> Climategate, what is going on?

Climategate, Global Warming, emails, the 'hockey stick',data manipulation and Copenhagen...

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past ten years, you will have no problem recognizing the term 'Global Warming' and what it implies; i.e. that human beings have somehow through their polluting industrialization put enough warming chemicals into the atmosphere to put the normal environmental processes into an upward tail spin of increasing temperature.

The trouble is that this may be right, but some of the original science behind the whole theory (and it is a theory, it cannot logically be completely proven until it does happen or not) is becoming discredited and looking rather 'shonky' (nice Australian slang for completely broken). So whats going on? (Note: the video below is a rather soundbite focused, but indicates the significance of what has happened)

Lack of core data availability and data 'selection'

It appears that a fair chunk of the founding papers behind the Global Warming theory were created by a set of climate scientists using sets of data which all overlapped in their usage of one particular set of data, namely tree ring growth data from the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. This data set showed pronounced and dramatic uptick in temperatures. Although until recently other academics were not able to get their hands on this core data to reproduce the results using independent techniques. This lack of peer review has only come light due to one Canadian mathematicians attempt to reproduce the results.

Also there appears to problems in transparency and repeatability with other core data sets, that other scientists have often used as the basis for their models as well. Quoting Judy Curry (full article reference at the bottom):

The HADCRU surface climate dataset and the paleoclimate dataset that has gone into the various “hockeystick” analyses stand out as lacking such transparency. Much of the paleoclimate data and metadata has become available only because of continued public pressure from Steve McIntyre. Datasets that were processed and developed decades ago and that are now regarded as essential elements of the climate data record often contain elements whose raw data or metadata were not preserved (this appears to be the case with HADCRUT).

Basically is no longer possible to go back to the core data and reproduce the models independently.

The Climategate Scandalous emails

The other 'smoking gun' in this story is the fact that a possible hacker managed to break into the CRU (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia) and download ten years worth of emails between the core set of academics behind the Global Warming theory (we say possible hacker, as given the way the emails have been selected, it could indicate also an inside job via a whistle-blower). These are on display for anybody to have a read through currently and we advise you to have a look as well. Apart from the usual academic banter and competitiveness there appears to be an underlying 'bias' towards supporting their theories at all costs, rather than objective and clear consideration of all the facts in play.

Also made available was the source code and comments to some of the models they were running, which shows what looks like a lot of 'forcing' of data to produce the required results (as in overly selective use of or undue adjustment to data).


A bit of a 'right wing' video, but focus on the core source code comments.

So why all the fuss?

If these were just a group of climate change researchers working on their own, it would be not that much of an issue BUT due to the following facts:

• CRU takes raw data as measured from various sources, processes and 'cleans' it and makes it available for monthly updated download on their FTP site for other climate change academics to use. So, if CRU is found to be in error, then all these dependent academics must be considered in error as well.
• CRU processed data is used to calibrate satellite proxy temperature readings, so if CRU is found to be in error, then all usage of said calibrated satellite proxy temperature data readings will be in error also.
• CRU data is one of four key data sets used by the majority of climate change researchers - 2 ground based, 2 satellite data based (to which said calibrations have been applied) - in essence up to 75% of the climate data in use is at risk of being shown to be invalid if CRU are found to be in error.
• These 4 data sets have been used by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) as core data in their research and conclusions - so if the CRU are found to be in error, the IPCC conclusions are also likely to be in error.

So the potential is that  a large slice of the significant and noteworthy research undertaken by the climate researchers is at risk of being shown to be faulty.

The other problem with this is how it has effected research into other areas of climate. In essence the 'success' of this particular branch of climatic research has resulted in more and more focus on it - starving other branches of climatic research of much needed funds. So if there was alternative evidence (one way or another) to be found concerning the climate, that has been essentially silenced. So by this 'over focus' on one avenue of inquiry the whole balance of the validity of all the research comes into question.

