly.

The AGW industry seems to be working in overdrive to discredit, disallow or otherwise trivialize the now-famous emails.

Personally, I'm enjoying the insight they provide.

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009

Nothing can beat shining a light in dark corners.

UN Secretary General Ban Ky-moon calls for a reduction of carbon pollution.
Science teachers assert that CO2 is essential to life and is a natural plant food.
UN Secretary General Ban Ky-moon calls for food production to rise so that an increasing world population can be fed.
Are you with me so far?
Reduce CO2 and increase food production.How do we increase crops if we reduce the fertiliser?
Lets forget Climategate and work out how we can increase food production with a decreased amount of fertiliser.
Lets think like a greenie. How can we reduce the world population? Yess. Of course, starve them to death.

The whistle blower has been named. I won't repeat it here as the source
was very careful how it was stated. It was an insider who had been
uncomfortable for some time with what was going on.

It seems to becoming clearer, to me at least as time goes on.
Now that programmers are taking the programs and data apart just what
went on is clearer.

See this url; http://tinyurl.com/y9p4xn4

This one has an explanation of what was meant by the decline.
It was not as many presumed the decline since 1998.

phoenix94,

The term "Carbon" is a generic one that includes methane, ozone and several other greenhouses gases - not just CO2.

The problem isn't simply CO2, its too much CO2.

That's what "too much" means.

Just as sugar is OK for most of us some people have a problem processing it when things don't work as they should.

Unfortunately plants need water to grow too and if the rainfall patterns change in food growing areas, CO2 alone is of no use.

I too am confused by the science of climate change. As a school girl I remember being taught that humans breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide while plants need carbon dioxide and release oxygen.

It is not difficult to see in simple terms if we are emitting more carbon than can be absorbed there will be an adverse effect. According to some statistics, deforestation is the second biggest contributor behind the burning of fossil fuels.

The increasing confusion and fervour on both sides of the debate just makes the layman's job more difficult in wading through and understanding all the information available.

One thing is for certain there are many contradictions and I think we should not dismiss the sceptics view outright.

Why for example is our Government so determined to get a flawed ETS through the Senate? This on one hand would convince us the Government has bought the AGW side of the debate. However, sustainable population is a dirty world for our governments. One would think that if one was serious about climate change, one way to reduce emissions is to think seriously about population pressures on demand for fossil fuels and destruction of forests as cities grow and demand for wood and paper products increases.

If the scientists cannot agree plus throw into the pot a wide range of vested interests where does this leave integrity and accuracy of the GW debate?

From the Weekend Australian;

"The emails were illegally hacked from a computer systam at the University of East Anglia and then stored on a Russian web server. On November 19th a computer in Saudi Arabia was used to post a link to the stolen emails on a website popular with climate change skeptics and deniers."

Saudi Arabia, eh...phew...for a while there I thought all this might have been orchestrated at the behest of big oil interests...seems I was mistaken.

Csteele;
Several sources have said it was a whistleblower and one
place I read that actually named him.
If correct it was an inside job.

None of us on here really know what is true, we are only taking
someones word for it either way. We can adopt our favourite scientist
and push his/her barrow depending on what we believe is more likely.

My personal beliefs are as follows;
I believe that our local politicians believe what they say.
Global warming on a long time scale may well be happening.
I am nowhere near convinced that it is due to human activity.
I think the ETS scheme is utterly stupid whether AGW true or not.
Simple tax scheme will keep the finance industry out of it.
In the shortish run it won't matter anyway as we will be more
interested in getting something to put in the tanks of our cars.
That is why it will be dangerous to sign up to the Copenhagen treaty.
Once signed and ratified, you can't get out except with UN permission.

Bazz,

I've read your posted site and it does seem to make a serious point, however, I still remain unconvinced because;
- given it's narrow, simplistic focus away from the science.It focuses on two elements and a small cadre of scientists.

- it's implicit reliance on a conspiracy that lacks a credible motive.

- none of the people involved are appropriately qualified or display a deep understanding of the science they are critiquing.

- Lack of credible alternative explanation for the combination of events not seen in the last 100k years.

