“The problem with climate change is that the urgency of the task…” has been fraudulently exaggerated.

Quote from hacked Emails-“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. ” another quote “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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Years of climatte data were lost at the CRU in England so the data can’t be reviewed.NASA is refusing to release it’s climate data dispite a two year freedom of information request, New Zealand has problems with it’s climate data (as I understand it) so what is the hurry if the “science” as expressed by the “Harry read me file” is so uncertain.Einstein was asked about the many scientists who were skeptical about his theory of relativity when it first came out. His response was “It only takes one to prove me wrong.” Scientific consensus once held that continents can’t drift, and that rocks don’t fall from the sky!

Good article here from the Times Online, The great climate change science scandal: Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming
Interesting that the best coverage of this scandal is from overseas papers. The U.S. media, with few exceptions, seems to have blacked out any info to the public.

I believe that mixed in with all this questionable climate change data is a real need to do our part for the environment. We can use solar and wind power. We can conserve with a smaller carbon footprint but for me it is because it leads to less pollution and cleaner air and water. This in turn leads to a higher quality of life and less impact on health. We live in the Central Valley of California and cleaner air here is essential.

I am so grateful to the English Church:  The Church Times for its scientific expertise, the Archbishop of Canterbury for his economic advice, and the Bishop of Durham for his take on US Foreign Policy among so many others.

I used to look to these sources for religious information, but this is all SOOO much better.  Preaching the gospel is dull compared to this.  Must be good for circulation. Thanks, guys for keeping us up to date.

Dcn Dale I agree, BUT I don’t want the fact that the data for anthropogenic global warming appears to be flawed to be morphed into “well we need to care about nature” which is well and good but NOT the issue with anthropogenic global warming..

article is spot on, thanks very much for posting. won’t do much good either way. i find it interesting that people would be willing to take such chances; as one scientist wondered, how many people would take a plane flight if 80% of scientists predicted the plane would crash and 20% of scientists said that was nonsense and nothing will happen…

magnolia please read excerts from the “read me Harry” file ie:COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …” (98)(71)So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option — to match every WMO (possible, and turn the rest into new stations … In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad …” (98-9)“What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – ” (98) Magnolia Consensous is not science-If 80% of The scientists are paleantologists that say a plane won’t fly and 20% of the scientist have expertise in aeronautical engineering I would go with the twenty percent!

Hysteria. Welcome to the new world of global cooling. I sincerely believe that this issue is a bandwagon being jumped on by people who want to force change in societies all over the world and who see AGW was the best and easiest way to do it. On the other hand, I also strongly support a $7 per gallon minimum gasoline tax, etc. for environmental reasons.

I’m sitting here in Houston watching the big, white fluffy flakes of snow come down - already 1” on the ground and still coming down.  I’ll have to take some pictures of the snow on the palm tree in the yard and send it to Copenhagen.  It’s a shame that climate change has resulted in significant snowfalls in December in Houston, two years in a row. Of course, even flurries are a big deal, but last year we had 3” in 3 hours, and this one will probably be another 3”.

I am a survivor of the global cooling/nuclear winter of the seventies!  And I’ve got a button to prove it.  Come to think of it, you are too!

Accurate analysis of anthropogenic global warming is absolutely crucial.  If it is shown that mankind is not warming the atmosphere, it is then almost certainly the case that there is nothing we can do to cool it down or stop any warming.  Better that we allocate resources to coping with the effects of warming than to spend trillions on something we may not even be able to affect.  As everyone likes to say, “the only constant is change.”  We need to adapt to such changes, not futilely try to stop them.  We can’t treat the earth like our houses and try to keep it at a constant 72 F.

This scandal calls into question the “peer-reviewed” system in validating the science.  What can we trust?  As to the Sr Priest, are you serious?!  Gas in the UK/Europe has been high for ages and traffic is worse than ever.  Raising the tax will not reduce consumption.  When I lived in the UK 20 years ago, most families had only one car, now they have two or maybe even three.  London has installed toll areas for inner-city use and it’s still congested, even more so.  But, good luck thinking it will change the environment.

#7. magnolia
The scientific method for determining “Truth”, even when there is no agenda behind it, is limited. It can only measure what is observable and quantifiable. If 100% of the scientists told me that Jesus Christ is not God, I would still disagree with the Scientists.
I conducted and published research and know the “buddy” system of so-called blind peer review. There is no such thing as objective scientific research because it is conducted by subjective humans. Those who pay for research also want certain results and prostitution is not just on the streets.
There is nothing sexy about conducting research that fails to reject the Null Hypothesis, yet this can be as significant but is less likely to be published. The Experimental Hypothesis in climate research is no longer understood as a hypothesis to those who are “believers”. They are now scientific “advocates”. There is a genuine conflict of interest at that point when these folks conduct research.
Even when similar data is generated by different researchers, they can draw very different conclusions from the same data.
Dcn. Dale Matson Ph.D.
Psychologist

A friend of mine posted this on his thread on Climate-gate, and gave me permission to quote him:

For the last several years, when people have instructed me that human activity was causing a dangerous increase in global temperatures, my response has been, “Then tell me, what should the temperature be?” Should it be the temperatures that the planet experienced a thousand years ago, during which Greenland was settled as a farming community and during which wine grapes were grown in Scotland? Should it be the temperatures of three hundred years ago, when the Little Ice Age ended the inhabitation of Greenland and the Thames iced over? Should it be the temperatures of 829 A.D., when the Nile River froze? No response!