global warming data...garbage in...

[billc]

Here is a story that always makes me smile. The author looks at where we have temperature reading stations...and why they shouldn't be relied on to confirm global warming...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/how-bad-data-contribute-to-global-warming-hysteria.php

Climate realists are generally willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that the Earth has warmed somewhat in recent decades. In fact, though, it is not obvious that even this modest claim is true. Satellite data show no net warming for as long as such data have been collected, i.e., back to 1979. Ocean measurements show no net warming over that period, either; the evidence for warming is based on land measurements. But the accuracy of land measurements depends on proper siting and maintenance of weather stations. One obvious factor is the urban heat island effect: many weather stations are located in cities, which grow warmer as more people and buildings accumulate. Thus, increasing temperatures at such stations may be measuring urban development rather than the climate. We all know that the urban heat island effect is real–”chance of frost in outlying areas”–yet the data that alarmists rely upon do not take it into account.

onclusive proof of global warming, right? Well, not so fast. It turns out that other stations in the Sierras show no warming at all over the same period. Here is one such station, in Tahoe National Forest:

This is a newer station, but its temperature record shows no warming trend:

This is the record from a ranger station just 15 miles from the one at Tahoe City, going back to 1949. No warming trend starting in the 1980s:

So what is going on here? Is Lake Tahoe really warming dramatically, or not? This is the weather station that shows the warming trend that so alarms Governor Brown:


Note the trash burning barrel just five feet away from the weather station. That was removed after a global warming skeptic pointed it out. But that isn’t what drove the sudden temperature increase in the early 1980s. Rather, it was the construction of the adjacent tennis court and apartment complex, which occurred at that time:

 

[fangjian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Scientific_consensus
".....there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community that human-caused global warming is real. "
".....the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement [on climate change]... Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist—mostly either not actually climate researchers....."

This is similar of course to those who don't except Evolutionary Biology or Big Bang Cosmology. If there are 50,000 actual Biologists in the world and 50,000 actual Cosmologists ( those who actually do research in the field and are under intense scrutiny by there peers ), there's always like 4 people that are actually in the field that oppose the explanations . And then there's always the "hundreds of Phd's that sign something saying 'we oppose these theories' " Those Phd's are never actually in those fields ( Biology, Cosmology....). They're always Mathematicians or Philosophers and Theologians. hahahahhhaha

 

[arnisador]

There can't be any doubt about anthropogenic global climate change. To deny it is to look at the entire Industrial Revolution--at factories, farming changes, at powered transportation--and say "no effect". Of course that kind of thing must have some effect. I'm not in a panic but climate change due to man-made effects is indisputable.

As to biology and evolution, they have the best response in the Steve Project (and as mentioned, the majority of deniers are not trained in biology):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

Global climate change needs something like this!

 

[Empty Hands]

Good to see you again Arnisador.

 

[Chris Parker]

Here is a story that always makes me smile. The author looks at where we have temperature reading stations...and why they shouldn't be relied on to confirm global warming...

I suppose what worries me the most, when all is said and done, isn't so much that you'd believe this flawed piece of propaganda, Bill, it's that it'd "make you smile".... why? Does feeling that you're right mean that much to you? Let's look at it realistically: If Global Warming is real (and it is), then the vast majority of findings that support that have been a warning for us to look after the planet, and ourselves. Good thing. If they're not right (they are), then the basic upshot is that people will be more concerned with looking after the planet and each other, leading to a better quality of life, and better longevity for the planet altogether. Good thing. But if you choose not to believe the vast majority of evidence and the recommendations of almost everyone who's looked at the subject, then go ahead and not look after your own home and surroundings, leading to the sooner ruination of the planet.... uh, good thing? Nope, not really.

So why does such an article make you smile?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Are glaciers and ice sheets melting?

Is a lot of fresh water being introduced into a salt water system?

Know anything about the oceanic conveyor belt system?



and now for something completely different

Hey Arnisador

 

[WC_lun]

I freely admitt I am putting words in billi's mouth, but the reason it makes him smile is because the truth does not concern him, only that there is this thing that supports his "side."

