AGW meltdown: UK Met Office needs three years to review East Anglia data

posted at 10:04 am on December 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Consider the Brits on the sideline until 2012 on global warming.  The Met Office will need three years to rebuild ground-based climate models while recompiling raw data from the past 160 years to replace the data that the University of East Anglia’s CRU destroyed years ago.  They want to create an open and transparent full data set, but until then have to back down from any of the conclusions that relied on UEA-CRU’s models (via QandO):

The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.

The British government is attempting to silence the Met Office, however:

The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics.

But I thought they were interested in science, not political hackery!

The Met Office is taking the correct approach.  The data on which they largely relied has not only been shown to have been corrupted by bias and corruption, it’s also been destroyed.  Knowing the UEA-CRU’s credibility as a scientific effort has been compromised, real scientists would insist on recreating the data set in a thoroughly testable and transparent process before proceeding to use any of the conclusions reached from the previous work to form any more recommendations for action.

In fact, the UN, the UK, and the rest of the world should be insisting on the same approach — if they were interested in science in the first place.  The UK’s efforts to quash the Met Office’s review, which is what scientists would demand in any other context, shows that the politicians aren’t terribly interested in whether AGW is scientifically supportable, or even true at all.  They want the power that AGW hysteria gives them to seize control of private-industry production and the choices available to people now.

It’s the ultimate elitist entrée to statism, and they’re not going to let Climategate get in the way of it — even if the scientists themselves start balking at the political hackery surrounding AGW.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

No, they aren’t really covering it over here (I’m in the UK). The BBC has grudgingly brought it up a couple of times, but always out of the mouth of a true believer. The main papers have touched it and moved on. The blogs are screaming about it.

The Met Office, incidentally, is totally in the tank for AGW. I don’t expect they’ll ever come to any conclusion other than that everything’s just the way they said it was.

But the tarnish on the “chrome plated” science is unmistakable. They can’t unring a bell.

S. Weasel on December 5, 2009 at 12:26 PM

CWforFreedom on December 5, 2009 at 12:14 PM

AGW: Truth obscures the issue.

Love it!

Blake on December 5, 2009 at 12:27 PM

You don’t have to be an expert to recognize a con-artist. An editorial piece that mostly just insults AGW critics isn’t a very good defense

Are you guys open to the possibility that you are wrong about this, or do you want Hot Air to be an echo chamber, the righty version of the Daily Kos? You accuse scientists of groupthink, yet display it yourselves on post after post after post. Is anyone here actually interested in debate, or is it just easier to label me a “RINO” and be done with it?

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Are you guys open to the possibility that you are wrong about this, or do you want Hot Air to be an echo chamber, the righty version of the Daily Kos? You accuse scientists of groupthink, yet display it yourselves on post after post after post. Is anyone here actually interested in debate, or is it just easier to label me a “RINO” and be done with it?

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong??

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Are you guys open to the possibility that you are wrong about this, or do you want Hot Air to be an echo chamber, the righty version of the Daily Kos? You accuse scientists of groupthink, yet display it yourselves on post after post after post. Is anyone here actually interested in debate, or is it just easier to label me a “RINO” and be done with it?

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

I’m open, but I have yet to see any evidence supporting AGW. Everything has been falsified, distorted or omitted.

It’s funny that you ask if anyone is open to debate because all the AGW crowd has done has been to try to shut down debate.

There is no evidence.

darwin on December 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

but when you start equating numerical modelling and atmospheric physics to phrenology you go too far. I guess everyone on the internet thinks he or she is an expert once they read a wikipedia entry or specialist blog, LOL.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Perhaps real observations and actual accurate measurements are better than digital salads on wonky programs?

BL@KBIRD on December 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

When the icecaps melt and the coasts flood, I’ll acknowledge I’m wrong. When they don’t will you?

zmdavid on December 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

CRU computer code is flawed, too.

Wethal on December 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM

How about you show us some modeling that can actually predict the weather?? Opp’s sorry, your bad…

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM

I realise I am rising to the bait here.

Numerical weather models predict the weather with levels of accuracy that would have been unheard of just fifty years ago. The fact that they don’t always get it 100% right in every detail doesn’t mean they are invalid. Lives are
saved every year by weather forecasting (of tornados,
hurricanes, snow storms). Would you have all forecasting
thrown out?