- lack of scientific knowledge. As one article states "this (AGW)is not about the laws of thermodynamics, (science) known by few and understood by fewer..." . IMHO it is about understanding the objective science.

To believe that AGW is a fraud based on this site's articles is a leap of faith my skepticism won't permit.

In the lead article particularly the author starts with the conclusion and write to prove it including self referencing ( it is so because I said so in a previous article). The facts quoted in that (self referenced) preceding argument don't support its conclusion either. Arguably a case of GIGO x 2. thought provoking entertaining reading, but authoritative?

In essence it is opinion not fact, equivalent to essays in the Article section of OLO.

I, for one, am sick of being called a sceptic or a denialist. I have probably read more links, more books and listened to more arguments on both sides than many of the poor silly buggers who believe this nonsense. I do not agree with an ETS I have no idea why European politicians and the UN want an ETS right or wrong. I don't understand why our government is going to force people into a lesser standard of living because some scientists have been given the licence and money to prove global warming is going to kill the planet. Excuse me, they are not going scew the facts and figures if their livlihoods depend on it and it is not going according to plan?

I have looked at the links here and on other sites and think the IPCC had better get some other scientists and modelling happening because the stuff they have is not convincing nor is it covering a wide enough data base, it simply can't, there are not enough years of factual readings. While on that point why would they be taking climate readings at Cobar Airport for the last few years; one of the hottest, driest places in this country and using those reading as one of the barometers? I have the feeling politicians think we are all stupid and cannot read or listen to scientific data from both sides and understand it. Perhaps they can't?

Well, the net is here and happening, and polticians are going to have to get used to the idea that people will research the 'so called' facts for themselves. They will not just put up with motherhood statements on what should happen or will happen any longer. Mr. Rudd get a grip we are all here in the 21st century too and just lying another tax on people for some obscure, unproven reason will not work.

RaeBee,
"I have no idea why European politicians and the UN want an ETS"
Money and power.
What do people want when they already have money and power?
More money but particularly more power.
The power to redistribute wealth is an aphrodisiac to the crypto-communist.
It enables them to simultaneously absolve themselves of the guilt they feel for hoarding so much for themselves while imagining that they are creating a utopia where everyone is the same.
Except for them of course.
Some-one must carry the cross of leadership.
Their's is the heavy burden of responsibility and why shouldn't they be well compensated?
Imagine being the architects of global economic governance.
Hitler and Stalin only dreamed of this but now it is tantalisingly within grasp.
Taking from the rich and giving to the poor on a global scale while simultaneously saving the planet for future generations to come.
Imagine being remembered throughout history as saviour of the planet and architect of the perfect social system!
What we are actually witnessing is corruption facilitated by mass psychosis.
Think about it.
Will you see all the Copenhagen delegates riding around on bicycles in a country perfectly suited to bikes?
No. You'll see the biggest fleet of gas-guzzling limousines in Danish history, engines running all day to keep the drivers warm while waiting for the would-be rulers of the world.
You'll see the biggest display of private jets ever assembled at Copenhagen Airport.
You'll see caviar flown in from Russia, the best cognac from France and probably Danish Blue cheese specially imported from Tasmania.
There will be no expense spared and only the best provided.
I almost forgot.
You'll see a bunch of hypocrites specially flown in by private jets from all the corners of the globe, all lobbying for the best deal for their own countries while simultaneously seeking to optimise the performance of their stock portfolios.
Ethical and green investments only of course.

You are right Herman.Just google New World Order and smell the reality of a totalitarian World Govt run by the corporate elites.They are using the UN as a conduit for their power play.

The Carbon taxes and derivatives will finance their Govt.Tax carbon and oxyen the elements of life.

Yes Herman, you have said it more forcefully than I. Anything the World Bank and the UN contrive has to be more than a little suspect. So whoever hacked the emails or deliberately leaked them as now suspected might just be a good guy.

These superior beings as they think they are traipse all over the world leading the good life, leaving their carbon foot print all over the place and signing us, the people, in for another tax, indeed, signed to a treaty we have not agreed upon and will pay for years to come. How I hate using that term "carbon footprint", I feel like kicking someone.

The people running the Copenghagen thingy and politicians like Rudd et al have no idea what the ordinary people in developed counties will suffer because they, as you point out, do not know what it is like to struggle, they live in another world and we are not like them either in lifestyle or outlook.

