This is unlikely to stop Pat Kenny, one of the highest paid braodcasters, continuing with this his climate change denial.

Funny that the head of Am Bord Snip is a flat earther too, still he have to listen to his advice of selling of all public reosurces and natural resources

The science has been in years ago on climate change. The Berkley study was actually funded by climate change denying groups, with the support of big oil as a spoiling tactic. The ideas being so long as there is studies, they can keep extracting and public discourse stays on ‘if’ climate change is happening and not on democractic solutions.

Why am I so cold then?

Yet another consequence of big business meets a media that is anti-science and the nonsense that all views are equal on any given subject. The vast majority of scientists believe it is a real phonomena and that the nay sayers while sounding convincing to lay people who are only looking at bits of evidence selectively. Science never claims to know everything and occasionally gets things wrong. This is opposed to non evidence based ideologies that never get anything right. When a majority of scientists say something the odds of them being right will always be much greater than a non scientific media and general public that are easily swayed by everything from politics, religion and vested business interests.

So I won’t need grit and tyre socks this winter?

No global warming here unfortunately…coldest summer in 40 years…what’s that? Ah yes a penguin in salthill…

There are few people indeed who would deny the existence of global warming itself. And even to label those people ‘deniers’ intentionally misleads the uninitiated with it’s negative connotations. A more accurate term, perhaps, would be ‘skeptics’. Without skepticism, afterall, science could not progress. Along with general curiosity, it is what the entire branch of knowledge is fundamentally based on, long before you arrive at ingenuity or innovation.

Of course, the real source of contension is over just how much Global Warming is a result of human activity. This, even with the aid of our latest supercomputers, has yet to be conclusively shown. Computers, afterall, are only as good as the algorithms they are fed.

I would also be cautious about blindly accepting some of the claims made in a comment above that the Berkeley study was funded by those with vested interests – even interests contrary to the results ultimately delivered. The School of Climate Research at Berkeley College is an institution of particular repute in the area and, like any research body of any credible standing, would have employed strict protocols when sourcing any capital. These benefactors are listed in full at the end of report itself if, for any chance, the reader does not trust the quality control measures utilised by the research team. I would hazard then, hopefully without appearing to be too rude, that the above comment was made with some details fabricated to suit the author’s point of view.

In any case, climatology is a very immature discipline that attempts to mesh almost all fields of science together in an effort to explain the simply amazing dynamics of long-term weather. We are all aware of the difficulty faced by meteorologists in performing the relatively simple task of predicting short-term weather systems.

Finally, the oft-claimed accusation that the researching climate change further ( an absurd title itself – the Earths climate has constantly been changing since it’s birth) serves only to distract from decisve action against it appears spurious to me. If anything the entire concept is a distraction. A distraction from proven and far more devasting threats such as poverty, AIDS, air and water pollution and of course enough nuclear warheads to annihilate all life from the planet several times over.

Well done Humans, pat on the back.

That last paragraph is a turgid bag of nonsense,

@nivag, last time I checked salthill was in the globe….granted a tincy wincy weeney part of it…out of curiousity, have you heard of Tongue in cheek? Tit!

Whatever the causes particular countries are very vulnerable due to extremes of climate.Surely we should focus on how to feed starving nations and make our lifestyles
more sustainable and resilient.

The weather in Salthill?? Are you seriously confusing your local weather with the global climate? So – your reasoning that the global climate is not getting hotter is that you looked out the window in Salthill – very scientific.

This is a good film about the tipping point – probably better not to watch if you have kids though.
http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html

If humans ARE the cause, its not a case of “them”, we all contribute to it. We can’t sit here giving out about oil companies and factories causing global warming, and then go and drive cars, buy products or even use plastic!!

Pa – if you were joking fair enough – but I regularly meet people who actually think a bit of cold weather in their corner of the world is evidence that the climate change isn’t happening – this daily mail sponsored ignorance is truly depressing for people who care about the environment our children are going to inherit – if there is one for them.

