"If you think that global warming rests on a few temperature data sets and models, you are very wrong."

That's right, it relies on people to just believe. Have faith in those scientists. Just like a religion. Do you happen to know who Thomas Kuhn is? If not then you have some reading to do to start with as it is clear the brainwashing goes very deep here.

Thanks for commenting, xham. Although it looks like the sentence you quoted doesn't mean what you think it means.

The quote refers to the literally thousands of studies and reams of current field data that are not covered by, touched on, or even in the same neighborhood as the subsets of data covered in the hacked emails. So how is it that anyone asked to "just believe", or "have faith" when there is so much evidence to examine? Unlike religion, science undergoes constant revision as new data emerges. If you believe there's something in those emails that qualifies as a paradigm shift, please link to it!

And if you have evaluated the data in all of the earth systems disciplines and have some insight, hopefully you'll share with our readers here!

Xham said:

That's right, it relies on people to just believe. Have faith in those scientists.

Or read their actual science, which is available to all. But whatevs. You come from the Church of Denialists, it seems, and your sense of self-worth must be tied up into believing the wingnut hoaxters, I guess.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

String theory has tens of thousands of peer review papers. However, there is zero experimental evidence that is is correct. All they have is models. String theory of course is heavily funded and hence that is why there are so many scientists who write peer review papers on it and they build multi-billion dollar hadron collider to find a Higgs Boson. This is the science of today..a religion.

All the AGW camp has to go on today is their models of greenhouse effect. They have even less than the string theorists though because they already have data that does not support their models. As good scientists they should therefore rethink the models. Again I point to Thomas Kuhn and the Structure of Scientific Revolutions for you to understand how science never has practiced science, but instead practice religion.

And because of that I take great offense Brad of accusing me of being from any Church as I find religion an abnoxious distortion of logic in every sense.

My sense of self worth comes from always getting to the truth. And Mike Rivero does a much better job at that over at www.whatreallyhappened.com.

And for DES who recently claimed that there were none, here are 450 peer reviewed papers that question AGW. http://www.populartechno...d-papers-supporting.html

I guess they must be all published in oil-weekly...despite that all the oil companies have vested interested in the Chicago Climate Exchange, not to forget Enron and Gore.

xham string theory is a big waste of time and money.
However the Higgs boson is a prediction of the Standard model not string theory.

The greenhouse effect is real. How much do human climate forcings of CO2 contribute the greenhouse effect is debatable.

What CRU and the IPCC is apparently guilty of is excluding scientific papers from the peer review process and therefore puuting the whole IPCC and climate change science in question.

Yes, the Higgs Boson is prediction of Standard Model but the hope is that the LHC is the first step towards hitting energies that supply evidence to support String Theory.

The problem with accepting AGW alarming predictions when the evidence is weak is that
1. There are trillions of dollars in taxes involved.
2. There is a massive Ponzi scheme for the banks to make further money of industry through climate exchange credit system.
3. Hugely negative effects to the developing world.

Why is there such a rush when the last decade has seen flat temperatures (which cannot be explained by the models) and the prediction by even the AGW camp is a decade long period of cooling. Is it not time to press pause and start looking at the RAW data that has been hidden from us. Let us think about about how the last thing the world needs right now is another tax to stifle any chance of economic recovery?

The person who founded the theory of GW through CO2, Roger Revelle, said at Bohemian Grove before his "unfortunate" death that the models were basically proven incorrect by the latest data and apologized for having pushed the theory so hard. Revelle was Gore's mentor.

http://www.kusi.com/weat...manscorner/40867912.html

Xham - Sorry, but your comparison is absurd. String Theory is a theory. Global Warming is gauged by data that can be easily cross-checked. That you are telling me the last 10 years of tems are "basically flat", ignoring the fact that it is the warmest in recorded history, would seem to demonstrate you have only one agenda.

Hitting "pause" may be swell for you and the oil companies, but I'll go with the scientific consensus on this, even though you feel (largely because you *want* to feel) that there is no data. Even though there is plenty of it.

You're a classic denialist --- which you are welcome to be, but as I said, I'll go with the scientists. You can hang with the creationists and other deniers --- and believe me, I'm skeptical of *everything*, but that's different than cynical. And calling you a cynic, given your comments, is a rather generous assessment.