The other problem with all of this is such research is not just an academic exercise, it has become the Rosetta stone of a whole political and business movement; which is in the process of getting us all to sign up to carbon trading as a way to solve the man made climate change problem. There may well be man made climate change, unfortunately, given what the CRU data has shown, it would be most unwise to be committing the whole planet to this unless the science behind has been shown to be rigorous and as exact as possible. We at least owe this to all the other people and causes that could have benefited instead; its a very large opportunity cost indeed to be spending if we have got it wrong. Its a bit like giving the SETI institute several billions of dollars to spend on preparing for the arrival of ET, you would consider that a 'bad spend'; yet given the above currently they have a better chance of finding ET then we have of working out what the climate is doing given the potentially poor science to date.

BTW: This article is being updated on an almost daily basis in the links section at the end, here we put significant events as they occur to save you having to search through it all.

Update (14th Jan 2010)

It looks like NASA has been caught 'cherry picking' weather stations to create artificially warmed temperature records.

Update (22nd Jan 2010)

UK Parliament to investigate ClimateGate and CRU data issues!

Update (3rd March 2010)

UK press coverage of parliamentary review. Does not seem to be going at all well for the CRU and Prof Jones; reasonable chance they might be found at fault it seems.

ClimateGate Book now available

Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1) by Steve Mosher and Thomas W. Fuller is now available and goes into exhaustive detailed analysis of the CRU emails and data files.

The Climategate scandal covered from beginning to end--from 'Hide the Decline' to the current day. Written by two authors who were on the scene--Steven Mosher and Tom Fuller--Climategate takes you behind that scene and shows what happened and why. For those who have heard that the emails were taken out of context--we provide that context and show it is worse when context is provided. For those who have heard that this is a tempest in a teacup--we show why it will swamp the conventional wisdom on climate change. And for those who have heard that this scandal is just 'boys being boys'--well, boy. It's as seamy as what happened on Wall Street.

Main Stream Media picking up the story (2nd Feb 2010)

It looks like, in the UK at least, that the Main Stream Media (as in traditional print media, rather than online blogs and forums) are starting to cover this side of the discussions. See here for 'amazed' online coverage of this fact (i.e. coverage in The Independent and The Guardian who were previously ignoring the 'anti' side).

ClimateGate v2.0 - the NASA files

Hot off the press - see The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part One) - wow...

Other thoughts

Something which requires looking into is how statistical methods on confidence are being used in these models. Basically, when you measure something there is a possibility of two errors creeping into the measurement:

• Measurement error itself, i.e how accurate the equipment or process is in actually getting a valid reading
• Rounding error, this occurs when a reading is taken to certain number of decimal places when the 'real' value itself has a much higher accuracy (the car is doing 79 km/h compared to the car actually doing 79.99 km/h).

So a measurement or data point in a series actually represents part of a possible range of equivalent values of which the measurement is but one. The other thing to remember is that the underlying error rate in data is not something you can 'factor out', it carries through the model all the way to the final results. You can apply averaging across a set of measurements to improve accuracy but this only works if:

1. The set of measurements occur in the same environment and on the same equipment.
2. Any corrected values (like transcription errors, etc) are factored out of the error calculations (you cannot assume your correction of the transcription error is actually correct; it could be out of 10x, out by 10+/-, 4 read as 9, 6 read as 0, transposition, etc).
3. Averaging across a time series carries up the derived standard deviation of the series with it through its usage.

Also depending on how the data gets used, in certain cases the error rates can sum; in the same way being constantly 1% degree off in a heading out at sea can result you being way off course in a short time... See this paper for a more detailed analysis of the possible pitfalls with models.

Note: this is not say this wasn't being done, rather if any one part of the statistical data processing is in error it effectively calls into doubt the whole. This is why this could be so damaging as the CRU provided monthly temperature records to a whole group of academics based on processing they did from a large set of sources around the world.

Also not mentioned in most of the discussions online is the effect of 'joining' two data sets together and what that means for confidence and accuracy. For instance it appears that the tree ring data after 1960 diverged from the direct temperature measures, so the real temperature measurements were used for that period. Question is, does this mean the same 'significance' in the model was given to the earlier proxy data as the later real data? Suspect this will only be answered when statisticians and engineering modeling specialists work through the models.