I agree on a personal level Adrien but I don’t think cutting down on consumption will be enough – there won’t be enough people on board for that to work. Most people couldn’t care less – they don’t make the link between the big colorful lumps of plastic they give to their kids at christmas time with the fact that this is ruining those same kids chances of having a habitable planet. Governments could do something if they are made to realise that people care but unfortunately people are all so focused on the economy now that the environment has fallen by the wayside.

All the armchair experts need to read this.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/new-here-the-ten-second-guide-to-the-world-of-skeptics/

Open your mind and look at both sides before making a decision which church your in..

I am a proud “Denier”

Agreed that scepticism is good – if you are really serious about your objectivity likewise you should read here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
‘
Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?’

Ed I looked but My money is on the scientists – not the politically and economically movitated ideologists.

Climate change …….well hurry up already and lets have some of that

Climate Change has slipped off the agenda and people I’ve spoken to are beginning to think that it’s just been a huge exaggeration. After all, if it’s so Important then why have we stopped talking about it? The snow here hasn’t helped with public opinion either!

Hard to believe some people still won’t admit it exists…

Global Warmists are like watermelons: Green on the outside but red on the inside.Did all the anti-globalisation crowd not move to the anti-Climate Change set as the means to their particular ends and have they not now ( as anthropogenic warming theory is becoming less credible) moved on to the “Occupy” movement.
Climate has always fluctuated and most historic fluctuations absolutely can’t be blamed on human activity.Why should we believe that we now have the optimum climate and that any change will be catastrophic? How did our ancestors manage to handle changes without the scientific knowledge we have?
Why do the errors on the side of the “scientific consensus” always seem to be on the Warmist side, such as the “disappearing” Himalayan Glaciers, the “hockey stick”, the drowning polar bears,etc.? Can anyone point to a mistake by the IPCC that suggested the position was not as bad as they had thought?
Why is it OK for Warmists to attribute local phenomena (eg unusual sightings of fish/whales in Irish waters) to climate change but when skeptics point to recent cold winters and cool summers we are condescendingly reminded that weather is not the same as climate?
Why oh why are we paying a carbon tax when it is clear that carbon-generating economic activity has reduced? Why should struggling businesses have to carry that burden other than as the residue of a vanity project from the last Government.
(This comment has not been funded by the oil industry).

“…the ‘Climategate’ affair – when it was reported that some scientific ‘proof’ for climate change had actually been fabricated”

Full credit to TheJournal for this line – “it was reported” is exactly right. No such thing occurred – an informal e-mail discussion between researchers took place regarding the simplification of one graph (just omitting reference to a change in data source) that was produced for a layperson’s summary of a research publication, that itself presented the full data. That’s it. That’s the great scientific conspiracy.

global warming is a natural reality and our human activity is adding to it along with farting cows and the erosion of granite mountains. Of course we are getting warmer, desertification is happening and slowly creeping northward ! cities flood defences continually being breached ! climate change is happening all around us !!!

If this forum was populated by scientists the debate about whether man made global warming is happening wouldn’t be taking place, there is consensus in the sceintific community about this issue – the only people who are debating it here are the general public who haven’t educated themselves on the science. Sure the climate has changed in the past but not with the speed at which it is happening now – to suggest that because it happened before that it isn’t happening now because of mans actions is illogical – and I don’t accept that it is an anti capitalist conspiracy – since the rise of the internet conspiracy theories are so fashionable they are almost the status quo – normally intelligent people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater because they mistrust anything that comes from authority, in this case sceintifc authority, this undiscriminating paranoia is a new malaise of our digital age.

Once I hear the alternate views of all scientists who currently don’t qualify for research grant funds, then and only then will I start to pay some heed to the argument that humans are the major cause of global warming. Until such time, I know that the few scientists in NASA and east Anglia type facilities are simply selected to justify carbon taxes for governments and massive profits for ‘green’ corporations owned by Al Gore and his buddies…ultimately we need unbiased accuracy, it’s not ‘rocket’ science, keep politicians and corrupting business out of the lab…!!!

garbage! its natural and will happen regardless

ok so i wrote granite instead of limestone ! but you get my drift…..

