That’s the spin of an embarrassed, defensive climate activist.

Here’s what the Institute of Physics said:

“The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.”

Note that the IOP’s assessment is not based on ideology. In fact, it is in spite of the fact that the IOP has long been in the climate alarmist camp.

Here’s the reaction of another longtime climate alarmist, physicist Richard Muller:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Muller sounds like a cheated-on spouse. He says he’s “infuriated” by Michael Mann’s fraud. He says Mann’s team is the group he “trusted the most.”

To my knowledge, the most comprehensive analysis of the Climategate revelations was this one:

http://www.webcitation.org/65tXhwudk

You may read the emails yourself, here:

http://sealevel.info/FOIA/

The “97% consensus” meme is an outrageous lie.

An article by Prof. Peter Doran in 2009 was the first to claim a “97% consensus” on climate science. Here’s what he did.

FIRST, Dr. Doran wrote just two “opinion” questions for his survey, both of which were “gimmies,” designed to elicit the answers he wanted. (There were also some demographic & background questions.)

The survey PRETENDED to be an attempt to learn about scientists’ opinions, but it wasn’t. Neither question was designed to actually learn anything about scientists’ opinions. Both of the questions were so uncontroversial that even I, and most other skeptics of climate alarmism (a/k/a “climate realists” or “lukewarmers”) would have given the answers he wanted.

SECOND, Doran had his graduate student send the survey to over 10,000 geophysical scientists, but ONLY to people working in academia or government — known bastions of left-of-center politics. Scientists working in private industry, who tend to be more conservative, were not surveyed. That biased the sample, because the climate debate is highly politicized: most conservatives “lean skeptical” and most liberals “lean alarmist” in the climate debate.

They got 3,146 responses.

THIRD, to calculate his supposed “consensus” Prof. Doran excluded all but the most biased respondents: the most specialized specialists in climate science.

That’s a massive, fundamental blunder. That’s like asking ONLY homeopaths about the efficacy of homeopathy, rather than the broader medical community. It’s like asking ONLY people working on cold fusion about whether cold fusion works, rather than asking all physicists.

That process excluded over 97% of the geophysical scientists who answered the survey! Only 79 were left.

That’s right: he pruned 3,146 responses down to just 79.

But even that didn’t get his desired “consensus” figure up to 97%. So,

FOURTH, to calculate his final “97.4%” result, Doran EXCLUDED respondents who gave one of the “skeptical” answers to the first of his two questions.

I’m not kidding, he really did.

The first “gimme” question was:

“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

(I would have said “risen.”)

Those who answered “remained relatively constant” were not asked the 2nd question, and THEY WERE NOT COUNTED when calculating his percentage consensus.

That left him with just 77 out of 3,146 responses. He used only those 77 for the “97.4%” calculation.

The second question was:

“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Well, of course it is! That encompasses both GHG-driven warming and particulate/aerosol-driven cooling. It could also be understood to include Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects.

Since just about everyone acknowledges at least one of those effects, I would have expected nearly everyone to answer “yes” to this question. Yet 2 of 77 apparently did not.

It is unfortunate that Doran and his graduate student didn’t ask an actual, legitimate question about Anthropogenic Global Warming. They should have asked something like, “Do you believe that emissions of CO2 from human activities, such as burning fossil fuels, are causing dangerous increases in global average temperatures?” or (paraphrasing President Obama) “Do you believe that climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?”

Of course, the reason he didn’t ask “real” questions like that his survey was a scam: Its purpose was NOT to discover anything, it was to support a propaganda talking point.

BTW, I bought his graduate student’s thesis project report, so if you (or anyone else) have any questions about it let me know. My contact info can be found on my SeaLevel.info web site.

You can find much more information about the various surveys of scientific opinion on climate change, including source references for everything I’ve written here, on this web page:

http://tinyurl.com/Clim97pct

You have a good memory, Non union nurse. It was actually June 24, 1974 when they ran this story:

https://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Time_6-24-1974.html

However, that “How to survive the coming ice age” cover is a photoshopped fake.

you missed the content of both articles…more denial?

Not really. That piece even quoted Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office: ““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.”

It’s simple. As in Watergate: Follow the money. The millions, as in Al Gore’s fortune, are from promoting “global warming.” Refuting it doesn’t get you much. I certainly don’t get anything from it.

http://science.time.com/2011/11/23/climategate-2-a-weak-sequel/

http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/

standby for more on #2…

Denial John– more than a river…

LOL– sure they did John.

But, as I indicated in the links to the Climategate 1.0 and Climategate 2.0 scandals, the numbers all are rigged by scientists getting tax subsidies. If 97% of mathematicians are paid with our tax money to say 2+2=5, that doesn’t make it so.

When only 3% of people who actually have knowledge about a subject agree with your conclusion, it is you and the 3% who need to show all of us how the current approach is incorrect and provide some valid and replicable measurements that support your own conclusions. That hasn’t happened, John.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics