Where is the source for this? I googled this quote and it said 50% of *TV* meteorologists did not agree.

What we need is an open process in which everything that goes to the review panel is made available publically. That way nobody can try to hide the facts in order to save face for themselves or their political patrons.

Wegman slammed Mann and his co-authors and showed that there was no independent peer review process and no evidence of knowledge of advanced statistical methods. First, the reviewers of the Mann, Bradley and Hughes papers had all been co-writers with the authors on many other papers. Second, the authors and reviewers were insufficiently skilled in the proper use of statistical methods and missed what were basic errors that an independent amateur had managed to find without much difficulty once he was provided with the data and was able to recreate algorithms to process that data. (MBH did not allow anyone to look at the code for obvious reasons; they cut off the proxy data after 1960 because it showed a decline. Anyone reading the Wegman report would not be surprised by the CRU leaks because they show exactly what had already been revealed.

There is no way to spin this story. The leaked code shows the use of fudge factors, inappropriate truncation of data, and cherry picking that makes the reconstructions invalid. That means that we need to open up the process for everyone to see what the full data sets really show and what the methods really do.

CRU took the raw data and added a fudge factor to the most current readings to create a warming signature that did not exist in the original data. This is the reason why Phil Jones, after hiding the data for a decade, claims that he destroyed it because he was short of filing cabinet space. I also believe that it is also the reason why he wrote his 2008 paper, in which he points to a 1C per century UHI effect, which is much bigger than the figure used by the IPCC and CRU when the data is being adjusted. If the proper adjustment were made for the UHI effect the temperature profile put out by CRU would look much different. Keep in mind that the US data shows that, “The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934.” If you look at the raw data from New Zealand, Australia, Northern Europe and elsewhere you do not see substantial warming in the the 20th century. Most of the warming happened before the 1940s, which is when human emissions took off. To create the illusion of great warming, the CRU people added a large warming signature by adjusting the data.

My point being: The evidence from the emails is clear, Don't trust the CRU. However, I trust the APS. And the National Academy of Sciences, and, for that matter, the national academies of all the G8 countries.

You have a problem. The NAS, APS, and other academies are basing their positions on conclusions reached by the IPCC. Those conclusions were based on CRU data. Without the foundation of accurate data the conclusions have to be reviewed and statements coming from the national academies are worthless opinions.

Let me remind you of what I wrote above. The leadership of the AMS supports the IPCC conclusions and thinks that the evidence is clear. But 50% of American meteorologists said that they did not agree with the IPCC statement, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.” That was twice the number that agreed or strongly agreed. When twice as many members did not agree than did agree I do not see how one can claim that the members support the statement. The same is true of other organizations. Nobody bothered to ask the members for their opinion and presented the evidence from both sides of the argument. Without a clear debate there is no way to hide behind the false argument that you have consensus.

Evidence of consensus. From the American Physical Society:
“WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming.”

Really? Just what percentage of the membership believed that man's emissions of CO2 were causing warming? You can't tell us because there has been no poll taken of the membership. All you have is a statement of support for the IPCC from the leadership, which jumped on the AGW bandwagon and is looking to save face.

Here we have evidence of disagreement from a poll taken of members of the American Meteorological Society, people who should have a good idea about what is going on in the field of climate study. This poll had some interesting results.

When asked to evaluate the IPCC statement that, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced,” 50% either disagreed or strongly disagreed while only 24% agreed or strongly agreed. That means that twice as many meteorologists did not believe the warming was man made than did.

The climate models did not do very well in the poll. When asked to evaluate the statement, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections of a warming of the planet,” 52% of the meteorologists disagreed while only 19% agreed.

While only 29% of meteorologists agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “global warming is a scam,” the result should not be surprising because there is no disagreement that the planet is warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age. What gets me is the fact that given the obvious knowledge that the earth came out of the Little Ice Age about 150 years ago only 45% disagreed with the statement that global warming was a scam. I am assuming that many of the respondents must have been confused about the wording because the statement was unclear to them.

It is also clear that meteorologists were far more aware of the uncertainty than their leadership, which has come out of support of the IPCC. I found this part interesting.

When weathercasters were asked in this survey to identify the “greatest obstacle to reporting on climate change,” their top answer (41%) was “too much scientific uncertainty,” despite the growing consensus of climate scientists evinced by the In- tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and in direct conflict with the AMS Statement on Climate Change. (This statement, in the February 2007 issue of BAMS, concludes that “despite the un- certainties noted, there is adequate evidence that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming . . . and that humans have significantly contributed to this change.”)…

Once again let me be clear. There is an obvious disconnect between what the leadership of the AMS says and what the membership believes. As such, I do not accept general statements from leadership groups of various organizations or government agencies as evidence of consensus of the membership.

Of course, science has never been about consensus and consensus does not have a great deal of credibility on its own. After all, there was consensus that ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle choices. When I was a kid the consensus was clearly against plate tectonics. At the turn of the last century the consensus position favoured the prudence of eugenics and argued that something had to be done to protect society from the excessive breeding of inferior low IQ groups like blacks, Jews and Asians. All of those positions turned out to be wrong even if most people believed them.

And who would think of using the idea of 'consensus' in a credible scientific argument? As the late Michael Crichton pointed out, we don't talk about consensus when trying to show that the moon is not made of green cheese or that the sun does not revolve around the Earth. All we do is to point to the evidence. That is the problem of the AGW movement; it has no empirical evidence that man is causing global warming or that the wrming is unusual so it has to manufacture consensus by fiddling with the data, hiding the fact that the ice cores show that it is temperature that drives CO2 and not the other way around, trying to hide the Medieval Climate Optimum, Little Ice Age, Holocene Optimum, and ignoring the major decadal effects of natural factors like the AMO and PDO. I note that the AMO, which was never brought up as a major factor when the temperatures were going up, now is brought up to excuse the fact that Latif, Mann, Jones, Trenberth and their pals can't explain the decadal cooling even as human CO2 emissions were at record highs.

If you wish to argue consensus go right ahead but don't give us statements by political committees that run various organizations. Show us actual polling data by the membership and include a clear statement about what they are agreeing on. I am arguing that if meteorologists overwhelmingly reject the IPCC consensus statement (2 to 1 against) while the AMS leadership supports it, you cannot claim consensus by pointing to the statement from another leadership group. There is no consensus and there has to be debate on the actual science. Free the data and methods so that we can all have a look at the temperature reconstructions and judge about the merits of what has been done so far. If the data is not freed and the methods are not released then you have no science but are basing your position on faith based beliefs.

Really? Just what percentage of the membership believed that man's emissions of CO2 were causing warming? You can't tell us because there has been no poll taken of the membership. All you have is a statement of support for the IPCC from the leadership, which jumped on the AGW bandwagon and is looking to save face.

Now here we have evidence of disagreement from a poll taken of members of the American Meteorological Society, people who should have a good idea about what is going on in the field of climate study. This poll had some interesting results.

* Almost a third agreed or strongly agreed that “global warming is a scam.”
* When the meteorologists were asked to identify “the greatest obstacle to reporting on climate change,” their top answer (41%) was “too much scientific uncertainty.”

If I put a comment in my code saying \This is where the magic happens!\ Is this evidence that I believe in magic?

Consider a triangle whose three sides have lengths FudgeFactor, Kludge, and Hack. Isn't it still true that FudgeFactor^2+Kludge^2=Hack^2?

I reiterate: “Exactly what data did they cook? What exactly did theses corrections do to the code? What parts of the code were affected? How was the code's output affected? What does the code even do?”

and I add: Does CRU's data match up with other data sets obtained by other independent scientists?