Kinda reminds me of the arguments for a flat world made when certain scientists were accused of heresy...

"To this end, they had no problem starting with a conclusion (which is the antithesis of good scientific research, even if you believe that you are right) and selectively using the "right" data in order to support their conclusion"

A little like your analysis:

1) Conclusion: IPCC graphs are false

2) Select parts of emails to support this claim (interpreting them to fit the conclusion)

3) Graphs are false!

Who who had thought it?

"There is far more independent due diligence on the smallest prospectus offering securities to the public than on a Nature article that might end up having a tremendous impact on policy."

.. and here underlies the real problem with "Climate Science" as shown by the CRU e-mails.

Naturally most of us would assume that it is impossible for good science to be predicated on "tricks" or attempts to "hide the decline" in a data set. What was Jones talking about, and what exactly was his team trying to accomplish?

Under normal circumstances the assumption about good science would be valid. However, after blindly accepting "radiative forcing" as a fundamental fact of physics it's easy to understand such behavior. In fact, the scientists see themselves as courageously trying to save humanity from the folly of polluting the atmosphere with CO2. For decades they see themselves in a righteous struggle with public ignorance and greedy big oil working the back rooms of politics.

With the release of the leaked emails the little voice in their head says "how dare anyone question my true motives when I have sacrificed so much for the sake of humanity." If the raw data doesn't show what it's supposed to in MUST be in error and some brilliant corrective trick can be employed even if it looks like fraud to the ignorant or bought-off deniers.

The reason the raw data doesn't show what it's supposed to is that the fundamental assumption about radiative forcing is wrong, at least in part. Yesterday I explained in some detail why it's wrong, but such information will remain undiscovered by science for some time to come. Only an extended cooling trend similar to what was seen the 1970's will cause some climatologist to reexamine the fundamental assumption of radiative forcing and then maybe they will discover what many of us will have known for a long time.

In the meantime the best we can do is clamor for transparency in order to force the self-deluded saviors of humankind to release the raw data and the metadata they use to show us what they think we must see.

[insert lie here]

[add a generic sneer]

[more sneer + optional lie/smear]

Peace.

Good article over at HotAir:
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/12/13/centre-of-the-storm/
The video at HotAir of Lord Monckton interviewing a Green Peace supporter is a little long but, worth the look and listen. I have had the same conversation with people and what it comes down to is that they have no idea that they don't know what they don't know about the subject.

another thing the "decline" exposes is the inaccuracy of tree ring temperature proxies ... remember they use recent temperature measurements (last 60-80 years) to "calibrate" their tree rings for the last 100 years ...
In this case they had tree rings since 1960 that diverged which means not only did they not track actual temperatures very well, they actually went in the opposite direction ...
The Hockey Team needs the tree rings because that is the only way they can minimize the MWP which is the key to claiming that the 1970 - 2000 warming was unprecedented ...

House of cards ...

Funny how all credible analysis has found nothing incriminating in the stolen emails and data, but a handful of sideshow blogs have.

* http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

* Science not faked, but not pretty. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRa5F7Lv_zO0ZKaHmbQENlyV3KdgD9CHUS980

* http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/uk-science-statement.html

Hmmmm.

>Funny how all credible analysis has found nothing incriminating in the stolen emails and data, but a handful of sideshow blogs have.

Funny how you attack the messenger but can't possibly refute the message.

How do you explain this truncated data?

Aside from the fraud that obviously is taking place, I mean.

You can't. So you go back to the liberal standard of ad hominem attacks.

Jolly good.

DavidC,
The links you provided all have opening statements as false as your opening statement. Good science based on "the scientific method" stands on it's own. That's the problem. AGW cannot stand on it's own. I'm sure you can find a way to contribute to these third world countries that want money for nothing. I think I will pass on that.

Typical Libs, attack the messenger. Nothing to see here, just move on. Libs are all for "science". Especially the Joey Biden type. "Just make shit up".

The IPCC will investigate itself.
Already 1700 subjects (scientists) have been compelled to sign a loyalty oath affirming the outcome of it in advance of its completion, so you may be sure consensus will emerge in due course.

Meanwhile, the world turns without their help or hindrance. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

I disagree that these "scientists" are convinced of the truth of man-made global warming. I believe they are radical leftists who wish to destroy free enterprise, capitalism and particularly the US while creating a central world government with limitless power.

REAL scientists welcome peer review!
REAL scientists retain their raw data, to substantiate and extend their analysis and/or re-think it!
REAL scientists develop theories to explain their data, instead of developing data to fit their theories!

Global Warming is a CULT, and the adherents do not even resemble REAL scientists!

"If the science dont fit, the real data We must omit."

signed ~ Algore & his underlings

AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty

This AP story confirms the point of Michael's article.

The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.

The data wasn't misleading, it showed the temperatures declining, hence the need to "Hide the Decline". Withholding pertinant information to influence a conclusion is called lying by ommission.

The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them -- about 1 million words in total.