Conclusion

What is there to conclude? Well

1. The press, big business, pots of money, vested interest and academia just do not mix well in this space;
2. We only have ourselves to blame - if more people actually stood up and asked simple questions like 'why', 'can you prove it?' and 'has this actually been really independently peer reviewed?' we might not have got ourselves in this mess.
3. For such a critical area of research the peer review process as operated has been shown to be inadequate. A much higher degree of reviewing and disclosure must be enacted.
4. Technology, has to a certain extent, made this situation possible. Think about it, your average desktop computer has now the same computing power as a 10 year old mainframe computer. What this means for running climatic models and simulations is that you can either go more detailed, or run a model many times in the same total time. This makes it that bit easier to 'tweak and tune' models and simulations to get the results you want or subconsciously want.. See the links below on the code comments to see examples of this effect.
5. In an ideal world all the originally measured source data should be made freely publicly available. i.e. the data before any adjustment. Also information provided per data source on error rates. Also a 'standard' should be created for indexing this data (Google or Yahoo up to the job?).
6. Similarly the adjusted data should be made available to the public. Although there will need to be careful 'control scope' analysis done to prevent any one data set becoming too dependent upon other data sets for adjustments and corrections - ideally there should be at least 3 'vertical' stacks of climatic data that are totally independent of each other - this way errors or bias in any one will not be transfered into the majority; making it easier to spot.
7. In an ideal world all publicly funded climate models source code should be hosted on public open source project sites. Thereby ensuring complete transparency and traceability.
8. Something is going on with our environment, whether that is a good thing or not is still unknown.
9. Is managing the CO2 levels really the right climatic lever to tweaking? If a lot of the models have been fixating on this as the way to manage the problem and those models are based on the work above that is in doubt... This really all needs a complete disclosure and reanalysis to find out what is really going on. For instance Nitrous Oxide is 298 times a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, accounting for 6% of the greenhouse effect (we produce 30% of the N2O), yet you hear absolutely nothing about this. It also attacks the ozone layer.

So still keeping doing what you can to reduce your adverse effect on the environment, on the outside chance that they are right (plus cutting down your environmental pollution is a good thing anyways, you don't need a climate model to work that out); but do keep an open mind on this whole situation. The last thing we and the planet need is people jumping to the wrong conclusions for the wrong reasons; there is not much slack for the taking if we are wrong.

What can I do about it?

We hope this has got you thinking and wondering about the science and the motivations in this space. We suggest you just do the simple thing of discussing this with your fellow humans; then, like us, you will be utterly amazed by the almost total lack of awareness on this issue in the public at large. Remember, you don't need a PhD to follow this story, the science is just another 'tool' being used (or misused) by people to their own ends. The onus is on the scientists to be held equally accountable to you as anybody else.

Why is this on here?

I've noticed some people have been commenting on other blogs (thanks for the links and keep them coming) that it is strange for such an article to appear on an Eco focused website. The actual real strangeness to me perhaps is that no other Eco focused websites seem to be doing the same. The 'mission statement' behind this site is to provide the facts and educate people on how to be more eco friendly without it costing the Earth (in all senses) - so to me this coverage is right in its remit. Have a look at the other articles to see what I mean.

(BTW This site is not funded by any denialist or pro/anti AGW groups - we just want to get to the facts in this issue and keep people informed).

Next page: Related Articles, references and blow by blow coverage.

Related Articles

• Climategate, big business and being green
• Keeping your home cool in Summer or Warm in Winter for free!

ClimateGate I & II Search service

If you want to search and read the emails from Climategate I & II look here.

Additional reading

The list below is in date order (i.e. the newest at the bottom). Articles and info from both sides of the coverage are included; zero info or 'hot air' coverage should be excluded.

