Global warming accelerates; Climategate rumbles on

November 25, 2009

A report by a group of leading scientists that global warming is accelerating and that world sea levels could rise at worst by 2 metres by 2100* is grim reading.

But sceptics are using a flood of leaked e-mails from a British University — dubbed “Climategate” – to question the findings.

You can read the Copenhagen Diagnosis here, by 26 researchers worldwide.  It says a thaw of summer sea ice around the North Pole, for instance, has far outpaced projections in a report by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) two years ago. They say world emissions must peak by 2020 to avoid the worst of climate change.

They say that sea levels could rise by perhaps a metre, at worst 2 – a figure also mentioned recently by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon — and far above scenarios in 2007 by the IPCC. More than 190 nations will meet in Copenhagen from Dec. 7-18 to try to agree a new pact to combat global warming.

But the leak of thousands of hacked documents from the University of East Anglia has added fuel to the debate because they include snide comments about climate sceptics and exchanges about how to present the data to make the global warming look convincing.

Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the university, is quoted today as saying that he “absolutely” stands by his findings and says the suggestion that there was a conspiracy to alter evidence was “complete rubbish”.

I’ve had a several e-mails from people who doubt humans are to blame for global warming saying that “Climategate” indicates that the Copenhagen Diagnosis is a new example of alarmism. Will this be a new pattern before Copenhagen?

Experts say the leaks from the University don’t affect conclusions by scientists who found in the 2007 IPCC report that it was more than 90 percent sure that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, were to blame for warming over the past 50 years. Governments — including the United States when President George W. Bush was in office — also signed off on those findings.

But the U.S. Senate has not agreed carbon-capping legislation and the leaks are hardly a good argument to persuade waverers to join other industrialised nations in capping carbon emissions.

*by 2100! thanks for pointing out!

(Picture: Icebergs float in the calm waters of a fjord, south of Tasiilaq in eastern Greenland August 4, 2009. REUTERS/Bob Strong)

77 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Mainstream media is sloughing off the contents of the leaked documents as if it were meaningless. But here you have emails from the very scientists that the United Nations and Washington have been relying on as proof that cap and trade and a carbon tax are necessary.Unless full disclosure of the data is allowed and subjected to an impartial peer review,i.e. none of the scientists or their colleagues involved, the conclusions drawn, including the claim of a 2m rise in sea levels, are null and void.Global society is about to be molded into a new paradigm based on science that, on the surface, appears to be tainted. Trillions of dollars the world over are to be collected in a new tax so we as a society have to be 100% correct going forward.When scientists hide or delete data their conclusion are invalid. The leaked documents show this, thus the science is not valid. Thus the Copenhagen Treaty and cap and trade are doomed to failure.People are not going to accept this.TMA

The problem here, Alister, is not whether a warming trend happened. It did, and has been going on since the 1800′s, with the end of the Little Ice Age. There have been some blips in the form of cooling during that time. Most people will agree, based on the scientific data, that warming occurred. The problem is that scientists, who have a lot of money and prestige at stake, are blaming it mostly or solely on Mankind. A tenuous, at best, causal link has been created between the warming since 1980 and CO2. Yet, there is a ton of data that suggests Mankind has little, or nothing, to do with the actual temp rise.I just wish you folks in the media would show the skepticism and investigative abilities needed to be a journalist, and start to question exactly what is going on, print both sides of the story, and look at all the evidence, rather than regurgitating press releases that are more hysterical than anything else.

Why does Reuters feel the need to take sides in a simple academic debate? Because that is what it is.Reading the emails for yourself makes it fairly clear that the core group of climate scientists at the heart of the warming proof is all too human. They defend their beliefs passionately.That’s OK. But before we invest trillions on the basis of their findings, let’s see if we can reproduce their results.And stop wrapping every doubt about global warming in a blanket of ‘but experts say…’. Other, equally serious, experts say something else. No need for Reuters to add a filter to much-needed scientific debate.

Posted by Oscar | Report as abusive

“But the leak of thousands of hacked documents from the University of East Anglia has added fuel to the debate because they include snide comments about climate sceptics and exchanges about how to present the data to make the global warming look convincing.” Actually, it’s because they demonstrate a long history of adjusting data to support theories, to the point where the reconstruction produced by the CRU can now no longer be believed. That famous graph showing steadily rising world temperatures throughout the 90s has been completely discredited, and the whole house of cards built upon it has to be taken with a very solid grain of salt.

Posted by James Smith | Report as abusive

It’s a lot worse than that. The emails and the documents, that include programmers nots, show a pattern of hiding any evidence that refutes their theories, destruction of data to prevent others from finding, admissions of no warming in the last ten years, modification of data (falsification), blackballing, threats etc etc the list goes on and on.