I would also like to point out that most people my age worked hard for our way of life and I for one am not prepared to give it up for any reason whatsoever if I can help it. Why the hell should I?

We have absolutely no control over this bloody nonsense apart from our meagre vote, called a democratic right, so I know where my vote is going and it is not to Kevin Rudd.

To the greenies who believe all this, up yours, hope you are around in another 40 years paying all those taxes and seeing your society and lifestyle diminish. Enjoy you wanted it. There is the saying; don't wish to hard, it may just come true.

Bazz

I'm interested (always have been) in what you say.

I do have a problem though, re your post Monday, 7 December 2009 1:14:38 PM.

My computer system is set up like the proverbial Fort Knox, for obvious reasons - and please, jokes about servers at a particular university won't go down to well, at this point in time :-)

Anyway, when I try to access the link you provide, all my *bodyguards* say this:

"The site you have requested is known to distribute spyware - 'xyz' cannot guarantee the integrity of your system if you continue."

Then the bugger gives me a choice of continuing - yeah, right!

Now, the site you linked to may be a genuine one that itself has been "hacked", I wouldn't have a clue. My point is, there are more things out there than you or I will ever know (as this latest episode demonstrates) and I am becoming increasingly paranoid about even sending harmless emails to my colleagues. I know this sounds dumb, but there you are.

So, if you (or anyone else) have another link that directs to the same source, can you post it please. As I have said, the things you say (well, mostly) are interesting. Thanks.

So we may now pay for the air we breath out (no pun intended). I note Penny Wong did not get a glowing reception in Copenhagen; she must be part of the "umberella group" that have already discussed what will happen. There must have been a few well chosen words directed at her because she stated that the language was not "helpful" to the solution of climate change! Haha.. Too cool, love it. I wonder why this is not being presented in the news? No very good spin? I eonder how K.Rudd will be received? Hmmmm. Interesting times.

Q&A
It is a web site called American thinker whatever that means.
Not sure they think too much, hi !

The original url is;

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

It wraps as you see so you might have to put it together.
It seems like a genuine web site.
I often get warnings about websites but usually the filters are too tight.
The writer is Marc Sheppard and is a systems analyst and programmer.
I notice that the UK Meteorology has put up raw data for all to see.
That must be a first. I downloaded it and put it into Xcel so
will have a play with that just for the hell of it.

Anyway as I said the cuffle will probably amount to nothing as
Kjell Aklett says;

http://www.energybulletin.net/50905

He is neither a denier or skeptic. What he says agrees with other
writing that I have seen, but his Upsalla Global Energy Group has
a good reputation.

Thanks Bazz

Hmmm, the American Thinker? One could be forgiven for thinking *oxymoron* - just kidding :)

As to 'hide the decline', yep. See my comment here;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9806#157549

Much more interested in your 2nd link. Fwiw, I give the IPCC some slack here - 'their' projected (and dated) scenarios (SRES) have always been based on what the econometricians/economists model - not the science of climate change, far from it in fact. And I have yet to see economists get their modeling right.

By the time AR5 comes out, the scientists (at least) will have more resolution (and computing power) for regional climate projections (and hopefully the bean-counters will learn from their past, ummm - excursions to all ends of the spectrum). The only problem here is that shorter term projections (signals) are swamped by noise - i.e. separating the weather from the climate ... important for land use planning, for example.

Have fun with the raw data, just be aware that every TD&H will think they are the experts (they do anyway, I guess) not realising that the raw data is just that - ergo, how will they know how and when to calibrate/adjust for the gradual loss in height of a satellite, or when to dismiss spurious numbers from an Argo float, for example?

Almost forgot, it's not all just about GHG emissions from fossil fuels, Bazz. Read up on the cement manufacturing process, or poor land use management. Energy from fossil hydrocarbons is only one side of a many sided conundrum.

Q&A,
Well I don't know how they make cement, but they use a lot of
energy, so what else could it be other than electricity ?
My son's partner is a school teacher and a hot to trot warmer.
She was most upset when I said, not to worry it will all die away as
the fuel burning declines and you can worry about what you are going
to put in your cars tank. Either that or ride a bike to work.

