How to get the damaging leaked University of East Anglia CRU filesabout AGW

[Eeyore]

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75j4xo4t

Enter the Validation Code and click on "download file". Free, no
registration required. Took me 4 minutes.

Sorry if you already know all this but I've been amazingly busy recently
and haven't been in the groups or keeping up with the news much.

Graham


Others I like ....

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/about-us/

"World Climate Report, a concise, hard-hitting and scientifically
correct response to the global change reports which gain attention in
the literature and popular press. As the nation’s leading publication in
this realm, World Climate Report is exhaustively researched, impeccably
referenced, and always timely. This popular web log points out the
weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as
“proof” of disastrous warming. It’s the perfect antidote against those
who argue for proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the
Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the
United States.

Acclaimed by those on both sides of the global warming debate, World
Climate Report has become the definitive and unimpeachable source for
what Nature now calls the “mainstream skeptic” point of view, which is
that climate change is a largely overblown issue and that the best
expectation is modest change over the next 100 years. WCR is often cited
by prominent scientists and lawmakers and is a surprisingly enjoyable
read—which may account for its broad appeal."


http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2009/2009-12-04/feature1/index.html

"04 December 2009



Amateur scientist Willis Eschenbach, who resides in Honiara, Solomon
Islands, has studied changes in sea level and coral. His unsuccessful
Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain climate data from East
Anglia University’s Hadley Climatic Research Unit (CRU) figured in the
Climategate scandal described in this month’s Editorial. He described
his unsuccessful attempts to receive information in "The People Versus
the Climate Research Unit (CRU)," an 11,000-word article that has been
published on various blogs. It is presented here without editing and
with the permission of the author. Editor





The People Versus the Climate Research Unit (CRU)



by Willis Eschenbach



As far as I know, I am the person who made the original Freedom Of
Information Act to CRU that started getting all this stirred up. I was
trying to get access to the taxpayer funded raw data out of which they
built the global temperature record. I was not representing anybody, or
trying to prove a point. I am not funded by Mobil, I’m an amateur
scientist with a lifelong interest in the weather and climate. I’m not
"directed" by anyone, I’m not a member of a right-wing conspiracy. I’m
just a guy trying to move science forwards.



People seem to be missing the real issue in the discussion of the hacked
CRU climate emails. Gavin Schmidt over at RealClimate keeps distracting
people by saying the issue is the scientists being nasty to each other,
and what Trenberth said, and the Nature "trick", and the like. Those are
side trails that he would like people to follow. To me, the main issue
is the frontal attack on the heart of science, which is transparency.



Science works by one person making a claim, and backing it up with the
data and methods that they used to make the claim. Other scientists then
attack the claim by (among other things) trying to replicate the first
scientist’s work. If they can’t replicate it, it doesn’t stand. So
blocking my Freedom of Information request for his data allowed Phil
Jones to claim that his temperature record was valid science, even
though it has never been scientifically examined.



This is not just trivial gamesmanship, this is central to the very idea
of scientific inquiry. This is an attack on the heart of science, by
keeping people who disagree with you from ever checking your work and
seeing if your math is correct.



The recent release of the hacked emails from CRU has provided me with an
amazing insight into the attempt by myself, Steve McIntyre, and others
from CA and elsewhere to obtain the raw station data from Phil Jones at
the CRU. We wanted the data that was used to make the global temperature
record that is relied on to claim "unprecedented" global warming. This
is a chronological account of my attempts to get that vital data
released to public view.



A few housekeeping notes first. While we don’t know if all of these
emails are valid, the comments of the researchers involved such as Gavin
Schmidt and Michael Mann clearly indicate that they think the emails are
authentic. The emails certainly fit with my experience. I have only
included the relevant parts of emails, and indicated where I have
snipped text by an ellipsis (...). Numbers of the emails are in
parentheses. "Codes" is shorthand for the computer programs used to
analyze the data.