Posted by Pat | Report as abusive

Sorry, but which bits of all the emails that have been published on the web do you at Reuters not understand??Any pontificating that all you news agencies are now producing abour melting ice, rising sea levels, etc,etc, do not have any credibity now, because of this massive scam that has been carried out by so called environmental scientists in this country and around the world!In essence these climate experts have lied, suppressed information, threatened to get any one who opposes their so called ‘consensus’about this AGW sacked or discredited!Who is going to now believe any so called expert, scientist, or anyone else when they come up with their latest report or any other garbage they whant to con us with!

Posted by james | Report as abusive

If, as Phil Jones claims, the science of AGW is sound, why would they have to lie about it? Why would they conspire to hide and misrepresent data? Why would they conspire to prevent the publication of alternative perspectives? Why would they conspire to ruin the reputations of researchers who didn’t agree with them?AGW makes extravagant claims and should be subjected to an extremely high burden of proof. Instead the myth of “consensus” and the hubris of “settled science,” is deem sufficient by the media and by our political leaders.This story is the Pentagon Papers of AGW and yet few of our professional journalists seem interested in getting to the bottom of it. Shame on you!

Posted by GrouchyOldMan | Report as abusive

Could this article be dumber? What Climatgate proves is the is that there is no data to support global warming. The IPCC and Hadley were cooking the books. Until new and TRANSPARENT studies (real science) is done, a statement that anything is accelerating is based on garbage.

Posted by Dave | Report as abusive

2 meters a YEAR? They didn’t really say that, did they? That’s beyond ludicrous.

Posted by Dave Lambers | Report as abusive

What’s the difference between Climategate believers and 9-11 truthers? ExxonMobil.

Oh god, more damage control propaganda. Can science EVER be trusted again after this? I would love to know who these scientists are and who pays for their funding. Moronic.

Posted by Karl | Report as abusive

For those who think that the CRU scientists are trying to censor legitimate opposing points of view, here’s a short sentence from a “skeptical” paper that was published over the objections of those scientists (link to paper: http://climatedebatedaily.com/southern_o scillation.pdf)”To remove the noise, the absolute values werereplaced with derivative values based on variations.”Use your pdf reader’s search facility to put this statement in context if you wish.If that doesn’t jump out at you as a show-stopping blunder, then you are in over your head technically and are in no position to judge the scientists’ actions.

Posted by caerbannog | Report as abusive

“because they include snide comments about climate sceptics and exchanges about how to present the data to make the global warming look convincing”This is not news reporting worthy of Reuters. You are supposed to be PRESENTING the news, not to spread propaganda!This is FACTUALLY UNTRUE:The messages were not about “presenting” the data, but about how to FALSIFY them and how to prevent the release of the raw data, which clearly does not support the AGW theory. They talked about “how to hide the decline in temperatures”. So we’ve been lied to all this time. Many people – like me – were very much aware of the manipulation, but to have it actually spelled out by the source is something else.There are messages that are clearly criminal, because they contain the request for DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE during an official investigation by asking others to delete incriminating email messages.As for the “snide remarks” against “skeptics”, they were rather severe insults and threats such as “I would like to beat up so-and-so at the next conference”.There are also the passages about how to change the definition of “peer-reviewed”. When “skeptics” managed to get their articles published, they decided to boycott the science publications that would not toe the line.How can you try to mitigate the horrendous extent of the intellectual and political fraud that is being committed and that will imply the destruction of gigantic amounts of wealth for NOTHING.If the science is false, then there is no threat to the future of the planet – at least not by human activity – so we don’t need all these new taxes and transfers, that wouldn’t do any good for the climate no matter what.Than you for correcting this propaganda article and for stopping the spread of obvious intentional LIES by people who make up FAKE DATA to support an ideological theory.

Posted by Stefan Metzeler | Report as abusive

You are kidding, right? You tout an ‘it’s worse than we thought’ study created by at least some of the people involved in the email/data scandal?Have you read the programming notes in the files? The raw data is no longer discernable. Fudge factors have been applied to the data, and fake data has been appended. Their intent to control the data and the AGW peer-review discussion in order to create the appearance of a ‘settled science’ may well have been done with good intentions, i.e., the really believe in AGW, but they have destroyed science in the process (and I’m sure they didn’t mind the millions of dollars in grants that paid for the trips to Tahiti and other exotic locals, being able to buy the best ‘toys’, and paying university overhead, which freed money for salary increases).Regardless of whether AGW is real and dire consequences lay ahead, science must delete all the research based on the data provided by this group (which extends far beyond the analysis published by these specific people, since the data was the basis of research of other scientists) and start over.Yeah, Bush was taken in by this perversion of science, as were many good, ethical scientists…and they’re mad. This is just the beginning. It’s going to be a long fall for some.

Posted by jtom | Report as abusive

Reuters drinking kool-aid. Nice. When is the feature about the abominable snow man coming up?