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:35 PM

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Do those models use carbon dioxide levels as an input?

zmdavid on December 5, 2009 at 12:38 PM

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:35 PM

AGW zealots have based everything they have on computer models that failed spectacularly.

darwin on December 5, 2009 at 12:42 PM

When the icecaps melt and the coasts flood, I’ll acknowledge I’m wrong. When they don’t will you?

zmdavid on December 5, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Actually, the melting Arctic ice (and to a lesser extent, Antarctic) as well as glacier melt is one of the strongest evidence of climate change. Even the sceptics don’t dispute that the cryosphere is changing, they just say it’s down to natural climate variability.

What really will “do in” the theory that human activities influence the climate is if global temperatures start to decline. The temperatures in the past 10 years have plateaued (while still being among the top 15 hottest on record).

If the temperatures decline, then the evidence will have to be re-examined and research done into why the models are wrong. I guarantee you that would happen. Can you say the same thing? If temperatures from 2010-2020 resume the sharp rise observed during 1960-1998 will Hot Air suddenly shift its stance? I doubt it. There will just be a new official line on the issue from climateaudit et al. which most of you will happily parrot.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Numerical weather models predict the weather with levels of accuracy that would have been unheard of just fifty years ago. The fact that they don’t always get it 100% right in every detail doesn’t mean they are invalid. Lives are
saved every year by weather forecasting (of tornados,
hurricanes, snow storms). Would you have all forecasting
thrown out?

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:35 PM

What a load of BS, satellite imagery and Doppler radar are responsible for that, not climate modeling. Climate modeling doesn’t even come close to 100 percent, hell not even 50 percent.

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

So in other words you refuse to admit you could be wrong, like I said this describes you with a degree of perfecting your climate modeling cannot approach.

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Spare us the b.s. HotAir doesn’t ban people for having different points of view – something which is done routinely at the AGW believer sites.

Blake on December 5, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Actually, the melting Arctic ice (and to a lesser extent, Antarctic) as well as glacier melt is one of the strongest evidence of climate change. Even the sceptics don’t dispute that the cryosphere is changing, they just say it’s down to natural climate variability.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

You realize this is all based on satellite records that are only 29 years old. The entire argument of “melting icecaps” is based on 29 years worth of data. This makes it the weakest evidence … not strongest.

Research historical newspapers from the 30′s and 40′s and you’ll find that the Arctic ice had “melted” quite extensively, but somehow managed to stage a comeback.

The wool is being pulled over your eyes.

darwin on December 5, 2009 at 12:54 PM

Actually, weather prediction is AWFUL in the UK. It’s always wrong. I suspect because we’re a little island in the Atlantic.

Forecasting in the US was always MUCH better. Basically because the weather is coming across nice, stable land West to East, for the most part. I could sit in Rhode Island and watch weather coming at me on radar.

S. Weasel on December 5, 2009 at 12:55 PM

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Some of us have been looking at this issue of years… and these email and code leaks just CONFIRM what we already knew.

CO2 does not LEAD Warming, it lags it.

CO2 IS a Greenhouse gas, but not an unlimited one. CO2 absorbs IR energy only in very specific wavelengths (its absorbtion band). Once all of the IR energy within those bands is absorbed… you could add all the CO2 you want, and it would NOT add to warming, you need to add ENERGY to conitnue warming.

Well… guess what… all the energy within CO2s absorbtion bands is already absorbed…. even at much LOWER CO2 levels.

CO2 only gets you to a particular energy level in the atmosphere… but then STOPS having any significant effect.

This is Physics… and not hard to figure out… and yet AGW folks have convinced people CO2 is the “problem” and has to be fixed…

Romeo13 on December 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM

The main U.S. data supplier is NASA’s GISS and the principal involved at GISS is, of course, the notorious Hansen. He has simply refused to release the basic data behind NASA’s bungling, even in the face of perfectly lawful Requests for Information. However, that will soon change, but will not affect Hansen’s dubious career, as he is now 67 and has already been thoroughly denounced by his immediate superior. It may be recalled that it was GISS that made the claims that the hottest years on record were in the last 10 years and then recently revised everything and said, oh wait, the hottest years were actually in the 1930’s. This was after their testimony to Congress that the hottest years were during the last 10 years. The GISS charlatans have never officially corrected their Congressional testimony, but they did issue a very discrete and obscure announcement (probably in the monthly West Iowa Farmers’ Almanac). What the hell is GISS doing in meteorological studies you may ask? Because Hansen decided to become involved! This is the same bozo who lead the famous group in the 1970’s who were predicting that the Earth was entering a new “Ice Age”. Remember, my friends, NASA has made a number of incredible errors in its day, even in the field that it is actually authorized to be involved in.