Climate changers are the new fear mongering neocons and the majority of us are now former believers.

Gavin. Why did you use quotation marks around the word ‘confirm’ ?

The journal Science is one of the most respected and accurate research publication on this planet.

Would you use quotation marks to report well established ‘facts’ also?

It Seems that the general population only accept scientific findings if they feel right. And not if they are right.

The media have a critical role in honestly reporting facts, even if they too don’t feel they make sense.

It seems to me that if the population growth of the last hundred years is a matter of some concern to you, as your previous post indicates, Quote”The world population has ballooned from 1.5Bn to 7Bn in around 100 years”end quote…so the one way you can personally offset that growth is by not having children. To do otherwise would “abdicate your personal responsibility”, as you have said yourself.

@ Ave Lynch. It is obvious you haven’t read the book. There’s little point worrying about what biased outlets turn out, it won’t be expected for them to do anything other than submit the party line until the whole lot behind the so-called consensus are behind bars and then they’ll just say they were the victims. Their politics is so ideological most of their news reporting becomes worthless as a result and I personally ignore it as a given. I thinf that an article in the GWPF blog says it all, really. Two things stand out for me. The totally discredited “hockey-stick” graph, and the CRU emails.
“Before anyone had time to get very far into this vast archive, the climate campaigners were ready with their critical review: Nothing worth seeing here. Out of context! Cherry picking! “This is just trivia, it’s a diversion,” climate researcher Joel Smith told Politico. On the other side, Anthony Watts, proprietor of the invaluable WattsUpWithThat.com skeptic website, had the kind of memorable line fit for a movie poster. With a hat tip to the famous Seinfeld episode, Watts wrote: “They’re real, and they’re spectacular!” An extended review of this massive new cache will take months and could easily require a book-length treatment. But reading even a few dozen of the newly leaked emails makes clear that Watts and other longtime critics of the climate cabal are going to be vindicated.

Climategate I, the release of a few thousand emails and documents from the CRU in November 2009, revealed that the united-front clubbiness of the leading climate scientists was just a display for public consumption. The science of climate change was not “settled.” There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming; in their private emails, the scientists expressed serious doubts and disagreements on some major issues. In particular, the email exchanges showed that they were far from agreement about a key part of the global warming narrative​—​the famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to demonstrate that the last 30 years were the warmest of the last millennium and which made the “medieval warm period,” an especially problematic phenomenon for the climate campaign, simply go away. (See my “Scientists Behaving Badly,” The Weekly Standard, December 14, 2009.) Leading scientists in the inner circle expressed significant doubts and uncertainty about the hockey stick and several other global warming claims about which we are repeatedly told there exists an ironclad consensus among scientists. (Many of the new emails make this point even more powerfully.) On the merits, the 2009 emails showed that the case for certainty about climate change was grossly overstated.
More damning than the substantive disagreement was the attitude the CRU circle displayed toward dissenters, skeptics, and science journals that did not strictly adhere to the party line. Dissenting articles were blocked from publication or review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), requests for raw data were rebuffed, and Freedom of Information Act requests were stonewalled. National science panels were stacked, and qualified dissenters such as NASA prize-winner John Christy were tolerated as “token skeptics.” The CRU circle was in high dudgeon over the small handful of skeptics who insisted on looking over their shoulder, revealing the climate science community to be thin-skinned and in-secure about its enterprise​—​a sign that something is likely amiss. Even if there was no unequivocal “smoking gun” of fraud or wrongdoing, the glimpse deep inside the climate science community was devastating. As I wrote at the time (“In Denial,” March 15, 2010), Climategate did for the global warming controversy what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war 40 years ago: It changed the narrative decisively.

The new batch of emails, over 5,300 in all (compared with about 1,000 in the 2009 release), contains a number of fresh embarrassments and huge red flags for the same lovable bunch of insider scientists. It stars the same cast, starting with the Godfather of the CRU, Phil “hide the decline” Jones, and featuring Michael “hockey stick” Mann once again in his supporting role as the Fredo of climate science, blustering along despite the misgivings and doubts of many of his peers. Beyond the purely human element, the new cache offers ample confirmation of the rank politicization of climate science and rampant cronyism that ought to trouble even firm believers in catastrophic climate change.