Posted by abdi abdoh | Report as abusive

Why is the press so willfully stupid on this topic? Is it just left wing partisanship or total stupidity?

ok, all you deniners it’s on your heads. when the rivers dry and crops burn along with the forests(aready theres drought,and extended fire season) you can pray to your diety for deliverence. you’l find zero redemption fromgod, you deserve none? you had your shot and your thick headed stupidity insures your extinction.some may learn to adapt, but i am certain you’l be among the lost.

Posted by johnypaycut | Report as abusive

Enviromental Scientists, like economists, always seem to support the solution (or problem) that agrees with their social politics. Republican economists who believe in the American dream of standing or falling on your own criticize universal healthcare and other entitlements and liberal scientists push global warming because carbon taxes would help pay for new entitlements.Also, the link for the experts who say “climategate” won’t change anything have jobs that depend on that being true.

In the 1970′s many were certian we would not see the turn of the century…now the so-called experts are convinced of doom by 2100. Man’s desire for a crystal ball.

Posted by Peteyy | Report as abusive

The mainstream media is treating this way too lightly. We’re being urged to spend billions of dollars based in part on these studies. If the data has been distorted for political reasons we need to know it. This should be front page news.

Posted by Marty | Report as abusive

Ha, this author is simply trying to save his job. How many “scientists”, and “journalists” will be out of work if everybody simply believes the truth: GLOBAL WARMING IS A GIANT HOAX. Don’t believe the lies, or the cover up of the lies, global warming is a scam.

Hi all,Also in the Netherlands there is almost no news about the fraud that has been revealed.Only a rightwing newspaper is mentioning it a bit. Our one minister in this department is in denial and can only say: “hackers are criminals and the mails are ripped out of context.” Hackers are not criminals if they reveal a fraud.I think a lot of people are frightened about this news and they should be, because this could mean the ending of the biggest propaganda since propaganda was invented.

Posted by Rense | Report as abusive

Climategate 2009: Retired climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yd o2MwnwpacThe front pages of mainstream news sources seems lacking in true reporting of Climategate 2009. Next month’s Copenhagen climate change global governance taxes “talks” are starting to look shady and frivolous. If you want to read over and keyword search the leaked e-mails yourself, check it out:http://www.eastangliaemails.com/inde x.phpSome good terms to search are “hide the decline”, “nature trick”, “monckton”, “IPCC Emissions Scenarios” and of course, “Earth Government”.Copenhagen fast approaches so expose these frauds, and do what the mainstream media will not in standing up for your individual sovereign liberty.

Posted by be100thmonkey | Report as abusive

No matter how loudly the right-wing political hacks shout (including commenters here), rational people will know that these criminally-hacked emails do not mean that actual journal articles and data sets have been falsified. Sure, the scientists said some bad things, but where are the compromised studies and data sets? How do the emails of a half dozen scientists refute the entire body of evidence comprised of about 30,000 studies by thousands of climate scientists? The political hacks are stretching the bounds of stupidity by suggesting that everything is a conspiracy and it’s all been faked.

Posted by JP | Report as abusive

It is sad to see that good scientists will be tainted by the outrageous behavior of a few “global warming” fanatics.

Posted by Steve Numero Uno | Report as abusive

Please tell me this: If climate change is nothing but a hoax, why aren’t the major corporations fighting back? This is clearly against the best interests of most of them?

Posted by John | Report as abusive

Here’s what I don’t understand: what is the point of the alleged global warming hoax? What do advocates have to gain from it? What is their motive? Why would thousands of researchers around the world devote decades to inventing data to support this claim if it’s patently untrue from the get-go? Quite simply, these accusations don’t make a shred of sense.

Posted by spongekill | Report as abusive

How long do we need to continue suffering this elaborate HOAX? The more these clowns continue these doom-and-gloom press releases, the more they discredit themselves. We have been in a cooling trend, and the e-mails demonstrate how these “scientists” have been manipulating, or even worse, falsifying the data to support their views. That is not science, it is propaganda.Time to put the AGW boogeyman to death where it belongs.

Posted by CousinEddie | Report as abusive

Wow. The AGW true believer’s responses range from “nothing to see here, move along” to “prosecute the hackers”.Your fraud has been exposed, and any reasonable person would agree that the depths of the hoax should be investigated before sinking another dime of taxpayer money to “solve” a problem that is increasingly shown to be the greated hoax foisted upon an unsuspecting public and a non-existant investigative main stream media.

Posted by Optimus Maximus | Report as abusive

Here in Chicago there’s barely a mention of this scandal. And to the scandal-deniers who claim that the results show global warming – why the ongoing refusal to release the actual data? What are they hiding from other scientists?

