Mathematics of Global Warming

Peter Landesman states in the  article The Mathematics of Global Warming in American Thinker: 

• The forecasts of global warming are based on mathematical solutions for equations of weather models. But all of these solutions are inaccurate. Therefore, no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global warming. The false claim for the effectiveness of mathematics is an unreported scandal at least as important as the recent climate data fraud. Why is the math important? And why don't the climatologists use it correctly?
  

Good question! But this opens a vast field for efficient correct computational mathematical modeling of weather and climate. This connects to my previous posts on climate simulation including

• How Climate Alarmism Got Started: The Lorenz Equations
• Hurrah! Scientists Back in Business
• Short Time vs Long Time Accuracy
• Climate and Turbulence Modeling.

The World asks for a restart of climate modeling, by computational mathematicians! We are ready! The code words are:

• adaptive finite element methods for turbulent flow with automatic duality based output error control 
  

as presented in Computational Turbulent Incompressible Flow.

Even if it will not be possible to do meaningful longtime predictions, improved climate modeling can give scientific insight into the intricate thermodynamics of weather and climate.

Climate modeling is the only way of reaching understanding, since controled experimenting is impossible. In particular it seems impossible to single out the influence of anthropogenic burning of fossil fuel from unknown other forcings.

The collapse of current climate modeling controled by a few governmental institutions, thus may open the field for a broader participation including computational mathematicians. 

Nobel Prizes in Physics/Chemistry to be Awarded by IPCC?

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences KVA awards the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry to persons who have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind; for the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics and for the most important chemical discovery or improvement. 

KVA has in a statement expressed full support of IPCC, the UN Panel supplying the scientfic foundation of COP15. KVA insists, like the Royal Society, that its full support of IPPC is not shaken by Climategate giving evidence that IPCC builds on manipulated scientific data.  Like our Minister of Environment Andreas Carlgren, KVA seems to believe that it is very unlikely that such a Climategate could exist. The manipulated data could be precisely those supplied at the end of the KVA statement as main evidence of global warming.

How do we know that Climategate exists? Google gives 20 million hits on climategate, whereas our Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt gets 500.000. According to laws of statistics, it is thus 400 times more likely that Climategate exists than Reinfeldt does.

The logical conclusion seems to be: Since KVA trusts so much in the science of IPCC that not even a Climategate changes anything, IPCC should take over the nomination of the Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry. After all, climate is just physics and chemistry. And IPCC should be the optimal organization for identifying persons who have conferred the greatest benefit to mankind. 

However, the pressure on scientific societies to revise previous support of IPCC after Climategate, is building up according to CBSNews:

• The professional association for physicists APS is facing internal pressure from some of its most distinguished members, who say the burgeoning ClimateGate scandal means the group should rescind its 2007 statement declaring that global warming represents a dire international emergency. 
• A letter has ben circulating saying :"By now everyone has heard of what has come to be known as ClimateGate, which was and is an international scientific fraud, the worst any of us have seen... We have asked the APS management to put the 2007 statement on ice until the extent to which it is tainted can be determined, but that has not been done. We have also asked that the membership be consulted on this point, but that too has not been done." 

In case KVA is a scientific society the pressure for revision also concerns KVA and a letter should be circulating... 

A new leak reveals the secret agenda of COP15: Enforce limits on use of fossil energy in poor developing countries so that it will last longer for rich countries. Clever.

Our own Margot Wallström and Norway's Gro Harlem Brundtland firmly believe in IPCC, because there is scientific consensus on AGW!  But there is no scientific consensus! When will the curtain fall?

SVT Svarar om Stockholmsinitiativets Påstådda Mordhot

SVT Rapports redaktionschef Anja Hilden svarar på mina frågor angående SVTs påståenden om existensen av en klimatpolicy på SVT och att Stockholmsinitiativet använder mordhot:

• Hej, jag är ledsen, men jag förstår inte vad du menar. SVT har ingen policy i klimatfrågan, det vore ju helt orimligt. Och menar du att Erika Bjerström sagt att SI har mordhotat folk?? Var skulle hon sagt det?? 
  

Jag har igen meddelat länken till Adaktusson TV8 där detta uttalas, och inväntar förklaring av SVT. Stay tuned... Meanwhile why not listen to Lord Monckton at RT.

Erika Bjerström fortsatte sin propaganda mot klimatskeptiker i Aktuellt idag:

• Climategate kommer inte att påverka förhandlingarna särskilt mycket
• Saudiarabien var en av få länder som tog upp Climategatesom, men har ju som oljenation mycket att förlora på att man överger the fossila samhället
  
• jag är förvånad över att klimatforskarna inte tar debatten med det här fåtalet av klimatskeptiker
• men det behövs en öppen och prövande debatt.

Uppenbarligen skall denna öppna och prövande debatt inte föras i SVT. 

TV4 och Tv8 låter även klimatskeptiker sitta i soffan, men inte SVT. Varför Anja Hilden? Skulle det strida mot SVTs klimatpolicy, som Henrik Ekman beskriver? Innebär denna policy att det är Carlgern som bestämmer vad som skall nå folket via SVT?

Sydsvenskan skriver i Cliamategate het fråga:

• Köpenhamn kommer naturligtvis inte runt skandalen...viktiga klimatdata har manipulerats vid East Anglia University
• IPCC grundar viktiga delar av sina påståenden om temperaturstegringar på forskning från just East Anglia.
• FNs klimatchef de Boer påstod att IPCC:s rapporter kontrolleras noga. Ingen annan process är så noggrann och så genomlyst som den som leder fram till rapporterna.

Motstridiga uppgifter, eller hur SVT? Eller hur KVA? 

Climate Sensitivity and Feedback 2

I continue on my previous post On Feedbacks by Lindzen and Spencer stimulated by Spencer's Can Global Warming Predictions be Tested with Observations of the Real Climate System?:

• I am now quite convinced that most, if not all, previous estimates of feedback from our satellite observations of natural climate variability are in error.
• Furthermore, this error is usually in the direction of positive feedback, which will then give the illusion of a ‘sensitive’ climate system.
• The goal seems simple enough: to measure cloud feedbacks, we need to determine how much clouds change in response to a temperature change.
• But most researchers do not realize that this is not possible without accounting for causation in the opposite direction, i.e., the extent to which temperature changes are a response to cloud changes.
• As a result, it is not possible with current methods to measure feedbacks in response to a radiative forcing event such as a change in cloud cover, or even a major volcanic eruption, such as that from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.
  
• The reason is that the size of the radiative forcing of a temperature change overwhelms the size of the radiative feedback upon that temperature change, and our satellite measurements can not tell the difference.
• If you have an accurate estimate of the radiative forcing of temperature change, accurate estimates of radiative feedback can be made. But we do not have good estimates of this forcing during natural climate variations.
  
• Only in climate model simulations where a known amount of radiative forcing is imposed upon the model can this be done.
  

Spencer's concerns can be illustrated in the simple model

dT/dt = Q + A T - B T,

where T is temperature, e.g. global ocean surface temperature, t is time, Q is radiative heat forcing, A T is feed-back heat forcing from e.g. water vapour and clouds and B T is feed-back into outgoing LW radiation, with B a positive constant and A positive for positive feed-back.

The central problem is to estimate A from measurements of T, dT/dt and BT, from which the crucial climate sensitivity can be determined. The difficulty is to single out AT from Q + AT = dT/dt + BT. If Q is constant in time, then the time variation of Q + AT might reveal A. But as Spencer points out, the Q behind climate variations is unknown and so the climate sensitivity may be impossible to determine from observed variations, at least using this simple model, connecting to the simple model used by Lindzen and Choi in Climate feed-backs computed from ERBE data.

It seems that the only possibility of determining climate sensitivity is through accurate climate models with resolution of the turbulent convective heat transfer from ocean to stratosphere. It is conceivable that this is possible using adaptive finite element methods, a possiblity we are now exploring.

Compare Spencer's upcoming talk: On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing.

See also On Climate Sensitivity and Why It Probably is Small and Sense and Climate Sensitivity.

SVT Agenda SvD KVA Climategate och Harrisburg: Synd

Så tar då SVTs Agenda till slut upp Climategate med en panel bestående av de fyra klimatalarmisterna Andreas Carlgren, Peter Eriksson, Pär Holmberg och Martina Kruger Greenpeace. Det hela avhandlas på några minuter och summeras av Carlgren:

• Högst osannolikt att Climategate skulle ha inträffat.

Detta är samma resonemenag som Harrisburg: Eftersom det är så osannolikt har det inte inträffat. 

