There seems to be a lot going on at the Guardian right now

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/climate-wars-hacked-emails

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/weather-stations-china

Some of these links have an annotation feature "The annotations - and the real name of the commenter - will be added to the manuscript, initially in private. The most insightful comments will then be added to a public version of the manuscript. We hope the process will be a form of peer review. If you have a contribution to make, please email climate.emails@guardian.co.uk. "

OK, where do we start?
(1) They play shots of storms and melting ice over the interview as if to imply "man-made global warming is happening, this guy is obviously a crackpot". There is no published data that shows links between storms and man-made global warming.
(2) They make fun of his eyes, which is from a medical condition known as "Graves Disease"
(3) They dismiss his credentials by referring to his having been once an editor of a catholic newspaper, even though he was actually a policy advisor in Margaret Thatchers government.
(4) They state that he is "not a scientist, unlike James Hansen" Lord Monckton has scientific papers published in peer reviewed science journals.

Lord Monckton is correct in his statement about Hansen's extreme views on those who disagree with him.
See this Facebook page which gives some idea how extreme Hanson's views are.
He famously describes coal trains as Death Trains and uses many other extremist tactics to get his view across.
This is all very well, we are entitled to free speech, but Hanson is a lead contributer to IPCC reports and a major driver in the so-called science of Climate Change.
I say "so-called" because any true science is constantly challenged in its theories. The fact that this has not happened is quite clear from reading the CRU "Climategate "emails. The scientists at the centre of the AGW theory have created their own world of self-peer-reviewed literature and completely locked out all dissent.
The public are waking up to this and media companies like TVNZ are accomplices to this crime.
Given that we have extremists like Hansen driving multi-trillion dollar carbon schemes that will tax many out of existence, it seems reasonable that Lord Monckton should get a fairer hearing.

From the Times Online
www.surfacestations.org gets a mention, which brought the low quality of temperature stations to the world's attention.
It's always the "skeptics" that seem to be doing all the Quality Control in climate science. What's wrong with this picture?

From the BBC

Within hours of the launch of an independent panel to investigate claims that climate scientists covered up flawed data on temperature rises, one member has been forced to resign after sceptics questioned his impartiality [Ed - still seems weird this use of the word "sceptic - do they not understand the concept of scientific impartiality?]

The Age of Stupid

Prof Jerome Ravetz of Oxford University has written a very well written piece over here which discusses Climategate with particular reference to his concept of Post Normal Science.
I enjoyed the read, but these are my comments that I posted on WUWT:

Speaking as someone educated in Maths at the windy and cold cloisters of Cambridge University, some 30 years ago, I was long ago educated in the concept of the word "axiomatic" This in English means "self-evident" or "obvious", but in Mathematical terms means an assertion that is assumed to be true upon which we can base all our other assumptions or theorems. It seems to me that we need to determine what are the axioms of climate science. From my relatively short time delving into this topic (h/t to WUWT) with all its emotional and political baggage, we desperately need to return to first principles and determine "what are the axioms of climate science?" (Specifically with respect to climate change or global warming) Is it axiomatic that the earth is currently warming? Is it axiomatic that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Is it axiomatic that mankind is emitting CO2? These are some of my questions and I have learnt to completely throw out all my pre-conceived ideas and start from scratch. Any ideas?

Sorry, but it is so hard to take these Tyndall guys seriously.
pdf here
Some little tidbits from this pearler.
Carbon Sequestration Viability
On the whole, both groups were in agreement that global warming was a problem and that it was at least partly due to the industrial activities of humankind over the last century and a half. Only one member of the first focus group was not convinced by these claims, contending that the earth was currently in an interglacial period and that the changes in temperature were therefore predominantly a natural phenomenon.
[Ed: Denier! Burn the heretic!]
On the subject of whether carbon sequestration and storage should be considered as a potential solution to the problem, or whether it was merely an unacceptable proposed technical fix to a problem, there was reasonable agreement that the proposals would, in principle, attract little public opposition:
Researcher Is it an acceptable solution, not merely a technical fix?
Paul It is a technical fix though. Researcher Would it be rejected by the public on the grounds that it was a technical fix?
5 Alan On the grounds that the public can keep running their cars and get their electricity cheap it will be accepted.
Paul It’s not a contentious issue, like, to take another scientific example, GM foods; there’s not the same type of animosity towards it.
Tim Is it pure CO2 or does it contain pollutants. Is it safe to put those underground?
[Ed - according to the EPA, CO2 is a pollutant]
Paul What percentage of the CO2 will be captured in the power stations?

