Climate chief: nations must ignore 'climate saboteurs'

lol.

Oh, because we don't buy this line of BS we're "dangerous".

Like this really helps to defeat the anti-AGW point that AGW believers are a bunch of alarmists.

The real news here is CTV was finally forced to admit those emails exist.

Babysteps, babysteps. Before the end of the year we'll have them actually telling people what's in them. Mark my words.

Hey have you seen these ones yet?

My favorite local chicken little is Bill Good for CKNW. Since he got a few days of flack for his refusal to talk to the other side, he's taken the day off.
Cowardly.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html

Hey, check this out. The CBC got ass-kicked into letting Rex Murphy loose on Climategate, and they had to let him take the gloves off. What a treat.

God it sounds like he is describing the House of Parliament , but he is right people need to step back and start over to many turned this into a money maker item .

Sad to see that scientists actually behave in this way, self-serving greedy bastards.

The more we see stuff like this the more I'm convinced environmentalism is becoming a religion.

Big deal: Of the hundreds of scientists working independently around the world for countless governments, universities, and research insitutions, TWO OF THEM at ONE university in England exhanged emails that used the words "trick" and "hide" when discussing a particular research project they were working on.

Doesnt mean anything. I admit it looks bad to all the Homer Simpsons and Joe Lunchbuckets out there, but these emails were related to a specific project they were working on, this is not "Global Climate Change HQ" talking about how to falsify the global argument for Global warming.

Does anybody even know what project these guys were working on specifically, or what exactly these guys were talking about? Nope.



Now, this is a bit technical and jargon-y and so theres a high probability that our sloping forehead friends will say "Ug..Me no understand, me ignore this!" so I'll do my best to interpret this into plain english.

The researchers in question are taking historical climate data from different collected sources (ie analysis of tree rings, ice core samples, etc) to try and estimate past temperatures and then charting the historical change in temperature on a line graph. There is a well-known issue in environmental science as a result of research from the "Keith" mentioned above, where tree-ring data is different from all the other data. Tree ring data suggests a temperature decline after 1960 while all other scientific measurements show the opposite. This is the �divergence problem" mentioned above. Scientists are hesitant to include this data when calculating the overall temperature average because they dont understand why this measure alone is so different from all the others. The explanation above suggests that the scientists aren't trying to conceal the well-publicised tree ring data, they are simply trying to factor it out of the numbers they were using in their data project, which is exactly what the scientist who found the tree ring data recommended because its not well understood. The "trick" -by which they mean the process that solves the problem- apparently is to include numbers from actual measured temperatures over the period when trying to calculate the average of calculated temperatures. The "trick" was hardly a secret, but recommended by the Mike mentioned in the email as an ideal way to solve the divergence problem as it had been publicized in the 1998 publication "Nature."

Great post N_Fiddledog. I'm just listening to that now.
Big upside whack to the head of the CBC for this one.

Code used in climate modeling has been leaked and is being analyzed by programmers....

Here's what one programmer is saying about the code...

http://cubeantics.com/2009/12/the-proof ... l-them-to/

The code is fudged to produce the results the church of global warming wants....

What Im saying is that its not clear what these researchers were actually trying to do and what they were going to do with the info. Maybe it was to see if Michael Mann's data from 1999 can be duplicated. Maybe its just a theoretical project to see how data outputs are affected by different data manipulation techniques. Its not clear what the purpose of this was. Maybe it is lousy science, but in the world of peer-reviewed research, people like the author in the link you provided would be all over it and it would be debunked before it ever made wide circulation.

This is just an email between a couple researchers from the University of East Anglia, not the International Global Warming Manifesto from Al Gore's desk.

We should be careful about what conclusions we draw from little "snippets" of info like this, especially on highly technical matter which none of us are sophisticated enough to understand on our own.

Does anyone else think its a strange coincedence that this info was hacked and stolen right before the big Copenhagen summit? Talk about political!

I guess my issue about all of it is that based on where I live, I'm seeing the exact opposite happening. Living in Southern Ontario summers are generally quite hot and humid, somehwat tropical even. But the last 3 summers have been unseasonably cool with lots of rain. The last 2 winters have seen more snow in many areas than there has been in years.
Now I'm not saying that's proof against GW. It's quite common, during warming or cooling trends to have shifts in the opposite direction for short periods, but as far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out on GW and they ain't gonna be coming back anytime soon.

The hide the decline trick was just 1 email, and a tiny part of what all of them together expose.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/28/h ... ulled-off/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/m ... e-decline/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/30/p ... the-trees/

Too me the most damning point exposed by all this wasn't the hide the decline trick. Most people already knew those hockey stickish graphs were bogus.

What was more damning, as a single point, wasn't even in the actual emails, or the accompanying code, but it's something where people are just now starting to grasp the full significance. It was the fact that the original temperature data influencing the IPCC report was destroyed. That is of staggering importance. It was known before the emails, but because of the emails, now everybody knows. Even Rex Murphy of the CBC mentioned it.