The data I down loaded is wx stations around the UK.
It will be an interesting exercise.

CaCO3 + heat -> CaO + CO2

About 900 kg of gas emitted for every 1000 kg of cement produced.

And your right about the energy required in the process itself - that's extra.

Peak hydrocarbons maybe, but there’s a lota stuff in those them tar sands and oil shales (just ask Canada).

Besides, all depends on what price we’re prepared to pay to extract it. And the way the Arctic is going, even now the big boys are positioning themselves for exploration and drilling rights.

I can’t help but feel we humans have an innate capacity to stuff things up, no matter how hard we try not to. But, we must keep trying – not to stuff things up, that is.

Here I am at this ungodly hour. Been listening to dopey politicians
talking about population up to 38 Million.

Here is a link to a article about who leaked the emails.
It appears, and with my limited Linux knowledge, it seems pretty
correct that they were not hacked but leaked.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked/

Q&A Re the Artic, Colin Campbell says that they won;t find much there
as the continental drift will not have moved much oil up there.
The net return on the shale is very poor and even the shale gas has
a short lifetime due to the difficulty in getting it out of tight
porous rock. The pressure falls off fast and quite quickly becomes
too slow to be worthwhile. At least that is what I have read.
No expert on these things, just read a fair bit as I have an interest
in a gas company.

You see, you are all feeling guilty for stuffing up the world, am I right? You didn't do it deliberately, you just happened to be the one in a gazillion sperm to be born. But you feel guilty.....

Politicians and the world bank want us to feel guilty because we are ordinary people living an ordinary life, so we must pay...

They won't, but we will, and so will our kids and our grand kids. They will not even feel the bite.

The world will turn and mother nature will take care of the generations to come whether they are our off spring or another species altogether in, give or a take, a few thousand years. We can't change it.

Good grief, what are we thinking, trusting politicians who only want more tax dollars, or scientific researchers being paid by them?

We, all of us, are finite in the scheme of things. Why do some human beings believe we can change that? Probably because we are the one species that can think logically and problem solve; but trying to solve the unsolvable problems will be our downfall.

In the scheme of things we are ants...are ants guilty of polluting the world with CO2, bet they produce some, but they don't feel guilty. Look outside the square people.

Sounds credible Bazz, the leaking of the emails and documents.

If I was anti-AGW and worked at the University of East Anglia, or worked within the Climate Research Unit ... what a brilliant thing to do just prior to Copenhagen, leak all that stuff.

And if leaking is the case (not hacking) then obviously, a lot of planning must have gone into it. I mean, it must have taken quite a while to select and filter the specific emails and documents to be leaked - because there were many more that were not leaked. Particularly so since all the stuff they had access to goes back to the mid 90's. Yeah, it must have been an insider.

I wouldn't like to be in their shoes though, no matter their intentions. I know it sounds dramatic but some would liken their actions to espionage, or dare I say, terrorism from within. Metaphorically speaking, whoever leaked the stuff will be portrayed as a martyr to the cause, much as a suicide bomber is in their jihad against the infidels.

Regardless, I am glad the University is having an investigation and I am particularly glad the police will be conducting a separate independent investigation - to keep the bastards honest so to speak. I am also relieved Phil Jones has stood aside while the investigations are being carried out.

No doubt the IPCC will also be following investigations very closely - to make sure it is open and transparent, their integrity is at stake as well.

I guess in hindsight, it may have been better if the stuff was hacked, at least then some phantom person or group could be blamed/hailed. But as your link suggests, it is most likely an inside job, planned and orchestrated by some disgruntled (for whatever reason) employee.

Indeed, it appears the timing of this leak was planned to inflict as much possible damage to the UNFCCC conference in Copenhagen, the aim of which is (was?) to get strategies in place to tackle the problems associated with climate change.

For what it's worth Bazz,

I don't think the leak has done much damage at all to the science. I would concede that whoever leaked the emails and documents has generated a lot of noise and confusion, particularly to those that just don't understand the science, or who have adopted an ideological stance, regardless of the science. And if I were one of them, I would be really really peed-off.

So yeah, let's have a full blown investigation.