BTW, since I hear the nonsense about temps cooling since '98 or staying flat, here's a nice, easy to read discussion, with nice, easy to understand graphs, in response to that bogus claim:

http://www.skepticalscie...ming-stopped-in-1998.htm

The theory all rests on the anomaly of 1998, the hottest year on record. Yes, the years since then, have been cooler than 1998. Nonetheless, there continues to be a steady rise over this past decade, the hottest in recorded history.

It is, in fact, a "trick" to claim that we've been "cooling" over the past decade, by using your starting point as 1998 (the hottest year on record), and then hoping folks don't look too closely thereafter.

If you actually believe the nonsense, you're a sucker. If you know better, but are trying to sell it here anyway, you're a cretin. Take your pick.

This is the problem with mainstream media and the hyped up media's reporting of global warming.

1998 was not he hottest year on record. From what I've read, it was thought to be but that's because there was an error on some of NASA's dataset.

Steve McIntyre, of climateaudit.org, noticed a strange discontinuity in US temperature data, occurring around January 2000. McKintyre notified NASA who acknowledged the problem as an "oversight" that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

NASA corrected it but the media didn't report it or at least didn't report it widely.

The warmest year on US record is now 1934 not 1998.

See these links for further details:

Will the Real USHCN Data Set Please Stand Up?

1934 is the hottest year on record

Recently the Mises Institute held an economics lecture event for high school students. One of the topics was "The Economics of Recycling"

Here is the youtube video. Worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PndeWksuTjg

Thanks for your insights, xham, so our readers can evaluate the evidence for themselves.

It's simply BS to say that "All the AGW camp has to go on today is their models of greenhouse effect."

The climate models are not the only evidence that has presented showing human impact on the earth's systems. Perhaps you could share your evaluation of the field data or studies in other earth systems? Say, on ocean acidification, for example, or glacier melt, species migration, or some field data that shows atmospheric CO2 concentration is not increasing and is not a problem>? Have you found other data that overturns the basic physics of CO2 and GHG interaction with solar radiation, or the basic chemistry of CO2 and the ocean, that shows we can continue to pollute our biosphere without consequences?

It's odd that you bring up Revelle; back in 1988, he said 'wait 20 years until the warming is clearer'. Regardless of anecdotes that he "apologized" at Bohemian Grove in 1990 (no way to prove either way), the field data from all the other disciplines that are not tied to the CRU shows an unambiguous warming signal.

Of course, you're probably aware that the '450 studies' story has its own list of proponents and destractors who say it's mostly bunk. Of course, you're probably also aware that this splits predictably along the usual lines that match ideological positions, due to the policy implications for those who are the biggest emitters of C02 and other GHGs.

You don't mention if you have any science background. The vast majority of people are not trained to evaluate the raw data on climate and don't have the free time to delve into the evidence from all the other systems that also show signs of forcing in line with predictions. Which is why, much as we wouldn't rely on a layperson when we really need a doctor, we hire trained scientists to gather the data, examine it, and tell us if there is a problem. The majority of those who study all of these systems say there is.

BTW, other readers might be more inclined to investigate your position if you refrain from insulting them right off the top. If you really feel this: I take great offense Brad of accusing me of being from any Church as I find religion an abnoxious distortion of logic in every sense ... then it undercuts your argument to have done the same thing.

Konstantin -

Your OWN link ( http://www.skepticalscie...ttest-year-on-record.htm ) debunks your very own assertion! [Emphasis added]:

1934 is the hottest year on record in the USA which only comprises 2% of the globe. According to NASA temperature records, the hottest year on record globally is 2006.

Nobody was talking about the hottest year in the U.S.

Brad,

It was never said that it was anywhere else but the USA. The NASA dataset about the hottest year on record was always about the hottest in the USA.

I think http://www.skepticalscience.com added to part about "in the USA which only" to lessen the perception to the general public so they don't lose faith. You can see that cause people are still reporting 1998 as the warmest year on record.

I think they're playing politics with science just like the Bush admin did (well not exactly cause the Bush admin were pretty much retarded in terms of science).

The other link is from the guy who discovered the error in NASA's data.

By the way, I only added the link to skepticalscience.com so you don't think it a case of deniers ... It's about the science really and the integrity of the research.

Just look at the fact that people are still reporting 1998 as the warmest year on record to see how biased the reporting or how people are not paying attention to the actual science.

I know most people including probably the readers don't understand the science about climate change. I don't understand much of it either. But that's no excuse not do proper journalistic research and see all sides of the issue.

Do I really have to go through this Konstantin? You just wrote:

It was never said that it was anywhere else but the USA.