In fact, the emails display candid glimpses of concern inside the CRU circle. Peter Thorne of NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), who earned his Ph.D. in climate science at East Anglia in 2001, wrote Phil Jones in a 2005 message, “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.” An appeal to “context,” which the climate campaigners say is crucial to understanding why excerpts such as this one are unimportant, does quite the opposite, and only points to the problems the climate change campaigners have brought upon themselves by their tribalism.

This exchange between Thorne and Jones, along with numerous similar threads in the new cache, is concerned with what should and shouldn’t be included in a chapter of the IPCC’s 2007 fourth assessment report​—​a chapter for which Jones was the coordinating lead author along with another key Climategate figure, Kevin Trenberth. The complete chapter (if you’re keeping score at home, it’s Chapter 3 of Working Group I, “Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change”) lists 10 “lead authors” and 66 “contributing authors” in addition to Jones and Trenberth. One of Jones’s emails from 2004 displays how explicitly political the process of assembling the IPCC report is: “We have a very mixed bag of LAs [lead authors] in our chapter. Being the basic atmos obs. one, we’ve picked up number of people from developing countries so IPCC can claim good geographic representation. This has made our task harder as CLAs [contributing lead authors] as we are working with about 50% good people who can write reasonable assessments and 50% who probably can’t.”

The final chapter was amended along lines Thorne recommended, but several other objections and contrary observations (one in particular from Roger Pielke Jr. about extreme weather events that has been subsequently vindicated) were scornfully dismissed. And appeals to context avoid the question: Is this “science-by-committee” a sensible way to sort out contentious scientific issues that hold immense public policy implications? Perhaps a politicized, semi-chaotic process like the IPCC is unavoidable in a subject as wide-ranging and complex as climate change; future historians of science can debate the issue. But the high stakes involved ought to compel a maximum of open debate and transparency. Instead, the IPCC process places a premium on gatekeepers and arbiters who control what goes in and what doesn’t, and it is exactly in its exercise of the gatekeeping function that the CRU circle has shredded its credibility and trustworthiness.

One thing that emerges from the new emails is that, while a large number of scientists are working on separate, detailed nodes of climate-related issues (the reason for dozens of authors for every IPCC report chapter), the circle of scientists who control the syntheses that go into IPCC reports and the national climate reports that the U.S. and other governments occasionally produce is quite small and partial to particular outcomes of these periodic assessments. The way the process works in practice casts a shadow over one of the favorite claims of the climate campaign​—​namely, that there exists a firm “consensus” about catastrophic future warming among thousands of scientists. This so-called consensus reflects only the views of a much smaller subset of gatekeepers.

Beyond additional bad news for the hockey stick graph, is there anything new in these emails about scientific aspects of the issue? This will take time to sort out, but I suspect anyone with the patience to go through the weeds of all 5,300 messages and cross check them against published results may well discover troubling new aspects of how climate modeling is done, and how weak the models still are on crucial points (such as cloud behavior). Some of the new emails frankly acknowledge such problems. There are arcane discussions about how to interpolate gaps in the data, how to harmonize different data sets, and how to resolve the frequent and often inconvenient (because contradictory) anomalies in modeling results. Definite examples of political influence have emerged already from a first pass over a sample of the massive cache.

In the editing process before the IPCC’s 2001 third assessment report, Timothy Carter of the Finnish Environmental Institute wrote in 2000 to three chapter authors with the observation, “It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” In this case, decisions at the highest levels of what specific figures and conclusions were to appear in the short “summary for policy makers”​—​usually the only part of the IPCC’s multivolume reports that the media and politicians read​—​required changing what appeared in individual chapters, a case of the conclusions driving the findings in the detailed chapters instead of the other way around. This has been a frequent complaint of scientists participating in the IPCC process since the beginning, and the new emails show that even scientists within the “consensus” recognize the problem. Comments such as one from Jonathan Overpeck, writing in 2004 about how to summarize some ocean data in a half-page, reinforce the impression that politics drives the process: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”