______

RaeBee

In the scheme of things, we are trashing our home ... and we are trashing the home of others, whatever those others are.

Personally, why should I feel guilty for the former? It's my home and I can do what I damn well like - discounting the pesky spouse/regulator of course :)

The latter is a different story.

Given that I respect you, it follows that I would respect your home. I would feel a disconnect if I trashed your home - and so of course I would feel guilty.

You don't have to accept the rationale behind current 'climate change' RaeBee, but it would seem prudent, for all of us, to respect each other and live in a more sustainable way.

You say:

<< we are the one species that can think logically and problem solve >>

What makes you think the ant can't do the same?

After all, the ant has been around a lot longer than we have. Indeed, what makes you think the ant is not more intelligent than us "logical" beings?

What makes you think the problems are unsolvable?

Yes, I agree that it seems most likely that it was an inside job, rather than a computer hack. Most likely it was bit of both. I'm not given to conspiracy theories, but I suspect strongly that this entire controversy has been planned for a while, and that money has changed hands for nefarious purpose. Someone sold out, and a carefully selected subset of the emails they provided have provided temporary hysterical relief for the climate delusionists.

It was timed and executed beautifully, I must say.

RaeBee - much of what you say is true, but you don't account for the intrinsic differences between humans and ants in both our relative impact on the environment, and the uniquely human attribute that we can collectively imagine the consequences of what we do.

"Mother Nature" can't help us here, It's up to us.

Q&A - I'm fairly confident that, as individuals, ants are generally less intelligent than humans. However, I take your point about how they act collectively in more 'intelligent' ways than humans often do - at least in terms of sustainable subsistence and hence adaptation.

I think the suggestion that the file was made up to comply with an FOI
request and put aside until it had to be supplied, sounds likely to me.

I originally thought the decline being talked about was the one from
1998 but it is clear now, especially as the emails are dated about
1999 or 2000, that they were on about matching the tree ring data to
the thermometer data since 1960 and hiding a fall in the tree data.
It is interesting that the IPCC wanted them to match it in such a way
that made it more presentable.
In the process they seemed to lose the middle ages warm period and
the Maunder minimum. It was that that got Al Gore into trouble.
He got a Nobel Prize for that, hmmmm.

The first attempt to publicise the file failed as the BBC didn't
want to know. If it had become public a month or so earlier it would
have enabled a less rushed examination before Copenhagen.

I posted this inadvertently on another thread Bazz, sorry.

Bazz: "I originally thought the decline being talked about was the one from 1998 but it is clear now ... they were on about matching the tree ring data to the thermometer data since 1960 and hiding a fall in the tree data."

Would you like me to explain the below in further detail?

<< The significance of the divergence is a “problem”, recognised as such by dendrochronologists themselves. The ‘decline’ hasn’t been ‘hidden’, as some people want to believe.

The reliability (of the method) is tested by omitting some of the instrumental data and seeing how the reconstruction matches the known climate at some past time (e.g. volcanic residue, micro-flora, isotopes, etc). I’m sure many people don’t understand this and perhaps take ‘hide the decline’ out of context – for various, nefarious, reasons.

Reconstructions can be tested against historical sources of climate information that go back centuries, and overall reliability is tested with different methodologies, and with different proxy choices (tree rings, corals, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites, etc). If they vary widely, then proxy reconstructions wouldn’t be very reliable. However, if they are consistent (they are) then we can have confidence they’re robust. That’s why the so called “MBH hockey stick” isn’t crucial – there’s dozens of hockey sticks, from many different proxies and from many different sources, that all show the same thing – the warming trend is up. Ok, the methodology of any proxy reconstruction is complicated (I’m no expert) – but, the principles are not.

Obviously, uncertainties do increase the further you go back in time - and the ‘divergence problem’ for trees less than 50 yrs old is, well ... problematic. Agreed, further research must be carried out to explain the ‘divergence’ – but you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Much of the misinformation (intentional or otherwise) that surrounds this issue is because people mistake a reconstruction of the past with a present ‘attribution’ – and of course, that’s impossible. >>

You obviously still don't understand "hide the decline".

Cont'd

Cont'd

Bazz, you say: "It is interesting that the IPCC wanted them to match it in such a way that made it more presentable."

