DOE sends a “litigation hold notice” regarding CRU to employees – asking to “preserve documents”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/doe-sends...

Change you can believe in!

Merry Christmas!

The only thing I see “tipping over” is the IPCC's credibility into the flaming abyss.

The IPCC spends a great deal of time highlighting the limits of our knowledge, as does any scientific document. But while uncertainties exist (obviously, and I am actually working on a post to highlight some of them), they cut both ways. And the research going on in refards to feedbacks ant tipping points is painting a picture that is far worse (sea-ice albedo tipping points notwithstanding) that what the IPCC suggested.

It appears the IPCC, themselves, do not even understand the science behind AGW.

See: In Their Own Words: The IPCC on Climate Feedbacks
November 1st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Despite the fact that the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming depends mostly upon the strengths of feedbacks in the climate system, there is no known way to actually measure those feedbacks from observational data.

The IPCC has admitted as much on p. 640 of the IPCC AR4 report, at the end of section 8.6, which is entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:

“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.”

Billions, perhaps trillions of dollars at stake and the IPCC, in essence, are “guessing”.

Read more here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/in-their-ow...

Then you don't really understand the science behind AGW. The hockey stick is not used as attribution. Read chapter nine of AR4 if you don't trust me.

“Nature has come under renewed controversy after emails and data from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit were hacked and leaked revealing smoothing, manipulation, clumsy patching and omission of data used to construct climate models based on direct and indirect temperate readings. “

The emails revealed nothing new in this department. There are plenty of peer-reviewed articles on the divergence problem (that is what it is officially called), and even several blog posts by McIntyre on the subject. To say that this is a new revelation is to either admit to not knowing much about the topic or to being dishonest.

“The hockey stick graph provided basis for the 2001 IPCC report, and a significant foundation for the modern mainstream view on climate change. “

This is wrong on both counts. The Hockey stick was used as an easy to understand optic to convey the complex science behind attribution to the general public, but if one reads more than just the summary reports one quickly realizes that in terms of attributing GW the hockey stick plays a very small role. It also not true that it represents a foundation of modern mainstream view on GW. the IPCC concluded that the balance of evidence was that human GHG emissions were responsible for the warming trend in the SAR, which was published before the hockey stick. Again please read chapter 9 in the AR4 if this sounds wrong to you. Look it up yourself.

“The emails also revealed a tightly controlled and collaborative peer-review process which appeared to be designed to suppress skepticism and debate.”

It wasn't the conclusions of the paper that drew this responce, but the fact that those conclusions could not be supported by the data. In the most extreme example (the Jounral Climate Research) 5 editors (50%) resigned after the publication of Soon and Baliunas (2003).

From: Watts Up With That?
By: Anthony Watts
03 11 2009

Wow, just wow. What an editorial. The CBC’s Rex Murphy on Climategate.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/03/you-would...

FINALLY!!!