John Adams on December 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM

Are you open to the possibility that you are wrong??

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Yes, but the decision to change my mind won’t be based on the opinions of a blogger whose former job was as the manager of a call centre (no offence to Ed), or even Sarah Palin’s, who I absolutely adore.

If it means anything, it’s just as frustrating to me when politicians and journalists misrepresent the science to promote an “alarmist” agenda as when the sceptic groups do it. A few years ago the BBC ran a headline with “11 degree rise” which basically took one of the outliers from an ensemble run of tens of thousands and reported it, rather than the much less exciting 2-3 C degree rising trend that the vast majority of them displayed.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Romeo13 on December 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM

How dare you try to argue rationally! Don’t you know this is a climate change thread?

darwin on December 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Good for the Met office.Now, questions:

—will they release all their data and programs when finished?

—will they release all of CRU’s remaining data & programs so scientists can compare?

—will they apply the same scrutiny to the findings before 160 years ago (all the tree ring data)?

You see, what they determine for the most recent 160 years can only show/not show warming IF we can be certain of the older data.

Lastly, will someone PLEASE test the modeling programs and tell us why they couldn’t predict this 11-year cooling…yet we’re to believe they can predict the next century?!

What a mess.

jeanneb on December 5, 2009 at 1:01 PM

What a load of BS, satellite imagery and Doppler radar are responsible for that, not climate modeling. Climate modeling doesn’t even come close to 100 percent, hell not even 50 percent.

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM

First of all, climate models and forecast models are different beasts.

And you are wrong that forecast models have nothing to do with saving lives. Radar is not predictive. If you are attempting to track the path of a hurricane, you have to use models. The Met Office’s model accurately predicted the landfall location of Hurricane Katrina, for instance.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:03 PM

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Arctic Ice, as compared to 1980.

Pay attention to the thickness of the 2009 ice.

darwin on December 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Yes, but the decision to change my mind won’t be based on the opinions of a blogger whose former job was as the manager of a call centre (no offence to Ed), or even Sarah Palin’s, who I absolutely adore.

If it means anything, it’s just as frustrating to me when politicians and journalists misrepresent the science to promote an “alarmist” agenda as when the sceptic groups do it. A few years ago the BBC ran a headline with “11 degree rise” which basically took one of the outliers from an ensemble run of tens of thousands and reported it, rather than the much less exciting 2-3 C degree rising trend that the vast majority of them displayed.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM

I find your assertion of assent to require a suspension of disbelief in logarithmic proportions to what I am capable of.

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Lastly, will someone PLEASE test the modeling programs and tell us why they couldn’t predict this 11-year cooling…yet we’re to believe they can predict the next century?!

This is a fair question. None of the models predicted the plateauing (not cooling) of global average temperatures. However the model runs do simulate decades of levelling off or even cooling. Global warming is not a monotonic process, whereby each year is required to be warmer than the next.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:07 PM

This is all playing out nicely and comes as no surprise to the skeptics, doubters and deniers. We knew all along this was a socialist hoax.

John the Libertarian on December 5, 2009 at 1:07 PM

OT. But has anyone asked if The Bishop of East Anglia is a graduate of the University of East Anglia?

xkaydet65 on December 5, 2009 at 1:11 PM

However the model runs do simulate decades of levelling off or even cooling. Global warming is not a monotonic process, whereby each year is required to be warmer than the next.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:07 PM

No they didn’t. The UN hysteria of “global warming” was based on models that predicted an ever increasing rise in temperatures with rising CO2. Have you ever looked at their graphs? A straight climb in temperature. No cooling, no plateau, no deviation.

Everthing, and I mean everything was based on these faulty modeling predictions.

How can you have cooling when you’ve spent the last decade screaming how hot it will get with increased CO2???

darwin on December 5, 2009 at 1:12 PM

Thanks, all, for the very informative answers.

So, basically, given how deeply complicit and connected these groups are, we can expect that before the end of Zero’s term, there will be some major resignations from NASA (at the very least).