 

[ballen0351]

Are glaciers and ice sheets melting?

Is a lot of fresh water being introduced into a salt water system?

Know anything about the oceanic conveyor belt system?



and now for something completely different

Hey Arnisador

The question is are we causing it or is it a natural cycle? I'm all for cleaning up the world but do it for the right reason don't make up a disaster we have no control over. And don't be selective about it well the US needs to cut back but china or India are free to do what they wish. Clean up the environment because its the right thing to do but making money off "carbon offsets". Is just silly you planting a tree in Aspen does not offset your private jet you took to get there.

 

[granfire]

The question is are we causing it or is it a natural cycle? I'm all for cleaning up the world but do it for the right reason don't make up a disaster we have no control over. And don't be selective about it well the US needs to cut back but china or India are free to do what they wish. Clean up the environment because its the right thing to do but making money off "carbon offsets". Is just silly you planting a tree in Aspen does not offset your private jet you took to get there.

well, consider this:

We have been burning fosil fuels for about 100 years like it's going out of style, those are carbon (like CO2) compounds that have been sealed away underground for a good long time. And they won't go back underground any time soon either.

Add to that the deforestation: it takes a good size tree nearly a century to grow, taking up CO2 during this time, then, poof, it's been released again into the atmosphere.

And less trees are left to grow. The one tree in Aspen won't do it, right.
But suggesting that the CO2 emissions are not man made jumps in the face of logic. It's one of the basic laws even of chemistry: The stuff has to go somewhere.

 

[WC_lun]

98% of experts say it IS man made. Even an expert hired by the Koch brothers to "debunc" the man made climate change theories. Who are the people saying it is not man made? For the most part, people who are paid to do so by corporations that would be effected by pollution controls and the people who believe those lobbyist.

 

[Xue Sheng]

The question is are we causing it or is it a natural cycle? I'm all for cleaning up the world but do it for the right reason don't make up a disaster we have no control over. And don't be selective about it well the US needs to cut back but china or India are free to do what they wish. Clean up the environment because its the right thing to do but making money off "carbon offsets". Is just silly you planting a tree in Aspen does not offset your private jet you took to get there.

Yup, could be a natural cycle, could be planetary orbit or tilt, could be a number of natural causes...but it tends to go against historical data based on climatology and geology... and if it is pollution it is not a justification to say well their doing it so why should we stop...but I have said this in multiple Global warming thread here on MT.

We need to stop the finger pointing and looking for someone or something to blame and figure out if it can be minimized, stopped, reversed or….. if there is absolutely nothing we can do about it what do we do now.

A professor of mine in college once said, very easily in this global warming discussion… “The planet is self-correcting, however that correction tends to be rather violent and you really don’t want to be in its way when it happens”

But enough of that... I'm not asking abot planting trees or private jets...

Are glaciers and ice sheets melting?

Is a lot of fresh water being introduced into a salt water system?

Know anything about the oceanic conveyor belt system?

 

[Omar B]

Really ties in well with his anti-Obama/Coal mining thread.

Supporting one of the dirtiest industries in one thread, then saying global warning is not real in another. I used to think you are misguided, now I'm truly sad for you.

 

[granfire]

Yup, could be a natural cycle, could be planetary orbit or tilt, could be a number of natural causes...but it tends to go against historical data based on climatology and geology... and if it is pollution it is not a justification to say well their doing it so why should we stop...but I have said this in multiple Global warming thread here on MT.

We need to stop the finger pointing and looking for someone or something to blame and figure out if it can be minimized, stopped, reversed or….. if there is absolutely nothing we can do about it what do we do now.

A professor of mine in college once said, very easily in this global warming discussion… “The planet is self-correcting, however that correction tends to be rather violent and you really don’t want to be in its way when it happens”

But enough of that... I'm not asking abot planting trees or private jets...

Are glaciers and ice sheets melting?

