What has changed with the release of the CRU emails?

The only thing that changed is that deniers have something new to harp on and misconstrue and add to their list of things which prove AGW is a massive conspiracy.

Physics hasn't changed. Atmospheric CO2 is still increasing, the planet is still warming in response to the associated radiative forcing, and the climate is changing in response to that. A few emails taken out of context doesn't change any of that.

The hack obsession will last for another week or so. After that it will just be added to the list of myths deniers raise every so often, like volcanic dwarfing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, Mars warming, scientists predicted cooling in the '70s , etc. etc. In fact I've already added it to my list at Myth #14. Eric would do well to read it, because I covered the Trenberth "where is global warming?" quote he references (and misconstrues, shockingly).

Let's look at the science behind AGW. The earth is getting warmer, CHECK! CO2 is a green house gas, CHECK! Fossil fuels when burned release CO2, CHECK! Humans burn fossil fuels, CHECK!

It's obvious from the science that WE are causing global warming, and it's about time for all of us wake up and ignore climate history of the earth. Just because we can't show that CO2 levels at these concentrations increase temperature within any credible range doesn't mean that it's not at least possible that CO2 levels could override the thousands of other natural climate drivers. Even though CO2's gone way high and temperatures stopped rising with the CO2 about 10 years ago there's still got to be a connection. Really, I mean REALLY? I have no clue exactly who is in denial.

Please enlighten me to the proper context the hacked information is supposed to be put?

Wait,

Let me get this straight. You have no smoking gun linking man to GW. You have scientists forcibly getting editors fired because that journal actually dared to publish a desenting viewpoint. You have used polar bears drowned in a bad storm as "evidence" that they are losing their habitat. You have <1 degree change in the past 100 years. You have a whole 2mm/year increase in sea level, only found after adding locations that have been sinking due to tectonic activity. You have a scientist using a "trick" to "hide" the cooling. Some people key on trick, but I have used mathematical "tricks" alot. I key on "hide", a word you will not find in a million emails at my CRO. You have current cooling that is completely unexplainable. You have scientists not willing to let the true peer-review process happen by not giving out their data, or maliciously deleting it. And what you are asking is if we have proof that GW is not happening. You are asking us to give up our rights as home owners and seek permission from the EPA anytime we want to sell our homes. You are asking to tax the middle class, you are asking us to pay other countries for our "evil practices" of creating energy. What am I asking from you? Nothing. You want all of this from us, than it is your burden to bring the evidence to bear. Not to hide it, not to stifle debate, not "modify" your data, not to insult all who disagree, not to celebrate when a great scientist dies.

With the trillions (thats with a T) of dollars that you are asking from Joe tax payer, I think we have the right to ask you to follow the scientific method. I think we have a right to ask for the smoking gun. I think we have the right not to be labeled deniers and fools because we want to see the evidence first.

Oh and by the way to the great "masters of science". If hackers uncovered a pharmceutical using these practices, they would not be called "despicable". They would be lauded as heroes. I am part of the pharma industry and I would be more than estatic that the data that was being hidden is now being released and that lives may be saved. You show your own bias. Your condemnation is nothing more than your ignorance and inability to accept the truth that is glaring beofre you. Us skeptics have been asking nothing more than that the scientists follow the scientific method and standard practices. They do not, the emails bare this out, and instead of looking at th e truth, you insult the kid who said the emperor is naked. YOU ARE NO SCIENTISTS!!!!!

Also for those that says the email show nothing, consider this.

I have 1000 emails on my work account. How many do think talk of stifling others scientists viewpoints? How many do you think insult those who disagree? How many do you think talk of hiding a trend? How many do you think talk of deleting information that is supposed to be provided in the FOI act?

If you guessed 0, zitlch, zip, nada, you would be correct.

Correction to the asker of the question: This is nothing less than the entire "climate change" community that's under scrutiny. The email cover-ups is the tip of the ever-growing iceberg.

The New York Times did not release the emails themselves, they only released quotes from them. The emails in their entirety (being there were over 20,000 documents in total) would be far more condemning, but the New York Times being the good little left-wing patsy they are decided that a little bit of damage control for their allied leftist industry was in order. So you will not get context-deficient quotes because they have not been disclosed. Period.

To answer your original question...