There is nothing wrong with publishers (of anything) to ask that contributors (of anything) make their graphs and illustrations more presentable, for clarification. Methinks you (or 'they') are "reading" too much into the whole affair.

You also say: "In the process they seemed to lose the middle ages warm period and the Maunder minimum. It was that that got Al Gore into trouble. He got a Nobel Prize for that, hmmmm."

No Bazz, Al Gore and the IPCC got the Nobel Peace Prize for drawing the world's attention to a problem that has the potential to very seriously threaten world peace.

Also Bazz: "The first attempt to publicise the file failed as the BBC didn't want to know. If it had become public a month or so earlier it would have enabled a less rushed examination before Copenhagen."

Bollocks, Bazz.

I took you to be a genuine 'sceptic' Bazz (not in the scientific sense, of course, but as much as a layman can be). However, that last piece just demonstrates to me that you really haven't got a clue, you are just a plain grumpy old cynic.

I'm sorry mate, I really thought you were a straight shooter - instead, I find you looking for things to bolster your bias - the very things you (and other so called "sceptics") accuse real scientists of doing, just so hypocritical, Bazz. Well, that's not scepticism, that is blind faith, and for me and the 99.999% of other real sceptics don't work, or live, by that maxim.

Bazz: "they were on about matching the tree ring data to the thermometer data since 1960 and hiding a fall in the tree data."

I'll repeat a point Q&A has made. They did not "hide a fall in the tree data", unless you have a weird definition of "hide".

The emails were discussing what was going into a peer reviewed paper. That paper is here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf (If you read it, you will get an insight into just how wrong your throwaway comment about "how hard can it be to plot temperature" is.)

The paper attempts to reconstruct the temperature record over the last 600 years. The bulk of it describes their technique for calibrating older historical temperature proxies (ie when we didn't have thermometers) against the modern instrumental record. They spell out the exactly which data they used in a supplement, which you can find here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6678/suppinfo/392779a0.html

Their "modern" instrumental record covered 1902-1980. The start of the record has gaps, so they used proxies like tree rings. But the tree record does bizarre things after 1960, showing the temperature going down where all the instruments show the temperature going up. (This didn't happen before 1960.) No one knows why the trees have gone gaga, but as the instrumental record is very complete by 1960 they just dropped the tree rings.

Hopefully it is now obvious any claim they were trying to hide what happened recently is absurd. They were trying to reconstruct what happened in previous centuries, not this one. What's more any claim they were "hiding" anything is bizarre. They disclosed everything in the paper, including the raw data sets.

The most charitable explanation for accusations of this being an academic conspiracy is the accuser didn't bother to look up the facts. Or I guess they could be nuts - ie your traditional, off with the pixies conspiracy theorist. And finally they could be just plain lying. I reckon the leaders of the charge are the liars, and the bulk of the rest don't to check if they are being fed crap because they find the politics agreeable.

To Q&A You referred to my post and replied; What makes you think the problems are unsolvable?

I don't think that they are unsolvable but I have pointed our that taxing every person in the developed world is not going to change climate and selling carbon credits is ludicrous.

I will say again don't wish to hard for what you want, it may just happen and you will not be around to wear the suffering a united force could apply to ordinary people in the guise of "saving the world".

The Germans did it. That's what they called "A New World Order" all about dominance.

You don't really believe that selling carbon credits will change the world? There is a businessman in New Guinea telling the poor buggers they will get lot of money from carbon credits if he can go in and cut down their forests. They don't even know what carbon credits are, they think it is the carbon that is left after burning what's left of the forests...please. That man is being backed by powerful people here in Australia he has powerful friends.....so, do you think that is okay?

By the way those people in New Guinea are only just coming out of tribal culture, not so long ago they worshiped a "cargo cult". They were the planes that dropped provisions to the troops in the war. Some hadn't even seen a white man and didn't until after the war.

Do you think that this greedy prick should be able to take away the homes and lifestyle of these people? They haven't received any money for their acquiescence to these deals in any case and probably won't.

Quite honestly I am ashamed that an Australian would do that but he is and he has the blessing of those in power, under the umbrella of carbon trading! It is all BS..