Is a lot of fresh water being introduced into a salt water system?

Know anything about the oceanic conveyor belt system?

The people in Alaska say the ice is melting, so do the Polar Bears.

The oceanic conveyor belt is among other currents the Gulf Stream: Water that melts from the Arctic icecap sinks to the bottom of the ocean floor, creating a push/pull for warmer water from other areas of the ocean to flow there

Actually I think I have it partially wrong, as the water getting in contact with the big ice cubes up north cools down too and sinks to the bottom of he ocean...

Also, I think an abundance of floating trash somewhere in the pacific is marking the ocean currents in a rather visible way...

 

[Xue Sheng]

Oooo

I have another relevant question….

What does Global warming actually mean?

 

[billc]

The fact that "climategate 1 and 2" are actually a part of the debate, that the stations used to measure surface temperature may very well be compromised, that the temperature levelled off as opposed to a slow, unending increase, all these things simply point out that man's involvement in temperature change is nowhere near conclusive.

And yes, this picture of a temperature station next to a garbage burning barrel is funny.



Yeah, coal is dirty so is oil but you know what, they are reliable, fairly cheap and they actually work when you use them. Before you just stop using coal because you don't like it, you had better have a locked in power source that actually works, especially in cold states where the temperatures will kill people if they don't have reliable power. Solar, Wind, are not reliable, do not work in all cases, and are destructive to the environment in their own way.

Yes, the data on global warming is so conclusive that the guys in charge destroyed it to keep it out of the hands of skeptics, plotted to keep the work of skeptics out of the various science journals and plotted to get editors of science journals who allowed the work of skeptics into their journals fired...all disclosed in the Climategate e-mails...and you guys want to change how people live their lives based on that track record of lies and deceptions...go ahead, have fun with that.

And the real funny thing, the people most pushing for man made global warming to be real have a great solution, give poor countries money from wealthy countries...yes we have seen this before as well...


And then you have stories like this that are all too common in the debate...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...-greenpeace-collaborate-on-global-warming.php

POSTED ON AUGUST 6, 2012 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN CLIMATE, MEDIA BIAS, THE WAR ON THE KOCH BROTHERS

U.S. NEWS AND GREENPEACE COLLABORATE ON GLOBAL WARMING

We have written here and here about the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. The project’s goal was to carry out a comprehensive survey of recorded temperatures from as many locations around the world as possible, to develop the most accurate possible history of global temperatures from 1753 to 2011. It is still underway, but the group recently released a preliminary report, which finds that the Earth is somewhat warmer today than in 1753, and that average global temperature has increased 0.869 degree C since the 1950s.
This conclusion is something of a yawner, since pretty much everyone has long assumed that the Earth is warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age, and that there has been some warming in the last century. There are obvious holes in the BEST analysis. Here are just a few of them:
1) The work done so far covers only land measurements, so more than half of the Earth’s surface area, the oceans, are not represented.
2) The BEST data tell us nothing new about the causes of temperature fluctuations. The report does not attempt to measure or to explain the warm temperatures during Roman times and the Medieval Warm Period, the colder temperatures during the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age, and so on.
3) The report does not attempt to explain the fact that satellite measurements, which are taken in the atmosphere where global warming should be taking place, do not show the warming trend that appears in land measurements.
Over the coming months, scientists will analyze and critique the BEST data. Maybe their methods will hold up, maybe they won’t. But on any scenario, the preliminary BEST report does not come close to resolving the many debates over the Earth’s climate and the causes that drive its constant changes.