Detta är inte opartisk och saklig information. Finns det ingen på SVT som kan förstå detta?

Däremot pågår den katastrofala uppvärmningen säkerligen för fullt även om de vetenskapliga beläggen för att så är fallet skulle var påhittade. Enligt Carlgren som uppenbarligen styr SVT.

Hur kan det bli så tokigt? Per Gudmundson avslöjar i dagens SvD Så lät vi vädermän bli klimataktivister:

• Varför har det varit relativt tyst om den skandal som fått det fantasilösa namnet Climategate? 
  
• Att det skrivits så lite om hur data kan ha manipulerats, hur forskare vägrats tillgång till källorna, eller att Phil Jones vid University of East Anglias Climate Reseach Unit frånträtt sin tjänst i väntan på utredning?
• Min uppfattning är att journalister i gemen inte drivs av någon politisk agenda. Snarare uppfattar man sig som tjänare för det allmänna bästa. 
• Men man pekade också på ett annat problem.”En mindre synlig risk som kräver särskild uppmärksamhet är när program påstås skildra en konsensus om ’det allmänna bästa’ eller dras in i kampanjande.”
• Är det detta vi sett i bland annat SVT, när en strid ström av meteorologer gått från väderpresentatörer till klimataktivister?
• Att det samtidigt pågår en kritisk debatt om de eventuella överenskommelsernas vetenskapliga grund lär man försöka ge minsta möjliga uppmärksamhet.
• Synd. Även om global uppvärmning är ett hot ändå, som bör mötas med handling, bör skandalen inte tigas ihjäl.
• Det beror på att det råder ”konsensus om det allmänna bästa”.
  

Läs detta flera gånger och jämför med SVT. Är det verkligen så att vi lever i ett 1984 där nyspråket och konsensus om det allmänna bästa styr både vetenskap och media? 

Pär Gudmundson verkar tycka så, men verkar inte tycka det är något särskilt konstigt med det. Gudmundson ställer in sig i ledet för konsensus om det allmänna bästa. Och bär inte sitt ansvar som ledarskribent i SvD. Synd.

SvD är i gott sällskap med New York Times som har en egen klimatalarmist i Andrew Revkin som summerar i As Climate Meeting Starts, a Revival of Skepticism:

• Politics, ideology and economic interests interlace the debate, and the stakes on both sides are high. 
• If scientific predictions about global warming’s effects are correct, inaction will lead at best to rising social, economic and environmental disruption, at worst to a calamity far more severe. 
• If the forecasts are wrong, nations could divert hundreds of billions of dollars to curb greenhouse gas emissions at a time when they are struggling to recover from a global recession.

Det verkar vara nödvändigt att granska klimatmodellerna och deras förutsägelser, en gång till.

Eller hur?

Här har Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien KVA en avgörande roll att spela. KVA har gjort ett uttalande som stödjer IPCC samtidigt som KVA förnekar Climategate, på samma sätt som Carlgren: Det har helt enkelt inte inträffat. 

Men så kan inte en vetenskaplig akademi agera. Det går inte att förneka att vetenskapen bakom AGW kan vara falsifierad. KVA kan inte undvika att att ta ställning till om detta är sant. Om KVA vill fortsätta att dela ut Nobelpris. Detta sker nu på torsdag. Ett reviderat uttalande måste komma innan torsdag! Annars snedvrids både Köpenhamn och Stockholm denna och kommande veckor.

Ett av emailen till CRU finns här: Shocking! Men knappast för KVA. Varför är vetenskapens heligaste principer inte längre giltiga? 

Lyssna på debatten mellan Energy Secretary Miliband och Lord Lawson i BBC:

• Miliband: What we've heard from the national academies of the eight leading industrial countries, and the five leading emerging countries, like China and India, is that global warming is man-made and it's happening.
• Lord Lawson:  It is profoundly irresponsible not to allow an honest, rational, reasoned debate. 

Lyssna på hur Miliband utnyttjar vad vetenskapliga akademier säger. Vad KVA säger är avgörande för vad Reinfeldt och Carlgren skall säga. Förstår inte KVA detta? I så fall, läs tex Dirty climate data by Lawrence Solomon i Financial Post. Och titta inte enbart på öppningsvideon för COP15. Eller gör det och tänk en smula...och betänk att Petr Chylek’s Open Letter to the Climate Research Community också är riktat till KVA. 