If the NRSC/NRCC were smart they would make every GOP candidate running in 2010 call for special counsel into every climate research group working with East Anglia CRU.

Robert_Paulson on December 5, 2009 at 1:21 PM

This is a fair question. None of the models predicted the plateauing (not cooling) of global average temperatures. However the model runs do simulate decades of levelling off or even cooling. Global warming is not a monotonic process, whereby each year is required to be warmer than the next.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:07 PM

You do realize that playing a scientist on the internet doesn’t actually make you a scientist right???

I have 2 years of College credit physics from high school, three years of physics in college, two years of college level chemistry, two of Oceanography a one of Biology, my B.F.A is in Music.

I do not pretend to be a scientist in real life or on the internet in spite of the fact that my education in the physical sciences is considerably less than trivial. And just for the record, I make those satellites that track the weather.

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I find your assertion of assent to require a suspension of disbelief in logarithmic proportions to what I am capable of.

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 1:07 PM

Despite what a lot of you think, this issue is not a religion for all climate scientists (to be fair, some of my colleagues *do* treat science as a religion). I already have a religion (I’m an evangelical Christian).

As human beings climate scientists are just as subject to cognitive biases as the rest of us. I would freely admit that my trust in the integrity of my colleagues (who have different areas of expertise than I do) influence my acceptance of the issue in a “non-science” manner. But I’d rather trust someone with 30 years of experience studying paleoclimate than an anonymous blogger or hordes of commenters with snarky replies and stale talking points.

Let’s say that doriangrey is a mechanic who specialises in aircraft engines. He’s worked with all types of engines in his adult career. He can assemble such an engine from scratch. Suddenly he meets someone (or stumbles on a blog posting) stating that aircraft mechanics are all witches. How does one reply politely? It is tempting (as many of the CRU scientists did, or the person on the Newsbusters clip) to just call that person an idiot and ignore him. A more constructive response is to try to engage the person. That involves patience on doriangrey’s part, but it also requires a good faith commitment from the accuser to be open to learn.

I don’t get the sense that many of you are open to learning about the science of the issue because your view of the politics has biased your attitude. But in case I am wrong, it’s worth me spending a bit of time trying to encourage debate and discussion on this issue rather than the tribalism that is beginning to dominate.

Saying that, I have to go now, LOL. Thanks for the discussion.

I’ve got to go now

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM

But I’d rather trust someone with 30 years of experience studying paleoclimate than an anonymous blogger or hordes of commenters with snarky replies and stale talking points.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Experienced Paleoclimate scientist: If you don’t give me your money the earth will melt.

Anonymous blogger: He’s lying … it’s a scam.

zmrzlina: Well, the Paleoclimate scientist does have more experience than the blogger … so I’ll trust the scientist.

darwin on December 5, 2009 at 1:29 PM

MSM- Shhhhhhhhhhh. Day 14 and Counting.
http://mrc.org/press/releases/2009/20091204124643.aspx

redridinghood on December 5, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Brian Williams mentioned it on NBC nightly news yesterday.

agmartin on December 5, 2009 at 1:30 PM

You do realize that playing a scientist on the internet doesn’t actually make you a scientist right???

Yes. You have no reason to believe my claims, fair enough. Would that most of you would take on this same scepticism when you read *anything* on the internet. That’s one of my beefs – that you blindly accept information from sceptic blogs (staffed by people who are by and large non climate science experts) but you reject any assertion contrary to your worldview that this is all a conspiracy, even if it is based on science. If I posted an example journal article (from Nature, Journal of Climate, etc) my expectation is that you’d quote Churchill’s “lies, damn lies and statistics” quote in response – the fact that you couldn’t address any of the details with any level of expertise wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

And lastly (for real this time LOL), is it possible to disagree without being so mean and nasty? Politeness is never a bad thing.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I don’t get the sense that many of you are open to learning about the science of the issue because your view of the politics has biased your attitude. But in case I am wrong, it’s worth me spending a bit of time trying to encourage debate and discussion on this issue rather than the tribalism that is beginning to dominate.

Saying that, I have to go now, LOL. Thanks for the discussion.

I’ve got to go now

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Your arrogance and biases are showing, doriangrey, like a great number of other blog posters here has a college education heavily accented in the physical sciences. I don’t pretend to be a scientist, but am in no fashion ignorant of scientific methodology.

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 1:34 PM

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:31 PM

Just use your common sense and believe your own eyes and ears.

