http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

A different fraud!! Who needs tariffs if other countries cannot use energy to manufacture or harvest?

among the gems is “What strikes me more generally about the average sceptic is that they come to the debate with preconceived notions”

How to rejig, or trick, a program to produce a graph with desirable characteristics?

Cap-and-trade is essentially a licensing system with trade in licenses. It’ll work as long as there is adequate monitoring and enforcement. In the EU, enforcement is done by the Member States — Italy, Cyprus, Bulgaria.

Could this be true? Say it isn’t so!

Sorry about that. I’m not amused when people deliberately misinterpret what I say. One may argue that with Joe Curtin one does not know whether he is disingenious or thick. He pretends to be anonymous here, and uses a sock to smear my name on other blogs, so I think disingenuity is a better explanation.

Cold fusion is being pursued! Curse of MSM strikes again!

Baltic Exchange. Read about it and the effect that one bomb detonated there had on Northern Ireland! British “intelligence” control of the IRA was pervasive and advocated a policy of killing civilians as the Brits did in WWII. When the PIRA changed to the City of London, talks that had been sub rosa speeded up!

You have beliefs alright! Please be less denunciatory! Lets see if thisn is posted here or if I have to post it elsewhere!

“remaining right-wing blogger hysteria”

Why resort to ad hominem? Problems with the science perhaps? CO2 causing Mars et al to warm up? Any ideas why?

Krugman revealed as a shill?

http%253A%252F%252Ftalkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com%252F2009%252F12%252F02%252Fgoogle-gate%252F&h=c755ac8d68fd1646b798f65c076cad76&ref=nf

Google suppresses relevance searches on climategate.
Covering up confirms what?

By demonstrating a lack of knowledge about climate I take it you mean someone who disagrees with you. That would also include 99% of the the economists, scientists and policy makers operating in the area who don’t subscribe to your blinkered views, or anyone who is not ignorant enough to believe than we have a 100 years to sort this out as you reliably informed the Irish public today.

Is the Hadley center you cite above the same one that projected that the 4 degree threshold would likely be reached by 2070, leading to warming of 12 degrees in certain parts of the globe (in business as usual scenario)?

Is this another example of your “scaremongering from the grey literature”. Presumable you would place Professors Hansen and Schellenhumer in this category also?

Oh and in response to your conspiracy theory question “if there’s nothing to hide, why would one?”, here is a better response than mine (and a far superior explanation to your own from someone who actually has a clue what they are talking about):

Re: CRU data accessibility.

National Meteorological Services (NMSs) have different rules on data exchange. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) organizes the exchange of “basic data”, i.e. data that are needed for weather forecasts. For details on these see WMO resolution number 40 (see http://bit.ly/8jOjX1).

This document acknowledges that WMO member states can place restrictions on the dissemination of data to third parties “for reasons such as national laws or costs of production”. These restrictions are only supposed to apply to commercial use, the research and education community is supposed to have free access to all the data.

Now, for researchers this sounds open and fine. In practice it hasn’t proved to be so.

Most NMSs also can distribute all sorts of data that are classified as “additional data and products”. Restrictions can be placed on these. These special data and products (which can range from regular weather data from a specific station to maps of rain intensity based on satellite and radar data). Many nations do place restrictions on such data (see link for additional data on above WMO-40 webpage for details).

The reasons for restricting access is often commercial, NMSs are often required by law to have substantial income from commercial sources, in other cases it can be for national security reasons, but in many cases (in my experience) the reasons simply seem to be “because we can”.

What has this got to do with CRU? The data that CRU needs for their data base comes from entities that restrict access to much of their data. And even better, since the UK has submitted an exception for additional data, some nations that otherwise would provide data without question will not provide data to the UK. I know this from experience, since my nation (Iceland) did send in such conditions and for years I had problem getting certain data from the US.

The ideal, that all data should be free and open is unfortunately not adhered to by a large portion of the meteorological community. Probably only a small portion of the CRU data is “locked” but the end effect is that all their data becomes closed. It is not their fault, and I am sure that they dislike them as much as any other researcher who has tried to get access to all data from stations in region X in country Y.

