An Aptly named blog The Strata Sphere has some important updates on the scandal.
Climategate Forces UK Review Of Warming Data & Results
by AJ Strata
Climategate is not going away. As I noted in my previous post this is not about emails where so called scientists suborning the peer-review process and scientific method while colluding to side step legal freedom of information requests. No, the problems discovered in Climategate are in the code and data and uncertainties.
When professionals who are versed in science, engineering and math, and the quality requirements normally imposed upon us in our careers (mine being space and defense systems), review the crap that is the basis for global warming hysteria we all see the problem crystal clear. The alarmists were hiding their data and processes for good reason.
I am confident in this because of what just happened in Europe. Not only did the cocky IPCC chair have to come out and do a 180° (not C there slick) political U-turn and support an investigation. The UK Met Office has decided to redo all the global warming assessments, computations, etc. since the CRU leak exposed the current conclusions to be based on shoddy work.
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.…The Met Office’s published data showing a warming trend draws heavily on CRU analysis. CRU supplied all the land temperature data to the Met Office, which added this to its own analysis of sea temperature data.
Since the stolen e-mails were published, the chief executive of the Met Office has written to national meteorological offices in 188 countries asking their permission to release the raw data that they collected from their weather stations.
The Met Office is confident that its analysis will eventually be shown to be correct. However, it says it wants to create a new and fully open method of analysing temperature data.You don’t invest 3 years rechecking into a supposed emergency unless the picture is really that bad. It is really that bad.
Since the ‘raw’ land sensor data shows the Earth today is very similar to the 1930’s and 1940’s, and since there really was an MWP shown in hundreds of sites in many, many peer reviewed papers I suspect the review is going to put the final nail in the AGW scam.