If the Institute of Physics acknowledges inappropriate climate science, is it time to re-think AGW claims?

"Hopefully, the investigation of Climate Gate will expand beyond Phil Jones and Michael Mann. Do you agree?"

When you read their emails, it becomes obvious that they completely bastardized the peer review process with a small number of cohorts. All of the papers they authored or had anything to do with should be suspect. That also includes activists like Hansen that has been put into a position of influence. That is like having the fox guard the chickens.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/p...

That sounds like CYA from the scientists that don't want to be tarred when the inevitable happens. Did they really need to essentially say that Data needs to be reproducible in science? Isn't that part of the definition of science. Those people caused much damage to the reputations and careers of people that dared to question them and they knew perfectly well that they had fudge the numbers. They do seem to be deluded enough to believe they were essentially correct but they went beyond just incompetence. They need to be held accountable for all damages done because of their manipulations and not just told to keep better records in the future. They lied and lost all credibility so they better not be rewarded with the customary political payback that will be demanded by alarmists for their "good services to humankind".

The 'human activity driving the climate' was never accepted science, except by people who think beliefs don't need to be verified. I don't think the IPCC gained credibility as anything other than a self serving political group. Climate change as a political movement is on the decline. The predictions of an ice free Arctic circle and 0.3 degrees per decade warming are no longer being made. Warmists are no longer trying to ascertain what the rate of global warming is in degrees per decade. Instead they are waiting for an anomaly to happen and then building a case for attributing it to human activity. As Pegmimer says, 'The past ten year period was the warmest ten year period on record' (sic) but I think he meant to say the first decade of the 21'st century was the warmest decade on record. To an intelligent person, this is just another way of saying global warming ended in 1998 and this just shows that the warmists will take any warming they can get even if it was last century.

Not the fundamentals. Since you like the Institute of Physics, here's their position:

"Although these details are important and more research needs to be done before the uncertainties are resolved, the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing – and that we need to act."

"Global emissions must be reduced by at least 50% to reach the EU target of a temperature rise of no more than 2°C. To achieve this, ways of generating energy that release little carbon dioxide will be necessary."

They haven't retracted those statements because they know, however messy CRU was (or wasn't), there is an enormous database that confirms those basic truths, even if you drop everything the CRU has ever done.

The title of the AP story on this tells the tale:

"Climate Science Not Faked, but Not Pretty"

I agree with the IoP; they should be defending scientific integrity.

Yet there is no evidence (yet) that the abundant scientific evidence (including thousands of papers NOT published by CRU) is wrong.

The IoP recently had a primer for its members in 'Physics World', explaining why the evidence for global warming was strong, and as far as I can tell it didn't rely on UEA results. (if you have IoP membership, then take a look - it was in the Sept '09 issue I think)

It may well be the catalyst that we need to devote more and concentrated effort to research, gathering of accurate data, and further analysis to get a better picture of what is going on with climate and mankind's influence on it both now and in the future.

I would certainly applaud and encourage that regardless of the catalyst. Anything is better than this impasse we are at. We need to advance our knowledge of how climate works instead of filibustering it and acting as obstructionists to any constructive debate and dialogue. Knowledge is power; ignorance produces mob mentality such as we see in politics, the media and the general populations and too often defeats or slows the advance of reason, and the clock is ticking on this issue.

I shudder thinking of how this can be picked apart and provide an additional source of "sound bites" to spread disinformation, but in the true spirit of her article and the desire to be open and accountable for ALL...please read. Including the referenced material. Thank you.

They also state this:

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

"global warming" is a fraud.

In all likelihood anyone who was an uncritical believer in the theory of man made global climate change is not going to be willing to consider the implications of "climate-gate".