Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Climategate

Climategate


Climategate

Links to everything about Climategate here. Relevant links posted in comments will be added.




WUWT Stories in chronological order, newest first:
When Results Go Bad … U-CRU
Telegraph’s Booker on the “climategate” scandal
“Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google
Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review
Understanding Climategate: Who’s Who – a video
The Curry letter: a word about “deniers”…
How “The Trick” was pulled off
The Australian ETS vote: a political litmus test for cap and trade
An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science
Zorita calls for barring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf from further IPCC participation
Climategate protester pwn3d CBC on live TV
UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course”
IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence”
McIntyre: The deleted data from the “Hide the Decline” trick
Climategate: Stuart Varney “lives with Ed”
Climategate: Pielke Senior on the NCDC CCSP report – “strong arm tactics”
Warwick Hughes shows how Jones selections put bias in Australian Temperatures
Climategate: CATO’s Pat Michaels and Center for American Progress Dan Weiss on Fox News
Quote of the week #23 – calls for resignation in Climategate
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.
Climategate: “Men behaving badly” – a short summary for laymen
Statement on CRU hacking from the American Meteorological Society
Climategate: hide the decline – codified
Must see video – Climategate spoof from Minnesotans for Global Warming
The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole…
Government petition started in UK regarding CRU Climategate
CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS
The appearance of hypocrisy at the NYT – Note to Andy
Nov 24 Statement from UEA on the CRU files
Nov 23 Statement from UEA on the CRU files
Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation
The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation.
CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story
Video: Dr. Tim Ball on the CRU emails
Pielke Senior: Comment On The Post “Enemies Caught In Action!” On The Blackboard
Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues
Spencer on elitism in the IPCC climate machine
CRU Emails – search engine now online
Release of CRU files forges a new hockey stick reconstruction
Mike’s Nature Trick
and the post that started it all…
Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released
Sponsored IT training links:
Join 642-357 online course and improve your 642-691 test score up to 100% using certified 70-685 material.
Other relevant stories:
About these ads

401 thoughts on “Climategate”

  4. It might also be worthwhile to provide a repository of PDF’s.
    Here’s what I’ve gathered so far:
    PDFs
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Pratt-TheProfessionalEdge119.pdf
    http://www.cato.org/special/climatechange/cato_climate.pdf
    http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/skeptics_handbook_2-0.pdf
    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~jsmerdon/papers/2008_JC_Smerdonetal.pdf
    http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/12312.pdf
    http://www.co2science.org/index.php
    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061121_gore.pdf
    http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/hertzberg.pdf
    http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Unmasking_Inconvenient_Truth.pdf
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
    http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070330_kininmonth.pdf
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NRCreport.pdf
    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
    http://tech-know.eu/uploads/EPAInput.pdf
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy.pdf
    http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/30/15/64/PDF/nhess-2-83-2002.pdf
    http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/devi_081119_gcb_ural.pdf
    Reply
  6. Tim Ball will be posting an article tomorrow (Monday Nov.30/2009) on Canada Free Press that goes through the history of Climategate from the beginning, all the connections among this group, the games played, etc. This from a man who has been marginalized by these very people, and excluded from the peer-reviewed process, even though his research at the time was very relevant to the debate. The Hudson’s Bay records are sub-arctic spanning almost 400 years and their claim is that the Arctic temps are a thermostat for what is going on with the climate. What could be more relevant than this record. Because it did not show what they wanted it to show was reason for dismissal of this research. This is precisely what is wrong with this picture. Please take the time to read. It is an important piece of the Climategate puzzle.
    Reply
  9. The Strata-sphere has found that surface temperature measurements fail to show twentieth century global warming. The raw CRU data released in Climategate shows that surface temperature readings measure the first half of the last century (1900-1960) as warm or warmer than it is today.
    John Pittman has found some interesting science in the Climategate emails: The treeline is an sensitive treemometer, since it is very sharply defined, a few kilometers broad. Trees grow, just barely, south of the treeline, they entirely fail to grow north of the treeline. During the Medieval climatic optimum 750-1450 trees grew north of the present day treeline, indicating that the medieval climatic optimum was warmer than today in the north. During the past century, 1897 to present, there has been no movement in the treeline, indicating no twentieth century warming in the north,none.
    Global sea ice area has also remained constant since it has been observed, from 1978 to the present.
    Reply
  14. I’d suggest several subsets of this, since the following is what most ordinary folks are concerned with. The science itself is of little interest to most people – Sunday supplement junk. This entire issue needs to connect with people and how they live their lives. At present it’s just another piece of BS from on high, that doesn’t directly impact them/us.
    1. Political/legal activity and consequences/news as a result of disclosures (current and future ).
    2. Financial/market activity and consequences/news as a result of disclosures (current and future ).
    3. Farming and industrial activity and consequences/news as a result of disclosures (current and future ).
    4. Consumer (groceries, housing, transportation, jobs, lifestyle, etc. ) impacts as a result of disclosures (current and future ).