Posted by Les | Report as abusive

Amazing!The data (emails) are right in your face and you still refuse to see the evidence.These same scientists threatened my job as a scientist with the US Geological Survey because I attempted to publish a study showing with higher confidence that global temperature changes were completely natural caused solely by Earth’s physical processes.Additionally, these same scientists would not even discuss or refute the science and facts presented. Instead, they took two days to personally attacked me and my family.I always knew that when man-made global climate change was showed to be insignificant that people would lose faith, note the word “FAITH”, in science. But this event and exposure is way worse for the science community as a whole. Remember: “Truth is the daughter of Time (Francis Bacon)”.Several USGS scientists got fired for the same thing when discussing data manipulation for models developed for the Nevada Nuclear Test Site.But no outcry and defense for those scientists?IF you can’t see any problem with this and you don’t wonder if there’s been some misleading of the public by these scientists, then you definitely are not scientists, you’re in denial and would buy any bill of goods sold, and you have no moral principles to stand on.

Posted by ehmoran | Report as abusive

“No matter how loudly the right-wing political hacks shout (including commenters here), rational people will know that these criminally-hacked emails do not mean that actual journal articles and data sets have been falsified.”Why is it that the more rational an AGW evangelist claims to be, the more irrational he sounds? 400 years ago, you would have been waving a torch and calling for Galileo’s head. But go ahead and keep dismissing anyone who looks at the hard evidence and questions their own assumptions as a heretic. Do not allow these pesky facts to shake your faith. How can science progress if people don’t just shut up and believe whatever you say?

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen: Based upon peer-reviewed research conclusive paper Earth Radiation into space has been the same for year after year for the last 20.Q-What’s that say to greenhouse gas?A-Carbon has nominal effect on climate.http://wethepeople.org/wpblog/in dex.php/2009/10/25/mit-professor-on-supp osed-climate-change/

Posted by teflon ron | Report as abusive

No excuse can be made for the fact that these scientists conspired to delete emails that were relevant to a Freedom Of Information request. Doing so is a CRIME. There is no “context” in the world that justifies it.The data and methodology are being used to influence public policy on a GLOBAL scale and therefore must be above reproach if, as AGW adherents claim, the situation is so serious that drastic action must be undertaken immediately. If some of the leading researchers on this issue are acting in a criminal fashion, that does not give confidence that the data itself is valid or has been handled properly. Risking prosecution to circumvent a legal process and suppress evidence certainly opens the door to questioning what ELSE has been suppressed.Scientists claiming to take a certain course of action based on their research who engage in criminal activity to prevent others from critically examining their research are not exactly demonstrating their trustworthiness.

Posted by Anonymouse | Report as abusive

I tripped across this weblog while doing my research on global warming. We all know it’s ocuring. Ck out climateark.org. This is real good for all things about global warming. i tell my friends that we have got to stop what we are doing that warms the earth. Less cows and manure. Less oil and coal burning. We need more windmills, bicycles and less cars. Mr. Gore is very knowledgeable here. Lets get the word out on MTV, VH1, Nat. Public Radio, and all blogs. Responsible young adults like me will lift this world and make it better. Point proven!

Posted by Trey Gleddings | Report as abusive

To the intellectual midgets who ask what scientists have to gain from continuing the HOAX that is global warming I have one word for you people: MONEY.

Posted by Lawrence | Report as abusive

Spongekill, the agenda of those who promote ‘AGW’ is socialism, anticapitalism and wealth re-distribution. I’m an environmentalist and conservationist — ‘AGW’ proponents couldn’t care less about the environment! They’ve proven that by proposals like ‘carbon trading’ and giving developing nations a pass to pollute. 1998 was the warmest year in the last 30 years, but atmospheric CO2 has not declined since 1998.

Posted by Don | Report as abusive

The reality is that the earth had actually been cooling down for over 40 years. In fact in the 1960′s the science comunity was advocating the dawning of a new ice age.

Posted by Glenn | Report as abusive

Global Warming is accelerating? Wow, did they plug in some more false numbers? Maybe found another tree ring in their desk drawer?The polar bears are runnning out of food and habitat, and their numbers are shrinking. Oh, wait, there are more polar bears now than ever in history. “Joe, where’s that other data plug?”What do people think “hide the decline” and “temperatures just not rising the way we calculated” mean?

Posted by AGW Doubter | Report as abusive

Global warming is must easily confirmed by the fact that over 90% of glaciers world wide are in retreat.The question is who dunit ?It was not Sun.It was not a change in earth’s orbit.I think it was the butler

Posted by osprey | Report as abusive

Haha! What a freakin’ joke humanity is, myself included, being a hedonist and all. So, how’s that whole “climate change” going for ya’s? It rained hard a few days ago, had a nice fog the other night, pretty clear today though. Would be a shame if those scientists made the climate stop changing, perhaps they could settle on a cross between spring and summer? A steady breeze with a touch of perpetual showers seems reasonable. Preferably, we should just build a huge umbrella to blot out the sun with!But, why stop there?I mean with climate change on other planets too, we should do something! Maybe the corporate bought politicians on both sides of the fence could extend Universal Climate Care to the entire solar system? I’d hate to think that those gigantic SUV’s that are being driven on these other planets won’t be taxed for carbon either. Forget about pollution, that CO2 is teh devil!Oh, well. When these oh-so-generous statesmen start taxing my flatulence, maybe I’ll stop laughing. lol