Which followed the discussion which initially began with my debunking XHam's nonsense (from #7) charging:

Why is there such a rush when the last decade has seen flat temperatures

I responded, in #9, by debunking that nonsense, explaining how the denialist use the 1998 trick to make that (still false) assertion:

BTW, since I hear the nonsense about temps cooling since '98 or staying flat...
...
The theory all rests on the anomaly of 1998, the hottest year on record. Yes, the years since then, have been cooler than 1998.
...
It is, in fact, a "trick" to claim that we've been "cooling" over the past decade, by using your starting point as 1998 (the hottest year on record), and then hoping folks don't look too closely thereafter.

That note included a link to Skeptical Science, discussing the issue.

You responded in #10 by saying:

1998 was not he hottest year on record. From what I've read, it was thought to be but that's because there was an error on some of NASA's dataset.

I responded by showing you that you were referring to U.S. temps, when we were talking about GLOBAL warming previously, but then you replied above:

It was never said that it was anywhere else but the USA.

Obviously, both Xham and myself were speaking about global temps, when you responding to that critically, by suggesting I was wrong, that 1998 was not the hottest year, but it was 1934 instead.

If you are actually now trying to say you didn't err in your comments, then I don't know what to tell you. Though the absurdity of that would point up how unbelievably frustrated the CRU scientists must have been at receiving thousands (millions?) of such hairbrained, pre-disproven allegations, that I can hardly blame them for not wanting to respond to it!

I've just got to deal with two of you guys here in this thread (though many more who use similar tactics, and similarly pre-debunked claims in email, and in other threads), so I can only imagine how those scientists must feel having to deal with this stuff every day from millions of mis-informed and/or dis-informed and/or disingenuous folks!

Brad you may have been speaking about global temperstures but I was referring to the media story about 1998 being the hottest year on record which everyone still quotes.

If I remember correctly, when the "hot 1998" story broke out it was not about global temps but USA temps.

My comment #14 was in response to your comment #13 not to the previous.
My comment #10 was in response to your comment #9 which you said "The theory all rests on the anomaly of 1998, the hottest year on record."

You also wrote 'It is, in fact, a "trick" to claim that we've been "cooling" over the past decade, by using your starting point as 1998 (the hottest year on record), and then hoping folks don't look too closely thereafter.'

I wasn't pointing to any trick or whatever, I was merely pointing out that the popular perception is wrong.

Konstantin - Might I suggest you simply say: "Oh, you're right. I was wrong. My apologies?"

Nonetheless, you now say:

I was referring to the media story about 1998 being the hottest year on record which everyone still quotes.

BECAUSE IT WAS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD!!!

If I remember correctly, when the "hot 1998" story broke out it was not about global temps but USA temps.

I'm sorry if I'm not in your head, to know what you remember and what you don't, but the conversation here --- which your notes were in response to --- was clearly about 1998 being the hottest year in recorded history, and how climate science deniers use that anomaly to suggest that somehow, since then, the earth is cooling.

That is bogus even IF you include 1998, since, as I showed u in the original link to SkepticalScience.com it's been warming every year since 1998, and the trend line --- including 1998 still shows temps rising since that year!) But it's not as warm as 1998, so denialist scammers, who you seem to have put far too much stock in, use that year to suggest "Oh, the earth is getting cooler, not warmer!"

Again, I suggest you cop to your error here --- I'll not hold it against you, since I don't believe you're the purposeful scammer that Xham seems to be --- and we all move on. Hopefully with YOU revisiting which sites you use as "reliable" news sites on this matter before jumping into the debate again.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I wasn't commenting about the exchange you and Xham were having or what climate skeptics are claiming about it getting cooler or not.

What I was trying to clear up is that the reporting by the media and the continued mis-reporting by every layperson is wrong. 1998 is not the hottest year on record. 1934 is.
Also I think people should do proper research and get the facts straight about that issue.

By the way, forgot to add

whether a year was the hottest on record or not is irrelevant.

Also "green jobs" doesn't really mean much; just a marketing term.

Wind and solar power is practically useless without backup storage which doesn't exist now. Pretty much a colossal waste of taxpayers money and will make the US economy worse.

Carbon capture and sequestration is colossal BS.

People really need to do much better in their reporting of green tech and the links they post to provide an unbiased point of view.

What is with you climate freaks. THEY LIED. The CRU committed Scientific Fraud. They changed the numbers to look like "real" temps were going up but they are totally normal for our planet. Other scientists asked for the raw data. they used the dog ate it answer.

