it`s good to look back + reflect, self-observe what ya thought vs. what was.. to help us define the next`move..

                          indicators`
                      take a review of Copenhagen + we wonder how layers form..

 
       this walkabout amongst cooperatives shows us how effective our exchange is with our unfolding. when we put our heads together locally + afar, on issues of importance to all of us.

           which when other values, other agendas influence decision, then the truth no longer leads. leaving folks with agendas to gain while they leave negative effects on other life + get a way with it.

            i asked for this to be prioritized at the Copenhagen `Climate conference in 12.09. so that 1 science becomes the only science for the public. Using Professor Miguel Altieri as reference. His agro-ecology curriculum + science created from his work with the indigenous farmers in South America that feed us, along with Asia + Africa. i share his papers that you can google + read off his web page, regarding our food planetary problem.
                   his documents get over ruled while others not stating the truth get used, on important issues such as him stating pesticides, GMO + monocultures no good along with Al Gores bio-tech mode + Bill Gates - ` Agra project for Africa which i have asked him to rethink with Miguel. + support only natural ways that work....

               + bring this attention for 1 science now to Copenhagen. When folks  together rethink global issues.

                before the Copenhagen conference even starts documents are stating that there is manipulation discovered from emails that where retrieved from hackers. Some state there are 3 entities doing research + so far NOAA + NASA have been considered to be falsifying while the 3rd which is the University of East Anglia - UEA, now as of 12.06.09 will be doing an investigation into these findings, giving results in spring 2010.

Heres a few thought associated before + after:.

Communications
· Media relations
· Press releases
· CRU statements
· Independent Reviews
· Internal communications
· Publications Office
· Homepage Images
Independent Reviews
Three separate independent reviews have supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit. The reports are available from:
-          Muir Russell Review (July 2010)
-          Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel (April 2010)
-          Parliamentary Science and Technology Select Committee (March 2010)
Related Statements can be seen in this folder.
Independent Reviews
· The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review – July 2010
University of East Anglia’s Response Read more
Thu, 2 Sep 2010
· University response to Sir Muir Russell report
The Independent Climate Change Email Review, undertaken by Sir Muir Russell and his team, has issued its report on issues arising from the publication of hacked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. Read more
Wed, 7 Jul 2010
· Response by the University of East Anglia to the Report by Lord Oxburgh’s Science Assessment Panel
UEA welcomes the Report by the Lord Oxburgh’s Independent Panel, both in respect of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) being cleared of any scientific impropriety and dishonesty, and the suggestions made for improvement in some other areas. Read more
Wed, 14 Apr 2010
· Statement in response to the Science and Technology Committee Report
The University of East Anglia welcomes this largely positive report as an important first outcome in a series of independent reviews. Read more
Wed, 31 Mar 2010

Go to their site for more input in detail..
Bookmark this page:                
University of East Anglia - Communications Office
Tel: (+44) (0) 1603 592203 Fax: (+44) (0) 1603 259883
Email: press@uea.ac.uk
· Translate this page
·
Powered by  Translate


compare up above results with what was being reported before + during Copenhagen conference.. reflect with what you where thinking + still do about this vs. others perspective.. see how layers form.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
 

