CalgaryLiberal

Archive for December, 2009

Nabbed from Daveberta.

The following is a transcript of Dr. Swann, the Alberta Liberal party leader, at his web town hall that he had today.

1:51	Moderator:We’ll be joined by Mr. Swann at about 2 pm. The Journal’s Graham Thomson will also be online. Monday December 7, 2009 1:51 Moderator

1:51	Moderator:Please feel free submit your questions and comments. Monday December 7, 2009 1:51 Moderator

1:52	Graham Thomson: I’d like to welcome Alberta Liberal Leader David Swan to our chat. And thank him for being here. I’ll be staying in the background but might pop my head in now and again to see how things are going. Monday December 7, 2009 1:52 Graham Thomson

1:57	David Swann:David Swann here.   Looking forward to talking with Albertans. Monday December 7, 2009 1:57 David Swann

1:59	Trish Audette:Dr. Swann, are you still working on rebranding the Alberta Liberal party? What might Albertans expect to see in the year to come? Monday December 7, 2009 1:59 Trish Audette

2:01	[Comment From Molly Molly : ] Any further thoughts to a possible coalition with the Alberta NDP party? Or garnering further support from the National party come election time? Monday December 7, 2009 2:01 Molly

2:02	David Swann: We’re working hard at renewal and change in the Party and strenghtening our constituencies.   We’re also looking at a fresh image and more effective  ways to connect with Albertans, especially youth, women and diverse communities. Monday December 7, 2009 2:02 David Swann

2:02

[Comment From Chris P Chris P : ] Curious on your thoughts on health care in this province. Being currently employed with AHS i’m seeing some really upsetting stuff, especially in terms of cutbacks. ( An example is that we have a wage freeze fore 2 years and people like our CEO may get a substantial bonus….also have a super board now who voted themselves raises their first kick at the can). Just wanted to see what you thought of these types of things? Monday December 7, 2009 2:02 Chris P

2:06

[Comment From Guest Guest : ] I would like to know your thoughts on tuition increases? I believe veryone should pay their share for an advanced education but would it not make more sense that people who are getting degrees in purely profit making areas, like engineers or agriculture pay more than those who are gaining a degree in an area that helps people, such as nursing? Monday December 7, 2009 2:06 Guest

2:09	[Comment From ian hunt ian hunt : ] it’s the word ‘Liberal’ – anathema to a great many Albertans that needs to be changed before you have any chance of moving forward Monday December 7, 2009 2:09 ian hunt

2:09	Graham Thomson: Any plans to revisit a name change for Liberals? Monday December 7, 2009 2:09 Graham Thomson

2:10

David Swann: It’s important to distinguish between front line professionals such as yourself and the administration of the system.   We are now in the midst of the third “re-disorganization” in 15 years which has created unacceptable financial costs and personal risks to both patients and professionals.   I hear frequently from both groups about growing problems with access, quality and inefficiencies.   We need to get back to basics; a family doctor for everyone, long term care spaces for seniors that are blocking hospital beds, home care services to keep people well and active in their homes as long as possible and a reinvestment in prevention. On the issue of compensation it’s clear to me that this government has lost control of its spending and has lost the public trust given its huge salary increase last year to MLA’s  and bonuses to senior people and  some of the decisions of the Alberta Health Services Board you refer to. Monday December 7, 2009 2:10 David Swann

2:12	[Comment From david w david w : ] with all the attention paid to the wildrose party these days, how do you plan to make inroads in rural alberta Monday December 7, 2009 2:12 david w

2:12	[Comment From Don Don : ] I have two questions that are related:If the Liberal wins the next election, is there anything that you can do about Bill 50? Monday December 7, 2009 2:12 Don

2:16

[Comment From Alberta Altruist Alberta Altruist : ] With the many regulations and difference in Royalties charged for our resources, do you think the right balance was struck in our natural gas sector. If not could you comment on what you would have done different, and whether you would increase natural gas royalties from 2007 in a depleting basin in these competetive markets. Monday December 7, 2009 2:16 Alberta Altruist

