musik_knut wrote: 
Flying post as I get through some domesic stuff.  Here are some reports from a couple of highly respected British newspapers at either end of the political spectrum.

From our newspaper of choice- The Guardian, which is left leaning, sandal wearing etc. We actually pay for it unlike some RP posters!!

From the right wing Daily Telegraph (known as the "Torygraph" in our household).

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 

This can only be seen as extremely damaging. It is from two British Labs that much of the certainty, a word used advisedly, on global warming, is drawn. Those two labs, as I understand it, are 2 of the 4 labs from which The UN makes an endless series of the  sky-is-falling declarations on the matter.

Manipulation of evidence:

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

......Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back-I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back....

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think 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 in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board...What do others think?"

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"

 ~~~~~~~~~~~
Two that really caught my attention: the attempt to disguise the MWP, a period of considerably greater global temperatures than exist today. Since that period was well before the Industrial Revolution and with considerably fewer humans inhabiting Earth, we can't have that getting in the way. No, that would raise too many questions, which of course, it does. And then, to discuss how to circumvent peer review. An absolute NO NO in the science community. That is a real NO NO, not ever, ever, ever.

 musik_knut wrote: 

I did read some of the info this morning.  I said one email EXPOSE (ie the University of East Anglia expose).  I know you are a scientist.  I studied some of the scientific papers on climate change 20 years ago (only it was identified solely as rising sea level at that point) when I was taking my degree in Geography.  There is some discussion of events over the last few days in one of the global warming threads.  I agree that the information is damaging and very poor behaviour on the part of the scientists involved and some information has been discredited but you can't just take out the whole shooting match on that basis.

In fairness HJ will be better placed to discuss this later when he is around as I don't keep as up to date as he does and I don't get time to read as much information as him these days so I haven't followed every blow in the saga.

 MrsHobieJoe wrote: 

One email? Scores upon scores of emails. Some of them show concern that the climate is not acting as their fraudulent models and software predict. One email? Scores...
But don't take my word on this. I'm just making it up as I go along...not. That's not my way of reporting anything in the sciences...
If you read the emails (EMAILS as in scores), you find that the fraudulent attempts to phony up the data were well coordinated with political measures in mind.
As a scientist, I understand the severity of fudged data, or the manipulation of data to coax a predetermined outcome. Such activities are damned in the science community. As well they must be.

Following Bills advice I will just,,, 

 musik_knut wrote: 
Oh FFS.  One email expose does not "bust" over twenty years of scientific research.  You really need to see the politics and the science separately.

Busted! If you have not read the emails from one to another on climate change, where in many of the emails, there is a conspiracy to doctor the data, then you should. The whole climate change data base being used by, notably, The UN, in the various declarations of woe and doom, as from the ever babbling Al Gore, is a fraud of science. For Mr. Gore, user of the now infamous 'hockey stick curve' to demonstrate rapid warming, an independent researcher found that no matter what data was entered into the program that gave rise to the 'hockey stick curve' , the 'stick' acted the same. The program itself is a piece of fraudulent science. This scientific voodoo with plans to dump emails in order to avoid a paper trail in the conspiracy, with doctored data and programs designed to yield desired results/data, is being hailed as one of the greatest acts of science fraud in history.
Busted!

Sea level rise could cost port cities $28 trillion

CNN

 Rod wrote: 
A lot of work is being done on currents, but there are significant technological hurdles to overcome.  The most significant is getting the energy back along the grid to land.  These sites typically need to be in deep water in order to avail themselves of a good current flow, and that gets farther away from shore. Still, it's very cool. 
 

 Zep wrote: 
Do you know anything about this one? It sounds very promising. Not temperature driven, but it uses slow water currents to create energy. I originally posetd this in the Solar/WindGeothermal...thread.
  Vivace Energy Technology Harnesses Vortex Hydro-Energy

Google might save the planet !
is about greenland ice 15 hours ago.

 

"The message on the science is that we know a lot more than we did in 1997 and it's all negative," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "Things are much worse than the models predicted."

 Zep wrote:    As I understand this was a new way not done before,been looking for the TV clip found other stuff instead.
    Greenland ice is going much faster,new reports today,and I can report that the internet is slow right now for us here,found a link to original english site but can't come throu,will try in the morning when you guys are asleep.

 HazzeSwede wrote: 

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion?

I did a master's thesis on it.

On my TV morning show this morning;The Norwegians has come up with a new way to make electricity.
It will be on full scale in a year.I have been watching BBC and CNN for something in english,nothing yet
but I am sure there will be.
To complex for me to even try to relay but the working prototype uses sweet water and salt water only.
Some way in the gizmo they got it driving a turbine,but hey,he was prolly just trollin for money for his
experiment now takin place only in the Caymans.

 Welly wrote: 
 

"we're melting.  Love, the glaciers". 

 dionysius wrote: 
I'm seeing a lot of things being ignored, mostly the reprehensible behavior exhibited in the emails.

I make my living with applied science. The whole architecture of science requires skepticism, challenge, and honest response. A scientist is expected to respond to a challenge with evidence, not authority. What the hacked information shows is a group of people so committed to their conclusions that they will say anything to convince people they're right—hide contradictory data, refuse to talk to anyone challenging their methods or conclusion, and to simply make things up.

If you live and work outside the sciences it may be hard to imagine how deeply offensive that is. This is despicable behavior for a scientist. In my world that kind of behavior would wreck my credibility—no one would take anything I said seriously again.

Of course, that doesn't make the conclusions they so badly want us to share wrong, but if you want to argue with the authority of science you have to use the rigor of science. If they're right the evidence, honestly presented, will show it. If they're wrong no amount of celebrity endorsements will make them right.

The hand-wringing about this is misplaced, and the response of circling the wagons and attacking opponents is counterproductive. Maybe that helps the authors of these emails preserve their positions, but it isn't helping the cause of understanding climate change. The folks at UEA need to decide what their role is here: are they scientists, committed to a process of discovery of the truth, or are they political agitators pressing for a cause? They've shown they can't be both.

Good piece, Zep. Now, let's hear the "refutations" (of course there won't be; this will simply be ignored).

    Bravo,,Zep !!!!