    5. Social organization and consequences of changes due to taxes, regulations, foreign aid, etc. Who are the winners/losers?
    Reply
  15. Examples of the large impact of manual data adjustments in temperature: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/yet-more-stuff-we-always-suspected-but-its-nice-to-have-proof.html
    More explanation of “the trick”: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/the-trick.html
    The heart of the scandal: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/the-heart-of-the-scandal.html
    Response letter to the AMS: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/missing-the-point-perhaps-on-purpose.html
    Dangers of a monoculture: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/dangers-of-a-monoculture-reactions-to-the-hadley-emails.html
    Catastrophe Denied video: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/catastrophe-denied-video-from-my-climate-lecture.html
    Reply
  17. Trawl of Warwick Hughes:
    CRU quietly revising 8 months of 2009 global temperature data: http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=324
    Exactly who was emailing who in Climategate:
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=317
    Important link to diagram: http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/crunet.gif
    Jones et al 1986 methodical insertion of warming bias:
    http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=308
    My own modest additions:
    http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2009/11/fellowship-of-tree-rings.html
    http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2009/11/fellowship-of-tree-rings-immoral-tale.html
    http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2009/11/tree-con-sequences.html
    http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2009/11/harryreadme-file.html
    Reply
  19. OK, do not be scared; I have always been a bit of a hoarder for links. Not all of the links are of the same relevance and some may be repeated, but some are really hilarious (especially those of coders commenting on the CRU code). The following should be in approximate chronological order:
    http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/11/climategate.html
    http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091120_cru_hacked.htm
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/deconstructing-climategates-smoking-gun-email/
    http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-climate-e-mails-and-the-politics-of-science
    http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml
    http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm (this coder despairs at the CRU code)
    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/
    http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
    http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/in-climate-hack.html
    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/26/11929676-sun.html
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230943/Climate-change-scandal-BBC-expert-sent-cover-emails-month-public.html
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/295157.php/
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018066/bbcs-paleo-news-site-finally-runs-a-real-scoop-story-on-climategates-michael-mann/
    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012694.html
    http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5565331/green-totalitarianism.thtml
    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/vincent-gray-on-climategate-there-was-proof-of-fraud-all-along-pjm-exclusive/
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/
    http://coast.gkss.de/staff/zorita/myview.html (Eduardo Zorita asks that Mann, Jones and Rahmstorf be barred from the IPCC)
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/27/cap_and_trade_is_dead__99322.html
    Eric S. Raymond (esr) is the author of “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”; in the OpenSource community, he is as big as they get:
    http://rebootcongress.blogspot.com/2009/11/eric-s-raymond-on-east-anglia-crus.html
    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447 (“This isn’t just a smoking gun, it’s a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.”)
    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1481
    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1473
    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1436 (Open-Sourcing the Global Warming Debate)
    http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1431
    And lots more in http://esr.ibiblio.org/.
    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/11/underestimating.html
    And a comment from one of Michael Crighton’s lectures (pity he did not live to see Climategate; he would have loved it):
    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/11/underestimating.html#90730
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html (Secrecy in science is a corrosive force by Michael Schrage; registration may be required, but worth it)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09ORzwKrwaM (WUWT already has an article on this; still it is one of the best political videos ever recorded)
    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/From+Climategate+Copenhagen/2279430/story.html
    http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2009/11/28/11960486-sun.html
    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=1390 (this guy is a professional statistician and has done models in the past)
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e14e6c-dba0-11de-9424-00144feabdc0.html
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/articles.php?id=177
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10447.html
    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10436.html
    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10399.html (For now, we can safely say all the data produced by this CRU code is highly suspect. By the ancient and proven rule in computing of “Garbage in, Garbage Out” this means that all the climate simulations by other teams that make predictions using this dubious data are likewise corrupted. Given that literally hundreds of millions of lives over the next century will depend on getting the climate models correct, we have to start all our climate modeling over from scratch.)
    http://vnboards.ign.com/ywain/b23441/112121341/p9/?135 (talking about the CRU code and the political consequences of Climategate; some of the comments are really funny)
    http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/wow_just_wow.html
    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012764.html
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece (the dog ate my homework too!)
    http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2009/11/28/climategate-time-to-postpone-copenhagen/
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Climategate-denial-foundering-on-army-of-Davids-8595184-76420732.html (the Instapundit reflects on Climategate)
    http://greenhellblog.com/2009/11/24/ny-times-reporter-whitewashes-climategate-story-he-is-part-of/ (Andrew Revkin has a case of conflict of interests)
    http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=YjAxYzA3NmI0N2Y1MDVhYzdmM2JkZGIyMjE5ZWU2OTI
    This last one is not Climategate-related, but I just cannot avoid sharing it:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8379759.stm
    It took me 10 minutes to stop laughing.
    Reply
  22. Anthony,
    Here is just a 5 min pencil sketch of a logo concept for your ClimateGate site.