RaeBee: "You don't really believe that selling carbon credits will change the world?"

Sulphur Dioxide trading did change the world, bringing a large reduction in emissions and hence a reduction in acid rain. Carbon trading is being introduced because it was such a success.

Whether the ETS will be a success remains to be seen. The problem isn't with the concept. It is with the current political horse trading, which has turned what should have been simple into a monster. However, I heard the other day the actual legislation anticipated this to some extent, and made it easier to simplify things later, once we get some experience with what works and what doesn't, without rebuilding the entire edifice from scratch.

We will see I guess.

Once a new tax is law, the tax will never go away, it happens constantly. We are the most taxed country in the world.

The people effected by this new tax are people who can least afford it. It is fine for businessmen and politicians to bring in these measures with assurances that it won't hurt the low to middle income earners and for 3 years there will be compensation for the ETS; what then after 3 years?

The ETS will change our lifestyle and our society more than the ever widening gap between the have and have nots. Is that okay? I don't think it is and I am not prepared to take Penny Wong's assurance that it is good "risk management", expensive risk management.

However, I won't be around to see if indeed there is any change in the climate and neither will Penny Wong or Kevin Rudd. The climate in Australia as far as I can feel and see has not changed since I was a kid and I ahve been around for a good while. It gets hot here, it always has, it isn't pleasant and it is not Utopia or Camelot but young people think a hot day over 100 in the old money is scary and a bit of a dust storm indicates the end of the world and an indication of global warming! Please.. Go to Tasmania, it's cool there. Don't go to SA though because it has always but always been hot there, it's not new.

Water collection from the top end, which could be done, would be a more definite and effective way of dealing with the lack of water in the drier areas in this country rather than spending gazillions trying to please the world.

ReaBee: "We are the most taxed country in the world."

There is nothing like a bit of wild exaggeration to seal an argument. Unless of course you get sprung doing it. We see here http://j.mp/68b7bg that Australia ranks 135 out of 179 nations on the planet. If you just look at our equals, eg the OECD, then we are the 6th _lowest_ out of the 30 http://j.mp/6rUMpl

ReaBee: "The ETS will change our lifestyle and our society more than the ever widening gap between the have and have nots. Is that okay?"

It isn't OK. But I would have to be convinced you weren't just making that up too before I worried about it too much.

ReaBee: "The climate in Australia as far as I can feel and see has not changed since I was a kid"

I don't know where you live, but in Brisbane I can assure you there is nothing normal about recent temperatures. The monthly average for August, November were the highest ever recorded. If this December continues as it has started, it will be another highest ever recorded. I know this not only because it has felt unseasonally hot but because the BOM also agrees. November: http://j.mp/90p6XK August: http://j.mp/6mmYf4 You can find data for the rest of the year here: http://j.mp/6ZW9ag

Right now it is a balmy 33.5, with 54% humidity, and this has been typical for December so far. The average maximum temperature in Brisbane for December is under 30. http://j.mp/789jPd Even the top 10% of temperatures for Brisbane is under 33 http://j.mp/5avERY yet on most days this December have been higher.

Finally ReaBee, the world is bigger than Australia. We don't experience the worst of the Global Warming, the northern hemisphere does: http://j.mp/6YIpqI So even if you don't notice it (and it beyond me how you could not notice the dry period in the last decade), a large chunk of the rest of the world is getting poked much harder by the climate, and have noticed it.

So, you give your hard earned to it, don't expect me to and like it.
I want a better life for my grand kids than this will offer.

Stupendous egos are driving this and also stupendous greed. The needs of people in this country should come first. Carbon trading will not do that.

Learn to live with the heat in this country by the way, it is what we all endure and have done long before air conditioning was the norm.

Oviously I don't believe in the global warming scenario and am quite happy to admit it. I think their modelling is flawed and has been from the start, I can't be more clear.

And quite honestly I don't give a fig what happens elsewhere. I will be buggered if I will give up what I worked all my life for, just so that politicians and the like can bask in the world spotlight and deliver more taxation to people who are up against the wall NOW just trying to live a decent life.

So far these 100 odd representatives haven't done anything it is nothing but a huge expensive talk fest. It's obscene and we are paying for it.