Jag rekommenderar också KVA att läsa tex The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero, om KVA överhuvudtaget skall uttala sig global warming. KVA ledamoten Wibjörn Karlen figurerar här, men verkar tyvärr vara "homogenized" inom KVA. 

Gordon Brown Attack on Skeptics: Dangerous and Deceitful

The Guardian reports that Gordon Brown on Dec 4 led a chorus of condemnation against "flat-earth"climate change skeptics who have tried to derail the Copenhagen summit by casting doubt on the evidence for global warming:

• With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate skeptics.
• We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and close the 5bn-tonne gap. That will seal the deal.
  

Ed Miliband gave his most damning assessment of the skeptics yet, describing them as dangerous and deceitful:

• The approach of the climate saboteurs is to misuse data and mislead people. The skeptics are playing politics with science in a dangerous and deceitful manner. There is no easy way out of tackling climate change despite what they would have us believe. The evidence is clear and the time we have to act is short. To abandon this process now would lead to misery and catastrophe for millions.

Ed Markey, who co-authored the US climate change bill, warned against allowing America's political agenda to be hijacked by the email affair:

• We can no longer allow our climate and energy policy to be hijacked by the government of Saudi Arabia, ExxonMobil, and the defenders of the fossil fuel status quo.
  

Bob Watson, Defra chief scientist and former head of IPCC said:

• The skeptics have clearly seized upon this as an incident that they can use to their own ends in trying to disrupt the Copenhagen agreements.
• If this slows down an international agreement to significantly reduce greenhouse gases, it will mean we're committed to an even larger temperature change … with adverse consequences on agriculture, water, human security, human health and biodiversity.

A number of prominent Conservatives, including former chancellor Lord Lawson and former Cameron frontbencher David Davis, have pounced on the email furore. But tonight the shadow climate change secretary, Greg Clark, made clear the party line remains that climate change is a serious man-made threat: 

• Research into climate change has involved thousands of different scientists, pursuing many separate lines of independent inquiry over many years. The case for a global deal is still strong and in many aspects, such as the daily destruction of the Earth's rainforests, desperately urgent.
  

The image of skeptics including myself presented here is frightening, as frightening as global warming alarmism itself...What is driving Brown in this surge on "climate sabotage"?

Swedish Radio reports that climate alarmist Chris Rapley, Director of London Science Museum, wanders the museum switching off lights in order to prevent the Arctic from melting: The Science Museum has delivered its verdict: 

• The Museum has examined the evidence. We're convinced climate change is caused by humans and requires urgent action.
  

The Museum has "examined the evidence" just like the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences? The evidence of CRU? Is the Museum a scientific research institution?

Summing up we have:

• the science is clear, evidence
• we know what we must do, urgent action, that will seal the deal
• behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate skeptics
  
• hjjacked by ExxonMobil
• climate saboteurs, misuse of data, misleading people, derail, casting doubt
• dangerous and deceitful.
  

This gives vibrations from the 1930s. How is this possible today? By the British Prime Minister? Compare Bishop Hill Climate of Fear:

• The other day I bumped into ****** at an event and said something about his global warming views (skeptical) and he froze and said "I don't do that stuff now - people would not touch me if I did".

What is going on in England? Is it 1933, 1984 or 2009?

Skeptics like Roger Pielke Sr. , even if he does not really consider himself to be a skeptic to AGW, are banned from the UN conference and are referred to an Alternative Climate Conference Dec 6 organized by Dansk Folkeparti. Of media nnly Fox News opens for skeptics in any real sense.  It seems that British Labour represents unreason and  Fox News reason. Potentially alarming since British Labour is big and Fox News small.

CO2 Science is effective medication. As well as The 12 Days of Global Warming.

And read Marc Sheppards Understanding Climategate's Hidden Decline. Understanding is an effective tool against unreason and stupidity. It is like much mathematics not so difficult to understand if you only use a bit of sound logic and a little bit of effort. If you only allow yourself to accept the fact that your opponent is cheating, how implausible it may be, then you have a very effective tool if you just understand how the cheating is being made.

Klimatförsäkring: Begåvat eller Korkat?

I DNs huvudledare skriver Peter Wolodarski idag utan att med ett ord nämna Climategate, precis som om det i likhet med Harrisburg inte hade hänt eftersom det var så osannolikt:

• FN:s klimatpanel säger att temperaturen i slutet av detta århundrade kan ha stigit med upp till 6.4 grader = en potentiell katastrof. 
  