When a laboratory researching, let's say, anti-depressants falsifies the data on their research to make sure the drug makes it to the market, and then evidence of their falsification reaches the public view, the laboratory is invariably investigated, their research and all past research loses credibility to peer, patient, industry, and everyone else, charges are filed, criminal investigations of all involved are started, and the anti-depressant is taken off the market immediately along with massive recalls of any drugs sold. It makes perfect sense why these steps are taken, you should hope they would be, and it is in accordance with the law. Now let's move on to climate change...

Climate change, formerly known as "global warming," is a cash cow for research centres and politicians like Al Gore. Gore has made his fortunes selling carbon credits and starting companies to capitalize on what may be the world's worst case of group-think ever. The science was never completely disclosed for it, all the statistics which were given were merged and homogenized from records which may or may not exist, in addition to records which were pulled from non-sequential contexts in order to fill inconvenient gaps or inconsistent data. It's not a theory anymore, it's a political tool. The science surrounding global warming has collapsed on itself with this and previous discoveries over the past 10 years, and any credible environmental research does indeed suggest that climate change is not happening as a result of human activity, and is consistent with previous cycles observed since records began. I repeat, it is an industry for opportunists and rip-off artists (politicians), not real science.

Many people still support it, but basing one's arguments for it on data and reports from the same people who are now under investigation is like Major Nidal Hasan pleading not guilty. Global warming is going to fail, and with it, an entire corrupt-beyond-all-reckoning industry. Finally, thank goodness, game over, amen.

Now how about a 20% tax hike for the next junk science scaremongering sham?

It will never end- too much money involved. In order to study climate change (I call them seasons) accurately you would have to have climate records for many thousands of years, because like everything else in life- the earth cycles. We have had climate change before- it was called the ice age and the end of the ice age. Call them global cooling and global warming if you want, either way I'm pretty sure cars, air conditioners and light bulbs didn't cause the last cycle. Maybe too many Wooly Mammoths passing gas.

I have to agree with davem- once an organization falsifies information their credibility is pretty much in the toilet.

That information will come from the source codes. That will take some time to decipher. But there are indications that it is already happening.

"People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show. The code after a quick scan is quite a mess. Anyone with any pride would be to ashamed of to let it out public viewing. As examples bias take a look at the following remarks from the MANN code files:"

http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/these-wil...

There are numerous references of them coercing the peer review process. Something skeptics have been saying all along.

There is evidence were they are expressing doubt in private and not in public. They say not being able to explain the warming trend of the last ten years a "travesty". They also say if push comes to shove they will say that their temperature reconstructions does not express certainty but likelihood.

It shows that these are scientists who are too emotionally attached to their theory to remain objective. They despise their critics. No good science can come out of people so emotionally attached. This would not be so bad if not for the fact that are also asked to be lead authors of the IPCC and various government reports. Do you really want us to believe that they will objectively review any evidence that comes from their hated critics?

It shows that they have created a tribal atmosphere in the climate science community. Anybody who wants to be accepted into their tribe has to support their theory. Any critics will be outcasts. There is a reason why freedom of speech is important in a democracy. They clearly show that they are people who try to stifle freedom of speech.

Falsifying and altering data to prove a point is fraud. Every bit of evidence that might support agw will have to be re-examined or thrown out because of possible 'number-fiddling', and the agw "scientific community" as a whole is now deemed untrustworthy.

Everything has changed. The credibility of those whose word we're supposed to take, whose predictive models we're supposed to believe, has been shot. There is no "evidence for AGW." There is only "consensus" - consensus among a group of proven liars.

When will this end? Not nearly as soon as you'd like.

It's never going to end.

This isn't the "end of climate science" - it's the beginning of the end of the politicization of climate science!

We are more likely to believe Lindzen's climate sensitivity than the other scientists. No reason for alarm.

What's changed is that we now have incontrovertible evidence of a massive conspiracy to manipulate the data (e.g., fraud), silence dissenters and skeptics (e.g., academic thuggery and malpractice), and foist fascist neo-eugenics policies on the world's population (e.g., conspiracy to commit mass murder and other high crimes against humanity).

Your attempts to whitewash this devastating expose are pathetic. Your lunatic cult doctrine of AGW has been exposed as a complete fraud. Give it up.

I can answer your last question, it will end when the sun expands incinerating the planet.

I've read about 40 journal articles on AGW vs 2 on non AGW.