    If this simple concept is something that you might consider, then it can be refined.

    John
    Reply
  27. Anthony,
    The “Climategate” link on your main page needs to at least be in red, and preferably a lot larger. Just a suggestion.
    Jerry
    Reply
  30. Any chance to split list into categories? It would make it more accessible and valuable to more people if they were not inundated with too much information spread through a large spectrum of problems that are associated with global warming.
    Maybe even “try” a voting system to grade each page’s value to the community.
    Reply
  31. David Ball (13:01:54) :
    “Tim Ball will be posting an article tomorrow (Monday Nov.30/2009) on Canada Free Press that goes through the history of Climategate from the beginning,”
    He was on the Coast to Coast AM talk radio show Thursday night and was very outspoken about The Team and its supporters. Here’s what the C2C’s recap summarized his appearance:
    “In the latter half of the program, environmental consultant Tim Ball discussed ‘ Climate-Gate,’ a coordinated effort to hide information about global warming. Someone hacked in to the files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) based at the University of East Anglia and found damaging emails that show that scientists at the Unit created and manipulated false data to preserve the idea that global warming is real.
    “Since 2002, global temperatures have been declining, and numbers from the past have been pushed down to make the current temps seem warmer, he argued. We’re seeing climate change ideas, often based on overly simplistic computer models, used as a vehicle for political purposes, he added.”
    Reply
  32. http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=423&filename=1092167224.txt
    Michael E. Mann wrote:
    Dear Phil and Gabi,
    I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
    Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.
    Reply
  34. Just an idea… we should amass ‘resistance’ links as well. There is so much great information and support out there but it is so scattered.
    I mean like links to ron paul, rushbo, lou dobbs, and so forth.. there are many. People/sites that want to take America back and talk about what it will take to do so intelligently and truthfully. People with a wealth of knowledge and experience. Information is our most powerful weapon right now, and these people are providing it. We need unity, and our sources are too scattered.
    I am in such a state of shock that this is really happening that I have to seek out these places several times a day just to reassure myself of my sanity. Perhaps others feel the same and would also appreciate a ‘resistance central’, lol.
    Anyhow again, just a thought.
    Reply
  35. “Lawrence Solomon: New Zealand’s Climategate”
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-solomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx
    “An agency of the New Zealand government has been cooking the books…The chief cook? Dr. Jim Salinger, considered one of the country’s top scientists, who began the graph in the 1980s when he was at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. CRU, of course, has become ground zero of Climategate at Dr. Salinger has maintained close relations with CRU since, as seen in the Climategate emails.”
    Reply
  36. Apologies if this has been posted…
    It’s amazing how convenient THIS item is:
    “SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. ”
    Taken from this article:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
    Ok. So first Jones told the other team members to delete data/emails, and says he’s already deleted tons of stuff himself.
    THEN he gets outted by the whistleblower, and everyone reads that email, and he publicly states that NO date or emails at CRU have been deleted.
    THEN CRU comes out and says they’re going to release everything…
    wait for it…
    and NOW…they can’t release the information because it’s been deleted.
    Does that about sum the data episode up so far?
    Someone explain to me on what possible basis does this guy still have a job, and a window WITHOUT bars on it to view the rest of the world from?
    JimB
    Reply
  37. Thanks for this resource. While there is a lot of fine work showing the lack of true scientific spirit coming from the alarmist camp, nothing has been so powerful for me as this graph that has shown up several times in WUWT, and an article by Frank Lansner that used that graph.
    As Lansner pointed out:”When CO2 does not cause these big temperature changes, then what is then the reason for the big temperature changes seen in Vostok data? Or: “What is the mechanism behind ice ages???”
    This is a question many alarmists asks, and if you can’t answer, then CO2 is the main temperature driver. End of discussion. There are obviously many factors not yet known, so I will just illustrate one hypothetical solution to the mechanism of ice ages among many:
    First of all: When a few decades of low sunspot number is accompanied by Dalton minimum and 50 years of missing sunspots is accompanied by the Maunder minimum, what can for example thousands of years of missing sunspots accomplish? We don’t know.
    What we saw in the Maunder minimum is NOT all that missing solar activity can achieve, even though some might think so. In a few decades of solar cooling, only the upper layers of the oceans will be affected. But if the cooling goes on for thousands of years, then the whole oceans will become colder and colder. It takes around 1000-1500 years to “mix” and cool the oceans. So for each 1000-1500 years the cooling will take place from a generally colder ocean. Therefore, what we saw in a few decades of maunder minimum is in no way representing the possible extend of ten thousands of years of solar low activity.”
    Note that the warm period we are in, which included the Roman warm, the Little Ice Age, and the Midieval warm, has gone on far longer than any other warm period on the graph. Shouldn’t we be planning on how to survive the more probable cold spell that is coming?