2:18

David Swann: In response to the guest on tuition fees we do not support the substantial increases that have occured in the last decade. This has made post secondary education  less affordable in contradiction to the govenment’s promise.   Education, and in particular post secondary education is a fundamental investment in our future.   My approach is  to keep tuition as affordable as possible and limit  any tuition increases to ensure students do not  face the kind of dramatic hikes ths government is implementing.     Monday December 7, 2009 2:18 David Swann

2:19	David Swann: Graham regarding the name change; not under my leadership.   Monday December 7, 2009 2:19 David Swann

2:19

[Comment From David Paterson David Paterson : ] How do you plan on cracking the conservative stronghold that’s been in place for decades? It seems like young Albertans will lead the charge for the Liberals, but how will you gain the support of the “tax-break loving, leave me alone” type of people? Monday December 7, 2009 2:19 David Paterson

2:20

[Comment From Cathy Cathy : ] I agree with Chris that the healthcare cuts are very upsetting. The CEO and Liepert keep stating it will not affect patient care and nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t understand why we need a superboard or what their purpose is when each hospital and clinic already have more than enough administrative staff. What is this extra layer really for. I don’t think it is necessary. Couldn’t we save some money by getting rid of the superboard? Monday December 7, 2009 2:20 Cathy

2:21

[Comment From ian hunt ian hunt : ] As of yet haven’t heard anything from the Alberta Liberals with regard to the grossly unfair and regressive move by the Alberta Government to replace universal pharmaceutical care for Alberta Seniors with a high cost insurance plan as of next July. Monday December 7, 2009 2:21 ian hunt

2:22	[Comment From Marg Marg : ] I’m inclined to agree with ian hunt who says we need to change the word ‘Liberal’ especially for Albertans who rail against that word. Monday December 7, 2009 2:22 Marg

2:23	[Comment From V V : ] Who are you going to pick to run against Smith in Calgary North Hill? Monday December 7, 2009 2:23 V

2:26

[Comment From Vanessa Vanessa : ] Wha tis your position on public education. As a parent of a grade 2 student and member of the school council parents do alot to fundraise for school programs and keep the school afloat. Our school puts part of its fundraising to support teachers salaries so that we can keep classes manageable. While I don’t mind some fundraising – parents are being asked to do more and more for basic education. Monday December 7, 2009 2:26 Vanessa

2:27	[Comment From Mike Mike : ] Changing the name won’t solve the problem…people will still see the party and identify it as “the party formally known as the Liberals.” Monday December 7, 2009 2:27 Mike

2:27

David Swann: To David W @t 2:12 I have worked for 2 decades in rural Alberta and understand something of the challenges and changes there in relation to economic development, land use, agricutural development,the loss of family farms and water management.   I’ve also been travelling the province this past year as Leader and learned of some of the opportuntiies for diversity.   Rural Albertans care about many of the same issues of urban Alberta.   Health care, education, innovation and new technology are important elements I would ensure in all communities in Alberta.   Rural folks  must have sigificant input into the decisions  on their future if they are to be sustainable.   I am committed to an open and accountable government.     Monday December 7, 2009 2:27 David Swann

2:29	[Comment From Kevin L Kevin L : ] Besides, fear of a name is indicative of an ignorant and apathetic populace. Monday December 7, 2009 2:29 Kevin L

2:29	[Comment From Kathy BP Kathy BP : ] It is definitely time for the Liberals to lead this province. But with such apathy among most of the voters, and tolerance of the status quo, I am fearful this change will not happen soon enough. Monday December 7, 2009 2:29 Kathy BP

2:30	[Comment From Vanessa Vanessa : ] If the Liberals are elected will they make any reforms to the electoral system. The PC’s have an obscene majority from a few voters. Monday December 7, 2009 2:30 Vanessa

2:30

[Comment From Guest Guest : ] Not a question – people have publicized the turmoil that is the front line of AHS but do not see the turmoil that exists in MedLab services. They are chronically understaffed, often cannot complete the workload within the U of A lab in a timely manner and therefore must send out to another lab; and staff live with the terrible stress of not knowing whether they will or will not have jobs after April. In terms of patient care, this is craziness that surpasses all understanding. Monday December 7, 2009 2:30 Guest