No amount of context can possibly exonerate the CRU gang from some of the damning expressions and contrivances that appear repeatedly in the new emails. More so than the 2009 batch, these emails make clear the close collaboration between the leading IPCC scientists and environmental advocacy groups, government agencies, and partisan journalists. There are repeated instances of scientists tipping their hand that they’ve thrown in their lot with the climate ideologues. If there were only a handful of such dubious messages, they might be explained away through “context,” or as conciliatory habits of expression. But they are so numerous that it doesn’t require an advanced degree in pattern recognition to make out that these emails constitute not just a “smoking gun” of scientific bias, but a belching howitzer. Throughout the emails numerous participants refer to “the cause,” “our cause,” and other nonscientific, value-laden terms to describe the implications of one dispute or another, while demonizing scientists who express even partial dissent about the subject, such as Judith Curry of Georgia Tech.

Since the beginning of the climate change story more than 20 years ago, it has been hard to sort out whether the IPCC represents the “best” science, or merely the findings most compatible with the politically driven climate policy agenda. Both sets of emails have lifted the lid on the insides of the process, and it isn’t pretty.

A good example of how the political-scientific complex works hand-in-glove to tightly control the results comes from May 2009, when the IPCC authors were working on a “weather generator,” which they hoped would produce climate change scenarios tailored to localities, so as to promote favored adaptive measures (sea walls, flood control, drought readiness, etc.). This is a small but hugely controversial aspect of climate modeling, and one where politicians and advocacy groups (the World Wildlife Fund was especially keen to have this kind of work done) may well be asking scientists to do the impossible. But there’s research money in it, so scientists are only too happy to oblige. Kathryn Humphrey, a science adviser in Britain’s DEFRA (Department of Environment, Forestry, and Rural Affairs​—​Britain’s EPA) wrote a worried note to Phil Jones and several other scientists involved in the project about criticisms of the cloistered working group behind the weather generator scheme, noting, “Ministers have also raised questions about this so we will need to go back to them with some further advice.” Jones tries to reassure Humphrey that he’s got the working group under control: “As I’ve said on numerous occasions, if the WG [working group] isn’t there, all the people that need [the weather generator] will go off and do their own thing. This will mean that individual sectors and single studies will do a whole range of different things. This will make the uncertainties even larger!” What Jones is referring to are numerous independent scientific efforts to “downscale” climate models to predict local impacts, and the fact that the results of these separate efforts have been chaotic, rather than demonstrating consensus. Hence the need for someone in authority to marginalize uncertainties and contradictory results. But this is properly called politics, not science.

Humphrey wrote back: “I know this is extremely frustrating for you and completely understand where you are coming from. This is a political reaction, not one based on any scientific analysis of the weather generator. We did the peer review to take care of that. I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.” (Emphasis added.) Even putting the most charitable possible construction on this exchange​—​namely that Humphrey really thought the criticisms of the weather generator lacked solid scientific foundation​—​other messages in the emails make clear that many scientists understand that their models really aren’t up to it, despite Jones’s attempts at reassurance.

In a 2008 email from Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University and the Institute of Global Environment and Society to a large circle of IPCC scientists, Shukla put his finger squarely on the problem: “I would like to submit that the current climate models have such large errors in simulating the statistics of regional [climate] that we are not ready to provide policymakers a robust scientific basis for ‘action’ at a regional scale. .  .  . It is inconceivable that policy-makers will be willing to make billion- and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.” Despite this and other cautionary messages from scientists, Jones, DEFRA, and the IPCC charged ahead with the weather generator anyway.

Other problems with climate modeling are more -subtle and less easily discerned from the emails. In particular, there is much discussion about the political pressure to tune the climate models to isolate and emphasize the effect of carbon dioxide only, even though there are other important greenhouse gases and related factors highly relevant to a complete understanding of climate change. Carbon dioxide was emphasized because it is the variable that the policymakers made central to their monomaniacal mission to suppress fossil fuels to the exclusion of other policy strategies, such as “geoengineering,” that might be considered in the event of drastic climate change. Here and there Jones and his compatriots complain about this constraint, but go along with it anyway. But it’s another case of policy-driven science, and not science-driven policy, which we are constantly reassured is the mission of the IPCC.