And then you have this, and I haven't even gone into my collection of global warming material yet...this is just a quick search...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...2-can-regulate-climate-is-sheer-absurdity.php

THE BELIEF THAT CO2 CAN REGULATE CLIMATE IS “SHEER ABSURDITY”

Klaus-Eckart Puls is a German physicist and meteorologist who investigated the underpinnings of global warming hysteria and was horrified at how unscientific the global warming advocates are. He recently gave an interview to the Swiss magazine factum which is translated here:

factum: You’ve been criticising the theory of man-made global warming for years. How did you become skeptical?
Puls: Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.
factum: Is there really climate change?
Puls: Climate change is normal. There have always been phases of climate warming, many that even far exceeded the extent we see today. But there hasn’t been any warming since 1998. In fact the IPCC suppliers of data even show a slight cooling.
factum: The IPCC is projecting 0.2°C warming per decade, i.e. 2 to 4°C by the year 2100. What’s your view?
Puls: These are speculative model projections, so-called scenarios – and not prognoses. Because of climate’s high complexity, reliable prognoses just aren’t possible. Nature does what it wants, and not what the models present as prophesy. The entire CO2-debate is nonsense. Even if CO2 were doubled, the temperature would rise only 1°C. The remainder of the IPCC’s assumed warming is based purely on speculative amplification mechanisms. Even though CO2 has risen, there has been no warming in 13 years.
factum: How does sea level rise look?
Puls: Sea level rise has slowed down. Moreover, it has dropped a half centimeter over the last 2 years.
​

So maybe Barack Obama has caused the seas to stop rising after all. Then again, maybe not.

It’s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one. There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g. tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors.
factum: What have we measured at the North Sea?
Puls: In the last 400 years, sea level at the North Sea coast has risen about 1.40 meters. That’s about 35 centimeters per century. In the last 100 years, the North Sea has risen only 25 centimeters.

​

So, please, tell me again how the science is settled...

As to ice melt...

factum: But it is true that unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is melting?
Puls: It has been melting for 30 years. That also happened twice already in the last 150 years. The low point was reached in 2007 and the ice has since begun to recover. There have always been phases of Arctic melting. Between 900 and 1300 Greenland was green on the edges and the Vikings settled there. …

 

[billc]

Here is some info. on Climate gate...it is a nice summary of a huge scientific scandal...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/

Here are excerpts from his post “Men behaving badly“.

What’s the hubbub? It all comes down to men behaving badly. Emails and files related to top scientists that support man made global warming theory were released in the hacked files. These scientists have authored/co-authored many of the studies relied on by the UN IPCC, and world governments. The studies have been used to pronounce global warming an immediate, and therefore taxable, threat.
Here are some of the highlights of the documents released.
1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.
2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.
3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.
4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favorable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favorable online communities.
What the emails/files don’t do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don’t preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science.


​

Climate science is to conclusive they had to do these things to prove it...

So tell me again how wrong I am to doubt man made global warming....

 

[billc]

Here is another picture that makes me smile...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/03/link-to-weather-station-photos/



And some more poorly placed temperature stations...but yeah, I'm wrong to distrust the methods used to prove man made global warming:lfao:

http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/temperature-monitoring-sites

 

[billc]

And more easy searching results...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/08/more-from-the-climatefail-files.php

An account on the Thomson-Reuters AlterNet site, though with the odd headline “Greenland Ice Said More Robust to Climate Change Than Feared,” decodes the study quite well:

OSLO, Aug 2 (Reuters) – Greenland’s ice seems less vulnerable than feared to a runaway melt that would drive up world sea levels, according to a study showing that a surge of ice loss had petered out.
“It is too early to proclaim the ‘ice sheet’s future doom’” caused by climate change, lead author Kurt Kjaer of the University of Copenhagen wrote in a statement of the findings in Friday’s edition of the journal Science. . .
The cause of the surge in ice loss in the 1980s was unclear but might have been linked to a shift in ocean currents. The underlying cause of a change in currents was unknown.
​

Of course, cautiously stated research like this is no fun at all if you’re a climateer. That’s why it will be ignored.

and as to the Koch guy (or do you prefer pepsi?)...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/mulling-over-muller.php

But just how much of a “skeptic” was Muller? Here’s the opening from his 2008 interview with Grist.org:

Grist: What should a President McCain or Obama know about global warming?
Muller: The bottom line is that there is a consensus — the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] — and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can’t. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we’re responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don’t cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide.
​