    As S. Fred Singer points out in “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years”, “No one alive today, however, is able to recall the alarm that was felt when glaciers advanced. Alan Cutler…described what it must have been like during the Little Ice Age:
    The year was 1645, and the glaciers in the Alps were on the move. In Chamonix at the foot of Mont Blanc, people watched in fear as the Mer de Glace (Sea of Ice) glacier advanced. In earlier years, they had seen the slowly flowing ice engulf farms and crish entire villages….Similar dramas unfolded throughout the Alps and Scandinavia during the late 1600s and 1700s as many glaciers grew farther down mountain slopes and valleys that they had in thoudands of years.”
    “Humans worry (perhaps excessively) when glaciers shrink but suffer dreadfully when they advance. Picture a mile-thick glacier covering the area that is now the city of Chicago- something primitive human hunters might actually have seen during the 90,000 years of the last ice age.”
    Reply
  38. Links to the CRU Code & code analysis
    The HARRY_READ_ME.txt File organized L’Ombre de l’Olivier
    Climategate: hide the decline codified
    EcoTretas
    The Code Bishop Hill’s Blog
    Data horribilia: the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file Devils Kitchen, 11/23/2009 03:56:00 AM
    CRU’s Source Code: Climategate Uncovered by Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, November 25, 2009
    The Program Code – Perhaps Far More Damning than the Emails Climate Skeptic November 25, 2009, 10:54 am
    The HADCRU code as from the CRU leak L’Ombre de l’Olivier 23 November 2009
    Hadley Hack and CRU Crud November 21, 2009 by E.M.Smith
    CLIMATEGATE: My analysis of the CRU files, starting with “documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt” Steve Netwriter
    Climategate Computer Codes Are the Real Story The “Read Me” file of a harried programmer who couldn’t replicate the scientists’ warming results, November 24, 2009 – by Charlie Martin, PajamasMedia
    Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails Posted by Declan McCullagh
    November 24, 2009 11:40 AM CBSNews
    The Harry_Read_Me fileSteve McIntyre, 2009 November 23, CAMirror
    Revenge of the Nerds: Climategate Is Following the Memogate Pattern By Jay Richards, The American November 29, 2009, 11:30 am
    “Climategate” — Forget the Emails: What Will the Hacked Documents Tell Us? Ronald Bailey | November 25, 2009
    Reply
  40. The comment by the Chief Scientist at CRU, Phil Jones, on learning that John L Daly was dead — “… in an odd way this is cheering news” needs to be seen in context to be fully understood. John Izzard has published this sobering story in Quadrant Online: https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/john-l-daly
    This story in RollingStone by Matt Taibbi is a real eye opener on the investment banker Goldman Sachs http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/inside_the_great_american_bubble_machine
    Reply
  44. Apologies if this has already been posted, but this excellent article from Climate Audit is a good example of how ‘real data’ fails to conform to the CRU/GISS/IPCC CAGW myth in the very area they say it is at its worst.
    Antarctic Update – by Steve McIntyre on January 20th, 2007
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1092
    Reply
  47. Drudge’s +20 million hits a day front page has this—beneath all the Tiger Woods headlines of course :
    ” ‘Climate change’ data dumped…”
    at link :
    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based…..The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data….Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
    Reply
  48. Follow the Money
    I Just googled “grants site:cru.uea.ac.uk” and up popped the following.
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/grants.htm.
    This is a link to a web page titled “Recent CRU grants-Grants active since 1 January 2007,” which breaks down the distribution of roughly £3 million of grant money. The following information is provided:
    “Project title/Contractor,” “Investigator(s),” “Value,” and “Start/End” dates.
    Among the dozen investigators named are Jones and Briffa.
    Nothing necessarily sinister here. In this era £3 million distributed among a dozen investigators is probably not unreasonable. Nevertheless, this information might be useful to someone trying to understand where some of the money was coming from.
    Reply
  51. The balanced and authoratitive audio file linked here is worthy of a listen:
    The leaking of email correspondence has embarrassed some climate scientists from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UK). Aynsley Kellow considers the ramifications of the scandal.
    via Andrew Bolt
    Reply
  52. Himalaya Glaciers NOT Shrinking
    Just seen this: http://yesbuthowever.com/himalayan-glaciers-8136289/
    “India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests has released a comprehensive report on the Himalayan glaciers by the eminent Dr. V.K. Raina, ex-Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India. According to his report, the Saichen glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.” In fact, it is growing. Even Richard Armstrong, Senior Research Scientist at the University of Colorado, and the man who briefed Al Gore on glaciers, concluded there was no major melting in Himalayan glaciers above 5,400 meters. Professor Armstrong’s research, as is typical in the field, uses satellite-gathered data. Dr. Raina and his team actually physically sampled 20 of the 200 Himalayan glaciers over a period of many years. They found little “snout” retreat, if any. The snout is the longest extension of a glacier – the finger. They also found no discernible pattern to glacier melt rates. As Raina put it, “ultimately the movements [of glaciers] are due to climate and snowfall in particular, but the factors are so varied that the snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier.”