2:31	[Comment From Waldo Waldo : ] If the Alberta Liberals win the next election and form government, what would Bill 1 look like? Monday December 7, 2009 2:31 Waldo

2:32	[Comment From Bette Bette : ] Waldo, that is an excellent question. Monday December 7, 2009 2:32 Bette

2:34

David Swann:Response to Don @ 2:12 If we were in government we would roll back Bill 50 to ensure there was an independent process to determine the need for multi billion dollar transmission lines.   Unfortunately, because of this government, by the next election consumers will already have been charged substantially for some infrastructure.   This government is not representing the publics interest in this decision.    Three major builders sponsored the Conservative Party convention this year and  are closely involved in Bill 50 and the infrastructure.   This is unacceptable to me and to most Albertans. Monday December 7, 2009 2:34 David Swann

2:36	[Comment From James James : ] You have stated that Government needs to control spending. What would you specifically do to control spending? Would you cut any programs? Monday December 7, 2009 2:36 James

2:37

[Comment From JAG JAG : ] Interested in your view on oil sands growth. The economy has slowed the pace a bit but it’s clear this is a large and important resource, albeit a challenging one from many perspectives. It seems Alberta is staking its future on technological advancements to reduce emissions. But will it be enough? The global rhetoric is certainly mounting. Monday December 7, 2009 2:37 JAG

2:37	[Comment From MJ MJ : ] How is the Liberals going to resotre Alberta Advantages now it’s all but disappeared. Monday December 7, 2009 2:37 MJ

2:38	[Comment From Guest Guest : ] I’d like to second Vanessa’s question on electoral reform. Monday December 7, 2009 2:38 Guest

2:38	[Comment From nk nk : ] Mr. Swann, if you get young people involved in alberta politics we could overthrow the right wingers here Monday December 7, 2009 2:38 nk

2:38	[Comment From DON DON : ] The only thing Albertans know how to do at election time is continue to vote the Conservatives in everytime, I actually am surprised that anybody takes the time and effort it takes to try and defeat a conservative !! Monday December 7, 2009 2:38 DON

2:39	[Comment From Paula Paula : ] David, do you think David Watt had a viable point in his column when he said that Alberta prefers an “un-party” government? If so, how can Liberals make inroads into this kind of consciousness? Monday December 7, 2009 2:39 Paula

2:40	[Comment From Kevin L Kevin L : ] What are some ways in which the Liberal party will continue to encourage proper discourse in the Alberta Legislature with such an overwhelming conservative majority? What can Liberal supporters do from the outside? Monday December 7, 2009 2:40 Kevin L

2:40

[Comment From JAG JAG : ] You’ve been outspoken in the past about Foothills natural gas development. The LUF is supposed to more clearly define the boundaries and clarify things for stakeholders and industry. Do you think it will? Seems like a lot bureaucracy to this point. Monday December 7, 2009 2:40 JAG

2:41

[Comment From Joe Joe : ] In keeping with a commitment to an open and accountable government, would the Liberal Party engage the Auditor General to investigate the Government’s financial dealings and publish the results? Would the Liberal Party be able to “encourage” the Auditor General to begin investigations now? (Hint, check Service Alberta’s outsourcing contracts and see if the Taxpayers are getting a good deal) Monday December 7, 2009 2:41 Joe

2:41

[Comment From c r south east edmonton c r south east edmonton : ] Mr Swann do the alberta liberals have any plan to develop their own oil company and processing so that Albertans are not at the mercy and price gouging of the current companies? Do you have any plans that i can see? Monday December 7, 2009 2:41 c r south east edmonton

2:42	[Comment From Bette Bette : ] My last question got lost…. Dr. Swann, what do you think of the idea proposed by the Democratic Renewal Project that the NDP and Libs sign a non-compete clause in certain ridings? Monday December 7, 2009 2:42 Bette

2:42	[Comment From al al : ] you know that health care costs are unsustainable? What will you do to contain them? Monday December 7, 2009 2:42 al

2:43	[Comment From MJ MJ : ] We need the rights to recall elected officials. Monday December 7, 2009 2:43 MJ

