Like Al Gore, who refuses to debate any of the climate scientists that have challenged him to debate.

The truth is most deniers are well educated regarding the hundreds of previous “global warmings” and “global coolings” on our planet.

I find it is the carbon tax enthusiasts are generally not well educated regarding basic climate history.

Feel free to click my name above, and brush up on basic climate science, regardless of where you stand on “global warming.”

Dr. Goldstein

“Still, the report findings, based on 200 peer-reviewed papers, reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990 and sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions…”

GHG emissions ARE increasing and climate change IS happening. That quotation does not reference model predictions, it references what is ALREADY HAPPENING and being MEASURED.

Should scientists be manipulating the journal publication process? No, obviously not. However, given the degree to which cliamte change deniers have historically twisted and otherwise blown out of proportion legitimate scientific inquiry and debate, I can understand why these scientists thought they needed to keep parts of the debate out of the public view. Again, not a good decision, but good to keep in mind as everyone reacts.

The leak consisted of over 3000 documents, only 1000 of which were emails.

The actual source code for the climate models was leaked as well.

Here software developer explains the blatant fraud in the climate model code:

http://fascistsoup.com/2009/11/25/more-on-the-climategate-source-code/

How strange. The evidence clearly show that it was the IPCC and the AGW proponents that committed fraud yet you attack the sceptics, who turned out to be right.

Nothing in the e-mails is new. Dr. Wegman (not a sceptic) pointed out to the credibility problems when he reviewed the M&M complaint against Mann, Bradley, and Hughes, who created the famous ‘Hockey Stick’ by using inappropriate data and wrong statistical methods. When Wegman concluded that by using the proper methods the hockey stick disappeared the media spun the story into a victory for the AGW side. The reason why this fraud occurred was because the media fell asleep and ignored that there was never any empirical data presented that could remotely show that CO2 was a major driver of temperature trends and ignored the fact that most of the warmers’ papers did not meet the journals’ data disclosure policies.

I think that if the mainstream media wants to restore some of the credibility it once had, it needs to treat this story seriously and to dig into it fully rather than ignore the truth until it is too late. It is exactly this story that shows why the old media is failing and shedding jobs at such a high rate. The establishment is not adjusting quickly enough and seems to care more about looking bad by admitting errors than it cares abut the truth.

The Argo float data shows that global warming stopped abruptly in about 2004 (graph on pp4 of http://www.oceanobs09.net/plenary/files/Wijffels_HeatContentTemperature_2Aa_vfinal.pdf )

That AGW never was is shown on a graph that shows predicted and measured temperatures since 1895. It and the associated research are presented in the October 14 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true . The pdf provides the model that accurately predicts all average global temperatures since 1895 with no consideration whatsoever needed of changes to the level of CO2 or any other ghg.

Still, the report findings, based on 200 peer-reviewed papers, reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40 percent higher than those in 1990 and sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions, reports Reuters.”

Ahem, this would not be the same scientists who apparently colluded to divert the peer-review process and blackball sceptics?

“If anyone still believes ‘faithfully’ in AGW, please repeat this mantra:

“Almost all of the knowledge I have concerning the temperature warm-up of the last twenty years is from research derived from data originated by scientists at CRU who have questionable ethics, possibly tampered with data, and have hopelessly fouled-up databases and programming; research ‘consistent with’ AGW is also consistent with natural GW and proves neither; and research based on the assumption of AGW, which leads to correct results does not constitute proof of that assumption. Moreover, the fact that I have read far more peer-reviewed research suggesting AGW than the non-existence of AGW is likely due to their clear manipulation of the peer-review process. My understanding of the subject, and therefore my conclusions and beliefs, have been deliberately manipulated.”

If you disagree with the above, read it again until you understand it.”