Posted by Anon | Report as abusive

This cap and trade legislation, I believe, does little to lower carbon emissions but rather creates a way for corporations to pay fees, pollute other unpolluted countries, or allow them to buy their carbon permits and pass the costs off to the consumer while the same process continues. Perhaps a better line of thinking would involve manufactured goods being produced closer to home. It would reduce the energy required for shipping, create jobs locally, and provide a better incentive to improve the process because it would be close to home. Perhaps with local alternative energy manufacturing, the costs could be much lower and people could take a more realistic approach to making some changes to their current energy consumption on their own . The amount of carbon produced from a process is probably about the same wether it is produced in China or the U.S. The case for cheaper labor in China is losing it’s appeal and reality.

Posted by jason | Report as abusive

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has a hidden agenda of some kind.

Posted by Mufaso | Report as abusive

Interesting that no one has picked up on the fact that they were also trying to find ways to hide money transfers – keeping them under US$10,000 to avoid US money laundering flags. That appears to be subverting the law.

Posted by Wayne Delbeke | Report as abusive

To those who think that the emails simply showed bad form and no fundamental climate science was challenged, I found an email among them that discussed the solar cycle and how it had been dismissed completely as a possible source of temperature fluctuation. The writer of the email told of using a program called Mathematica to analyze the data and came to the conclusion that the solar cycle does indeed affect temperature. Of course, they never published the finding.

The global warming trend is accelerating and the cause makes little difference. Future generations will have to adapt to it. The real problem is the vast and continuing pollution of the planet and the suffering it brings to all species, including the descendants of the ignorant skeptics. If the current efforts help to mitigate this pollution problem so much the better.

Posted by Marty Kay Zee | Report as abusive

There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. This is clearly evident from 4 independent sources using 2 separate methods. The following link will provide a plot of this data in a monthly format:http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ wti/from:2001.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/f rom:1998/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/from: 1998/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/from:1998/plo t/rss/from:1998You may find it interesting what the head of the IPCC said more than 1-1/2 years ago concerning the lack of new annual high global temperatures:http://www.reuters.com/arti cle/idUSL1171501720080111Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said (more than 1-1/2 years ago) that he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.”One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents,” he told Reuters, adding “are there natural factors compensating?” for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.Also in this article from more than 1-1/2 years ago, Amir Delju, senior scientific coordinator of the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO) climate program, said temperatures would have to be flat for several more years before a lack of new record years became significant.We are now more than three quarters of the way to having significant doubts about the GCMs, according to Amir Delju’s own criterion.

Posted by NucEngineer | Report as abusive

- NASA’s Latest Discovery: SUN HEATS THE EARTH (American Thincker, June 05, 2009) – Robert Calahan at NASA’s Goddard Space Center could be in big trouble — for telling the truth. Here is a headline for an article in the Daily Tech: “NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming”… World’s Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears…- Pentagon/NASA: Global Warming/Global Cooling… THE PENTAGON WARNS CLIMATE CHANGE WILL BRING GLOBAL CATASTROPHE… Now the Pentagon tells Bush (Guardian.co.uk., 22 February 2004): climate change will destroy us… Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years:http://cristiannegureanu.blogspot. com/2009/07/worlds-largest-science-group -rejecting.html

Posted by Greg | Report as abusive

How did all that lush vegetation and dinosaurs survive when CO2 concentrations were 5x and 20x as much as today if a relatively small increase is certain doom? (See wikipedia article on CO2)How easy will nukes and bio weapons be in 50 years? (Every decade know how to gene splice, and nuclear fission grows) Will future genetic engineering result in a horrible sloppy mistake?

Posted by David | Report as abusive

” If the current efforts help to mitigate this pollution problem”If current efforts actually *add* to the pollution problem, and result in millions dead from ignored other dangers, do you agree we should hunt those responsible down like nazi war criminals? The boy who cries wolf at the wrong danger distracts from the real one.Sequestering CO2 (which otherwise would be plant food) may distract from efforts to reduce toxic wastes that kill all forms of life, stop desert growth, etc.Biological weapons and accidents will be *many* times easier in 50 years if trends continue.

Posted by David | Report as abusive

People still don’t get it. The “team” at CRU, U ofPA,AZ and MA, are the bunch that created Global Warming Theory.They mannipulated the data, created self fulfilling data records. They made the UN IPCC Climate Models and managed the results, either directly or indirectly.These IPCC reports and the CRU data sets are the reference source for some 70% of the climate research and it’s all based on fraud. Then they actively worked to crush any views other than AGW. It appeares from their e-mails they conspired to hide funding from the IRS, in the U.S. and RUSSIA, and misuse of funding from backers.So where dose that leave us. The theory that co2 really causes the Global Warming, that hasn’t been occuring for the last 11 years,is very much not proven.In fact ice cores indicate a rise in co2 has never preceded global warming by less than 400-800 years. That means that increasing co2 is the result of warming not the cause. Global Warming THEORY isn’t about co2.It’s never been about co2, and nothing proposed in Cap and Tax, Kyoto, or whatever they come up with in Denmark will make any change in the climate. It’s about control, power and TRILLIONS of dollars. The Global Warming Fraud is just a good way to get there.What i want to know when the Obama EPA distroyes the coal and oil folks, millions more are out of work and we are paying thousands more for goods, services and power, WHO DO WE SUE.