2:43

David Swann: In response to Cathy 2:20 The elimination of 9 health regions and 3 major boards has created confusion, loss of important connections within and between teams of health professionals and added 1.3 billion dollars in costs just this year.   All three indicators of health service-quality, access and cost effectiveness are worse.   Just look at what’s happened to our pandemic influenza program.   This was a planned and fully resourced program that failed the most vulnerable people in our population.   Some central decisions need to be made by government but the delivery of services on the ground needs to be managed by regions if it is to be patient centered and efficient.   Ron Liepert doesn’t understand the difference between a human service and  General Motors, which he  believes is a model for our  health system.   I  believe this is costing lives and professionals our leaving as a result.     Monday December 7, 2009 2:43 David Swann

2:44	[Comment From MJ MJ : ] Absolute power brings absolute corruption. That’s what happened for the conservatives. Is the Liberal going to push for election reform? Monday December 7, 2009 2:44 MJ

2:45	[Comment From MJ MJ : ] Knowing that it is almost impossible to overthrown conservatives for their mojority. What is Liberals’ strategy to convince Albertans that we need a stronger opposition? So that we can hold the conservatives accountable for their policy. Monday December 7, 2009 2:45 MJ

2:45

[Comment From nk nk : ] The liberal party could have a much bigger impact now that there is split in the right wing vote, albertans (at least city dwellers) are progressive people and reject the social conservativism being practiced. How do you plan on getting progressive albertans involved enough to actually go vote and vote liberal? also what are your policies according to marijuana prohibition? Monday December 7, 2009 2:45 nk

2:47	David Swann: In reponse to Ian Hunt 2:21 Seniors have been paying into our health care system   for decades and I do not feel that they should be singled out for means testing and extra fees for medications.   Monday December 7, 2009 2:47 David Swann

2:47	[Comment From nk nk : ] we need more seats in cities, the uneducated rural ‘folks’ who support stelmach are ruining this province, do you plan to push for more seats in calgary and edmonton? Monday December 7, 2009 2:47 nk

2:48

[Comment From Dave Jolly Dave Jolly : ] One of your prominent staffers/campaigners recently described your party as irrelevant. Do you not feel like the penultimate politician for gaining the leadership under the guise of renewal and name change, then reneging on your commitment to name change/renewal? Monday December 7, 2009 2:48 Dave Jolly

2:49	[Comment From MJ MJ : ] Can the Liberals promiss no more new taxes, fees and keep the current tax rate at the current level? Many Albertans are afraid of the Liberals of the stereo type of “Tax and Spend”. Monday December 7, 2009 2:49 MJ

2:49

[Comment From Dr. Phil McRae Dr. Phil McRae : ] Hi David, We have a great deal of transformational change proposed for our K-12 education system. In 2010 we will see a revised School Act and either investment or cuts to the education budget. What do you forsee happening to our K-12 learning system in terms of ‘transformational’ change in 2010? Monday December 7, 2009 2:49 Dr. Phil McRae

2:50	[Comment From H H : ] ”tax and spend” is just rhetoric used by the CONS, the same could be said for conservatives who “borrow and spend” like our feds Monday December 7, 2009 2:50 H

2:50

David Swann: In response to Vanessa 2:26 I strongly support public education and I am saddened by the cuts planned for such a basic requirement.  We needs stable dependable funding for our schools.  Fundraising should not be required for essentials as this is a vital investment in our future.   I do not support public funds for private schools.     Monday December 7, 2009 2:50 David Swann

2:51

[Comment From Connie Whiteley Connie Whiteley : ] This government does not appear to do anything but stonewall – whatever the question or subject. They have been there too long. Only a bloated government would have the hubris to award themselves millions in bonuses and a whacking 34% raise in salary while our province and country is in the biggest economic turndown since the 30′s. It is more than time to ‘persuade’ the Auditor General to investigate this government. Monday December 7, 2009 2:51 Connie Whiteley

2:51	[Comment From john john : ] Do you plan on keeping religion and the state seperate? Stelmach seems to have a problem with this idea Monday December 7, 2009 2:51 john

2:51	[Comment From guest guest : ] Still waiting to see what a Liberal governments Bill 1 would look like… Monday December 7, 2009 2:51 guest