Sounds pretty close to the “consensus” party line to me, and as such today’s Times op-ed does not represent a fundamentally new position for Muller at all. (I’m wondering whether a Timeseditor pressured him to use the “total turnaround” language.) Actually, Muller has always been among the group of folks known as “lukewarmers,” i.e., that warming has taken place, but that serious doubts remain about the full extent of human causation, and more importantly, how much more warming can be expected in the future (not much, says MIT’s Richard Lindzen, for example), or what should be done about it if there is more warming ahead: the climateers’ only answer—suppression of fossil fuels, is idiotic—full stop—and their opposition to considering alternatives to fossil fuel suppression hinders the development of real options (geoengineering, carbon capture, resilience/adaptation, etc.) for dealing with climate change from whatever cause. (The weakest part of Muller’s new piece, by the way, is his discussion of the potential of future warming, which shouldn’t make anyone on any side of this controversy happy. But we’ll have to see what additional findings are released tomorrow.)

It turns out that the Climateers hate the “lukewarmers” almost more than climate skeptics, as can be seen from this piece from Clive Hamilton on the ThinkProgress blog:

We are familiar with the tactics, arguments, and personnel of the denial industry. Yet there is a perhaps more insidious and influential line of argument that is preventing the world from responding to the warnings of climate science.
“Luke-warmists” may be defined as those who appear to accept the body of climate science but interpret it in a way that is least threatening: emphasizing uncertainties, playing down dangers, and advocating a slow and cautious response.
​

Sure enough, Muller’s Times op-ed today includes these important breaks with the alarmist line:

I still find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.
Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar bears aren’t dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan glaciers aren’t going to melt by 2035. And it’s possible that we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, during the “Medieval Warm Period” or “Medieval Optimum,” an interval of warm conditions known from historical records and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to “global” warming is weaker than tenuous.
​

Well this rather takes all the fun about of being a climateer, doesn’t it?

Hmmmm...global warming is good for polar bears? Hmmmm...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ars-is-bad-news-for-global-warming-alarmists/

8/15/2012

Crockford has more than 35 years’ experience in zoology and evolutionary biology, with a special focus on the Holocene history of Arctic animals. She publishes a highly respected science website called “Polar Bear Science: Past and Present.”
In a July article on her website, Crockford explains why the colder temperatures yearned for by global warming alarmists may negatively affect polar bear populations. Crockford explains that extended periods of thick sea ice extending south to Arctic shorelines may negatively impact ringed seal populations. Because ringed seals are the only prey species readily available to female polar bears giving birth to cubs on shore or on sea ice near shore, long periods of thick ice near Arctic shores can pose grave threats to polar bear populations. The recent disappearance of ringed seals from Beaufort Sea shores during periods of exceptionally thick sea ice appear to verify Crockford’s observations.
More importantly for the future outlook, Crockford explains, polar bears have successfully endured climate change and Arctic sea ice extremes far beyond those of recent years.
“It is still not known for certain when Polar Bears evolved but there is no question that, in the many millennia they have existed as a separate species, they have survived very significant changes in climate,”

I'm sorry, say again...

The recent disappearance of ringed seals from Beaufort Sea shores during periods of exceptionally thick sea ice appear to verify Crockford’s observations.

But, I thought all the ice was melting like a popsicle left in the sun...

 

[WC_lun]

You know Billi, I'll even give you the instances in these photos are real and not another hack job. So all of those scientist are really just making this up? Keep believing what the magic men tell you. Me, I'll put my trust in science first.

 

[billc]

I put my trust in science as well, I just wish the "scientists," who are trying to pass off global warming as a man made phenomenon were just sticking to science as well. It would be nice if they stopped sabotaging the scientists who disagree with them wouldn't it?

If Climategate 1 wasn't bad enough, there was a sequel...Climategate 2

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

What was that about "trusting science?"

Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”
The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”
The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

Doesn't this scandal shake your belief in what these guys are selling?

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.