http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAqqAnUxACY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KH-WMZuw0

Request that PM Harper DOES NOT sign the Copenhagen Treaty, thereby causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom, email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca

Sign the petition to protest the Inaccurate Science measurements that are being used to base the Copenhagen Treaty off of: http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html

Why? “Action is still needed”??? Why?

The evidence we have from a period much warmer than today, the Medieval Warm Period, is that it was an era of bumper crops from extended growing periods, excellent weather, extended growing areas (for instance, wine grapes now found in the Mediterranian area were growing in northern England) and a lift from the subsistence living of the Dark Ages, definitely a precursor to the Renaissance in Europe.

Rising oceans? The Dutch solved that little problem with 11th century technology. Perfectly ordinary dikes solved it. The IPCC’s worse case scenario has the oceans rising about 13 inches in the next 100 years. Are we less capable than the 11th century Dutch?

Storms? Says who? Not hurricane specialists. THEY say that a COLD stratospheric wind is necessary to cause a warm spot in the ocean to start rotating. A warming stratosphere is one of the main things from the greenhouse gas theory that has NOT shown up. And if it does, it takes away one of the precursors of hurricanes.

The Medieval Warm Period was a period of EXCELLENT weather. That was one of the reasons the Vikings were out viking. They were no longer afraid of winter ice locking them out of their home ports. That was why they were going on their extended voyages.

The ultimate solution: The Open Pannel on Climate Change (not controlled by 4-5 persons only who determine today what can be published in the scientific journals) – with access of all scientists.

This OPEN PCC should be funded by citizen donations from all over the world.

That list *is* long. But what about the more critical points in it…

The trick – It is not that talking about the ‘trick’ itself is a bad thing. It is the actual trick that is bad. They substituted real temperatures for proxy tree ring inferred computer modeled ones. Look at what they achieved;

1) Why did they do that at all? It only means they wanted their data to show a pre-determined message. Will a scientist do that?
2) It means their tree ring data do not correspond well with recorded temperatures. How do we accept the computer models based off of tree ring measurements?
3) Even if we do admit the tree ring ‘evidence’. then take in the whole thing. Why has the Team repeatedly restrained itself from showing up the Medieval Warm Period in their graphs? (Because that would mean the globe was warmer when we were not burning huge amounts of fossil-fuels). It was there in the 1991 IPCC – the older graphs show it.
4) Lastly, they knowingly did it because they know the impact of a graph that shows a sharp continious upward trend – the diagram itself, would have on a lay audience. The graph without the hockey-stick trick looks like regular stuff.

All the emails where they talk about meddling in other people’s papers: As a scientist, you review the papers that you are handed. You have a say if you are the editor of a journal. what is your business with someone else’s papers, where they get published, the type of papers that are published in a certain journal? Sniping about it in emails is not a crime bu it certainly reveals the underlying mentality.

What scientist/group will harbor reasonable doubts (as seen in conversations between themselves) about a theory in private, but speak out the exact opposite in public? It is obvious that Kieth Briffa doesn’t buy Mann’s Hockey stick but has he ever said anything to that effect in public? No. When faced with contradicting evidence, a natural tendency would be to tone down the level of certainty in your pronouncements. These guys don’t do that. They always sound certain about unrelenting global warming. Why? and more importantly how? Kevin Trenberth says in his emails that it is a travesty that we cant account for the lack of warming at present but he tells us that the globe is warming in TV interviews. Why the split-face?

It is not some emails by themselves that are a problem. Put the emails in the context of the debate about ‘climate change’, as it evolved and as the events unfolded in the last 8-10 years when the scientific ‘consensus’ was built, and a lot of things make sense. This is clear, less than exemplary, politically-motivated behaviour from the highest echelon of climate scientists. This group must have reviewed hundreds of papers (gatekeeper effect). It is now evident they were less than scruplous with their own work. Why would they have been so in the work they reviewed? A feedback effect would have definitely taken place in the scientific community. People would have realized what words and concepts to put in their papers to get them published, behaviour this group apparently actively encouraged. Such is the nature of built-up evidence for global warming.

“… but if it’s heating at even a moderate rate, action is still needed. ”

I would say, the real science and debate about AGW has never taken place. The study of climate is politicised because if you report warming you may have a green agenda (because the green agenda came to existance before the science) and if you report cooling you may be a shill for big oil. The real questions are therefore unanswered. It is precisely because of this do we find that a Toronto businessman, someone totally unconnected to either side of the debate has managed to debunk AGW, or atleast knock it off its pedestal. Who knows the rate of heating reliably now? How much of it is anthropogenic?

Science builds on citations. The CRU dataset is extremely influential. The other scientists you speak about, base their conclusions on earlier papers and work which all draw on CRU’s work. Many people believe their research data is correct because it resembles Jones’ and Mann’ conclusions. We know they are wrong/faulty. That only means such data was coincidentally similar and was misunderstood to be true. CRU refused to release their raw data, say they have lost it, release a portion of it, want three years time to release it etc etc. Would we have known about this without the emails?

The best thing now therefore is not to retool anything at all. Wait and watch.

Is this list enough??

From Bishop Hill

Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

There are Vikings buried in permafrost in Greenland.
The permafrost is not disturbed.
It was not frozen when they were buried.
I would call that warmer then today, a lot warmer.

The ironic thing is that this evidence of the medieval warming period is in a museum in Copenhagen.

The Fate of Greenland’s Vikings February 28, 2000 by Dale Mackenzie Brown
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland

Also, the medieval warming period was global.

Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data
joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data

For a satirical look at the climategate computer programming (hiding the decline):
Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103