• Climate change data dumped
• Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax
• Climategate: the whitewash begins
• Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws
• Climategate – Link Liste
• The ClimateGate Virus
• US Congress investigates Climategate e-mails: this could be the beginning of the end for AGW
• Eduardo Zorita - CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process
• Climategate: hide the decline – codified - comments in the actual computer code demonstrate the 'fudging' going on.
• Curry: On the credibility of climate research
• "Climategate": Peer-Review System Was Hijacked By Warming Alarmists
• Climategate: Why it matters
• On Climate Prediction: Models vs Observation - how changing one variable can drastically change the results
• Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable? - Report looking at how the placement of climatic temperature sensors to heat sources has caused falsely inflated readings
• The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming by Michael Crichton
• Financial Times Coverage
• Cringing Over Climategate - Forbes.com
• Wikipedia - Climategate entry
• Jim Hansen’s opinion
  
• Climate Analysis - an independent look at the issues (lots of math but you should get what they are getting at easily enough)
• Researcher: NASA hiding climate data - The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data
• Climategate: the lawyers move in – those scientists are toast!
• Climategate: Switzerland's "Adjusted" Temperature Data Produces A Global Warming-Type 'Hockey Stick' Out of Thin Air
• Al Gore Refuses to Answer Climategate Questions, Shuts Off Mic
• The American Spectator: Dead Ringer Analysis and comments on how the usage of a very small set of tree ring data can produce very skewed results.
• Russia: Hadley Center “probably tampered with Russian climate data”
• Detailed analysis of tree ring data compared to local direct temperate readings
• Terrence Corcoran: My climategate email cameo
• Climate Science’s Peer Review Bias Unmasked
• American Thinker: A Climate Conspiracy?
• Climategate: 'It's all lies!' lies Pachauri (again)
• ClimateGate a criminal offense or two
• Climategatekeeping: Siberia Siberian temperatures are an interesting case study in CRU gatekeeping. As reported a few days ago here, in an email of Mar 31, 2004, Jones advised Climategate correspondent Michael Mann that he had “gone to town” in his rejection reviews of submissions criticizing CRU’s handling of Siberian temperatures.
• Terence Corcoran on Climategate A very interesting two-part article on Climategate by someone who’s followed the story for years.
• A change of mind...
• Wikipedia and Climategate looks like Wikipedia has has some rather biased editing going on (check the history tab on entries like Medieval Warming Period to see it in action). another article on the subject.
• The Politicization of Peer Review
• Climategate: World has Lucky Escape, Thanks to Despots cheeky look back at Copenhagen.
• How to manufacture climate change consensus
• Other Consequences of Climategate
• FINALLY -- A Solution to Global Warming That Doesn't Involve Controlling Your Every Move a very alternative way to fix global warming.
• Climate change denial as done by a WWF wrestler ... and June Sarpong the TV investigation covered in the article is rather weak analysis, but the comments on the article are worth reading to see how educated people are now getting on this matter
• The Green Movement's People Problem divisions in the environmentalists developing as differing views on climategate come to the surface
• Met Office Archives Data and Code finally some data comes out, but not the raw variety..
• Hansen on the surface temperature record, Climategate, solar, and El Nino
• AGU update: Michael Mann speaks out on Climategate Michael Mann defends his position; the follow up comments make interesting reading.
• Build-A-Climate-Scare: Why You Should Boycott Build-A-Bear a video for young children 'explaining' climate change?? Not exactly an unbiased presentation..
  
