Benno, if this can persuade you, everything is OK, then ...I misunderestimated you (to quote Bush).

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/hockeystick_it_was_never_peer-reviewed

This explains, why Nature cannot be trusted. They published MBH98 without proper peer review. They are trying to sweep their own cock-up under the carpet.

and

http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/mann_and_briffa_explaining_the_micks_nature_trick

This explains Mick’s nature trick. Why hockeystick is a totally misleading peace of crap. Admitted by Mann himself. Our temperatures are not unique.

And about the recent cooling… One way or another Trenberth admits, what I was saying and you did not believe. We have cooling after 1998. And it contradicts IPCC predictions.

...I don’t think you are criminal. Just stupid.

Didn’t take you long to drop by with the same spin again.

Your first article… complete garbage. You provided no proof, of course, and even very little rationale towards your wild postulate that Nature isn’t peer reviewing.

Second link… watch the video above and stop lying.

You thik I‘m stupid? I don’t know what you are but people who believe the industry funded conspiracy theories about climatology aren’t very bright or just willfully ignorant.

Benno, you are dangerous, too.
I have 40 trillion dollars worth of highly reflective, lightweight precautionary headgear guaranteed to keep you cool in any weather.
There is no science to global warming (recently rebranded as climate change.)
You go read the emails.
Search the folder for the first document containing the word HATE and read the full context, just for a random example.
You read the eamails before you regurgitate the huff and puffs who would know science if it smacked them in the gob.
If you feel you are unqualified to digest the details, somebody competent has done it for you:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/#more-4660    best aggregation (with reference links)
Your Lobeless Gorming needs exorcised.

I don’t know what you are but people who believe the government funded conspiracy theories about climatology aren’t very bright or just willfully ignorant.

The very fact that Nature uses language such as “denialists” confirms our every suspicion.

If I had a subscription to Nature, I’d cancel it

And Benno, whether you like it or not, the damage has been done, the frauds exposed, and no amount of spin is going to put the lid back on this can of worms. The truth hurts, I know.

There will an investigation, and this is all we need. These emails are, after all, just the tip of the iceburg.

So really, grow up and get over it. You only do yourself more damage by frantically trying to defend these crooks.

Oh noes, looks like the climategate criminals wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis Report!

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_those_scientists_sure_get_around/

I remember when Copenhagen Diagnosis came out because nearly every major paper ran a story on it. Global warming is happening even faster than predicted, the impacts are even worse than feared, and that sort of thing… So I asked my CEI colleague Julie Walsh to compare the list of authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis with the scientists involved in Climategate.

I’m sure it will come as a shock that the two groups largely overlap. The “small group of scientists” up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis belong to the Climategate gang?  Small world, isn’t it?

No conspiracy here. Just the same small group of elitist charlatans circling the wagons. This is why we call it FRAUD.

Game over Benno.

The infamy of Watergate was not just the scandal, but the coverup.

Read the comments, if you dare. Can’t fool all of the people all of the time. The tides are turning.

Where is the tide turning Mike? In the small stagnating pool in your mind? Tch! Tch!

Hemant, the US Congress won’t pass the new Kyoto Protocol. After the Climategate, the Republicans won’t.

Australia and Saudi Arabia have already said No,due to Climategate.

So yes, the tide is turning.

NOT: It is just pity, that Mike is not allowed to post his own blogs here. He is so well informed. If he was part of the competition, I would have much less work debunking the climate myths.

So the tide is turning in the small stagnating pools of your and Mike’s mind.
Last I heard, President Obama was travelling on the crucial dates to COP15. And they have already made some positive declarations.
Oh, but you may be unaware that he is the President, and not a Rebublican.
Australia and Saudi Arabia will fall in line, sooner than later.

Hey, did you know the COP15 begins today? And world leaders from over 190 countries will be there to discuss positive measures they can take to control climate change?

Yes, you heard me right. Take off those headphones which shout propaganda in your ears, and open your eyes. You may be repulsed by your own mind.

Mike wrote: “The very fact that Nature uses language such as “denialists” confirms our every suspicion.”

Really? So, what does the very fact that you, Vitezslav Kremlik, Eamonn Fitzgerald and pretty much every other member of your clan of systematic stupidity are using terms such as “alarmists claim”, “environuts believe” and can’t even spell “UN” in not just every but every f**king single article and comment tell the rest of us?

That none of us are supposedly unbiased scientific journals?

I think the fact that these e-mails are being used as “proof” that there is no global warming actually indicates how weak the evidence against Climate Change science is.

Let’s look at what we’re really talking about…

A handful of ambiguous statements made over a period of more than a decade versus thousands of others which show nothing untoward.

I’d challenge you to read e-mails by anyone over the same time period and not find something odd-sounding.

Like Benno points out, if you’re interested in conspiracies why don’t you dedicate the same amount of time to explaining Exxon’s deliberate attempt to manipulate information?

Jodi, I am amazed

- the climatologists clearly say in the e-mails, that after 1998 there is no global warming
-they also openly write, that their models are unreliable and did not predict this cooling. Which means, they do not know the variables. They do not know the strength of CO2 forcing.
-the deletion of MWP was made by a “trick”. I described in my previous posts.
-the other papers supporting hockeystick were written by Mann and his team himself.
-they were hiding information. Why? What were they hiding?
-they were silencing the skeptics. It is in the e-mails

-assuming this: what remains of the “climate science”? nothing

Note: of course, this does nothing to climate change. Climate changed, changes and always will change. It is normal.