Posted by mac dotson | Report as abusive

The existence of mankind on this planet is a blip in the history of our earth–literally just a millimeter in the thousands of kilometers of string that represents time. So? Why worry about climate change. . . Enjoy life while you’re here, and accept the FACT that we will not be here forever. Accept that we THINK we’re important as a species, but without intervention from ???? we are as likely to survive our demise as have dinosaurs !-) Be it virus, biothreat, global warming or meteor–we have only our hope and vanity to support our belief that we deserve to survive.

Posted by brian g. | Report as abusive

Marty Kay, do you really think that Carbon Dioxide is a “pollutant” that “brings suffering to all species, including the descendants of the ignorant skeptics?” It may bring warmth (although I am not convinced), but you’d be insane to otherwise call it toxic. International cooperation can be very effective in wiping out real threats, like CFCs in the air or mercury in groundwater, but this CO2 hoax is an enormous waste of resources and efforts.

Posted by Zooropa | Report as abusive

I used to be a person you believed completely in climate change, global warming ect. Now after these hacked email release, I totlally changed my mind. I decided to do a search on globl warming, then I took the names of researchers who claimed the science was flawed did a search through the emails. It is amazing to me what is said about the people who claimed there data was flawed, which proved to me this is all a lie! Also I watched a documentary called The Great Global warming swindle, what an eye opener!

Posted by Donniewv | Report as abusive

There is no hope in obtaining the truth on the issue of global warming. Copenhagen will go forward and trillions of dollars will be pourded down the drain without knowing why. I have lost faith in the scientific community, journalism, and humanity in general. Its all about agendas and the truth is incidental no matter what side of the argument you are on. Good luck to all and here’s hoping for the rebirth of investigative journalism and the discovery of truth, no matter what side you are on or where it leads us.

Posted by Sam | Report as abusive

I do not see how ANY information on global warming can be believed if the data that supports this conclusion currently being has been altered and selectively used. If these emails are not forgeries (AND THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THEM SAY THERE NOT) then the whole global warming theory is unsupported and the “scientists” involved in this con should be arrested for fraud and sent to prison.

Posted by STEVE | Report as abusive

Any distortions found in PUBLISHED work needs to be harshly delt with. And conduct like shown in the e-mails referred to here can be left to those folks peers.BUT:Efforts to lower carbon output improves life for everyone everywhere. Cleaner air, water & lands benefit all. Though this may have costs, they are worthwhile costs to date. And a continued modest cost level of carbon reduction should certinly continue to move forward while we consider the data regarding more costly levels of carbon reduction.But with revelations like these released e-mails the more costly efforts are going to need to be put on hold until the truth is fully clear. Such higher costs can’t be imposed under a cloud of doubt. And shame to those behind those e-mails content for causing this, highly unprofessional at minimum & criminal depending on how far it’s shown to have gone.

Posted by Craig | Report as abusive

Icebergs are so beautiful. It’s sadly ironic that they’re often the result of breakage due to climate change.

Posted by Camron Barth | Report as abusive

Every now-n-then I get to read about global warming in lots of post while surfing net.We all know that present situation and problems are very small compared to the future upcoming ones if we don’t take necessary and appropriate steps preventing Global warming and protecting mother earth.

Having ice top and bottom is NICE. Because if not then there is no WIND in the willows. No waves or Fishes in the sea. No Birds in the Air. No windmills. Even worse no Wind blowing up the Skirts of the Laydies.

Posted by Eden and Apple | Report as abusive

Global warming is not caused by cow manure, it is caused by bulls__t. Not the kind produced by animals, but the type produced by people like Gore, Mann, Jones, et al.The work of great scientists like Darwin and Einstein are still considered theories, Why?, because they are still unproven. The theories put forth by the above mentioned and probably somewhat less enlightened people, are however, already accepted by many, as fact. After all, “the science is settled” , “there is no need for debate”. The Phrophet-teer Gore has told us so. “No need for debate”? Boy, with that type of scientific reasoning, I can hardly wait to see what the future holds. Mr. Gore should be given an Honorary Degree from the Seminary School he flunked out of. He has, after all, become the “High Priest” of the “Global Warming” movement. Even though he doesn’t practice what he preaches. There has already been enough pain and suffering caused in this world by the many different religions throughout history. The last thing we need is another one.The alarmists want immediate action on legislation so that in ten to twenty years, when possible natural climate cooling takes place, they can take credit for saving the world. In the meantime the enormous grant money entitlements given to the CRU and all other pro-global Warming (climate change) research groups will go on unabated for years to come.I, like most, if not all of the people alive today won’t be around to see the consequences of whatever actions our world leaders take in the near future. It is my opinion that the world won’t be destroyed by “Climate Change”, but rather by propaganda driven policies that will more likely lead to starvation, poverty, war and destruction, than to solving any “flawed science” theory.I can remember a time when Reuters, Associated Press and the MSM were credible news agencies. How I long to return to that time. Unfortunately, it seems gone forever. A shame really, and on this, there is “no need for debate”.

