[Arctic Ice 2009/2010]

We now seem to be at one of the "pinch points" where there is little variation year-to-year. It is hard to tell from autumnal advance where the Arctic extent is heading.

[What Is Causing The Warming ?]

The warming is due to the hitherto unexplained escape from the Little Ice Age (approx 2c globally). The increased atmospheric improvement ratio of CO2 is a minor factor which have bettered the climate by around 0.05c - 0.1c based, but predominantly climate scientists are not able to fully explain the warming. It is probable that solar fluctuations are implicated, though the precise mechanism is still awaiting identification. We have a crucial ten years ahead in which the CO2 hypothesis and the solar hypothesis are in opposite corners. We should be able to tell by 2015. Climate legislation should wait till then save for making a pleasant situation (moderate warmth) into a terrible one.

[CRU E-mails and data]

But when the 0.8c swing tends to one direction and keeps tending there what then?

Then you just have something unprecedented in earth's history.

It won't happen.

The earth is resilient.

[CRU E-mails and data]

Look guys you cannot have it both ways .

You can't decry El-Nino generated record high temps as 'natural' and omit the down side of the same.

When AGW is fully in charge then it will take a great deal to offset it's influence ,at present it is augmenting 'Natural' positive temp events and mitigating the impacts of cooler 'natural phases'.

We, both sides of the debate, will end up recognising the same changes in 'natural cycles' as time moves on. It will just become ever more difficult to excuse them as anything other than impacts of drivers above and beyond anything 'natural' that we know of.

Well we've seen the earth can cope with 0.8c swings in global temperature from year to year. No islands got sunk then, did they?

[CRU E-mails and data]

If we'd seen 'cooling' since 1998 then I'm sure that that date would be the 'sceptics'' chosen start-date?? But it isn't...1998 is! But, no...We haven't seen any cooling so-far...So, what's the need to explain it???

If, and when, any cooling actually does occur, it'll need an explanation...Until then, there's nothing much to explain...

Maybe you need to have a word with arch-warmist Kevin Trenberth.

"It's a travesty we can't explain the global cooling".

You told me you'd read the emails.

Surely the fact that over the last decade or so temps haven't really risen while CO2 has needs explaining? That wasn't in any of the models was it. Oh no, temp was supposed to just keep shooting right up. Or did I miss the kinks?

It wasn't in the models.

But it now is.

So they don't feel the need to explain.

It's like saying, "well I didn't predict that roulette wheel would spin in 2 greens followed by 4 reds, but we can now back-predict it" and hoping people then believe you can predict the next 6 spins.

[CRU E-mails and data]

Man is the most ignorant and wasteful of creatures.

Typical of the corporatists like Lord Monckton to keep denying our contribution to throwing fuel on a fire and polluting the earth. The earth is going to give these "deniers" a rude-awakening if we don't damn well do something about it.

I think corporations should be taxed for polluting the earth and contributing to global warming. Government should be reformed and used as a voice for vigorous daily public relations promoting (rather than legally enforcing) community permaculture economies. I don't like the cap and trade or carbon-credits approach because they are ponzi schemes and do nothing to rapidly push for new solutions. We can do better without hurting so many people or being hypocrites (such as that idiot Al Gore).

Why are we still using plastic? Why are we still using fossil fuels? Hmmm....

These emails are a DISTRACTION.

A quite bizarre post. I can't work out if it's irony or not.

I agree that pollution should be taxed. CO2 though is not pollution. It is vital plant food and helps the world go round. Biomass has expanded 7 recently thanks to human emissions of CO2, an overall positive thing if you like life.

The best way to see if there is a resource or food shortage is by the price of the commodity. Oil is still fairly cheap, signalling that there is no shortage. Peak Oil nonsense purveyors are only benefitting the oil producers by making people go long on oil thus pushing the price up. Well done.

[CRU E-mails and data]

So, there is no evidence that the Earth is cooling...It mightn't be warming as much as the doomsayers might insist? But it is not cooling!!!??? Which, considering the present state of both Solar output AND Milankovitch cycles, one would be expecting to be the case...

Can you explain that???

We have seen cooling since 1992 or 1998 depending on how you correct for the Pinatubo event.

It's strange how some people accept that noise can make the supposed CO2 signal hard to detect, and yet expect this noise to disappear when solar effects dominate. Quite surreal.