I won't be back to brad blog ever. Or huff post or raw story. Next you'll try to convince us there were WMD's. It's the same emotional problem. You just can't admit you're wrong. Most of us were sick of hearing we were all gonna die anyway from kooks. Enjoy paying your carbon taxes.

Konstantin...you're wasting your breath. The hockey stick thing was debunked by a Canadian researcher a long time ago but Brad Blog andothers ignored it. Really. The anti human rhetoric of the GW theory is more than I can take. It's all our fault. Nevermind that the Club of Rome 1991 documents show how they were going to blame humans or that Al Gore and Ken Lay came up with the carbon trading to make money or that the dutch just got caught scamming the carbon trading system already. It is not a hoax. And to think I used to read Brad because I believed he was on the 'right' side of history with sibel edmonds etc.

'IT'S NOT ABOUT RIGHT OR LEFT. IT'S ABOUT RIGHT AND WRONG'

Poor Brad. Maybe you 'believe' so much cause you 'believe' in Al Gorelioni. I did too. Once. He's just like the rest of them yet, here you are falling for the BIG LIE and name calling just like those who attacked you for exposing election fraud (when they let you get a word in edgewise). And so we're 'deniers' in Brad world where discourse is narrow, limited, and blocked out by nasty words.

WELL HERE'S SOME TRUTH: The carbon trading system is a multibillion money-making bonanza for the financial establishment. The stakes are extremely high and the various lobby groups on behalf of Wall Street have already positioned themselves.

According to a recent report, "the carbon market could become double the size of the vast oil market, according to the new breed of City players who trade greenhouse gas emissions through the EU's emissions trading scheme... The speed of that growth will depend on whether the Copenhagen summit gives a go-ahead for a low-carbon economy, but Ager says whatever happens schemes such as the ETS will expand around the globe." (Terry Macalister, Carbon trading could be worth twice that of oil in next decade, The Guardian, 28 November 2009)

It is not just right wingers upset about these emails. People concerned about the integrity of science are.

Crazy blogs calling biased opinion a 'Green News Report' are one reason I no longer am a Democrat. One even bigger reason is the Democratic Party selling its principles down the river with this affirmative action president nonsense. The man is unfit to run a sandbox let alone a nation.

Blogs like this will elect the next GOP president. BTW, a "news blog" is an oxymoron.

Konstantin -

What I was trying to clear up is that the reporting by the media and the continued mis-reporting by every layperson is wrong. 1998 is not the hottest year on record. 1934 is.

Good. God.

1934 is NOT the hottest year on record! Unless the world includes only the U.S. Yeesh. How many times are you gonna keep misreporting that?!

As to whether it's relevant or not, it's perfectly relevant to the conversation we were having, when Xham brought up the fact that there was nothing to worry about because the last decade temps were flat, which is also an utter misrepresentation of reality!

As to the other stuff you're now on about, rather than just admitting YOU WERE WRONG, well, I take back what I said earlier about you not being a "purposeful scammer". At this point, given your continued nonsense, I'm no longer sure about that.

Nemo/Mark -

We have rules here about commenting using different names. Please mind them.

You said:

They changed the numbers to look like "real" temps were going up but they are totally normal for our planet.

Feel free to share those particiular emails with me. I'd love to give them a look.

You just can't admit you're wrong.

Happy to. Feel free to share where we have been. Just telling me "you're wrong", however, doesn't really do the trick. I'm sure you understand.

The hockey stick thing was debunked by a Canadian researcher a long time ago but Brad Blog andothers ignored it.

Feel free to share that information as well, amigo. Links are welcome here at The BRAD BLOG, as I'm sure you know.

And so we're 'deniers' in Brad world where discourse is narrow, limited, and blocked out by nasty words.

Yes, the discourse here has certainly been blocked out.

"Former Democrat" said:

It is not just right wingers upset about these emails. People concerned about the integrity of science are.

Yes, I know. I keep getting all kinds of email (and comments) how those of "us" on the "left", "former Democrats" and such are really worried that "we've" been exposed. And how "our" scam is now up.

a) I ain't a Democrat. b) You never have been. c) It's rather high-larious getting so many such notes that seem to be cut and pasted from right here. And no, we're not laughing with you.

But thanks for stopping by and sharing your two cents. Hope you don't feel too "blocked out" from saying your piece, like some of the others here must have been.

Brad looks like I'm going to have to find you some links to the stories and the science of "hot 98". Seems to be the only way you'll stp the left/right nonsense. Could take a few days.

