http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Mostly bollocks? I find that hard to believe.

Just depends on who you believe and how out of context your quotes can be before theyre unacceptable I suppose.

wow. This might be worth following.

It's the Telegraph, they've only recently accepted that world war 11 is finally over, I expect them to be about fifteen years behind the actual press regarding research,provenance and employing reporters who are actually awake and the like……

Is it just me, or is that article full of phrases like 'Mainstream media' that are just catchwords of crazy US right wing conspiracy theorists? i.e. about as reliable as fox news?

Joe

this is nothing to do with the telegraph.

whether AGW exists or not, or even whether the data leaked provides any further evidence for or not, the tone of some of the leaked material is quite extraordinary.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

World War 11???

Did I miss the last 9?

😯

I've only got as far as Delingpole's piece, but if the sample that he quotes is the best stuff then this will die fairly quickly.

Is anyone really shocked? 😐

yup, they were only policing actions really 🙂

The actions of one faculty (University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit ) if true reflect that universities data and findings not the methodology and approach and honest scientific approach of the thousands upon thousands of researchers else where.

The problem with the climate issue is there are a huge number of data sets, recorded from thousands of locations from hundreds of data sources, i.e. daily/weekly/monthly/annual/etc air temp, sea temp, isotope and records from ice / soil core records and hundreds of thousands of scientists all with their own ideas.

The major problems with identifying trends and climatic model are that much of the data is conflicting and that on the whole they over tiny time scales or in the case of the longer period isotope ratio modelling and sediment / rock records a snap shot of the climate in time.

At the end of the day the climate is a multiple force feedback system with controls and influences that are still not fully understood and is in part governed by something akin to chaos theory, along with the Milankovitch cycles of the earth (periodicity etc) Solar output, etc etc.

Until all of the evidence is collected, collated and looked at as a whole and then used to create a model that can fully reflect the climatic systems and interactions you can not dismisses the possible implications if the the climate is shifting. Unfortunately the shear number of variables will pretty much make modelling such a vast system unviable.

it might be worth following, if only to see the telegraph shown up for what looks like reporting more likely to come from the sun or the daily mail.
having talked to a number of the scientists mentioned (when i was a student there this year) in the emails i think i know a bit about what is going on in some of the extracts shown by the telegraph, and their context. of course i havnt seen any of the files that were released illegally, i probably have some of the earlier copies of these documents myself. it would be intereseting to see what files have been released, but more importantly which files have not been released.

Sounds about right to me…

if you have the time, have a glance at this new release:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

if you don't want to read it, then it basically sums up the ethical problems of hacking and publishing emails. however, it does show an example of why the extracts inthe telegraph have been taken out of context. the key paragraph of interest in this discussion is here:

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

world war 11

Sh1t – have I been asleep that long?

sorry II……. finger / brain interface issues:)

However, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA show 2005 has topped 1998. Published peer-reviewed scientific research generally cites temperatures measured by ground sensors, which are from NOAA, NASA and the British, more than the satellite data.

The recent Internet chatter about cooling led NOAA's climate data center to re-examine its temperature data. It found no cooling trend.

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.