Climategate E-Mail Anaylsis

The Science and Public Policy Institute has an analysis of the climategate e-mails, done by physicists John P. Costella. It does a great job of explaining many of the e-mails and their importance in outing the fraud of AGW.

Explaination of the Mann "trick"

Here is a great article that explains the "trick" from the "trick" e-mail. Esentially you can't compare apples to oranges and that's the what Mann and ones were trying to do.

Himalayan Glaciers Aren't Going Anywhere, More Lies Exposed

Here's an article from the Canada Free Press, that says the theory that the Himalayan glaciers are going to be gone by 2035 was written by an Indian journalist, with no scientific background.

Update: A new study by Dr RK Ganjoo, director of the Institute of Himalayan Glaciology in Jammu University indicates that the East flank of the Siachen (Himalayan) glacier is receding, but the West flank is growing for a net positive growth.

The Insurance Companies Have Noticed Climategate.

From the reason.com blog:

"Environmentalist groups are fond of quoting insurance companies who argue that climate change is a big problem. This supposedly shows that profiteers, who are despised in other contexts, agree with the activists about the real and present danger of man-made global warming. In fact, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the lobby group for the folks that regulate insurance companies, has begun requiring insurance companies to answer a Climate Risk Disclosure Survey as a way alert investors and insureds about each company's exposure to the risks of climate change.
Now some insurance companies are pushing back. In a recent letter, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, specifically citing the Climategate affair, argues against the disclosure requirements on the grounds that the uncertainties surrounding climate science make it hard to properly assess risks."

Full article here.

Google, Bing and Yahoo Censoring Climategate

Go to Google and start typing in climategate, it will auto suggest climategate after 'clim'. Ok that's fine, but it will only show 2,040,000 hits, which is far far less than it should. If you type in climate gate, two words, it shows 13,800,000 hits, again far far less than it should. People have been talking about it on Google's forums. Type climategate into Bing and it never suggests it, but it does produce 51,100,000 hits. In Yahoo typing in 'climategat' yields 'Jon Stewert climatgate', 'climatgate cnn', 'fox news climategate', Jon Stewert again, then ' climategate e mail'. If you use 'climategate' it yields 25,600,000 hits and 'climate gate' yeilds 32,600,000. All the numbers seem low, but googles numbers are really low. There is an explanation, Al Gore is a senior advisor to google!

What's that ball of fire in the sky? Oh, yeah the sun!

The American Thinker has a piece on how Phil Jones and friends at the CRU, purposely tried to discredit a paper by two scientists that shows a direct correlation between solar activity and global temperatures.

IPCC: 50% of Earth Climate due to Ocean Currents...

and the real kicker we're headed for a 30-year cooling period. So does this mean they are 50% of the way to saying that they were wrong and CO2 isn't going to cause a out of control global warming?

The Code Behind Climategate

When anybody says "climategate" people that have heard about it usually say they have heard about the e-mails and the use of the word "trick". What most people haven't heard about is the source code that is used to create the climate models. The same climate models used in the IPCC Assessment Reports which is what future climate legislation is being based on. The best insight into the source code is the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file. This is the comments file or journal that the programmer that was tasked with figuring out and cleaning up the source code used to keep track of his progress. At tickerforum.org a commenter named Asimoz read through the 4000 line file and highlighted some of the major fraud that Harry had found and was trying to deal with. Here's a good one he found:

"The problem is that the synthetics are incorporated at 2.5-degrees, NO IDEA why, so saying they affect
particular 0.5-degree cells is harder than it should be. So we'll just gloss over that entirely ;0)

ARGH. Just went back to check on synthetic production. Apparently - I have no memory of this at all -
we're not doing observed rain days! It's all synthetic from 1990 onwards. So I'm going to need
conditionals in the update program to handle that. And separate gridding before 1989. And what TF
happens to station counts?

OH **** THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm
hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

You can spin the "trick" e-mail anyway you like, but the code is full of blantenly manipulated data.

Videos here and here were done by a programmer that looked at the leaked source code, used to develop the computer models. I'm not a programmer so I don't follow everything but you get the idea.

A Timeline of the CRU e-mails

Here is a really great timeline of the CRU e-mails. I haven't had the time to look through the whole thing, but it was well done and has all the charts in question, for easy reference.