You still do good reporting on election fraud but your green news stories need alot of work\ and more objectivity.

Thanks Brad for the constructive comments. I now have a list of insults, which is great because few people actually insult me to my face. They are
1. From the church of denialists. Most people who know me would guffaw at that one.
2. Aligned to wingnuts. Great, as I spend my life explaining how we are all so indoctrinated by the bipolar politics and how we accuse each other of being from the other side! BTW, I would say my closest is left-libertarian, how about you..who do you align to?
3. Classic denialist. Or maybe just a little skeptical when the propagandists are making multi-billion dollars.
4. Creationalist. I don't think so. I have that one covered already aka the previous criticisms from Des.
5. Cynic. Absolutely. Sibel Edmonds taught us all a thing or too..via BB.
6. Sucker. Maybe, not for me to judge.
7. Cretin. Maybe, not for me to judge.
8. Scammer. Oh please. The scam is AGW on the people of this world.

What about you Brad? Are you ready to respond to criticisms. For instance.
1. Where is the follow up questions about what really happened on 9/11 w.r.d. to Sibel Edmonds testimony?
2. Where do you address and link to papers that show the extreme Israeli influence on American and British politics as manipulated through spying, black mailing etc as pointed out by Sibel..or is only Turkey of interest?
3. What about WTC B7. How, in your vast depth of scientific knowledge, does a 47 story steel framed building come down in less than 7 seconds, having not been hit by an airplane and having minimal fire damage? Where’s the investigative coverage.
Here is my measurement. You, like Arianna Huffapuff, want to get involved in politics. But you know that there are forces against you that require you to tow the line, so you will only go so far. AGW is one of those lines will will never cross..but as pointed out there are others too. As Charlie Sheen would say, you are now on the wrong side of history.

Oh, you climate "skeptics" --- evidence-free as usual. Nemo, you're particularly hilarious.

Please link to an actual hacked email that shows anyone actually lying and and falsifying data (include the context!), along with the response of the scientists in question, and then please link to your data/studies that proves where they were lying and falsifying data.

Let's just start with that very basic evidentiary level.

After that, please link to your data/studies that overturn any of the field data gathered in any of the other earth systems disciplines that don't use any CRU data.

Please show some evidence that the oceans aren't acidifying. How about some evidence showing the basic physics of solar radiation interaction with greenhouse gases is no longer operative so the accelerating concentraion of atmospheric CO2 is never going to be a problem? Studies that show the glaciers and ice sheets aren't melting faster than predicted, or that corals aren't dying, or the permafrost isn't melting, or that migrations and ranges aren't shifting, or the hydrological cycle isn't disrupting, or studies that show we can continue polluting our biosphere without consequences... Got anything like that?

Because it looks like you guys don't actually know what the scientific evidence is, or even what the hacked emails actually say --- you seem to be mainly concerned about the policy implications, like issues with a proposed future carbon trading market. That's understandable. (Kinda odd, considering you're already living amidst a "multibillion money-making bonanza for the financial establishment" --- the fossil fuel industry, the most profitable industry in the history of the world, getting $79 billion in federal subsidies every year from your tax dollars, but whatevs...)

But that's not about the scientific evidence. Please put up some data to prove you know more than the vast majority of climate and earth systems scientists, and can prove that all their field data is just plain wrong. Because the majority of them are saying we have a problem.

Xham, apparently unable to defend his inaccurate points wishes to change the subject. Okay. Here's what he had to say:

What about you Brad? Are you ready to respond to criticisms. For instance.
1. Where is the follow up questions about what really happened on 9/11 w.r.d. to Sibel Edmonds testimony?

Huh? I've discussed 9/11 with Sibel many times, both privately, and publicly, including live on the air. I believe she's told me and you, just about everything she knows about it, as far as I understand. What would you like me to follow up on?

2. Where do you address and link to papers that show the extreme Israeli influence on American and British politics as manipulated through spying, black mailing etc as pointed out by Sibel..or is only Turkey of interest?

You may not have noticed, but I cover on this blog, what interests *me* and what I feel I have something to add to through my reporting and/or commentary. For example, we recently covered the arrest of U.S. scientist Stewart David Nozette for attempting to spy on behalf of Israel, since it meshed almost precisely with much of what Sibel has been trying to disclose for years.