CRU is the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA),
arguably the top climate research unit in the world. Dr. Phil Jones is
the Director of CRU. CA is ClimateAudit, a web site run by Steve
McIntyre that audits scientific papers for errors of all types. MM is
Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who have authored papers together.
Michael Mann is one of the three authors, with Bradley and Hughes, of
the now discredited iconic "Hockeystick" paper that was heavily promoted
by the UN IPCC. The Hockeystick paper claimed this is the warmest period
in six hundred years. The Hockeystick paper was discredited largely
through the efforts of Steve McIntyre, so Michael Mann and the others do
not like Steve at all. Gavin Schmidt is a climate modeler that runs a
web site called RealClimate. This purports to be a scientific blog, but
the CRU emails confirm that it is a well-controlled mouthpiece for
Michael Mann and others who believe in anthropogenic (human-caused)
global warming (AGW). RealClimate ruthlessly censors comments and
questions, in stark contrast to ClimateAudit, which allows free
expression of any scientific questions and ideas. (Although in response
to the intense scrutiny caused by the emails, RealClimate immediately
started accepting a number of opposing comments for the first time. This
is a smart move, as newcomers will be fooled into thinking there is no
censorship … but the emails prove otherwise.)



The IPCC is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. AR4 is the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007). WMO is the
World Meteorological Organization, which collates and supplies weather
information. FOI or FOIA is the UK Freedom of Information Act.



The story actually starts with Warwick Hughes, an Australian climate
researcher who had previously been in cordial contact with Phil Jones. I
find only one email in the archive (0969308954) where Phil emails
Warwick, from 2000. This is in response to some inconsistencies that
Warwick had found in Phil’s work:



Warwick Hughes to Phil Jones, September '04:



Dear Phillip and Chris Folland (with your IPCC hat on),



Some days ago Chris I emailed to Tom Karl and you replied re the grid
cells in north Siberia with no stations, yet carrying red circle grid
point anomalies in the TAR Fig 2.9 global maps. I even sent a gif file
map showing the grid cells barren of stations greyed out. You said this
was due to interpolation and referred me to Phillip and procedures
described in a submitted paper. In the last couple of days I have put up
a page detailing shortcomings in your TAR Fig 2.9 maps in the north
Siberian region, everything is specified there with diagrams and
numbered grid points.



[1] One issue is that two of the interpolated grid cells have larger
anomalies than the parent cells !!!!?????

This must be explained.



[2] Another serious issue is that obvious non-homogenous warming in
Olenek and Verhojansk is being interpolated through to adjoining grid
cells with no stations, like cancer.



[3] The third serious issue is that the urbanization affected trend from
the Irkutsk grid cell neare Lake Baikal, looks to be interpolated into
its western neighbour.



I am sure there are many other cases of this, 2 and 3 happening.

Best regards,

Warwick Hughes (I have sent this to CKF)



Phil to Warwick, same email:



Warwick,

I did not think I would get a chance today to look at the web page. I
see what boxes you are referring to. The interpolation procedure cannot
produce larger anomalies than neighbours (larger values in a single
month). If you have found any of these I will investigate. If you are
talking about larger trends then that is a different matter. Trends say
in Fig 2.9 for the 1976-99 period require 16 years to have data and at
least 10 months in each year. It is conceivable that at there are 24
years in this period that missing values in some boxes influence trend
calculation. I would expect this to be random across the globe.



Warwick,

Been away. Just checked my program and the interpolation shouldn’t
produce larger anomalies than the neighbouring cells. So can you send me
the cells, months and year of the two cells you’ve found ? If I have
this I can check to see what has happened and answer (1). As for (2) and
(3) we compared all stations with neighbours and these two stations did
not have problems when the work was done (around 1985/6). I am not
around much for the next 3 weeks but will be here most of this week and
will try to answer (1) if I get more details. If you have the names of
stations that you’ve compared Olenek and Verhojansk with I would
appreciate that.