When the United States has had record snow and cold for the last two winters it’s a safe bet that CO2 isn’t causing the earth to melt.

darwin on December 5, 2009 at 1:34 PM

What would acceptance of AGW mean to the world?

-New treaties and laws giving unimaginable power, control and wealth to a handful of people.

-Decreased food production

-Increased deaths from disease and cold

-More crime

-Misery

-Enslavement

darwin on December 5, 2009 at 1:37 PM

They are not intending to review the corrupted data, they are intending to replace it.

burt on December 5, 2009 at 1:44 PM

If I posted an example journal article (from Nature, Journal of Climate, etc)

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:31 PM

You mean an article like this???

Nature 462, 637-641 (3 December 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08520; Received 10 January 2009; Accepted 15 September 2009

Half-precessional dynamics of monsoon rainfall near the East African Equator

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 1:44 PM

Feel bad for the climate scientists.

Imagine how an oncologist would feel if it turned out that cancer doesn’t kill people, or even make them sick. All of the treatments (radiation therapy, chemotherapy, etc.) and a life’s work, all for naught.

Unfortunately, cancer exists. Fortunately, catastrophic man-made global warming does not.

July 10 on December 5, 2009 at 1:47 PM

The MET office is sidestepping having a dog in the fight until AFTER the next US Presidential cycle, at a minimum.

Sure seems to have ticked off their local politicos. . .

What gets me, is that taking steps to ensure that there is at least a rudimentary, verifiable, reproducible and realistic idea of what’s going on before committing mankind to basically shooting ourselves in the foot, a move even the proponents claim may not really make a difference, seems like a pretty rational thing to do.

Sounds like the ones that want it their way RIGHT NOW GORRAMMIT are the ones in denial on this issue.

Wind Rider on December 5, 2009 at 1:51 PM

What gets me, is that taking steps to ensure that there is at least a rudimentary, verifiable, reproducible and realistic idea of what’s going on before committing mankind to basically shooting ourselves in the foot, a move even the proponents claim may not really make a difference, seems like a pretty rational thing to do.

Sounds like the ones that want it their way RIGHT NOW GORRAMMIT are the ones in denial on this issue.

Wind Rider on December 5, 2009 at 1:51 PM

It wont be the foot they are shooting us in, and you are damned right, before we shoot ourselves in the head we ought to make damned sure that their is a really good reason to even think about it.

doriangrey on December 5, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Good for the Met office.Now, questions:
—will they release all their data and programs when finished?
—will they release all of CRU’s remaining data & programs so scientists can compare?
—will they apply the same scrutiny to the findings before 160 years ago (all the tree ring data)?

jeanneb on December 5, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I beg to differ regarding the timing for releasing their findings. These scientists / institutions have violated the public trust. Saying, “We’ll get back to you”, and then retreating to their cloister for three years is not open to them because they have demonstrated that they are not trustworthy. 

Waiting for three years before there is anything released contravenes any assertion of the process being open. There ought to be regularly scheduled reports and releases of the data AND open and publicly published reviews (with the identities of the reviewers disclosed) of the assumptions, methods applied and sensitivity of outcomes to variation of the inputs. 

ya2daup on December 5, 2009 at 2:49 PM

Is this the raw data that was deleted by CRU? It’s going to take them three years to fill out new forms with new data?

Isn’t it about time they all fessed up to the world and explained what they are really doing?

tarpon on December 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Are you guys open to the possibility that you are wrong about this, or do you want Hot Air to be an echo chamber, the righty version of the Daily Kos?

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

I’m open, but I’ve got to tell you that you have an uphill battle. I was somewhat concerned about AGW but then, sitting in my own living room watching the Discovery Channel, I learned about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period. I learned that Greenland got its name because it was green when the Vikings got there and stayed green for generations. I also learned that it was so warm in England they were growing grapes there and made wine so good that the French parliament was meeting to figure out what to do about it. After that, I was a firm skeptic. Upon reading these emails and seeing that they purposefully fudged the data on the LIA and the MWP because it inconveniently did not fit the narrative, my skepticism was confirmed.

To get over that, you’re going to have to show me something impressive.

Also, and I can’t say this enough, if Al Gore believed his own BS, why didn’t he use any green technologies in the building of his home/office? Why does John Travolta fly his own personal 707 around so he can lecture people about shrinking their carbon footprint?