Was that unsatisfactory for you? Is there more to tell? Cool. Please get a blog and go for it! I'm behind you 100%. In the meantime, if you haven't noticed, this place is largely me and a few folks who volunteer their services when possible to help out. We'd cover a lot more, I suspect, if we had the funds to do so, but as we rely almost entirely on reader donations (which are very few and far between) and a few dollars from ad sales, we can only do what we do. If it's not enough, I'm very sorry. But hope you'll help out by getting to work!

3. What about WTC B7. How, in your vast depth of scientific knowledge, does a 47 story steel framed building come down in less than 7 seconds, having not been hit by an airplane and having minimal fire damage? Where’s the investigative coverage.

I don't believe I have a "vast depth of scientific knowledge", nor ever claimed to.

Beyond that, I hadn't realized you were my assignment editor. Please, let me know what YOU want me to cover, and I'll get on that right away!

Here is my measurement. You, like Arianna Huffapuff, want to get involved in politics. But you know that there are forces against you that require you to tow the line, so you will only go so far.

Your "measurement" about me, is about as good as your measurment of the temperatures over the last decade being "flat".

But I'm happy to offer you a free place to share such measurements with the world.

AGW is one of those lines will will never cross..but as pointed out there are others too. As Charlie Sheen would say, you are now on the wrong side of history.

Neato! Thanks for sharing, amigo. Keep up the good work. You've really got the bad guys on the run. Good use of both of our time and resources, my friend.

Brad since you and Des haven't reported or commented on Pielke's blog posts I'll link to one here for the benefit of the other readers who are getting a very biased point of view from the links you put up on this and other Green News Reports.

(sorry if it takes up too much space but seems everyone who wanted to comment on this thread has already done so)

Further Comment On The Dot Earth Post On Climate Data, Trends and Peer Review

[ed note: Comment edited. I know this space thing has gotten outrageous, but on the tubes we can use links in most instances. Please do not copy and paste whole posts from elsewhere. The link is enough. Or just a short sample with the link. Thank you. --99]

YOU'LL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH WHILE YOU CONTINUE LOOKING AT SITES THAT REINFORCE YOUR OWN BELIEF SYSTEM:

That said: Here is the research you should be doing for yourself about the Canadian researchers who dared question the hockey stick chart.

FROM AN ARTICLE ABOUT 'NATURE' MAG ERRORS:

This admission of error came as a result of an article by statistics expert Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, associate professor of economics at the University of Guelph, which exposed serious errors in the data and methodology other than the 1998 article. The editors of Nature agreed and required Mann and his collaborators to acknowledge their mistakes and revise their methodology accordingly.

IN THE CURRENT LEAKED/HACKED EMAILS MCINTYRE IS REVILED AS A DENIER AND MUCH TIME IS SPENT IN AVOIDING THEIR APPEALS FOR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION WHICH THE BRITS HAVE ALSO. CRU HOPES NO ONE WILL FIND THAT OUT. IF THIS HAD BEEN FOUND OUT ABOUT ELECTION FRAUD FOIA, WOULDN'T YOU BE ANGRY THAT THEY WERE DENYING INFO?
Here it is:

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. 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. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

Like I said, you go on deluding yourself as long as it takes to get reality. Can't believe you've swallowed this hook line and sinker. There really is a sucker born every day. Who knew?

Brad, you make no sense. Your posts and comments are those of a rabid dog. All this blog does is contribute to the glaciers melting by wasting energy. Hypocrite.

Yes, I know. I keep getting all kinds of email (and comments) how those of "us" on the "left", "former Democrats" and such are really worried that "we've" been exposed. And how "our" scam is now up.

I make no such claims. I was merely pointing out I am concerned about the integrity of science and am not a right winger. You can't spin and warp everything people say to your agenda and be credible. You are not credible.

a) I ain't a Democrat. b) You never have been.

Are you a mind reader? Just because you disagree with me does not give you the right to create some conspiracy I am posing as a former democrat. Perhaps you are posing as well posting all this rubbish to cater to an audience for profit? Could be.

This blog is a waste of electrons. You are out of your mind, dude. Have fun, I won't be back to read your reply. I would not want to boost your ad revenue and support this lunacy. But post something witty for your koolaid drinking fans, they lap it up like pablum I am sure.

With regards to suppression of viewpoints on websites, CRU has none of your high standards:

EMAIL: You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

FOR ANYONE ELSE WHO HASNT BEEN INFLUENCED BY AL GORELIONI's SEXY SELF, read this http://blogs.telegraph.c...opogenic-global-warming/

Thanks for all the comments guys. Still looking forward to seeing any information from the stolen emails which discounts or debunks the broad scientific data and consensus concerning global warming.

