Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

the Hadley centre aren't the only ones collecting data and modelling the climate

Exactly. 99% of climatologists and meteorologists are in on the conspiracy too. Don't you SEE? It's all a hoax and the more scientists that provide this so-called 'evidence', the bigger a hoax we know it must be.

That, or Jshell posting climate denier horseshit again under the guise of not having their mind made up. This stuff throws more mud at the 'hockey stick graph' of global temperatures; this was 'debunked' by the stuff Jshell posted last time. Except, as I pointed out then with a link, the graph has been vindicated.

Cos really, there's no warming and it's all about sketchy data manipulation and cherry-picking. Anything that did it straightforwardly and over a long period - such as a listing of global average temperature since 1850 - would show this.

Oh, no, hang on a minute....
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html

They're the only ones that have modelled as such

and would never release their data for peer review.

No they're not. A good place to find further information about this is Mark Lynas' book, Six degrees. It collates the research from hundreds of studies and models from all over the world. Hundreds of them.



Why do you say that? Here's a list of their publications: http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/search-all-publications As you can see, this list is full of peer review submissions.

So how does the FACT that they DO submit their research for peer review, and the FACT that the Tindall centre are not the only research body to be investigating climate change fir with the government's plans for green mega tax?

Make up your own minds!

'Cause your lying to me was your first mistake,
Trusting in me was your major mistake,
Pristeen. Pristeen
How much can you take?

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in ‘robust’ discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking.

...it is also clear that the unit has been dragged down by what it considers to be nit-picking and unreasonable demands for data - and that there is personal animus against their intellectual rivals.

Now this sort of hostility is nothing new in academia - but the revelations come at a sensitive time as the world's nations gather for the climate meeting in Copenhagen.

My CRU source points out that its unpublished full data set is almost identical to the ones at the National Climatic Data Center and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

Both of these are in the US, where there are no restrictions on publication. The CRU view is that when the sceptics see the full data in due course they will be very disappointed.

The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU. Despite continuing uncertainties in some areas of climate science, they say officially that their overall confidence that humans are warming the climate is now more than 90%.

One leading figure told me unofficially that confidence was now at 99%.