    The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report had concluded Himalayan glaciers were receding at such a fast rate they could be gone by 2035 or earlier. Raina’s report acknowledges general glacier retreat, but finds no evidence of direct causation by carbon emission. Some glaciers even grew during periods of increased industrialization.”
    Reply
  54. “For the sake of science, Dick, for the sake of collegiality, for your own sake, give it a rest. You know as well as I do that the issue isn’t global warming. The issue is what side of the bread our butter is on.”
    “Now, we’re climatologists, for crying out loud,…”
    …-
    “The Climate Scam: Did You Read It First Here?
    November 27, 2009 11:55 AM by N. Joseph Potts (Archive)
    Anthropogenic global warming has been a dubious proposition from the outset to anyone with the slightest understanding of social science as it pertains to coercive government, science “science,” and the nexus of the two. Even if you didn’t read about it elsewhere (and there were places where you could), you could (and should) have easily thought up the evil plot in the whole thing.
    Last week, Lilburne brought this Blog the report many of us have been waiting for for years: It’s all a put-up job.
    But way back (it seems so long ago) in 2006, though, the Daily Articles of this site were graced by a put-up job by none other than myself, titled “How to Achieve Scientific Consensus,” it being an explicitly phony “e-mail” to Warming Denialist Richard Lindzen explaining how his failure to cooperate in the Great Professional Project of Warming Alarmism was messing up not only his career, but that of many of his colleagues.
    I find it makes gratifying reading in light of the recent exposure of the global warming boondoggle.
    But then, I like my own stuff. Hope you do, too, at least in this case.”
    http://blog.mises.org/archives/011105.asp
    …-
    “How to Achieve Scientific “Consensus”
    Mises Daily: Monday, August 14, 2006 by N. Joseph Potts
    Date: August 14, 2006
    To: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, MIT
    From: Dr. John Q. Colleague [not anyone’s real name]
    Subj: Scientific Solidarity
    I’m sorry I had to decline your lunch invitation today. You seemed to know the excuse I gave you was just a cover. Of course, the reality was simply that the tenure committee is considering my application this week, and it just wouldn’t do at this particular moment for me to be seen hobnobbing with you.
    I judge others have come up with their own excuses; the sight of you dining alone at the Faculty Club has become a rather forlorn feature of my everyday. As many years as I’ve known you, and as closely as we’ve worked together, I’ve decided to do you the favor evidently none of our colleagues has seen his way to doing and make a clean breast of things.
    The issue, of course, is your ongoing insistence, exemplified most by your op ed in the Wall Street Journal for July 2, of bucking the consensus that all the rest of us in the department, and indeed, all over the world, have arrived at regarding the issue of global warming. I know you know this has estranged you from the great majority of the rest of your colleagues, including people like me who really agree with you, and I suspect you accept this, but I’d like to make it clear to you just how and why it does so, and what the further damage is or may be that your breaking ranks with our profession really does.
    When you were starting out in this field 45 years ago, things were very different. For one thing, you didn’t have to be a grant magnet to hold an academic post at a place like MIT — you could get by just teaching and publishing the occasional article. For another, you were just weathermen back then, or meteorologists, as you were called by the few who cared to demonstrate respect for what you were doing.
    Today, there’s a lot more money and a lot more candidates for what seems like fewer and fewer posts that offer any kind of real future. And that money — that grant money that comes from a few influential foundations but most of all, from Uncle — it flows like a thing you and I understand: a current. Like a current, it flows away from one thing, and toward another thing, and what it’s flowing toward now is what Al Gore terms the planetary emergency of global warming.
    Now take a young professor trying to keep his head above water in this sweeping torrent — me, if you insist, but there are thousands of us in the world scientific community trying to run before this tide. […]
    Through the work of stalwarts like Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, who produced the “hockey stick” graph of millennial global temperature that was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we’re no longer the butt of jokes about weathermen who look out the window to decide whether to carry an umbrella after having made a weather forecast. Now, we’re climatologists, for crying out loud,…”
    http://mises.org/daily/2267
    Reply
  56. PSU investigates ‘Climategate’
    The Daily Collegian [Penn State’s Newspaper] ^ | 11/30/9 | Laura Nichols
    Penn State is conducting an inquiry into the controversy surrounding a Penn State professor whose illegally leaked e-mails have sparked an international debate over whether he and his colleagues distorted data on global warming….
    The e-mails appeared to indicate that the director of the research unit in question — Phil Jones — contacted his colleagues to request they delete certain exchanges….
    Though he says he was asked to delete selected e-mails by Jones, Mann said he did not comply with the request. He does not believe any of his colleagues went through with the deletion either….
    http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
    ………
    I emailed the Collegian when this first broke.
    Mann acted on the delete email He asked Gene Wahl to delete the emails:
    From: Phil Jones p.jones@x To: “Michael E. Mann” mann@xxx Subject: IPCC & FOI Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008 Mike, 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?