So, not only are you going to have to impress me, you’re going to have to show me how Al Gore, et al are not just a bunch of statist charlatans using this as an excuse to grab power and control.

Kafir on December 5, 2009 at 4:20 PM

How Dare us uneducated non climataologists have opinions based on the facts that every single claim made by the AGW crowd has failed to materilize in the time frames specified. Its just not right that everyone who asks questions isnt hauled off to a special jail so the wise and all knowing scientists can be allowed to continue on with their great work in saving the Planet. And these pesky emails where they spell out they are actively trying to silence any who question and to control what gets published isn’t a sign at all that the AGW “science” isn’t already settled.

My Analogy is a bunch of homes are suppose to be built. 20 years of promises not only aren’t the houses built yet but the original bills for the materials have vanished but they still have pictures taken of the material used. There is correspondence showing that part of the houses built have falling apart but through a trick that can be hidden. The main benefiters of all the money raised to fund the houses are screaming about how anyone who asks questions wants to not see good homes built for the people.

alloyiv on December 5, 2009 at 4:35 PM

Someone is already doing the hard work of unraveling the Gordian knot. It’s excellent, and peer-reviewed in the most brutal of forums: the Internet.

Joan of Argghh on December 5, 2009 at 4:40 PM

If we allow the “GW” bureaucrats take control of our lifes through laws of constraint and punitive taxing we will have been conquered by the likes of which will make dictators and despots look good.

Climate change?

That was always funny to me since I feel what would be odd is if the climate never changed.

These assholes are no more sincere than the mythical explored who times his meeting with the natives with an eclipse of the sun or moon and promises to return either with the proper transition of power.

Sonosam on December 5, 2009 at 5:16 PM

agmartin on December 5, 2009 at 1:30 PM

Finally!

redridinghood on December 5, 2009 at 7:48 PM

Ed, how uppercrust to pretend everyone knows what the Met Office is. At least the Times has a basis for assuming that its local readers will know the term. Not up to your usual standards.

FalseProfit on December 5, 2009 at 9:15 PM

Go nuclear or go home.

If you have the faith that man is warming the earth then you better dang well have the faith that man can deal with nuclear waste in 100 years and stop trying to restrict other people’s freedoms.

scotash on December 5, 2009 at 9:21 PM

I suppose we should feel sorry for the AGW zealots. This has to be a shock especially considering this was almost like a religion for them. It’s going to take a while to come to grips with the fact that they’ve been led to believe a big fat freaking lie. They’ve been following Jim Jones…er…. Al Gore since he lost in 2000 and sent them all into a tailspin. They all found something to believe in – a common cause to carry them through the dark night until a DEM made it back into the WH.

Sarcastic pity/off

I believe since AGW has begun to fall, it’s only a matter of time before more and more lies and corruption are made evident not just in the Obama Administration but worldwide. This proves to me all things are possible.

I don’t get amazed by too much, but this whole global warming thing is a worldwide hoax with a price tag in the $ trillions. Thank GOD someone got those emails and saved us all.

Oink on December 5, 2009 at 9:30 PM

Actually, the melting Arctic ice (and to a lesser extent, Antarctic) as well as glacier melt is one of the strongest evidence of climate change.
zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:47 PM

You forgot the “due only to man” part.
The elephant in the room is the A of AGW. Skeptics I know as well as I have never claimed that the climate may be getting warmer. We are skeptical that it is exclusively being caused by man or the man can even impact climate to that degree. The fact that that data and models to prove it is man are suspect only fuels this skepticism. The other problem is that the earth has gone through warm and cold cycles many times in its history so why is this time being caused by man?

RagTag on December 5, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Well, I gotta hand one thing to the AGW shysters…they’ve managed to prove that in this case, the absence of evidence really is evidence of absence.

James on December 5, 2009 at 10:29 PM

New, CO2-flavored Copenhagen . Use only a pinch between cheek and gum. And of course, dispose of it properly.

Barnestormer on December 6, 2009 at 3:32 AM

If I posted an example journal article (from Nature, Journal of Climate, etcUEA-CRU’s models ) my expectation is that you’d quote Churchill’s “lies, damn lies and statistics” quote in response – the fact that you couldn’t address any of the details with any level of expertise wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.
zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:31 PM

chickasaw42 on December 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM

IT is settled,YES!
When fat al meets Lord Monkton for four hours of glorious no holds barred debate with charts, graphs,props,live on world TV with English subtitles,then it is starting to settle.
Until then it is CLIMATE HOAX rymes with what they TOKE.