These restrictions end up by wasting resources and hurting everyone. The research community (CRU included) and the public are the victims. If you don’t like it, write to you NMSs and urge them to open all their data.

Oh and one last thing: I don’t pretend to be a statistician and never have.

They cannot “run it again” because they messed up their data and their code.

Because a culture of secrecy developed, a them-against-us mentality? Because of an irrational fear that they might have made an mistake that would be exposed? I dunno..

Having no clue how these things work, I would have thought the computer coding used in the averaging along with the data would be enough to satisfy most. Couldn’t they then just run it again?

The data release by the Met Office does not solve the problem by the way. The issue is that data homogenisation and averaging is unclear. Having the raw data available on one server and the processed data on another is no good without a concordance table. Even with a concordance table, one’d only know that data were homogenised, but not how or why. One cannot reverse-engineer the averaging procedure.

I know that the emails suggest that CRU had a peculiar approach to data requests which I wouldn’t even being to defend. One possible explanation that has been posited is that there was something in the data they sought to hide.

Now that the data has been made available to the greatest extent possible (and it doesn’t contradict what we already know), and we have a commitment that the rest of the data will be made available as soon as possible, I should think that we can be fairly confident that this is not the case.

Perhaps another more likely explanation is that an unhealthy and unacceptable culture of secrecy and mistrust developed which affected all areas of the center.

I regularly get data requests. I find that a waste of time. So I put the data on the web.

I also use confidential data. If someone asks for such data, I write an email explaining that I cannot share this data and where they’d need to apply for access.

If you’d read the CRU emails, you’d find that they did not follow this procedure or anything remotely like it.

It seems to me that you are the one jumping to conclusions. What exactly are you saying? That the actual input data has been falsified? That would be a very serious accusation.

I’m not defending the behavior of CRU, I’m just pointing out the facts reported in the press release as they seem to contradict earlier reports.

The MET rely on 6500 data sets from stations around the world. 1500 will be released, the other 5000 are provided on a confidential basis (perhaps for military or other reasons??), and they therefore have no right to release them at this time.

According to the press release they will work with the data providers to make the remaining information available. They have also promised to make the computer code used to aggregate the data available.

I think that would be welcome as this information needs to be in the public domain. Having said that I can’t see all governments/weather stations agreeing.

Some of the people at RealClimate are either implicated by ClimateGate while others have fallen foul of the same confusion between evidence and conclusion.

Correction: “intends” to make all available as soon as it has approval:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091208a.html

By the way, the reason that CRU coultn’t respond to FOI requests was because they didn’t have permission to release data that was provided from other sources, specifically the British Met Office.

The British Met has now made all data available, see: http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2881

80% of the remaining right-wing blogger hysteria is put to bed here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

Those links are for anyone who is truly trying to get to the bottom of this in a open-mind way.

I’m not aware of a model or scenario comparison exercise on medium term forecasts.

The Hamburg forecast was written up by New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html

It is in line with the Ramankutty/Schlesinger cycle.

Do you know of a good on-line resource or article which gives a summary of the different models and their predictions? If you were introducing a newcomer to the state of play, where would they look?

Morning Ireland is now online: http://www.rte.ie/news/morningireland/player.html?20091208,2663992,2663992,real,209

Ray Bates roughly agrees with me (no reason to doubt the basic science, but CRU seems to have acted inappropriately), and suggests that the IPCC should be taken out of the UN. (I agree with Ray on this, but there is little prospect for this happening any time soon.)

John Sweeney argues that climategate is a distraction and that the IPCC is a wonderful organisation.

On what planet is:

“The only thing we have in common is that we don’t follow a fad just because everyone else does”

=

“I am not inclined to following fads” ?

We usually use of the singular, especially within the context of the discussion of a particular phenomenon, we assume someone is referring to that phenomenon.

On the other hand when we use “fads” as you did in you second bite at the cherry, then we are talking generally.

So it’s not a fad then? Good.