Cheers

Phil



OK, so far we have a couple of scientists discussing issues in a
scientific work, usual tone, no problem. But as he found more
inconsistencies, in order to understand what was going on, in 2005
Warwick asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU
temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied:



Subject: Re: WMO non respondo

… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or
so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to
you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …

Cheers Phil



Hmmm … not a good start. Or as they say in the novel "1984", double-plus
ungood. Science can only progress if there is a free exchange of
scientific data. The scientific model works like this:

* A scientist makes claims, and reveals the data and methods he
used to come to his conclusions.
* Other scientists who don’t agree attack the claim by (inter
alia) seeing if they can replicate the result, using the first
scientist’s data and methods.
* If the claims cannot be replicated, the claim is adjudged to be
false.



Obviously, if the data or the methods are kept secret, the claims cannot
be verified. Attacking other scientist’s claims is what what scientists
do, that's their job description. This adversarial system is the heart
of science. Phil Jones refusing scientific data because someone will
attack it is an oxymoron, of course they will attack it. That's science.



When I found out about Phil Jones saying this, I couldn’t believe it. I
thought, a scientist can’t do that, can he? He can't refuse to reveal
his data. This is science, not hide and seek. I literally didn't think
Jones had been quoted correctly. So to find out, I wrote to the
University of East Anglia (of which the CRU is a Department) on
September 8, 2006, saying:



I would like to obtain a list of the meteorological stations used in the
preparation of the HadCRUT3 global temperature average, and the raw data
for those stations. I cannot find it anywhere on the web. The lead
author for the temperature average is Dr. Phil Jones of the Climate
Research Unit.



Many thanks, Willis Eschenbach



I got no response from Phil Jones or anyone at CRU or UEA. So I filed a
Freedom of Information act request for the data.



Now at this point, let me diverge from my application to what was
happening at CRU before and during this time. The first reference to
Freedom of Information in their emails is from 2005, before they had
received a single request. Immediately, they start to plan how to evade
requests should some come in:



Tom Wigley, Former Director of CRU, to Phil Jones, 21/01/2005



Phil,

…



I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if
someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out?? Can you
check this for me (and Sarah). ...

Thanks,

Tom.



Phil replies to Tom:



Tom,

…

On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It
doesn’t really clarify what we might have to do re programs or data.
Like all things in Britain we will only find out when the first person
or organization asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the FOI Act in
Britain. I don’t think UEA really knows what’s involved.



As you’re no longer an employee I would use this argument if anything
comes along. I think it is supposed to mainly apply to issues of
personal information – references for jobs etc.



....

Cheers

Phil



So the coverup starts immediately, even before the first request. "I
wouldn’t tell anyone about the FOI act in Britain".



Tom to Phil

Phil,



Thanks for the quick reply. The leaflet appeared so general, but it was
prepared by UEA so they may have simplified things. From their wording,
computer code would be covered by the FOIA. My concern was if Sarah
is/was still employed by UEA. I guess she could claim that she had only
written one tenth of the code and release every tenth line.

…

Tom



You can see how they plan to observe the spirit of the FOI Act. Claim a
temporary employee isn't really an employee so they are not covered.

Phil to Tom



Tom,

…

As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she will likely
be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn’t worry about
the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to
consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with
people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests
onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them.

Cheers

Phil



Phil Jones has just gotten the news that FOI will apply, and immediately
he starts to plan how he is going to hide from an FOI request. Cite
technicalities, claim IPR (Intellectual Property Rights), those are good
hiding places.



The next email (1109021312) is later in 2005:



At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann:



Mike,

…

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents
everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp
sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after
the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of
Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than
send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to
enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so
the first request will test it.



We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley
has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people
could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so
he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me
getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere
to it !



….



Phil



So now we have two more ways for Phil to hide from the FOI Act … along
with a threat to delete the data rather than release it. Astounding. And
this is before they've even received a single FOI request.



Mann replies to Jones:



Thanks Phil,



Yes, we’ve learned out lesson about FTP. We’re going to be very careful
in the future what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when
he established that directory so that Tim could access the data.



Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the
contrarians are going to try to use it for all its worth. But there are
also intellectual property rights issues, so it isn’t clear how these
sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S….

mike



Next, from February 05. Jones to Mann, cc to Hughes and Bradley,
co-authors of the "hockeystick" study (1109021312)



From: Phil Jones:



To: mann

Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO
DISCLOSE SECRET DATA [This was in reference to the pressure on Michael
Mann to release the "Hockeystick" data]

Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005

Cc: "raymond s. bradley", "Malcolm Hughes"



Mike, Ray and Malcolm,



…



Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !

Cheers

Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station
temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a
Freedom of Information Act !

The first rule of the Freedom of Information act is … nobody talks about
the Freedom of Information Act ...........

And much more. It comes to 11,000 words total.

 

[Martin Brown]

On Dec 14, 12:24 am, Eeyore
<[email protected]> wrote:

You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
CRU at:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...n-Caught Green-Handed Climategate Scandal.pdf.

This report explains in clear terms some of the methods the CRU used
to misrepresent real temperature data as well as their efforts to
conceal their fraud. It has a great section on how science is
supposed to work, and how the CRU’s work falls far short of scientific
standards for openness and integrity. Share it with your friends and
contact your representatives before Obama commits the US to paying
third world countries for natural variations in earth’s climate.

Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
trusted.

CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
out of peer reviewed journals. It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Sylvia Else]

Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
trusted.

Looks like an ad-hominem to me.

CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
out of peer reviewed journals.

To keep *what they regarded as* denialist propaganda out of the peer
reviewed journals. But who's to judge, in absence of data?

It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...

It's more than a bit naughty. It's not their roll to determine what
their peers should, or should not, see.

Regards,
Martin Brown

So, given the trouble that strategy is now causing, they'll release all
the data, and allow such people as are capable to form their own views?

Sylvia.

 

[Hammy]

Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
trusted.

CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
out of peer reviewed journals. It is a bit naughty of them but in no way
does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...

Regards,
Martin Brown

Yea Gore is in it just for the humanity of it!

Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire?

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/

His concern for the common peasant is touching as he fleeces them with
his paranoid delusion. Reminds me of a snake oil salesman. I didn't
really think people were still so naive.

People ramble on about how the so called denialist all have financial
incentive for there views well so do the warmest.

 

[Raveninghorde]

We have other data. Ice shelves disappearing at both
poles, polar bears ditto, dry water holes in central North
America, Russia and Denmark making territorial claims in
anticipation of an open Arctic ocean.
Warming it is. Was it human caused? Who knows?

What are your data sources?

for example it is claimed the bear population was 5000 in the 1950's
and is 20,000 to 25,000 today.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/

Note the answer doesn't question these figures but wanders off at
starts talking about individual sub populations and the potential
threat of ice loss.

 

[Paul Keinanen]

We have other data. Ice shelves disappearing at both
poles, polar bears ditto, dry water holes in central North
America, Russia and Denmark making territorial claims in
anticipation of an open Arctic ocean.
Warming it is. Was it human caused? Who knows?

I would be very interested to look at any precipitation time series
for the Arctic or Antarctic or any time series for areas above
continental glaciers for at least one century.

I have not been able to determine, if the reduction of the area of
floating ice and inland glaciers is due to excessive melting due to
high air temperature or low precipitation.

Without such precipitation time series, why would any serious person
believe in claims that the reduction of the area of sea ice or
continental glacier is due to claimed AGW ?

 

[krw]

Do you realize how absurd that list is?

You didn't know that AGW caused oil to leak under the Arctic Ocean
floor?

 

[krw]

A lot of "climategate" is hyped by GOP strategists who know full well
AGW is a real threat but are cynically exploiting the ignorant GOP
base. The fallout is already here.

Like he said, to an idiot all issues look the same.