Col.John Wm. Reed on December 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM

Are you guys open to the possibility that you are wrong about this, or do you want Hot Air to be an echo chamber, the righty version of the Daily Kos? You accuse scientists of groupthink, yet display it yourselves on post after post after post. Is anyone here actually interested in debate, or is it just easier to label me a “RINO” and be done with it?

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 12:28 PM

What would make you think that if the earth is really in danger we wouldn’t care? We live here.

The point is that even if we destroy our wealth over this. It is just not going to make much difference. And it is not going to make a difference world wide!

The real focus should be on adapting to the new climate if there really is a new climate. We aren’t going to stop it no matter how many carbon credits we trade around the world. Unless we just stop development of the third world altogether.

You really can’t stop people from sinning no matter how many witches you burn. AGW are the new morality police because it gives them the power all morality police crave.

So let’s–get true numbers–figure out new crops–and move cities to higher ground==those kind of things that should really be the problems the UN and everyone else should be concentrating on. Using our big brains God gave us to figure out solutions instead of wagging our fingers at SUVs, etc.

One hundred years from now all this will have worked it’s self out. We can adapt. We will adapt. And we don’t have to turn our sovereignty over to the UN or any other world government.

Come to think of it WORLD DOMINATION is always what the bad guys are after. This is so much like a bad comic book story. Who is the evil mastermind? Al? George Soros? The UN? Who has the most power to gain? Hmmm

petunia on December 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM

Is this the raw data that was deleted by CRU? It’s going to take them three years to fill out new forms with new data?

Isn’t it about time they all fessed up to the world and explained what they are really doing?

tarpon on December 5, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Actually– how does one go back 160 years and take the temperature.

And don’t tell me tree rings. All tree rings show is conditions for trees were good or bad. It doesn’t tell exactly why. Certainly not within a couple of degrees on a thermonitor!

Oh in 179 the tree ring is a micro amount smaller than 1877 so it must have been a cool year? What?

We would do better looking at the Almanac predictions.

petunia on December 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Good thing nobody is reading this thread. My posts are so full of errors… sorry.

petunia on December 6, 2009 at 10:21 AM

petunia – yes, for 160 years you will have some flavor of direct measurement. We had thermometers. The sun never set on the British Empire in those days. There are written records. Not that they’re directly comparable to today’s, but then even today’s are not very good (see surfacestations.org.)

What needs to happen is that all those numbers, and everything measured through proxies (tree rings, sediments, ice cores, etc.) need to be put out in the open. Not ‘adjusted’ numbers, but real raw data. Where was this thermometer reading taken. How much of what gas was found in this ice sample. And so on.

Because the raw data might be trustworthy, in some cases not, but there’s been far too much ‘adjusting’ going on behind closed doors (see what’s been going on in New Zealand – one day they vote in an ETS, the next day – literally – they find out all the recorded temperature numbers have been VERY badly and baldly fudged.)

JEM on December 6, 2009 at 10:43 AM

So where does this bit of bias come from — the Met, or the reporter?

…the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.

Paul_in_NJ on December 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM

But I’d rather trust someone with 30 years of experience studying paleoclimate than an anonymous blogger or hordes of commenters with snarky replies and stale talking points.

zmrzlina on December 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM

How about trusting your own senses? Do you feel hotter?

The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.
- Ferdinand Magellan

If Ferdinand Magellan was alive today he would probably say “The Church of Global Warming says the earth is dangerously heating up, but I know that it is not, for I have seen the snow and ice and have felt their bitter cold, and I have more faith in snow and ice than in the Church of Global Warming, and it’s High Priests.”

MB4 on December 7, 2009 at 4:15 AM

The various traditional European relious folks have also bought into this hoax and become eco-worshippers (presumably under the name of stewardship) and are set to ring bells across the continent 350 times (some silliness about CO2 parts per million reaching max)

Once again my Church; (Catholic)the European bishops are running off for justice and peace worldy issues, before they focus on their God-given mission of the salvation of souls. The Marxist tendency is a powerful deceiver and a ruthless god.

History will again ask: For Whom Did the Bells Toll?

Don L on December 7, 2009 at 5:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2