@ Vitezslav:

- the scientists don’t say that warming has stopped, simply that it has leveled out for a temporary period. We’re still looking at 11 of the hottest years falling in the last 12 years.
- the use of the term “trick” is ambiguous - so pointless to debate here.
- the hockeystick isn’t the sole piece of evidence used in the climate change debate, nor are Mann et al the only scientists working on the topic. Even if it and they were discredited that doesn’t bring down the whole argument.
- nevertheless, yes I think the e-mails warrant an investigation, because questions have been raised now and if they were trying to hide information then that is definitely problematic. Again however, that doesn’t mean the whole science behind it is wrong. We’re talking about a few e-mails over a period of 11 years. There is more evidence that they were acting scientifically and ethically, than to the contrary.
- you’re surprised that climate change experts are opposed to sceptics getting air time? Really? Do you think evolutionary theorists would oppose creationists publishing? There are always internal disputes within fields. I don’t think that information should be suppressed, but if they thought that the science was being confused by sceptics I’m not surprised they tried to stop it or said they hated them, or wanted to beat them up. (I think a few people in this blogging competition have felt the same!!!) I’m not suggesting that it is right to silence a group of people, but I don’t think opposition to sceptics means that they were ipso facto involved in a conspiracy.

My basic point is that these e-mails should be weighed up against the remainder of evidence. Yes, I know you think that the evidence shows one thing, and I another - but I don’t think these e-mails should be seen as the final “proof” one way or another.

Vitezslav Kremlik,

Please stop lying.

No, they did not write about an absence of warming. No, they did not admit hiding anything. And no, they were not “silencing skeptics” they were merely criticizing absurdly bad attempts at climatology.

So tell me Hemant, are the tides turning still just a figment of my imagination?

Tck. Tck. Tck.

Mike… you guys are working hard spinning any possible story to support your theory, I’ll give you that.

But how exactly is Saudi Arabia trying to undermine COP15 a surprise? They live from our addiction to oil! James Hansen is just saying what NGOs have been saying for months. Sure you can find a handful of sceptic scientists - even some who buy into the whole conspiracy theory thing. But they are rare. And linking to news stories… haven’t journalism failed on science this decade?

Bottom line: Climategate is made out of pure spin fabricated from a criminal group with interest in spoiling COP15. People believing that… it’s just sad.

Benno wrote: Please stop lying. No, they did not write about an absence of warming. No, they did not admit hiding anything. And no, they were not “silencing skeptics” they were merely criticizing absurdly bad attempts at climatology.

Answer:
- the resisted FoIA for years. It is in the e-mails
- MBH revealed their data only 7 years a after publlishing MBH98. On the request of US congress.
-in the e-mails they write, that they did not predict this cooling and that their models are worthless

Why don’t you read the e-mails? Are you afraid your beliefs could fall apart?

You should read my blogs more. It would educate you.

You are a denialist now.

Jodi, you should read my latest blogs, where I explain
- that all hockeysticks were written by the same team. No dozens independent confirmations
- hockeystick trick is based on the “problem of divergence”. Putting apples and pears together.
- IPCC, Nature and others failed the peer-review process. They published things without verification of data.
-in the e-mails they admit, they did not predict the cooling and that their models cannot be used for predictions

But perhaps you are afraid to learn the truth. So you avoid reading my blogs.

@Vitezslav: as with most topics if you search for support on your particular viewpoint you can find it. Particularly on the internet. Think a particular race is inferior - there’s a group for you. Believe that aliens abducted you in your sleep? Again, there are a lot of people out there who want to be your friend. Articles are churned out on every topic, from every angle and to every extreme. Just because you can find information to support your viewpoint doesn’t make it right. It’s up to you to weigh up everything out there and come to your own conclusion. My conclusion is we are facing a serious threat from environmental degredation and I feel obliged to do something about that. You may conclude differently, but like I said - just because you find people who support your views, doesn’t mean they’re right.

Jodi, it is sad to see even you going into denial. Locking yourself into your ivory tower.

In my posts I quote sources, exactly for this reason. So everybody could verify, that what I say is true. Do it please.

Vitezslav - I think the difference between you and I is that I’m willing to accept that neither side is infalliable. I’m am willing to acknowledge there are weaknesses in our current understanding of the causes of climate change, but it is also clear to me that there is no categorical evidence to the contrary. I’m interested in hearing what you write (I do read your blogs as you’re well aware) - like for instance the need for better modelling systems or the dangers of investing in unproven and expensive solutions. That doesn’t mean that I reject the whole notion of anthropogenic warming nor the value of sustainable living.

Very well said, Jodi.

@ Vitezslav… watch the video. He’s making fun of environmentalists too

More sober people: Analysis of the Emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

“The vast majority of the 1000+ emails are routine and unsuspicious. Perhaps one or two dozen of the email exchanges give the appearance of controversy, though no unethical behavior has yet been documented. Although a small percentage of the emails are impolite and some express animosity toward opponents, when placed into proper context they do not appear to reveal fraud or other scientific misconduct.”

Benno, you should read my latest blog posts, where I show, that:

-hockeystick was not peer-reviewed
-hockeysticks are all written by the same team
-why using the “Mick’s Nature” trick leads to misleading graphs
-they were really hiding their data. Why, if there is nothing wrong with the data?
-climatologists admit privately, that warming stopped ten years ago
-they select start and end points in graphs so as to make the impression of rising temperatures, misleading the public

... I would say, that this behaviou IS unscientific

But since you are an irrational believer, no facts can persuade you.

AGU 2009:Mann hits back at “climategate” hackers
“He said the episode has taught him that “there is no level to which the opponents of action on climate change won’t stoop in their efforts to lock progress.”

Unfortunately, said Mann, “the other side” (that is, climate change sceptics) is engaged in a well-funded and well-timed smear campaign that is sullying the reputations of scientists unfairly in the eyes of some members of the public.”