  • part 1 of 3
  • part 2 of 3
  • part 3 of 3 (even shows how to 'shame' other children to the cause..)
• Ethics in Research - Part II
• Do you also belive in the tooth fairy?
• List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
• Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming
• Chicken or Egg Question Looms Over Climate Debate What exactly is the role clouds play in the climate and how their modeling could be wrong.
• Hans Von Storch: Good Science, Bad Politics (Wall Street Journal)
• Climategate Whistleblower Analysis of who might be the whistleblower.
• Climategate: How To Follow the Money Analysis of who really benefits in the Cap and Trade market.
• The Climategate Timeline: 30 years visualized a Poster of ClimateGate covering 3 decades
• Climategate - Atmospheric CO2 Levels: Are The CO2 Levels Used By IPCC Climate Models Correct? CRU also involved in CO2 level measurements
• EDITORIAL: Biased reporting on Climategate (Washington Times)
• Chinese Hackers May Have Leaked ‘Climategate’ E-mails
• Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate
• "Sent loads of station data to Scott”
• Attention Penn State: Top fraud attorney seeks climategate whistleblowers
• Climategate: Michael Mann's very unhappy New Year
• Where Are The Corpses?
• Corals and Carbon Dioxide
• China, Climate and Trade interesting view on how China derailed Copenhagen
• Climategate: Here Comes Courage! (Is climate catastrophism losing its ‘politically correct’ grip?)
• Christopher Monckton of Brenchley replies to readers
• What Happened to Polar Urals?
• Whole Foods CEO Raises Eyebrows With Climate Change Doubt
• Climategatekeeping: the Nature Intervention Jones (of CRU fame) possibly involved as an additional 3rd reviewer for Nature on tree rings critical comment.
• Founder of The Weather Channel speaks out against global warming, 2010 has record freezing temps
• Climategate – UK Met Office Get Huge Pay Increase
• Met Office chief receives 25 pc pay rise
• If any of your idiot friends still believe in AGW, make them read this letter
• The CIA Has Joined the Vast Climate Change Conspiracy.
• Is there any evidence?
• Science Exposes Gore’s Bastardization Of Earth’s Climate: Swiss Glaciers Melted Faster in the 1940’s Than Today
• That Washington Post Piece on Science Communication and ClimateGate The comments make interesting reading on how people are realizing what is going on.
• An Authoritarian Climate
• The Battle Over Global Warming: The New Issue of Rolling Stone
• Climategate – Realclimate Gets An Award, The Times Recants And The Difference Between Climate and Weather
• The danger of global warming is larger than we think
• BBC Trust to Review Science Coverage Amid Claims of Bias
• Global warming us killing me; it snowed this year before Christmas
• Climate Change Update
• Three new "Climate Change" Sites
• 'Climate science' is an oxymoron. Time for Zero Tolerance of Green agendas
• Who actually does climate change research and what qualifications do they need?
• The Second Decade
• ClimateGate analysis SPPI
• Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming
• Lord Monckton Vs. Greenpeace: On The Streets – Dropping InfoBombs – ClimateGate Global Warming Hoax
• Team Responses to MM2003 more analysis of the CRU email record showing progressive movement away from scientific method principals.
• Andrew Neil grills Met Office head over forecasts
• CLIMATE CHANGE - HOW SCIENCE CAN DEFEAT THE SCEPTICS interesting use of the data in doubt to disprove it is not in doubt...
• Climategate and the Migrating Arctic Tree Line
• An open letter 141 Scientists Sign Letter Sent to UN Secretary-General Questioning Global Warming
• Climate Change and Free Speech
• ES 10 Students Take on Climate Change Skeptics
• The Debate Is Over On Global Warming And All Scientists Agree? Read The New Senate Report.?
• Peer-to-Peer Review: How ‘Climategate’ Marks the Maturing of a New Science Movement, Part I
• Pachauri in a spot as climategate hits TERI
• Brrrr, the thinking on climate is frozen solid interesting set of comments
• Climate change experts clash over sea-rise ‘apocalypse’ Critics say an influential prediction of a 6ft rise in sea levels is flawed
• The ozone hole did it New University of Waterloo study finds CFCs, not CO2, to be the cause of recent global warming
• GHCN – GIStemp Interactions – The Bolivia Effect