2:51	[Comment From john john : ] yes! do you support public money for catholic schools? considering we have a seperation of church and state? Monday December 7, 2009 2:51 john

2:52	Moderator:It’s almost 3, so there’s only time for a few more comments. Monday December 7, 2009 2:52 Moderator

2:52	[Comment From Alberta Altruist Alberta Altruist : ] Still waiting for a response for my 2:16 question. Don’t like this one? Monday December 7, 2009 2:52 Alberta Altruist

2:52	Moderator:We’ve got more politcial chats coming up on Wednesday Dec. 9. Wildrose Alliance Leader Danielle Smith at 11:30 a.m. and NDP leader Brian Mason at 12:30 p.m. Monday December 7, 2009 2:52 Moderator

2:53	[Comment From Paula Paula : ] This is a difficult format in which a leader can respond to questions. Thanks for your efforts, David. Monday December 7, 2009 2:53 Paula

2:54	[Comment From Kevin L Kevin L : ] I second Paula’s sentiments Monday December 7, 2009 2:54 Kevin L

2:54	Graham Thomson: I’d like to thank Dr. Swann for taking part in this chat. I know from first hand experience how difficult it is to keep up without making too many typos. Monday December 7, 2009 2:54 Graham Thomson

2:56	[Comment From MJ MJ : ] David you should have more townhall meetings to meet more Albertans face to face and can have more discussion. Monday December 7, 2009 2:56 MJ

2:56	[Comment From Cathy Cathy : ] Thank you for your participation Dr. Swann. Sounds like many people an interested in what you have to say. Monday December 7, 2009 2:56 Cathy

2:56

David Swann: In response to Kathy  BP @  2:29 It’s definently time for a Liberal government in Alberta  with  our centrist values representing most Albertans.   With  this incompetent government  being eroded on the right, more and more Albertans are welcoming the values of the sensible  centre; fiscal responsibility, environmental protection and social dignity for all.         Monday December 7, 2009 2:56 David Swann

3:01

David Swann: In reponse to Waldo @ 2:31 Our first priorities in government would be to establish  the  true state of our finances and move to the following: 1.   Measures to make government more open and accountable to the people 2.   Get the health care system back to basics 3.   Remove unncessary red tape to business Monday December 7, 2009 3:01 David Swann

3:01	Moderator:Thanks to Mr. Swann joining us and thanks to everyone who participated. That’s a wrap. The chat will be archived for replay on this link.

Monday December 7, 2009 1:51 Moderator Moderator:Welcome to our Live Chat with Alberta Liberal leader David Swann.

1:51

Angelo Persichilli says one thing and Glen Pearson says another. Susan Delacourt gives the easy, gut reaction. Joanne at bluelikeyou.com makes the quick, easy, and simple calculation that “Ignatieff is going down”. Is there a plan being concocted by the federal Liberal brass on running a coup against Iggy?

Being the young and naive man that I am I have to wonder: should I be worried about Ignatieff? I went to the convention just to vote for him and had even volunteered to go to the convention before Rae dropped out, in fact. I like the guy. I’ve read a few of his books, too. He brings out a moral compass to international affairs which I think we’ve misplaced for such a long time and, well, that is not going to be brought up again for a long, long time if he’s replaced. Again, I like the guy.

So am I agonizing over Angelo’s article? No. Not really. Carolyn Bennett and several others on twitter are already reacting to how even the mention of giving up on Iggy is disgraceful and, in Dr. Bennett’s words, ‘hurtful and wrong’. Glen Pearson goes out of his way to nullify each of the journalist’s points, refuting each single claim–all early in the morning and almost on a turn of the dime blogging.

Obviously Iggy has political backing still, the possible conspirators aren’t trying to remove Iggy, and, to crown it all, according to Angelo’s article “Rae also was critical of the performance of the leader but said he was not interested in a coup d’état.” Funnily enough, Angelo wrote his piece in such a way that the likely guessed action, of people standing behind Iggy, would reinforce what he wrote. Or is that a ‘sadly enough’?…

Anyways, there’s no issue, no problem, no plot. I’m not agonizing over Angelo.

Wikileaks has the University of East Anglia (UEA) emails on uploaded and readily available to be downloaded.