Isn't that special. The AP dedicated a whole 5 people to the Climategate e-mails. Consider that the AP dedicated 11 people to factcheck Sarah Palin's 432 page book. At an average of 250 words per page that is a total of 108,000 words divided by 11 equals 9818 words per reporter to analyze.

1 million words of climategate e-mails divided by 5 reporters equals 200,000 words per reporter to analyze. That certainly is an efficient use of resources.

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data -- but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

They looked at the e-mails, but say nothing about looking at the underlying data and programs that went with the e-mails. This wasn't an analysis by the AP, this was another white wash. Nothing to see here folks, move along moment.

It's getting more interesting -

What's going on? CRU takes down Briffa Tree Ring Data and more - Watts Up With That?

Odd things are going on at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Widely available data, existing in the public view for years, is now disappearing from public view.

The scam's blown. They're trying to bury the evidence now - they can't exactly leave town, can they? So - get rid of the evidence, and pretend nothing's wrong at all! The equator will be boiling in five years, unless we FUBAR the economy now, and give all our money to the people who are telling us there's a problem, but are hiding the data!

Eric..that was the first thing that popped into my head when I read about the AP and its 5 reporters. Global Warming is going to kill the planet and we are all going to die!!! 5 reporters. Sarah Palin wrote a book!!! 11 reporters.

Poll results released today by Al Gore show that 115% of all Americans incontrovertibly agree that the earth will spontaneously combust within 10 years. Only .00017% of Americans disagree.

Gore called on all Americans to rush their support without a second's delay. Paypal and credit cards are accepted.

And beware of the hocksticks thrown in by liberals especialy AL GORE the UN and GREEN PEACE

In hockey high-sticking is a foul.

Science writer Andrew C. Revkin, the individual journalist most identified with reporting on climate change, is leaving The New York Times.

#8 - David C.

Well, thats a rather easy statement to make when you, like the people involved in those emails, defines a credible analyst as one who agrees with Global warming. . .

Poll results released today by Al Gore show that 115% of all Americans incontrovertibly agree that the earth will spontaneously combust within 10 years. Only .00017% of Americans disagree.

Of course somehow, somewhere he most probably owns or has a piece of every canoe manufacturer on the planet.

The four horsemen of the apocalypse make an appearance at the Copenhagen conference. Appropriately religious symbols for a religious movement, yes?

Meant to include a link. Four Horsemen

They claim that they didn't 'manipulate' date, but instead they corrected it, because starting in 1960, tree ring data diverged from actual temperatures.

There are a few problems with this.

First, they weren't up front with this, and their emails show they tried to hide the fact that they fudged the numbers, because the tree ring data wasn't supporting their conclusion.

Second, if the tree ring data isn't accurate after 1960, which they claim is because of the rapid rise in temperatures, then how can they be sure it is accurate during other times where we have evidence of rapid warming, such as the medieval warming period and Roman warming period (not called that exactly). You can't say it isn't accurate now, but it was back in the days when we didn't have temperature monitoring stations to compare it to.

Third, the emails show a clear effort to strong arm peer reviewed journals that allowed opposing views, and to even talk about changing the criteria for what a peer reviewed journal was, in order to keep opposing views out of the IPCC assessment reports.

This whole affair is complete CRAP!! The best you conservatives can do is a couple of stolen emails from TEN YEARS AGO???

DAMN FOOLS, why don't you read what your own beloved Pentagon and CIA have to say about global warming THIS YEAR???? Here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121352495&ft=1&f=1004

highlander, you're an idiot. from the article you linked:

"I always look at the worst case," says one senior intelligence official who follows climate issues. "Whether it's global warming or the chance of Country A invading Country B, I just assume the most likely outcome is the worst one."

Their job is to look at worsrt case scenarios. Besides, just becasue the alarmists can't prove their science doesn't mean that some other people, as stupidly naive as you, won't take actions based on the belief that the alarmist are right.

when the alarmist make all of the raw data available as well as the rationale behind their alterationations, then i will be willing to take a look and see if they can convince me.

Highlander, you're parroting erroneous Dem talking points. I thought you were better than that. Allow me to disabuse you of your ignorance:

Al Gore in an interview with our brethren in Australia at the Herald Sun claimed the Climategate emails were ten years old. Of the most damning the oldest email was a year old. Yes Al Gore is still spewing inconvenient mistruths or commonly known to average Americans as lies. Three times he tells the ten year lie in the one interview.

How convenient to claim the other side had few peer reviewed publications when your own side held the keys to the gate. Not only do you keep them from publishing but then use their lack of published papers as evidence against them. A two-fer! I noticed many of the AGW apologists commenting here had used this same argument within the last few months.

And the Climategate scandal is about much more than the emails. The program notes were similarly damning. Even though many of th programs were simply generations of temperature curves for use as illustrations, it was obvious that they were trying to reproduce curves that had already been published, but the data wasn't there or had to be fudged.

In the case of the greens al gore and the UN and the hockstick they should be sent to the PENALTY BOX

Thanks for sharing. Excellent article.

Thanks for sharing. Excellent article.