<sniped more Cahill crap>

 

[Eeyore]

Tom Gootee wrote:

You can read a preliminary analysis of the materials obtained from the
CRU at:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...n-Caught Green-Handed Climategate Scandal.pdf.

WOW ! This is really going to put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Thanks for the link, Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Tom Gootee wrote:

Below is something else I received.

Cheers,

Tom

---------------------------------------------------

Increasingly, the evidence reveals the massive fraud perpetrated by
Global Warming Scammers.

Lord Monckton's excellent speech on the subject, in which he
identifies 8 of the main Scammer criminals, can be seen at

I like Monckton for his simple directness in his analysis. The
warmingists claim that as a non-scientist he shouldn't be taken
seriously but the same can be said of Al Bore.

There's some good Monckton vids on YouTube.

Watch it, tell your friends about it, and urge your Congressional
representatives to view it too. You can contact your Senators at
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and
your Representative at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml.

Do it soon, do it often, or these criminals will succeed in helping
Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid steal your money in the name
of non-existent anthropogenic global warming.

Well I'm in the UK and our 'Number 10' has an internet petitions site.

I suggest all UK residents at home and abroad take a look at the
following online petitions and ideally sign up to them.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/No-CO2-campaign/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/warmfeeling/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/InvestigateCC/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/windenquiry/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/warmingtruth/
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/climatenonsense/

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Lord Monckton is from the UK's lunatic fringe equivalent of the US
rednecked fuckwit brand of "Dittohead Science". Nothing he says can be
trusted.

CRU's sins such as they are were an attempt to keep denialist propaganda
out of peer reviewed journals.

No they WERE NOT. They were an attempt to stop ANYONE seeing the
horrible truth. But it's out now. Probably the end of AGW.

It is a bit naughty of them

It's ILLEGAL !

but in no way does it alter the scientific evidence or weaken the case for AGW except
in the minds of delusional right whingers. And the braying donkey...

Regards,
Martin Brown

OH DEAR, classic mud-slinging from a warmingist. They have only The
Emperor's New Clothes to rely on, so as usual reply with hostile
personal attacks. Where's your SCIENCE ? Answer: HIDDEN behind locked
doors and servers. Why does it NEED to be hidden ? Obviously they have
something they feel they need to hide.

Anyone who's seen Monckton can see he's highly intelligent and well
informed.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

We have other data. Ice shelves disappearing at both poles,

But not the Ice Caps which is what counts. Ice shelves have always come
and gone. In fact the central caps on both Greenland and the Antarctic
are GROWING ( satellite data for Greenland certainly ). A simple example
of climate feedback. More moisture laden air leads to more snow
precipitated on the Ice Caps and they grow. Hence sea level has dropped
2mm recently.

polar bears ditto,

Polar bears are thriving.

dry water holes in central North America,

What's the relevance of that. Water holes are not constant things and
never have been.

Russia and Denmark making territorial claims in
anticipation of an open Arctic ocean.

So what ? Sea ice melting doesn't change sea level ( except very
minutely due to salt content ) or don't you know basic physics ? The
effect on albedo at that latitude will be minute. Obviously you also
didn't see a recent Top Gear programme where they drove a 4WD / SUV to
the North Pole. I suppose they were driving on water were they ?

Warming it is. Was it human caused? Who knows?

And what caused the cooling of the Little Ice Age from which we are
simply recovering ? Who knows ?

You have NO valid data. And snipping groups belittles you.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Do you realize how absurd that list is?

John

Doubtful. But why let facts bother a warmingist ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Nik Rim wrote:

Agreed, it's amusing that the deniers

Denier ? Typical childish AGW reaction. You resort to name-calling
because you have nothing else. Why not say "nerr nerr nerr" or "neener
neener neener" as I believe it is in the USA.

need to childishly posture their words to try and give them some emphasis:

Uh ? It's the warmingists that posture.

"How to get the ***damaging*** ***leaked**** University of East Anglia CRU
files about AGW"

A factual statement. The files ARE damaging and they WERE leaked. Do you
have problems with understanding the truth ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

See, all you can offer are insults in response to scientific FACTS.

