The state of ClimateGate today, Dec 17 2009. [krakatoa]

(A series of daily-ish roundups of the day's Climate news and commentary.)

This is by no means a comprehensive recap. The stories come from a variety of sources, and I highly recommend exploring the linked sites for more breaking news.

(after the break...)

Good stuff happening, like protesters getting beaten in Copenhagen (not skeptical protesters, but the wackos that insist we aren't going stone-age fast enough).

While many may be true believers and passionately so, certainly there is no insignificant number of true-believers who have been ratcheted into feeling desperation by the wildly overdramatic and improbable predictions of "climate scientists."

Because the bullying means that anyone who speaks out, faces outright hostility. Climate hazing means women keep a low profile.

It starts with names: “denier”, “delayer”, “contrarian”, “industry shill”, “inactivist”, “do-nothing”, or a “conspiracy theorist”... It moves on to attacks on their mental health, and motivations. Or it just boils down to a patronising put-down: “Perhaps skeptics suffered unhappy childhoods?”

The climate change “debate” from alarmists is based on bluff and bluster, it’s about hazing people, not about evidence. Smear, slander and intimidation are not just rife, they are industrial — coming from funded blog sites, prime ministers, and vice presidential staff...

Since men are more likely to take risks, is anyone surprised that most women choose to stay on the sidelines of this vitriolic fracas?"

BTW, Nova has a couple of handbooks for the Climate Skeptic that I find helpful.

The Skeptics Handbook reduces the debate to what she feels are the 4 essential points that must be adhered to when dealing with the AGW mongers.

Point one is the missing signature of AGW via CO2, a hotspot over the tropics. All models predict it should be there, but satellite data proves it doesn't exist.

Global Warming Bullies want your money outlines the genesis & self-promoting nature of the AGW movement.

Both are in .pdf form, allowing you to print & distribute either hard or soft-copy (for free) if you so choose.

Anthony Watts comments on the curious departure from science the New Scientist has taken, noting it previously had taken a more even and skeptical approach to the topic, and citing leaked emails indicating the peer-review manipulation process was being activated against NS a few years back.

Greenpeace got a little of their own medicine.

Copenhagen hit with a blizzard, frigid weather & the prospect of the first white Christmas in 14 years.

From TBR.cc:

A vid of "The funniest environmental political debate you'll witness." Funny, and somewhat sad in the sense that these gents get away with a hilarious line of discourse that would be absolutely demonized by the PC police in the U.S., Canada or U.K.

On a more serious note, TBR also finds it troubling that in the U.K. a proposal is in the House of Lords that would allow the Government to order ISP's to block "undesirable" web pages.

Australia & China are expanding their government's roles in limiting what is permissable on the internet as well.

I find that I must link a paper by Lord Monckton. It is an easy-to-understand analysis and deconstruction of one of IPCC's key graphs, and it follows up with a damning litany of IPCC chair Pachauri's economic conflicts of interest. And frankly, my calling them a conflict of interest is probably far more genererous than it should be. I should probably just call them what they are: vehicles for Pachauri to line his own pockets at the expense of both the 1st & 3rd worlds.

Purple Avenger posted the big story from yesterday, wherein a Russian economic agency statistically showed that the CRU manipulated Russian climate data to the extent of completely invalidating the conclusions CRU made.

I just wanted to include what Steve McIntyre found in the leaked emails: Evidence that not only was CRU aware of the bald manipulation, but actively worked to kill in peer-review the challenges to their conclustions.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

Cheers
Phil [Jones]

This story, while not suprising to the skeptical camp who has long called into question the provenance of the Global raw data, is huge.

McIntyre expands on that today, describing another abuse of the peer-review process, and the supporting evidence in the emails.

This episode raises a couple of issues, aside from the unhelpful preparedness of climate scientists like Prinn to spin bits of information without troubling to investigate the facts. Jones and Trenberth clearly lived up to the threat to keep Michaels and McKitrick 2004 out of the IPCC AR4 First and Second Drafts, and when that effort foundered somewhat with the addition of de Laat and Maurelis 2006, they inserted a dismissive editorial comment that was not supported by any reference to peer reviewed literature and which had not been itself subjected to the formal IPCC process.

Salon advances the argument for AGW in the only manner in which they are capable: Calling you Stupid.

It's only a matter of time until they checkmate us with the devastating rhetorical tactic "my daddy could beat up yours!"

Chavez in Copenhagen. Brings down the house when he blames Capitalism.

Yeah, you could knock me over with a feather too, chums.

The state of ClimateGate today, Dec 17 2009. [krakatoa]&bodytext=(A series of daily-ish roundups of the day's Climate news and commentary.) This is by no means a comprehensive recap. The stories come from a variety of sources, and I highly recommend exploring the linked sites for more breaking news....&topic=world_news"> posted by xgenghisx at 05:00 PM

| Access Comments