• Global Freeze blamed on Man; Global Warming hiding under the Couch
• Lecture From CERN Describes How Cosmic Rays Likely Causes Of Climate Change (Not CO2)
• Mann-erisms: Where did we get that idea?
• Antarctic sea water shows ‘no sign’ of warming
• Nature Anti-FOI Editorial Criticized
• Group Demands REAL Investigation Into Mann
• Possibility the whistleblower might come forward
• NASA Caught in Climate Data Manipulation; New Revelations Headlined on KUSI-TV Climate Special   PDF of the actual report
• Judicial Watch Uncovers NASA Documents Related to Global Warming Controversy, NASA Scientists Go on Attack After Climate Data Error Exposed
• Climate change based on cold facts
• Climategate goes American: NOAA, GISS and the mystery of the vanishing weather stations
• Oops: IPCC to withdraw claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035
• Told ya so…IPCC to retract claim on Himalayan Glacier Melt – Pachauri’s “arrogance” claim backfires
• Climategate: The Truth Hurts When It Hits You in the Head
• Climategate: The CRUtape Letters now online at Amazon.com
• ClimateGate the Book
• ClimateGate Analysis by John P. Costella (PDF 149 pages)
• NASA: 'Hide this after Jim checks it'
• UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report
• Climategate turns criminal
• Looks like IPCC have put a bogus chart in their report
• Sunrise: The great climate change debate
• IPCC 'must earn trust' with public
• Trends in Disaster Losses
• More integrity from the robust, peer-reviewed IPCC. Not.
• Heat wave closes in on the IPCC
• The edifice crumbles: top climatologist openly breaks with Climategate conspirators
• The Disastrous Setback for Climate Advocacy of Late 2009
• More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report
• Odd-ball winter weather caused by Global Warming: NWF
• CRU’s Climategate finally makes the news in Norwich
• Climate sceptic pulls Hunter crowd
• Is Global Warming a "Crock of S*%t?"
• The Heretics: Lord Christopher Monckton
• Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen
• Uh Oh – Pachauri caught out in IPCC 2035 glacier melt issue
• Debunking National Wildlife Federation Claims – Part 2
• The IPCC’s Love Guru (cracked me up!)
• Caught again! UN climate claims on ice loss melt away
• Climategate: Al Gore and the politicization of science
• Pachauri fails to get UK support over 'unsubstantiated' climate report claims
• MPs queue for greenhouse sceptic
• Comment is free Global warming: Undeniable evidence
• Facts conveniently brushed over by the global warming fanatics
• No Temperature Increase Since 1900
• Leaked climate change emails scientist 'hid' data flaws
• Climategate intensifies: Jones and Wang apparently hid Chinese station data issues
• Gate Du Jour: IPCC AR4 references NYT story
• Steig and the Antarctic Boot Cleaning Manual (IPCC cite it!)
• Now Kiwigate: New Zealand climatologists destroy nation’s raw temperature data
• The Mann Report
• India to have own panel on climate change
• Greenpeace director tells IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri to stand down over glacier claim
• UK Greenpeace director calls for new IPCC chairman – meanwhile Pachy comments on the use of makeup
• Global warming research grant in danger of fund freeze
• Leake: Today’s IPCC Blooper
• A Small Document
• IPCC Gate Du Jour: Aussie Droughtgate
• Climategate: Plausibility and the blogosphere in the post-normal age.
• Submission to UK parliamentary inquiry
• The Mann Inquiry (the first comment is quite interesting)
• Climategate is an embarrassment
• GISS adjustments in Australia
• The team that can't shhot straight
• New Paper in Science: Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher while CO2 was lower
• NOAA langoliers eat another 1/3 of stations from GHCN database
• Boulton’s 18 Years at UEA - not that an independent review after all..
• Boulton and Glaciergate - it goes on..
• CRU’s Jones: Climate data ‘not well organised’ and MWP debate ‘not settled’ - hmm, doesn't the scientific principal require that records are well kept so theories can be tested by others? I think this a failure in being truly academic minded in spirit.
• Congenital Climate abnormalities
• Phil Jones momentous Q&A with BBC reopens the “science is settled” issues - more coverage.
• The Boulton Hockey Stick
• Boulton’s Climategate Associates
• About Global Warming: Never Mind!
• Scandinavian temperatures, IPCC´s "Scandinavia-gate"