What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
the source?

That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.

John

He sounds pretty rational and present a very well considered case here.

Plenty more Monckton there too.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=monckton+warming&search_type=&aq=f
881 hits.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

A lot of "climategate" is hyped by GOP strategists who know full well
AGW is a real threat but are cynically exploiting the ignorant GOP
base. The fallout is already here.

'Climategate' is a BRITISH issue. Someone finally blew the whistle.
What's the GOP got to do with it?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

All these points you mentioned have nothing to do with each other,
only for the simple minded do they look like the same thing.

Absolutely so. But then Bret is well-known as a simple minded and
gullible fool. I think he believed in the water fuelled engine too.

Graham

 

[Martin Brown]

What if he says something that's true? Will you deny that because of
the source?

He is very good at spinning a deceitful web of half truths and well
calculated lies intended to appeal to other righttards and sucker in the
general public. No surprise then that you are a great fan of his.

That was a rhetorical question. Of course you will.

John

You are wrong. Even delusional right wing nutters occasionally make
correct statements. A statement of fact can either be verified or it
cannot. Fallacious reasoning requires a bit more effort to unpick.

My point here was that his paranoid arguments about AGW science are
deliberately misleading and have been constructed to appeal to the baser
instincts of other righttards. He is on the far edge of lunatic fringe.

Very good at what he does as a denier for hire though.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Martin Brown]

No they WERE NOT. They were an attempt to stop ANYONE seeing the
horrible truth. But it's out now. Probably the end of AGW.

AGW is still real enough. Much as you may wish it wasn't. I doubt that
anything useful will come out of Copenhagen so we will get to see how
bad things can get under the business as usual scenario. The evidence so
far is that the IPCC's estimates may be on the low side.

It's ILLEGAL !

They are innocent until proven guilty at least in the UK.

OH DEAR, classic mud-slinging from a warmingist. They have only The
Emperor's New Clothes to rely on, so as usual reply with hostile
personal attacks. Where's your SCIENCE ? Answer: HIDDEN behind locked
doors and servers. Why does it NEED to be hidden ? Obviously they have
something they feel they need to hide.

Anyone who's seen Monckton can see he's highly intelligent and well
informed.

In as much as a barking mad righttard can ever be. Odd that a champagne
socialist should find common cause with a bunch of neofascists.

The science is clear enough. "Climategate" just shows a few people being
rather silly in private emails. It doesn't affect the validity of any of
the other global temperature datasets. The SCIENCE is mostly published
in peer review journals rather than on denialist websites.

Compared to the fighting between supporters of Newton and Liebnitz over
the invention of calculus the stuff in the CRU releases is actually very
tame. We still use calculus and with Liebnitz notation even in the UK.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Eeyore]

He is very good at spinning a deceitful web of half truths and well
calculated lies intended to appeal to other righttards and sucker in the
general public. No surprise then that you are a great fan of his.


You are wrong. Even delusional right wing nutters occasionally make
correct statements. A statement of fact can either be verified or it
cannot. Fallacious reasoning requires a bit more effort to unpick.

My point here was that his paranoid

Paranoid ? He seems VERY well informed to me. Ever seen one of his vids
on youtube or are you just parroting the AGW agenda ? Funny, your
'dittohead' comment seems to sum up the warmingists.

arguments about AGW science are deliberately misleading

FACTUAL actually.

and have been constructed to appeal to the baser
instincts of other righttards.

More insults. I'm not on the right btw.

He is on the far edge of lunatic fringe.

He isn't but it's increasingly obvious that you are. Are you going to
start howling at the moon to prove AGW next ? Why is sea level going
down, or don't you want to open your eyes to REAL data ?

Very good at what he does as a denier for hire though.

Regards,
Martin Brown

As usual, all you can offer are insults. Warmingists are the 'playground
bullies' of the climate change agenda.

Will you EVER offer some science or data ?

Graham