    From: Michael Mann mann@xxx
    To: Phil Jones p.jones@xx
    Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
    Reply-to: mann@xxx
    Hi Phil,
    laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.
    I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxx
    Reply
  58. The IPCC head keeps deluding himself (“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report.” An author or two? How about the whole team?). On top of that, questions about BBC’s role (or lack of) in the Climategate scandal:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6690110/Leaked-climate-change-emails-wont-bias-UN-global-warning-body-says-chairman.html
    Reply
  61. More on Climategate
    30 Nov 2009 09:40 am
    Clive Crook
    In my previous post on Climategate I blithely said that nothing in the climate science email dump surprised me much. Having waded more deeply over the weekend I take that back.
    . . .
    One theme, in addition to those already mentioned about the suppression of dissent, the suppression of data and methods, and the suppression of the unvarnished truth, comes through especially strongly: plain statistical incompetence. This is something that Henderson’s study raised, and it was also emphasized in the Wegman report on the Hockey Stick, and in other independent studies of the Hockey Stick controversy. Of course it is also an ongoing issue in Steve McIntyre’s campaign to get hold of data and methods. Nonetheless I had given it insufficient weight. Climate scientists lean very heavily on statistical methods, but they are not necessarily statisticians. Some of the correspondents in these emails appear to be out of their depth. This would explain their anxiety about having statisticians, rather than their climate-science buddies, crawl over their work.
    http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php
    Reply
  62. Climategate – The Introduction
    http://climateclinic.com/html/introduction.html
    Climategate – Part I
    By: Jack Koenig, Editor
    The Mysterious Climate Project
    http://www.climateclinic.com
    You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time. Attributed to Abraham Lincoln
    On November 20, 2009, an individual or individuals published a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and other information. But this wasn’t just any old file: this file contained reams of confidential information flowing back and forth between the Hadley Climate Research Unit (HadCru) at the University of East Anglia in Britain, and a small cadre of “elitists” who were promoting the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) agenda throughout the world.
    As word leaked out that HadCru’s servers had been compromised and sensitive information placed on the Internet, the silence outside the “skeptic” community was deafening! But within the “skeptic” community, thousands of scientists, researchers, and others salivated at the very thought of what may await them. Ad hoc task forces quickly formed, saved the files to their desktops, and began digging into the mountain of information. What unfolded was stunning, to say the least.
    The emails contained ultra-sensitive information on how a small group had been manipulating the AGW issue with false and misleading information; had been systematically blackballing “skeptics” from publishing in peer reviewed journals; had been hiding and even destroying data that didn’t mesh with their pre-conceived opinions and agenda, and had been viciously demonizing all who got in their way.
    Reviewers of the now “not-so-confidential” emails began publishing their damming contents on “skeptic” websites throughout the world. Media independents, such as the Fox News Channel, Investors Business Daily, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times started taking notice and began tracking the issue. The so-called “Main Stream Media” (MSM) took a pass and remained silent.
    It wasn’t long however, before the MSM had to take their heads out of the sand and begin addressing the issue. But for the most part, the MSM articles downplayed the importance of the revelations and instead, condemned the hacker who caused all the problems. But was it a hacker? More to come on this later!
    One of Europe’s best known and highly respected enviros – George Moribot – had this to say about the rapidly unfolding disclosures:
    It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.
    Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request. Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed. (Editor’s note: Dr. Phil Jones Is head of the now infamous HadCru)
    NPR weighed in on what now has now been dubbed “Climategate” by adding:
    “… a group of scientists who support the consensus view of climate change have been working together to influence what gets published in science journals.
    Journals are supposed to be impartial filters that let good ideas rise to the top and bad ideas sink to the bottom. But the stolen e-mails show that a group of scientists has decided that’s not working well enough. So they have resorted to strong tactics — including possible boycotts — to keep any paper they think is dubious from reaching the pages of a journal.”
    Not to be outdone, a “Climategate” article appearing in the New York Times included a quote by Judith Curry (Chair, School of Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology) as saying: “This whole concept of, ‘We’re the experts, trust us’ has clearly gone by the wayside with these e-mails.”
    But that’s only the tip of the iceberg!
    Given the fact thousands of scientists and researchers have signed petitions, letters, and other documents challenging the AGW theory, the so-called “consensus” has always been suspect. The emails suggest many scientists were browbeaten into “going along to get along” or threatened with the dire consequence of not getting published in scientific journals. And not getting published can mean the end to one’s career. Others simply fell in line.
    The emails flowing back and forth between this small cadre of “elitists” also dealt with methods of marginalizing and demonizing skeptical scientists, manipulating what gets published, and advocating the destruction of data.
    The emails also encouraged members of that small group to form a solid front against those challenging their assertions, regardless if those assertions were accurate or not. But while creating a solid front may work in politics, it doesn’t work in science. Science relies on others challenging each hypothesis in an effort to prove or disprove it. This is part of what’s called the “Scientific Method.” The “Scientific Method” also mandates replication, that is, the ability of an outside peer reviewer to duplicate the experiment(s) supporting the originator’s hypothesis. If the experiment can’t be duplicated, the hypothesis is “falsified” and returned to the originator.