These are only a few of the many problems with the climate models on which all of the predictions of doom decades hence depend. It will take months of careful review to sort the wheat from the chaff, but there is enough evidence already to support the conclusion that the climate science establishment has greatly exaggerated what it knows. One of the stranger aspects of all of these emails is how much they are concerned with statistical refinement of climate models, and how little work there seems to be on basic atmospheric physics. There are curious exchanges over the impact of changes in solar activity on global warming. The effect of fluctuations in the sun have been consistently downplayed in the climate models and IPCC reports, despite a steady stream of science journal articles​—​most of them peer reviewed​—​that argue for a more substantial weighting of solar factors. As with so many parts of climate science, the empirical basis of solar factors is controversial and incomplete.

For example, a 2003 email from Michael Mann of Penn State summarily dismisses one variation of the solar story: “I’m now more convinced than ever that there is not one single scientifically defensible element at all [in this]​—​the statistics, supposed climate reconstruction, and supposed ‘Cosmic Ray Flux’ estimates are all almost certainly w/out any legitimate underpinning.” And yet the basis for the idea he dismisses was largely vindicated a few months ago in a major study from CERN, the European lab that is behind the Large Hadron Collider, which found a significant role for cosmic ray flux in cloud formation. The imperatives of climate orthodoxy came immediately into view when Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the director of the CERN lab, told a German news-paper, “I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”

As all the new emails are dissected and analyzed, no doubt Jones and the CRU circle will be able to claim to have been misinterpreted or wrongly besmirched in many instances. But between their boorish behavior, attempts to conceal data and block FOIA requests, and dismissal of dissent, the climate science community has abdicated its credibility and done great damage to large-scale scientific inquiry.

It is worth revisiting one of the most infamous statements in the climate change saga, which came in 1989 from the late Stanford environmental scientist Stephen Schneider (who turns up in many of the emails in both Climategate features):

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but​—​which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Schneider used to complain correctly that his critics omitted the last line in his statement​—​“I hope that means being both”​—​but the lesson of the Climategate saga is that scientists who become advocates, or allow themselves to become adjuncts to an advocacy campaign, damage science and policy-making alike. They end up being neither effective nor honest. One of the poignant revelations of the new emails is that some of the scientists seem to grasp this. Tommy Wils, a British climate researcher at the University of Swansea, wrote in a 2007 note to a large list of recipients: “Politicians like Al Gore are abusing the fear of global warming to get into power (while having a huge carbon footprint himself).” About Michael Grubb, a prominent climate campaigner in Britain, Tom Wigley (a prominent figure in U.S. climate research circles) wrote in 2000: “Grubb is good at impressing ignorant people. .  .  . Eileen Claussen [then-head of the Pew Climate Center] thinks he is a jerk. .  .  . Basically he is a ‘greenie’; and he bends his ‘science’ to suit his ideological agenda.” Did any of the leading climate scientists ever say this publicly, or call out environmental activist organizations for their reckless distortions of climate change? Had the climate scientists been more honest about their doubts, and more willing to discipline their allies, they might not be going through the present agony of having their dirty laundry exposed.

If Climategate II does poor box office, it won’t be because the various internal reviews exonerated the CRU from the narrow allegations of fraud in Climategate I, but because the whole show has become a crashing bore. The latest U.N. climate summit that opened last week in Durban, South Africa, is struggling to keep the diplomatic circus on life support. Yet there is one more tantalizing detail that has been largely overlooked in the commentary so far. According to “FOIA,” the online name of the hacker/leaker behind the release of these emails, there are another 220,000 emails still out there, blocked by a heavily encrypted password that “FOIA” vaguely threatens or promises to release at some future date. Stay tuned for -Climategate III.”

@ Ave Lynch – and yes Donna Laframboise DOES have an agenda… It’s called “the truth”. Perhaps you may have heard of it?