• Eftersom osäkerheten är så stor och det finns tydliga varningssignaler, är det värt att teckna en försäkring för att minska risken att något farligt händer längre fram.
• Problemet uppstår när de ska enas om vem som ska betala för försäkringen och hur ambitiös den ska vara. Oenigheten om hur mycket utsläppen ska minska och hur notan ska delas är för stor. Det är inte ens säkert att USA under Barack Obamas ledning kan bidra med något handfast.
  
• En global skatt på koldioxid vore den bästa lösningen.

En global skatt på koldioxid som försäkring mot en katastrofal temperaturhöjning? Begåvat eller korkat? Om försäkringbolaget är 100% övertygat om att katastrofen inte kommer att inträffa. så är detta ett lysande sätt att få in skattemedel. Om försäkringbolaget ser att katastrofen är möjlig, så är det synnerligen korkat eftersom det skulle innebära konkurs om katastrofen skulle komma. 

Slutsatsen är att inte ens Wolodarski, såvida han inte är synnerligen korkad, för ett ögonblick tror på 6.4 graders katastrofal uppvärmning.  Men då behövs det väl inte någon försäkring, Wolodarski? Ett försäkringsbolag skall väl syssla med sunda affärer, och inte lura på folk meningslösa sakförsäkringar som gör att det inte finns pengar till mat och hyra? Det finns ju en försäkringsinspektion, eller hur?

The Moment of Truth for the Royals

Everything is coming together this week: Copenhagen, Climategate and the Nobel Ceremony. It will be a busy week for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: Before handing out the Nobel Prizes on Saturday the Academy must revise its statement on climate change edorsing IPCC building on CRU.

The present standpoint of the Academy expressed on Nov 27 is: The Academy does not intend to revise its statement on the basis of criminal hacking of CRU.

The pressure on the Royal Society of London is building up as expressed by Bishop Hill:

• This is an important moment for the Royal Society.  The evidence is clear - scientists at the CRU have misrepresented our understanding of the Earth's temperature history to policymakers. The Society must speak out now. If it does not, then the fellows must take a stand against the Society's leadership. Failing that the premier scientific body of the UK will forever be brushed aside as another mouthpiece for the environmental movement. 
  

IPCC chairman Pachauri has changed foot from denial to investigation. The Royals must do the same, if reason is to decide.

BBC reports in CRU's programming "way below expected standards" about the core of the Climategate: wrong mathematics vs correct mathematics. This is what the Copenhagen meeting will be all about: 20000 politicians discussing mathematics! Amazing! More thrilling BBC here: The debate is heating up!

Read Steven F. Hayward in the weekly Standard: Scientists behaving badly: 

• Slowly and mostly unnoticed by the major news media, the air has been going out of the global warming balloon. 
  
• Someone needs to break the bad news to the players that it's closing time for the climate horror show.

This includes the players at The Royal Swedish Academy.The fact that even Swedish Radio today reports on Climategate is the sign that the air is really leaking out...Still Swedish Minister of Environment Andreas Carlgren states: It is unthinkable that data underlying IPCC has been manipulated: Climategate means nothing...I rely on Pachauri and IPCC...but his voice is trembling...game over soon.

Recall the prophecy by MIT Professor Richard Lindzen made long before Climategate:

• Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.

The wonder will concern in particular The Royal Society webpage still two weeks after Climategate, stating without any irony:

• The UK is at the forefront of tackling dangerous climate change, underpinned by world class scientific expertise and advice. 
• Climate scientists from the UK and across the world are in overwhelming agreement about the evidence of climate change, driven by the human input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.  
  

Compare with Senator James Inhofe.

Obama prepares skipping Copenhagen by postponing his presence to the very last day, which by the UN organizers is viewed as a step forward. Just one more day and it will be all over...what is the point of coming to the bar at closing time?

Emperor Without Clothes Cancels Copenhagen Parade

My favorite H. C. Andersen story about The Emperor's New Clothes appears in the American Thinker article Global Warmings New Clothes by  Rosslyn Smith:

• The moral of the "Emperor's New Clothes" certainly applies to AGW and many of those who accepted theassertions by non scientists with political agendas that the science was settled. The emperor's advisors and subjects were so afraid of appearing stupid that they suspended their judgment. Thus they ended up demonstrating to the entire world that they were indeed stupid. 
  