Bumped – Global Warming Consensus Alert: Climategate

Posted by MARC VANDER MAAS
on WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2009
Update: Naturally, right after I post this article, new information comes out that makes Climategate look even worse.  It’s been noted in the comments that Russian scientists are now saying outright that climate data from Russian weather stations has been tampered with see below this article. in order to make it appear to substantiate claims of catastrophic man-made global warming:
On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The plot thickens!  Original post follows..
 It’s been some time since we’ve had an update on the State of the Global Warming Consensus, and I’m happy to report that the Global Warming Consensus remains strong and unchallenged.  Well, strong and unchallenged barring that little e-mail and data leak from a few weeks ago that is really not an issue at all.  I mean, it’s not an issue at all except in the sense that it may have exposed some unethical scientific shenanigans by some of the biggest names in the pro-Anthropogenic Global Warming community, but that’s nothing to lose sleep over.  You might lose your job, but you shouldn’t lose sleep.  COPENHAGEN OR BUST!
Some background:  the Global Warming Consensus Watch/Alert series dates back to April of 2007, and from the start has been all about reminding us that the much-vaunted Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming was not nearly as untouchable as folks like Al Gore would have us believe.  The reality of the situation is slightly more nuanced than the Goracle would have us believe:  indeed, the planet has been warming over the last century, and has been since the end of the Little Ice Age.  The questions being confronted over the last few decades – and most intensely over the last couple of years – are whether the warming that has happened in the 20th century is primarily caused by human activity or is part of a larger natural process; and whether or not the warming poses significant problems for human society in the future.  (Dr. Jay Richards had a presentation on this very topic as a part of the 2008 Acton Lecture Series; you can view it here.)