• Hatton in IPCC hurricanes
• BP, Conoco, and CAT Abandon Ship
• Jones may submit a correction to his 1990 paper – Keenan responds
• None have links to …IPCC - somes links are stronger than others..
• Greenland glaciers - melt due to sea current change not air temperature
• Another IPCC Error: Antarctic Sea Ice Increase Underestimated by 50%
• After two years of stonewalling, NASA GISS FOIA files are now online - wow!
• Penny Wong signals doom for iconic beaches
• Pachauri’s TERI institute golf course – water hog in a city desperate for fresh water
• UK Govt’s Chief Adviser on Climate Change
• Monckton on the IPCC
• ClimateGate redux
• ClimateGate and FOI
• Left-Wing European Press Attacks IPCC, UN Climate Change "Dilettentes"
• Oral testimony at UK Parliamentary Inquiry
• Met office pushes a surface temperature data “do over”
• Sharp decline in public's belief in climate threat, British poll reveals
• On the Credibility of Climate Research, Part II: Towards Rebuilding Trust
• Rob Bradley: Climategate from an Enron Perspective
• UEA – the new crimestoppers
• CTM is Contacted by the Norfolk Constabulary and Responds
• Contribution of USHNC and GISS bias in long-term temperature records for a well-sited rural weather station
• Phil Jones on the hot seat – not sharing data is “standard practice”
• Royal Society of Chemistry backs sharing of data in contrast to Jones “standard practice” statement - it seems everybody else but Jones likes to share.. hmm
• Another “Trick” from the CRU Inquiry
• Opening night reviews in the UK press
• About that “increased moisture” due to global warming ...
• Doctor Gore: a good idea? – poll disagrees - looks like he is in for a degree of hot air..
• Swedes call out Jones on data availability (ClimateGate hearing) climateaudit.org entry
• In Denial: The meltdown of the climate campaign
• Climate change and ETS vanish from the media
• Methane, The Panic Du Jour
• The logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide
• Should prestigious scientists fight back on Climate Change?
• Shut eyed denial - new climate change science book
• Another WWF assisted IPCC claim debunked: Amazon more drought resistant than claimed
• Australian scientist goes feral on sceptics and fellow scientists
• Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes “why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned”
• Climate Model Uncertainty: Part I
• Climate Model Uncertainty: Part II
• Sealevelgate
• UK Ads banned for overstating Climate Change
• More Impact from Climategate
• Children's Rhymes Turned into Global Warming Propaganda - rightfully banned!
• Devistating non trends in US climate
• Climategate Stunner: NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU As I have been saying all along, its all interconnected!
• Climategate: Shameless Science
• North and Booker on Amazongate: A billion dollar cash cow
• UN admits flaw in report on meat and climate change
• Another Tainted Inquiry
• Climategate: the parliamentary cover-up follow up on climateaudit.org
• GISScapades - how depending on the basic correlation between datasets to prove fit can result in using unproven trend magnitudes resulting false warming over the Arctic..
• Tricking the Committee how the parliamentary committee was mislead in the use of the word 'trick'.
• NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, GISS Admits now 3 out of 4 data sets cannot be trusted..
• March Modelling Madness
• Keith should say...
• IPCC not how to compare temperatures averaging the average and comparing to direct measurements... hmm
• A Small FOI/EIR Success
• More Hiding the decline
• Lindzen: Earth is never in equilibrium - interesting article
• Oxburghs trick to the hide the trick - analysis of the CRU report
• Inventor of Mann-made global warming feels the heat - when the lawyers start to circle you know its serious.
• Consensus? What consensus?
• House of Lords c/o University of East Anglia
• Report from the Climategate Guardian debate
• Breaking: Phil Jones got to endorse papers for Oxburgh inquiry

Is CO2 the cause - presentations by Prof Bob Carter

Well worth watching, covers the whole area.

• Part 1 of 4
• Part 2 of 4
• Part 3 of 4
• Part 4 of 4

Prof Bob Carter talks during recent visit to NZ

Humour

• Gore's a bust - a frozen one
• Thousands gather to protest over Global Warming

Open Source software

• clearclimatecode.org