The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at UEA have sent out numerous press releases on the subject of these emails.

There is currently an editing war on wikipedia and, well, the discussion encapsulates all the special interests in the -gate. It’s a good read if you have the time.

Climategate is essentially the following: An assortment of emails were stolen by an anonymous hacker and then placed into the public arena for debate. These several thousand emails have supposedly shown a type of malfeasance against the notion of climate change and the rigour of science behind the environmentalist movement. At least this is the dual charge from several political sources. The specific troubling quotes are as follows:

1. Phil Jones of East Anglia Univeristy to a lot of people. [Nov 16, 1999]

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

2. Phil Jones to Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University [July 8, 2004]

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

3. Michael Mann to Phil Jones + Gabi Hegerl of University of Edinburgh [Aug 10, 2004]

“Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future.”

4. Kevin Trenberth of US National Center for Atmospheric Research to Michael Mann. [Oct 12, 2009]

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t…”

At a glance these quotations look rather bad. Fairly bad, in fact. Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, even states that “My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.”

Hm. Although they “do not read well” the context of the entire -gate puts the issue to rest rather quickly.

First of all, no one would base policies that’d reshape how the world worked based on a few studies by a few scientists. There are rigorous institutions put into place to counter bad science. In addition to this, thousands of studies published that have been talking about climate and how it’s a threat to mankind (note, however, that I don’t say climate change is a threat to the planet–George Carlin explains why [NSFW, swearing]). So even if these specific scientists are wrong, even if the multitude of institutions were wrong, and there has been a massive conspiracy (Ha!), the movement to solve climate change is not imperilled. At most this release of emails may quash the careers of three or four scientists.

Heck, as per the CRU press release on December 1st “Over 95% of the CRU climate data set concerning land surface temperatures has been accessible to climate researchers, sceptics and the public for several years…” The press release continues to say

“It is well known within the scientific community and particularly those who are sceptical of climate change that over 95% of the raw station data has been accessible through the Global Historical Climatology Network for several years.  We are quite clearly not hiding information which seems to be the speculation on some blogs and by some media commentators,” commented the University’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement Professor Trevor Davies.

It’s been checked, double checked, and triple checked again, again, and again. No information is being hidden.

Numerous scientists and other groups have waded into the -gate to say that climate change is a fact.

American Meteorological Society:

For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited.

There’s an entire wikipedia page dedicated to the -gate and a section on how it has been received by scholars. All of the reactions by scientists thus far are in defence of the fact of climate change being a fact.

Proclamations of ‘victory’ by Hannity+Inhofe and others are, quite frankly, quite off the mark.

Secondly, on a more intriguing note, the emails that were released show a pretty neat look into the private lives of numerous scientists. A few quotes quickly come to mind:

… need to get this surgery over and then I will get busy with my review…

…getting married, did I mention, will work on this next data set a soon as I am back from my honeymoon…

At no point a direct reference in the leaked emails say anything of directly cooking the books. There are no mentions of meetings that were specifically made to skirt the law or scientific principles.If they felt comfortable enough to say the word ‘trick’ wouldn’t it be at odds with a conspiratorial outlook to not talk about meetings about cooking entire articles, papers, and all that? It just isn’t there.

If anything, there might be a worry that too many academics are working overtime and not getting to see their newborn grandkids enough.

Thirdly, the CRU press release on November 24th explains how the quotes were taken out of context. The ‘trick’ was just a word used to describe a statistical technique to make the data clearer in that it solved the discrepancy between the flip from non-specific measurements of temperature (cores of trees, steam ships measuring temperature of sea water before use of water) to precise measurement instruments (a thermometer being the most basic example). The press release is in the quote below.

Recently thousands of files and emails illegally obtained from a research server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have been posted on various sites on the web. The emails relate to messages received or sent by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) over the period 1996-2009.

A selection of these emails have been taken out of context and misinterpreted as evidence that CRU has manipulated climate data to present an unrealistic picture of global warming.

This conclusion is entirely unfounded and the evidence from CRU research is entirely consistent with independent evidence assembled by various research groups around the world.