I'm sure it's there --- just as surely as the evidence that ACORN is stealing elections and there are WMD in Iraq --- it's just that it hasn't been posted here, or anywhere to my knowledge yet.

And, again, I'm happy to provide a place in which you can share such information with others, should you be able to.

I'll just post an excerpt from one of the climate scientists whose papers the "CRU discredited scientists" tried to suppress.

From Dr. R Pielke Sr.'s blog,
the following,

Comment On The Inaccurate Response By Gavin Schmidt Of Real Climate On The Role of Land Use Change On Temperature Trends

, is about Gavin Schmidt who runs the site "Real Climate" http://www.realclimate.org

This reply by Gavin, besides ignoring (e.g. Fall et al 2009) and his trivializing (e.g. Stone Jr 2009) peer reviewed papers that disagree with his perspective, his comment also shows that he has learned little from the exposure of the inappropriate attempt by Phil Jones and colleagues to serve as gatekeepers to climate science issues.

Since Gavin Schmidt is not a recognized expert on the role of land use/land cover change, he should have sought a qualified climate scientist to address the comment by CCPO. Instead, he perpetuates the biased and often inaccurate presentation of climate views on Real Climate.

Sorry about the long comment @Agent99 and owners of the blog. Thought it was a bad idea to post such a long comment but there is very biased reporting about "green news" in the Green News Report and very biased selection of links. It's just like you guys are using "talking points" of green news sites.

As a long time fan, and past financial supporter of Brad (admittedly small amounts, but really all I could afford) I am saddened by the vitriolic discourse towards us "deniers".
Years ago I was very concerned with the possibility that warming would lead to disaster. I even advised friends to dump their ski homes and not to buy oceanfront second homes. I swallowed the Al Gore story hook, line and sinker with an Inconvenient Truth.
But, I'm always open to looking at the other side of a story. I started doing my own research. Now I realize that its all a sham. There is lots of research and many scientists opposed to this scam. Open your minds. Do your own research and don't just listen to those that share your views. Its too easy to examine everything through your own "paradigm" lenses.

What Brad, Des, and others are in denial about is that those CRU scientists did alot of damage to the global warming movement and many people here just don't want to admit it or deal with it.

Konstantin, we are discussing the scientific evidence, not whether "the global warming movement" as you call it was "damaged". PR is not the topic.

Again, the hacked emails do not address any of the other multiple lines of field data in other earth systems disciplines. If you have information that addresses the scientific evidence or overturns the field data from these other disciplines, please post it.

Keven Aho, sorry that you feel the discourse if 'vitriolic' towards 'deniers'. We use the term "Deniers" here to differentiate between contrarians for whom no amount of scientific data will ever be enough, because they believe that thousands of scientists have been perpetrating a global conspiracy, and "Skeptics" --- those who are interested in a rational, dispassionate inquiry of the scientific evidence, who support their assertions by bringing evidence to the table in the form of actual sourced data that other people can check for themselves. The "vitriol" here and elsewhere is generated mainly by the 'deniers'.

In your evaluation of the multiple, robust lines of scientific data along the full spectrum of earth systems disciplines, what have you found that overturns the research and the conclusions of the majority of earth systems scientists?

Please share, as we continue to ask for something --- anything --- that qualifies as evidence that overturns the mountains of actual field data that is independent of the CRU emails.

Mark, Former Democrat, Konstantin, Nemo, et al:

Still waiting to see some linked, sourced evidence from you that overturns the field data in other earth systems disciplines that are independent of the CRU temperature data, that overturns the basic physics of CO2/GHGs and solar radiation, that overturns the basic chemistry of seawater interaction with CO2... or anything like that.

Moderator this is the corrected comment of #42
Please keep this one and delete #42

Des,

I know it's easy to confuse the position of people in the comments. I never said the emails overturn the physics of the "greenhouse effect" or that CO2 doesn't contributes to the greenhouse effect. I know the basic physics.

What I'm saying and have said it before is that the IPCC and these scientists and the CRU are hijacking the peer review process and thereby preventing papers which show differing conclusions and evidence that's contrary to the agenda the IPCC and the ClimateGate scientists want.

Also by hijacking the peer review process these ClimateGate scientists create a self-perpetuating situation whereby funding is skewed towards studies and research that "tows the party line" of the IPCC and ClimateGate clique.

I'm sure you know about how science is done as you seem knowledgeable of some science and I'm sure you see that what the ClimateGate clique is doing is not science but politics and propaganda.