    But this zealot group of AGW promoters bastardized the “Scientific Method” by refusing to allow “outsiders” to see their papers and instead, reviewed and approved each other’s. Can you imagine how fantastic your college grades would have been if the professor allowed small groups of classmates to correct and grade each others’ papers?
    As far as the promoters’ programmed computer models and the “Scientific Method” are concerned, meteorologist and researcher Anthony Watts had this to say:
    The same holds true for computer models. This 2006 paper by Rand and Wilensky of Northwestern University: Verification and Validation through Replication: A Case Study Using Axelrod and Hammond’s Ethnocentrism Model (PDF) illustrates clearly the need for replication when it comes to models, something climate science is lacking in when the data and code is not made available to independent researchers.
    Outrageously, this rogue band of elitists also refused “outsiders” the ability to review their computer code… and the emails showed why: programmer’s notes revealed how the computer models were rigged to show trends favoring the AGW hoax, and to hide or delete trends showing temperature declines!
    So who are these “elitists,” what was their motivation, and how did they almost get away with their AGW scheme and bankrupt the industrialized world in the process?
    Developing… more to come!
    Reply
  66. Here is a story Fox just broke at least on their website:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html
    here is an except from the document that Fox found:
    “The environment should compete with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity. To do that, however, it will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already
    concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency. Indeed, unless UNEP succeeds in recasting the debate, it is
    highly likely that the economic community will do it—badly, and on its own terms. It is already happening in the field of climate change.”
    Earlier in the document they decry that it is a travesty that UNEP doesn’t have the control over the IPCC that they wish they did.
    Reply
  67. And the latest BBC propaganda is:
    The shrinking Himalayan glaciers
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8339269.stm
    Whereas the Indian Scientists say:
    Indian Scientists Say Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
    http://yesbuthowever.com/himalayan-glaciers-8136289/
    Quote: “India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests has released a comprehensive report on the Himalayan glaciers by the eminent Dr. V.K. Raina, ex-Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India. According to his report, the Saichen glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50 years.” In fact, it is growing. Even Richard Armstrong, Senior Research Scientist at the University of Colorado, and the man who briefed Al Gore on glaciers, concluded there was no major melting in Himalayan glaciers above 5,400 meters. Professor Armstrong’s research, as is typical in the field, uses satellite-gathered data. Dr. Raina and his team actually physically sampled 20 of the 200 Himalayan glaciers over a period of many years. They found little “snout” retreat, if any. The snout is the longest extension of a glacier – the finger. They also found no discernible pattern to glacier melt rates. As Raina put it, “ultimately the movements [of glaciers] are due to climate and snowfall in particular, but the factors are so varied that the snout movements appear to be peculiar to each particular glacier.”
    The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report had concluded Himalayan glaciers were receding at such a fast rate they could be gone by 2035 or earlier. Raina’s report acknowledges general glacier retreat, but finds no evidence of direct causation by carbon emission. Some glaciers even grew during periods of increased industrialization.”
    I wonder who the BBC get their info from!
    Reply
  68. Climategate Scandal Heats Up, As Researcher “Accidentally” Deleted Data
    Graham Winfrey
    Nov. 30, 2009, 1:48 PM
    It would appear that the Climategate scandal, the hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the U.K. revealing that scientists distorted climate change data, is not going to cool off anytime soon.
    Climate change skeptics are fired up about the “accidental” deletion of temperature data by head of the CRU Phil Jones and the bogus data aggregation procedure used by scientists that “renders the [temperature readings] totally meaningless,” but what gets some people’s goats the most is the fact that the University of East Anglia is still denying that there was any wrong doing.
    http://www.businessinsider.com/climategate-scandal-keeps-heating-up-2009-11
    [Quotes from Washington Times article below*]
    EDITORIAL: The global-cooling cover-up
    Climate-change researchers admit their data is ‘garbage’
    By THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    The climate-gate revelations have exposed an unprecedented coordinated attempt by academics to distort research for political ends. Anyone interested in accurate science should be appalled at the manipulation of data “to hide the decline [in temperature]” and deletion of e-mail exchanges and data so as not to reveal information that would support global-warming skeptics. These hacks are not just guilty of bad science. In the United Kingdom, deleting e-mail messages to prevent their disclosure from a Freedom of Information Act request is a crime.
    The story has gotten worse since the global-cooling cover-up was exposed through a treasure trove of leaked e-mails a week ago. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia has been incredibly influential in the global-warming debate. The CRU claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its research and mathematical models form the basis of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 report.
    . . .
    *We read and reread these CRU documents in stunned amazement. But rather than investigating all the evidence of so much academic fraud and intellectual wrongdoing, the University of East Anglia is denying there is a problem. Professor Trevor Davies, the school’s pro vice chancellor for research, issued a defensive statement on Tuesday claiming: “The publication of a selection of the emails and data stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has led to some questioning of the climate science research published by CRU and others. There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation.”