[CRU E-mails and data]

Well, if there is any evidence for GC, then let's have it? I'm not championing AGW. I'm merely saying that the best evidence we have indicates that the globe has warmed over the past 150 years...But, IMO, stealing emails in a futile attempt to discredit on or two scientists, will not make the Earth get cooler???

I have no interest in the politics of the matter whatsoever; and, there are many, perfectly valid, reasons for scepticism re AGW...But, denying any warming is not one of them???

The warming (to the mid 90s, now ended) was at the same pace since the end of the Little Ice Age, there is no evidence that CO2 sped up this escape from the LIA. Only the fraudulent hockey stick which tried and failed to rewrite climatic history present a different view.

We now know that statistically it was flawed thanks to StMac, and we also know the reasons why it was flawed.

Mann used proxies upside down, used proxies that weren't proxies, spliced temperature data onto these nonproxies (a "foolish and incorrect thing to do" in his own words), cherry-picked individual trees that he liked the tree-ring shape of, and then convinced his friends to back him up by intimidating previously respected climatic journals. Mann, Jones, and Briffa, the holy trinity who ruined climate science and set it back 20 years. Hopefully they won' set our economies back by an even longer period.

The emails back up that Mann, Jones and Briffa knew that the hockey stick was flawed and carried on regardless because they knew better. Unfortunately there were people around who caught them on their lying and outed them. The emails are just the final pieces of the jigsaw and realists can now see the whole thing was an egotistical fraud all along.

This is good news. We can now direct the funds that would otherwise be wasted towards improving the environment and aiding human advancement in the developing world, rather than throwing them down a drain of trashed science.

[CRU E-mails and data]

Strange, I thought that I'd done a reasonable job of addressing criticisms such as these in previous pages. If you have anything to add, I'd be glad to cast an eye over it ... Well, there are two other agencies that have already published their data, and their source-code that reach the same conclusion as the UEA. Have you found a global problem including NASA, and NOAA - I looked but I couldn't find even a trace of anything like evidence. Have I missed something? (and before any regulars comment on that I've been complaining about the lack of data and source-code for years - there is still no release of historical air-pressure data, that I can find)

So there's an AGW problem, and the UEA were so convinced there was a problem that they decided to raise doubts over their integrity by keeping data hidden? <BR><BR>In my line of work, I always present every single bit of information and working (even if it's probably not assessed 90% of the time thanks to people trusting my output). 2 reasons.<BR><BR>i) If I'm right I want people to damn well know it<BR>ii) If I'm (unknowingly) wrong, I want it found out before too much harm is caused<BR><BR>Science is all about replicability, let me know when you've come to the same numbers as the UEA from the raw data.

[CRU E-mails and data]

Despite the fact that we have no 'clear undisputable evidence' of any such things...Welcome to netweather Pingo!

Please read the released emails. Thanks

[CRU E-mails and data]

Hacked climate change emails - a tempest in a teapot or a real storm? Paul Jay talks to Michael Brklacic

A real storm.

We now have clear undisputable evidence of

i) Criminal acitivty to delete data following FOI requests. I hope Phil Jones still has £5000 of his £28m in grant money left over to pay his fine.

ii) Intimidation of journals not to accept "sceptical" papers. And then in public demanding that sceptics publish in these very journals.

iii) Acknowldgement of not presenting the data as-is, instead doctoring it up (using "tricks" and "hiding" inconvenient facts).

iv) Celebration of a scientific rival's death. (I suppose Devonian thinks this is not a problem as I've not seen him criticise it yet despite his posts on multiple boards)

v) Threats of violence against fellow climate scientists for not towing the party line

vi) Scientists getting involved in wanting to prove their own hypothesis, rather than disprove it.

The temperature series and reconstructions all need to be re-assessed by scientists disinterested in what they show.

Jones and Mann are not credible scientist and should have already resigned. Never mind, they won't be in their jobs for long. Try living in the real world fellas and see if you can get by without defrauding the UK and US taxpayer.

But of course it doesn't weaken the case for AGW - it's still just as weak as it ever was. Only now we know that scientists are up there with bankers and politicians in their ability to screw money out of the honest taxpayer.

We got the government we deserved, and now on top of the financial disaster caused by reckless investments propped up with socialist promises we have academics attacking the very essence of science.

It's been clear this has been going on for a long time, but the evidence was only patchily there. Now the emails have been released showing the bulk of the science to have been a fraud.

There is no AGW problem.