Des and Brad and others,

if you really want to get to the bottom of ClimateGate you are just going to have to dig deeper and learn some of the basic of climate science instead of depending on the "talking points" apologists.

Konstantin, I concur that the hacked CRU emails do indeed damage the perception of the scientific evidence underlying anthropogenic-forced climate change. That's why we included the summation of Jon Stewart from The Daily Show in today's report:

A new report from the Center for Public Integrity examines much of the politics and the propaganda machine dedicated to creating as much confusion about the issue as possible.

Konstantin said, at various:

What Brad, Des, and others are in denial about is that those CRU scientists did alot of damage to the global warming movement

Who disagreed with that??

I'm sure you see that what the ClimateGate clique is doing is not science but politics and propaganda.

The "ClimateGate clique" being the folks creating the "ClimateGate" hoax nonsense and disinfo? If so, then I agree with you.

If by "ClimateGate clique" you mean the actual scientists whose emails were stolen, well, can't agree with you. They were doing science (feel free to demonstrate otherwise) AND politics, unfortunately. But I've seen no propaganda.

if you really want to get to the bottom of ClimateGate you are just going to have to dig deeper and learn some of the basic of climate science instead of depending on the "talking points" apologists.

Thanks for your advice. We do so every day, and have reported what we've found, that none of the science of global warming has been changed by the revelation of stolen emails.

Kevin Aho @ 38 said:

Now I realize that its all a sham.

(At risk of re-treading all the nonsense we've already had in this thread) Really? What's the "sham"? Feel free to share it.

Open your minds. Do your own research and don't just listen to those that share your views.

As we've already said many times, we do every day.

Brad @ comment #45,
You, Des, and other keep repeating what I call the "talking points" of damage control circulating around the net to convince people that the ClimateGate doesn't prove anything or misdirecting attention of what the emails do show: which is duplicity of the ClimateGate scientists.

"ClimateGate clique" is the scientists who conspired to exclude valid scientific research and papers from the IPCC and peer review. That includes Jones and others and includes Gavin of RealClimate for perpetuating biased views.
You're right they were doing "politics". The propaganda is in the damage control they're doing now.

As to your last point, that's not what I meant.
I meant you don't seem to have the scientific understanding of climate science or climate models (general circulation models or GCMs).
For example I don't think you, Des, and others understand how useless they really are.

You guys don't seem to grok that even if the intent of the scientists whose emails were hacked was nefarious, and there's no solid ground for this assertion once you've read the emails, it cannot have had an effect on the global consensus. The head of the IPCC put out a statement to make that abundantly clear:

In summary, no individual or small group of scientists is in a position to exclude a peer-reviewed paper from an I.P.C.C. assessment. Likewise, individuals and small groups have no ability to emphasize a result that is not consistent with a range of studies, investigations, and approaches. Every layer in the process (including large author teams, extensive review, independent monitoring of review compliance, and plenary approval by governments) plays a major role in keeping I.P.C.C. assessments comprehensive, unbiased, open to the identification of new literature, and policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.

This is a flipping seriously annoying tempest in a teapot... based on a concerted effort to bamboozle the public... and the hacker/s should be dealt with as severely as the law permits.

The one thing I find horrifying about the IPCC position is that they are running all their stuff by governments before putting it out for our consumption. THAT does shake my confidence in them.

So, Konstantin, whether or not the scientists in question are duplicitous, you don't have a leg to stand on here. THAT MUCH IS CRYSTAL CLEAR.

I think the documentation of ClimateGate is larger than most people realize. These are a couple sites whose analysis I have found most detailed and interesting:

http://ecotretas.blogspo...pressor-de-verdades.html

http://bishophill.square...climate-cuttings-33.html

Konstantin, I haven't discussed the climate models, so how can you know whether or not I "understand" how "useless" you feel they are?

Repeating from above:

Still waiting to see some linked, sourced evidence from anyone that overturns any the field data in any of the other earth systems disciplines that are independent of the CRU temperature data and models, that overturns the basic physics of CO2/GHGs and solar radiation, or that overturns the basic chemistry of seawater interaction with CO2, or that shows glaciers and ice sheets are not exhibiting accelerating melt rates, species and ranges and not shifting, the hyrodological cycle is not shifting... or anything like that.

Des,

Cause I don't think you do understand how useless they are based on the reporting you do about climate change.

On your second question, the temperature, mass and energy transfer and radiant exchange are the main issues+ of climate change.