Without going into too much detail, the “debate” over the years has ossified into a sort of stalemate in which AGW supporters hide in their clubhouse, refuse to share their data without frequent appeals to various Freedom of Information Act-type legislation in various countries, and generally hurl vicious invective and threats at those who aren’t convinced that climate change poses an imminent threat to civilization.  (This humble blogger’s proudest moment was when a local left-wing “media watchdog” group implied that I was little more than a tool of Satan… er, Exxon.  Sadly, “Media Mouse” has gone the way of the dinosaurs, but I’M STILL STANDING, BABY.  Albeit without seeing a single dime of that sweet, sweet oil loot.) The major advantage for the AGW side is that they’re peddling a crisis, which is quite interesting to the major media (crises are more fun and profitable to report; remember, “if it bleeds, it leads”) and politicians (who love to have problems to “solve”; it makes for good press and content for constituent newsletters).  This, more than anything, is the source of the supposed scientific “consensus” on the dangers of global warming; actual scientists certainly aren’t in uniform agreement on the cause and potential danger of climate change.  For example, Richard Lindzen of MIT argued recently in the Wall Street Journal that confident predictions of a climate change-related disaster are unwarrented.
Unfortunately, the money and political momentum have been on the other side of the debate, so expert voices of moderation like Lindzen have been crowded out of public view. But then an interesting thing happened on November 19: a large file of e-mail messages and data from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in the UK leaked onto the web and introduced the world to fun terms like “hide the decline” and “Mike’s Nature Trick.”  And while AGW supporters have been frantically reminding everyone that there’s no reason to question the validity of their research because it’s all “peer-reviewed” and therefore unimpeachable, Mark Steyn noted that the leaked documents show that the peer-review process was actively being corrupted in the climate science arena:
Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”
So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style.
Whatever that is, it certainly doesn’t sound like science to me.  Nor does the University of East Anglia CRU’s decision to throw away the raw climate data used to make predictions about global warming, meaning that “…other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.”  It should be noted that the only reason we know that little nugget of information is because the Climategate leak finally forced the CRU to act on longstanding Freedom of Information requests from AGW skeptics that they had been actively combatting (see this link again).
AGW supporters have done all they can to make this story go away by trying to turn it into a dastardly tale of computer hacking; Senator Barbara Boxer has gone so far as to claim that the scandal should not be called “Climategate,” but “E-mail-theft-gate.”  Allow me to note the trenchant observation of Jim Treacher: Climategate is a story about computer hacking in much the same way Watergate was a story about parking garages.  Aside from which, it seems likely that this wasn’t a hacking situation, but rather an internal leak.  We’ll see whether or not the leaker gets whistleblower protection should that scenario turn out to be true.
Anyhow, all of that is just a sample of what the pro-AGW community had been dealing with in the weeks leading up to THE MOST IMPORTANT CONFERENCE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND that is taking place this week in Copenhagen, Denmark.  This is of course the big UN climate conference, the outcome of which will determine the fate of mankind and our beloved planet, as this is the last chance we have to stop unchecked global warming and we “cannot compromise with the earth,” which – as we’ve already seen – is a planet in no mood to work with us on this problem.  Of course, if the earth is indeed an angry, intransigent planet bent on revenge, many climate scientists have been acting as its henchmen, torturing innocent data into saying what they want it to say in order to give the planet a pretext for its vengeance.  By the way, we can all be reassured that the UN Conference is proceeding smoothly.  We’re clearly in good hands.
Of course, this post could go on and on and on, and I’ve included a bunch of links that I’ve been gathering over the past few weeks below to give you an even broader view of all that’s been going on.  But I’d like to highlight a couple more posts before signing off:  First of all, take a look at this post at Anthony Watts’ indispensable blog which describes just how climate scientists determined that average temperatures at the Darwin, Australia airport had been “rising” over the course of the past century.  And if you have a little bit of time on your hands, head on over to Iowahawk, where the web’s best satirist gets serious for a bit and explains how you can build your very own hockey stick!  It seems to me that between those posts and all the other information we now have as a result of Climategate, we should all at the very least be skeptical of climate change alarmism.
More links to ponder:
· Watts Up With That Climategate Archive
· 8.10.09 – Henry Payne: Debbie Stabenow’s reasoning
· 11.19.09 – WUWT: CRU HACKED
· 12.1.09 – Reason Mag: Scientific Tragedy
· 21.1.09 – WUWT: Lord Monckton on Climategate
· 12.1.09 – Christopher Horner: “Mike’s Nature Trick” and Josh Steiner Moments
· 12.2.09 – Ace: Iowahawk’s Climate Trick
· 12.2.09 – James Delong: Openness vs. Climate Science
· 12.2.09 – James Delingpole: Political fallout
· 12.2.09 – Allahpundit: Barbara Boxer misses the point
· 12.2.09 – WUWT: Meanwhile, back at the Sun…
· 12.3.09 – Ed Morrisey: Shenanigans at NASA?
· 12.3.09 – Ace: Going after Hansen and NASA
· 12.3.09 – Verum Serum: Peer Review post-publishing
· 12.3.09 – TATW: Phil Jones on why we don’t share data
· 12.3.09 – CBC: Pulling back the curtain
· 12.3.09 – WaP0: Gore cancels Copenhagen event
· 12.3.09 – WUWT: Mann throws Jones under the bus
· 12.4.09 – WUWT: Responding to “there’s nothing to see here”
· 12.4.09 – Vanity Fair: Al Gore, the Poet Laureate of Climate Change
· 12.4.09 – David Hirsanyi: We-Don’t-Want-To-Talk-About-It-Gate
· 12.5.09 – Christopher Booker: Climategate reveals ‘the most influential tree in the world’
· 12.6.09 – Bill Kristol: Emitting the carbon footprint of Morocco to accomplish nothing in Copenhagen
· 12.6.09 – Steven Hayward: Climate Scientist to Revkin: “we can no longer trust you” to carry water for us.
· 12.6.09 – L. Gordon Crovitz: Peer-reviewing the “consensus” via blogs
· 12.6.09 – Ed Morrisey: NYT says “not a three-alarm story”
· 12.6.09 – Marc Sheppard: Understanding the Decline
· 12.7.09 – Ace: Al Gore POETRY SLAM
· 12.7.09 – Jennifer Rubin: it’s about the money
· 12.7.09 – Veronique de Rugy: the more we know, the less we care
· 12.7.09 – Ed Morrisey: IPCC Chief blasts climategate; lauds peer review process
· 12.7.09 – WUWT: Climategate not a hack, probably a leak
· 12.8.09 – Krauthammer: EPA blackmail
· 12.8.09: WUWT: The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero
12.14.09 – Steven Hayward: Scientists behaving badly
CATEGORY: Environmental Stewardship,News and Events,Public Policy
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 16th, 2009
143 Comments Comment on this article
Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.
Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.
As Richard North says: This is serial.
UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil
And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:
The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.
One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.
Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….
Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.
Tags: Climategate, Russia