Posted by Larry Ballinger | Report as abusive

Larry Ballinger, Einstein’s work is still called the “theory” of relativity, but don’t be fooled into thinking it’s unproven. It’s predictions have been seen everywhere from Mercury’s orbit to the atomic bomb.Global Warming’s predictions, on the other hand, included higher tempertures. When that didn’t pan out, it became “climate change,” whose predictions seem to include whatever happened the day before.

We went to war in Iraq based on a fictional threat of weapons of mass destruction. We are still in Iraq now and blood is still being spilled.By the logic of those actions it should be nothing for us to begin initiatives to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change even if humans have nothing to do with it.Climate change represents a problem that everyone can get behind. It can be used as a rallying call to bring the US economy back from the brink. We can develop new clean technologies that would provide work and business opportunity for everyone.It would be like going to war under false pretenses, except that the result would be a cleaner healthier living environment for all people instead of mindless bloodshed and endless conflict.So what if it turns out to be a lie? We accept war and death by way of lies and it means nothing to us. We simply justify it and move on. Why could we not do the same with global warming/climate change?It seems to me that if we are going to be delusional about things our actions may as well produce good results.

@drewbie: Don’t want to get into a peeing contest. Einstein had many theories, not all of which have been proven. That is to my knowledge, which is somewhat limited.Did enjoy your response.

Posted by Larry Ballinger | Report as abusive

Gotcha. Physics (and science in general) is my background, so I’m oversensitive to stuff like that. Some theories are solid (Einstein), and others still require constant tweaking (evironmental, some biological, and economical).

If global warming really was caused by variations of the sun or other non-human causes, the oil and coal companies would be releasing studies showing it. Instead, they fund what are essentially Public Relations efforts designed to delay action, so they can continue to rake in their profits as long as possible.There are many corporations which have smart scientists able to figure out the science for themselves. They are endorsing action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and already taking action to reduce their own corporate emissions.It is sad to read of those who parrot coal company advertisements saying that carbon dioxide is plant food. Carbon dioxide within limits is fine. Not too little, not too much, juuust right. But right now carbon dioxide concentrations in our air are higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of year. If we continue burning all the coal and oil that was buried in the times of the dinosaurs, we will return to the hot conditions that prevailed during those times. In that case, say farewell to our present civilization.I would like to think that we are smarter than that.

Posted by AIC | Report as abusive

This article seems like a lot of hype.IPCC says 12″ in their last report, and their previous reports have shown that claims have been way overstated before. Coming off the little ice age we have had about 2mm of increase in ocean level per year. This is over hundreds of years. And IPCC says it will continue at the same rate. How is that global warming. And 2 meters, I think it is exaggerated bunk that is being put out to try to scare everyone after we found out that much of the catastrophic AGW data has been severely cooked to get the results looking the way they should, and that only sympathetic scientists were allowed to analyze the results, so there was no true peer review.

Posted by Mark | Report as abusive

Aren’t these new dire warnings being issued by the same group of people who are under scrutiny in the CRU hack? After reading the e-mails and some of the other files, I would say that these new observations are basically worthless. The IPCC’s science has been totally discredited. I can’t believe a reputable news service is not responsible enough to print ALL of the story.

Posted by Nanner T. | Report as abusive

The 2007 IPCC report did everyone a great disservice by not explaining that they had radically changed the basis sample for their sea level rise prediction and nobody caught it. What changed from 2001 to 2007 was tha the IPCC did not include the possible melt stats for Greenland or Antarctica because a disagreement on the various predictions and models. So it looked like they had lowered the sea level prediction but in fact all they did was change the reporting basis. In reality when you add back in even the most conservative estimates for Greenland and Antarctica using the data gathered since 2001 and especially the recent data and the IPCC estimate is way low. The actual rise will be above 7 ft. and maybe as much as 20 ft. according to many different groups of scientists.

@A/C. Where are scientists who disagree with the “consensus” supposed to publish their findings? Peer-reviewed literature? Ooooh yeah, dissenters are unwelcome, didn’t you get the memo?

Posted by gwynplaine | Report as abusive

Yes, you really have to read on this all closer; climate change supporters have everything covered!We had global cooling, now we have global warming. When the real world weather does not match the global warming prediction, we have “global dimming”.Yup, look it up! Global dimming.