It appears that the Emperor himself has discovered the status of his clothing and decided to not parade in Copenhagen. But people are disappointed and want their money back...

Will The Royal Swedish Academy also cancel its trip to Copenhagen?

The Spectator summarizes in Global Warming: The Truth: The World's leading scientists and

thinkers have the debate you won't hear at Copenhagen:

• The truth about global warming is that our understanding of it is in its infancy. Before we tax the poor out of the sky and off the roads, before we slow the world’s economy in a way that will condemn millions to poverty, we should ask just what all this will achieve. Ask precisely where the doubts are. Because after reading the views of the scientists below, no one can argue that the debate is over.
  

Mike Hulme, climate scientist who worked in the CRU in the 1990s, author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change and professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia,  says in the WSJ article The Science and Politics of Climate Change:

• If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public spaces we have created for political argumentation.
  

One piece of evidence in this spirit under the motto Long Live Science is given by JoNova: Fraudulent Hockey Sticks and Hidden Data.

The following warning by Dwight D. Eisenhower resurfaces:

• The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
  

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences should listen to the discussion within The Academy of Motion Pictures about recending the Oscar Award to Al Gore. It seems that Academy of Motion Pictures is more concerned about science than are the Academies of Sciences. Strange, isn't it?

IPCC reports that 

• IPCC is to investigate claims that scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit manipulated global warming data. 
  

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of IPCC, told BBC Radio 4 that the claims were serious...we will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it. Strange, isn't it? 

How can IPCC investigate itself? Who will investigate IPCC and Pachauri?

A Pachauri who a week ago countered Climategate as follows: This thoroughness and the duration of the process followed in every assessment ensure the elimination of any possibility of omissions or distortions, intentional or accidental.

A Dependent Investigation of Climategate

The allegations of scientific fraud at CRU led by AGW alarmist Phil Jones will be investigated by an Independent Review headed by Sir Muir Russell. The investigation should include also The Royal Society supporting CRU. Sir Muir became a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh RSE in 2000. RSE states on its webpage:

• The science that indicates that climate change is resulting from greenhouse gas emissions is well established, with the only real uncertainty being the scale of the future changes. Even if an ambitious international settlement can be achieved at the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, Scotland will need to adapt to the climate change that is already inevitable.
  

In other words, RSE is on the same bandwagon as CRU and The Royal Society. Is it credible that Sir Muir can make an independent investigation without also leaving RSE and including also RSE in the investigation?

Compare with previous posts on The Royal Swedish Academy and The Royal Society. 

Another chief AGW alarmist Michael Mann is also under inquiry, by Penn State or State Penn.

Mann claims that skeptics consistently "badgered" Jones to try to distract him from his research. Amazing, what a clever plot by skeptics!

Meanwhile Americans are getting increasingly skeptic: Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data. 

And Al Gore cancels his major Copenhagen lecture: Climate Conclusion. Why? Maybe because he concluded something by listening to Nigel Lawson in the Munk debate of Dec 1: I believe in reason.  During my long life I have never seen such a big difference between political rethoric and action as in climate politics. The debate changed the score from predebate: pro 61% and con 39% to postdebate: pro 53% and con 47%.  Evidently Lawson did a good job. 

The Gore cancellation is motivated by unforeseen changes in Al Gore's program for COP15. What is his program there, if not to lecture?

Listen to CBC’s Rex Murphy on Climategate:

• no more talk that science is settled
• climate science has gone to bed with advocacy
• climate science has shown to be a subbranch of climate politics
• the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering
• climate science needs its own reset button.

What would happen if The Royal Swedish Academy, and why not The Royal Society, dared to listen to the crushing analysis of Rex Murphy? But The Royal Swedish Academy probably only listens to the state-controled Swedish Television SVT and Radio SR ordered to send an alarmist message to support Reinfeldt in his mission at COP15. SR reports today through Johan Rockström:

• accellerating trends, tipping points, irreversible
• climate science confirms global warming exactly as predicted by climate science, more or less
• we stand between dangerous and catastrophical global warming
• we can trust climate scientists: bit after bit is added to the knowledge puzzle
• some Climategate emails do not change anything:
  
• all universities, all scientific academies all over the globe, all agree on AGW.

Amazing! But the order of sending an alarmist message is fulfilled! Good job!