There is excellent agreement on the course of temperature change since 1881 between the data set that we contribute to (HadCRUT3) and two other, independent analyses of worldwide temperature measurements. There are no statistically significant differences between the warming trends in the three series since the start of the 20th century. The three independent global temperature data series have been assembled by:

• CRU and the Met Office Hadley Centre (HadCRUT3) in the UK.
• The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Asheville, NC, USA.
• The Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), part of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) in New York.

The warming shown by the HadCRUT3 series between the averages of the two periods (1850-99 and 2001-2005) was 0.76±0.19°C, and this is corroborated by the other two data sets.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) published in 2007 concluded that the warming of the climate system was unequivocal. This conclusion was based not only on the observational temperature record, although this is the key piece of evidence, but on multiple strands of evidence. These factors include: long-term retreat of glaciers in most alpine regions of the world; reductions in the area of the Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover during the spring season; reductions in the length of the freeze season in many NH rivers and lakes; reduction in Arctic sea-ice extent in all seasons, but especially in the summer; increases in global average sea level since the 19th century; increases in the heat content of the ocean and warming of temperatures in the lower part of the atmosphere since the late 1950s.

CRU has also been involved in reconstructions of temperature (primarily for the Northern Hemisphere) from proxy data (non-instrumental sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals and documentary records). Similar temperature reconstructions have been developed by numerous other groups around the world. The level of uncertainty in this indirect evidence for temperature change is much greater than for the picture of temperature change shown by the instrumental data. But different reconstructions of temperature change over a longer period, produced by different researchers using different methods, show essentially the same picture of highly unusual warmth across the NH during the 20th century. The principal conclusion from these studies (summarized in IPCC AR4) is that the second half of the 20th century was very likely (90% probable) warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely (66% probable) the warmest in the past 1300 years.

One particular, illegally obtained, email relates to the preparation of a figure for the WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999. This email referred to a “trick” of adding recent instrumental data to the end of temperature reconstructions that were based on proxy data. The requirement for the WMO Statement was for up-to-date evidence showing how temperatures may have changed over the last 1000 years. To produce temperature series that were completely up-to-date (i.e. through to 1999) it was necessary to combine the temperature reconstructions with the instrumental record, because the temperature reconstructions from proxy data ended many years earlier whereas the instrumental record is updated every month. The use of the word “trick” was not intended to imply any deception.

Phil Jones comments further: “One of the three temperature reconstructions was based entirely on a particular set of tree-ring data that shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century through to the mid-20th century, but does not show a realistic trend of temperature after 1960. This is well known and is called the ‘decline’ or ‘divergence’. The use of the term ‘hiding the decline’ was in an email written in haste. CRU has not sought to hide the decline. Indeed, CRU has published a number of articles that both illustrate, and discuss the implications of, this recent tree-ring decline, including the article that is listed in the legend of the WMO Statement figure. It is because of this trend in these tree-ring data that we know does not represent temperature change that I only show this series up to 1960 in the WMO Statement.”

The ‘decline’ in this set of tree-ring data should not be taken to mean that there is any problem with the instrumental temperature data. As for the tree-ring decline, various manifestations of this phenomenon have been discussed by numerous authors, and its implications are clearly signposted in Chapter 6 of the IPCC AR4 report.

Included here is a copy of the figure used in the WMO statement, together with an alternative version where the climate reconstructions and the instrumental temperatures are shown separately.

Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

The WMO1999 figure (top) with climate reconstructions and instrumental temperatures merged, and a version (bottom) with the climate reconstructions (coloured) and instrumental temperatures (annual & summer in black) shown separately.

The worry about “idiots” is just from worrying about misrepresentations of themselves in the political discourse around climate change. That’s a fairly hairy place to put anyone who is locked up day in and day out in a lab, and that has never had any training with the media. Stressful, even. Not everyone is a silver tongued politician nor a solid communicator like Al Gore or David Suzuki. People are imperfect and, well, it’s a good thing these scientists knew this and reminded each other of it throughout their emails since, well, a movement can only handle so many media gaffes.

So, in conclusion, the reaction by the right-wing bloggers on this issue is completely unwarranted. Same with the coverage by Fox News, et al. Climate change is still a reality to be handled at Copenhagen and beyond.