Posted by Heather | Report as abusive

I’ve looked through some of the code and the now infamous “Harry Read Me.txt” file. The programmer complains about corrupted data, no documentation, and having to make things up (weather station data) to get the results they want.What a catastrophe

Posted by Denbo | Report as abusive

90% sure isnt good enough when you are using it as an excuse for tax upon tax in the name of global warming/climate change, I prefer to use the latter.That would be the equvalent of sitting an examanation and answwering a question with….I am 90% sure tht this is the answer. If your not 100% sure then wait until you are 100% sure before you start to act on figures.

Posted by tom | Report as abusive

Visit the following items for an independent view of:
Global Warming & ClimateGate
-
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2009/12  /global-warming-climategate.html
-
LBHagen@RoanokeSlant.org
-

Posted by lbhagen | Report as abusive

Scientists project global warming to continue at a rate that is unprecedented in hundreds of thousands or even millions of years of Earth’s history. They predict considerably more warming in the 21st century, depending on the level of future greenhouse gas emissions. For a scenario (possible situation) assuming higher emissions—in which emissions continue to increase significantly during the century—scientists project further warming of 2.4 to 6.4 Celsius degrees (4.3 to 11.5 Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100. For a scenario assuming lower emissions—in which emissions grow slowly, peak around the year 2050, and then fall—scientists project further warming of 1.1 to 2.9 Celsius degrees (1.9 to 5.2 Fahrenheit degrees) by the year 2100.
Melting polar ice and glaciers, as well as warming of the oceans, expands ocean volume and raises sea level, which will eventually flood some coastal regions and even entire islands. Patterns of rainfall are expected to change, with higher latitudes (closer to the poles) projected to receive more rainfall, and subtropical areas (such as the Mediterranean and southern Africa) projected to receive considerably less. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may damage food crops, disrupting food production in some parts of the world. Plant and animal species will shift their ranges toward the poles or to higher elevations seeking cooler temperatures, and species that cannot do so may become extinct. Increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also leads to increased ocean acidity, damaging ocean ecosystems.
Human beings face global warming with a huge population at risk. The potential consequences are so great that many of the world’s leading scientists—and increasingly, politicians, business leaders, and other citizens—are calling for international cooperation and immediate action to counteract the problem.

Posted by khairmuhammad | Report as abusive

I would like to point out three facts to all of these environmentalists that are crying wolf about global warming. 1. The polar ice caps on mars have disapeared. Have you seen any SUVs driving around there? 2. The earth will heal itself. My example for this is … The Mayan temples in Mexico and Guatemala can hardly be discovered because the jungles have grown back so thickly. This ocurred in a relatively short period of 7-8 hundred years. 3. I spent some time in central Texas. One of my favorite activities was fossil hunting. Do you realize that that whole area of Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma was covered by a shallow sea. My point of all this is that earth and nature are generated in cycles. Whether you are talking about population levels or wheather cycles. I think that these are all natural processes and that it is very anthrocentric to think we can control any of it. This does not mean that we should not conserve or take care of our wild places. We as Americans do a pretty good job of taking care of the environment.

My problem with the climate change religion is that I think it is a “Progressive Movement”. Avatar in my opinion was just a propoganda campaign for global warming. I thought it was the comic book version of Dances with Wolves. I enjoyed Dances with Wolves because I don´t think it had a political message hidden in it. My other problem with this religion is that their solutions are mandated.Why is carbon given an economic value? It is one of the most abundant elements on earth. Sounds like distribution of wealth to me? Environmentalists would have more success if they just spoke about the need for conservation and the harm of overconsumption. Globalization is a fact of life now. There are alot of us people, we are the predominant animal on earth. I think environmentalists would be surprised by the universal agreement there would be if they just toned down the doom and gloom. We have to learn to live with nature, we all understand that. What is ironic to me is that hunters are some of the best conservationists.

Posted by gamboa | Report as abusive

This sort of stuff is my sphere of work so I tend to get to know what’s actaully happening rather than what the media is reporting and what the public are being told after the politicians have edited the scientific reports.

Climatology is a relatively young science and we’re learning a lot as we go along, the technology is coming along in leaps and bounds so we can make ever more accurate predictions.

GW is accelerating slightly faster than the public may otherwise believe but still within the range predicted by scientists. For example, the actual rise in average global temps is 0.0177°C per year as opposed to the published figure of 0.0156°C.

Some things are changing faster than expected. For example, it had been though that the Arctic ice would be permenant feature of the planet for the next 100 years, more recent evalauations show it’s likely to disappear completely each summer in about 40 years, if the rate of melting observed in the last year is repeated then it will be gone in less than 25 years (2007 is the hottest year on record so far and as such it’s likely that this years Arctic ice retreat was greater than the future norm).

In a couple of months the IPCC will release a further report, it will state that the world is warming that bit faster than previously though.

http://www.globalwarmingsurvivalcenter.c om/

Posted by kevinride | Report as abusive