    Unlike these global-warming propagandists, we expect research to be done in the open. Scientists who refuse to share their data, who plot to destroy information and fail to tell other scientists how their results were calculated should be severely punished.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-global-cooling-cover-up/
    —–
    Seems ClimateGate, the ‘The global-cooling cover-up’, may gain some traction prior to Copenhagen.
    Reply
  69. Are there anyway you could make two categories; those giving weight to the fact that they manipulated the data and another one for those articles that try to defend them? Maybe you could use two colors for the text and still keep the chronology.
    Reply
  73. A list of articles from Is It Getting Warmer?:
    http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2009/11/30/scientist-calls-for-barring-mann-jones-and-rahmstorf/
    http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2009/11/27/interview-with-both-sides-regarding-stolen-emails/
    http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2009/11/26/professors-singer-and-watson-on-east-anglia-cru-stolen-emails/
    http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2009/11/25/dr-balls-thoughts-on-cru-emails/
    http://globalwarming-factorfiction.com/2009/11/24/no-scientist-had-email-stolen-from-east-anglia/
    Reply
  74. Professor Don Easterbrook left this comment on the ABC news site.
    I’ve spent 4 decades studying global climate change and as a scientist I am appalled at Krugman’s cavalier shrugging off the Hadley email scandal as ‘just the way scientists talk among themselves.’
    That’s like saying it’s alright for politicians to be corrupt because that’s the way they are.
    Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data.
    Posted by: Don Easterbrook | Nov 29, 2009 1:57:05 PM
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/11/global-warming-partisan-divide.html
    Reply
  79. And The Whitewash Begins…
    Climategate: the whitewash begins
    1) Lord Rees (Royal Society) to be asked by UEA to investigate CRU leak.
    The appointment of Lord Rees, if confirmed, is especially worrying. It’s the rough equivalent of appointing King Herod’s grand vizier to investigate a mysterious outbreak of mass baby killing in Judaea.
    First, Lord Rees – formerly Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal – is very much of the catastrophist mindset which helped launch the whole AGW scare in the first place.
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018144/climategate-the-whitewash-begins/
    Reply
  80. Document Reveals U.N.’s Goal of Becoming Rule-Maker in Global Environmental Talks
    Environmentalism should be re garded on the same level with religion “as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity,” according to a paper written two years ago to influence the future strategy of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), the world’s would-be environmental watchdog.
    http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/international/Document_Reveals_UNs_Goal_of_Becoming_RuleMaker_in_Global_Environmental_Talks_30263957
    Reply
  81. The following are Climategate-related articles at The American Thinker”, from 112109 through 113009:
    1 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_ghost_of_lysenko.html
    2- http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_mathematics_of_global_warm.html
    3- http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/oh_my_another_warming_advocate.html
    4 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/sen_mitch_mcconnell_remains_si.html
    5 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/un_climate_expert_what_me_worr.html
    6 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmists_and_a_wave_of_disease.html
    7 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
    8 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/politics_and_greenhouse_gasses.html
    9 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
    10 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/climate_fraud_and_the_environm.html
    11 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/acorning_the_climate_change_mo.html
    12 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html
    13 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/deliberative_analysis_rip.html
    14 – http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_evidence_of_climate_fraud.html
    15 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climategate_an_inconvenient_wh.html
    16 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_emails_were_leaked_before.html
    17 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/the_warmist_pr_con_job.html
    18 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/calls_to_ban_cru_scientists_fr.html
    19 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climategate_the_stones_cry_out.html
    20 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_scientists_shredded_vital.html
    21 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/down_under_global_warming_is_a.html
    22 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/greens_are_blue_about_black_fr.html
    23 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmist_denial_wont_work.html
    24 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/tear_down_the_warmist_wall.html
    25 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/does_the_worlds_fate_depend_on.html
    26 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/on_to_copenhagen_for_obama_and.html
    27 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/mccain_silent_on_global_warmin.html
    28 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/thanks_again_president_bush.html
    29 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/technology_writer_charlie_mart.html
    30 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/rnc_remains_silent_on_global_w.html
    31 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/science_frauds_may_face_crimin.html
    32 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/cru_emails_spur_lawsuit.html
    33 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmists_using_suicidal_animal.html
    34 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/violating_the_principle_of_sci.html
    35 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/monbiot_phil_jones_should_resi.html
    36 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/more_weather_hypocrisy_at_the.html
    37 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/kiwi_challenges_gores_settled.html
    38 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/drink_coca_cola_save_the_plane.html
    39 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climate_change_blamed_for_incr.html
    40 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climate_fraud_continues_unrave.html
    41 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/climategate_heats_up.html
    42 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/warmings_pentagon_papers_conti.html
    43 – http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/todays_media_ethics_award_goes.html
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)