Yet more of the overwhelming evidence of human evil on the planet as referenced in IPCC AR4:
Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action
PDF here

Climate change poses a major risk to the global economy: It affects the wealth of societies, the availability of resources, the price of energy and the value of companies. [ed - Yeah we know that, we've duped the public already haven't we?]
At the same time, the need to revolutionize the way we use energy opens up a new universe of options for economic development and social benefits. [ Ed - enough of the perfunctory intro spiel, let's get down to the real agenda]

Here's a fairly random choice of an email from the Climategate email archive taken from East Anglia University (source www.eastangliaemails.com)
Roger Harribin, BBC's chief warming correspondent, is on the cc list.
Naturally, we can't take chances with the planet's future, but do you really want these guys in charge?

Dear Friends, A few remarks before the meeting of tonight and tomorrow, I am sure that our meeting will make clearer the different objectives of ECF, in particular regarding the articulation between the scientific agenda and activities in direction to stakeholders and policy-makers. I would like to stress that I will attend the ECF meeting not only in the name of the Cired, but also in view of preparing the involvment of the Institut Laplace in ECF, namely the community of climate modellers, with which we develop a long term research program. I would like to explain hereafter in a few words what should be, in my view the priorities of ECF, in terms of scientific agenda: Given recent Ipcc experience, the first priority would be to progress in direction to integrated models. Indeed the lessons of the Ipcc are twofold: - first the Sress scenarios confirm the possibility of generating very different emissions growth scenarios over the long run, but the consistency between the Storylines and the numerical scenarios remain uncertain; this uncertainty and vagueness reveals a more fundamental limitation of the state of the art of economic modelling over the long run, in particular to provide an explicit picture of linkages between structural changes (infrastructure transportation, urban forms that govern the energy content of final consumption, industrial structure and the so-called dematerialisation), innovation and both macro and micro economic drivers (productivity, growth and price-signals). This makes very difficult to detect where are the real bifurcations, the real policy-parameters and to make much progress in the understanding of the timing of policy responses, - second the sections on 'damages ' have make some progress but remain weak in terms of the social and economic implications. More precisely they deal mostly with impacts on physical parameters (sea-level rise), in a few cases adress impacts on humans (tropical diseases), but all this does not give a comprehensive picture of social and economic damages (once discounted the effect of adapatation), One of the scientific objective of ECF should be to be prepared to provide in a few years for a convincing contribution in future exercises like the SRES and in the future Ipcc rounds. This passes first through two parallel efforts: - on long term economic modelling where the limitations of existing tools are obvious depiste real progress; this relates basically to three challenges: - a macroeconomic framework insuring the consistency between prices and quantities at any point in time without necessarily resorting to the modelling tricks relying on the conventional neo-classical growth theory; these 'tricks' assume indeed perfect foresight, efficient markets and the absence of strategic or routine behaviours; New conceptual frameworks about endogenous growth theory allow for such a move, but there is a gap between advances in pure theory and empirical modelling, - the endogeneisation of technical change and more precisely to develop this endogeneisation in such a way that the information coming from sectoral models in energy, transportation or agriculture is not lost (this comes back to the bottom-up/top-down controversy); note that one key challenge here is to progress in direction to transportation and agriculture - an explicit treatment of expectations and uncertainty; one key issue indeed is that the stabilisation of expectations over the long run is the main driver of technical change, consumption patterns and structural adaptation. - on 'coupling' economic and climate models: here there are two routes, either to develop coupling methods between large-scale models or to develop interface compact modules, reduced forms of large scale models. Both routes are valid, however, in the following years, to develop integrated models made up with reduced forms of larger models seems more promising; thanks to tractable and numerically controlable models, in will be easier to reveal the key mechanisms at work and to introduce uncertainties. This will pass through progress in the representation of carbon cycle (including sequestration) in such models and, more importantly in the representation of damages and adaptation, which rises rather fundamental conceptual issues that explain what seems to be the second priority in my view. The second prority relates to the joint question of damages and precautionary principle: - part of the agenda is covered by Mike Hulme's paper and I will not elaborate here on other dimensions I would link to include and how to assess a cost. I will simply insist of the fact that we need to set up a taxonomy of damages in economic terms, this means as resulting not of the climate transformation per se but from the joint effect of inertia and uncertainty (to pass to Riviera to the beaches of Normandy in not a cost in itself in a world restabilized around a new climate equilibrium; what matter are the transition costs and the generated variability of climate). Moreover I would insist for adopting deliberately a worldview because, fundamentally, climate change will generate a new human geography, and not to be restricted to the European subcontinent, - this should lead to develop in parallel stochastic decision modelling tools to disentangle the many dimensions and views about the precautionary principle and, I take some risks in saying that, in a symmetric treatment of climate damages and nuclear risks (we cannot avoid to try and put some rationale in this discussion which is one of the reason for the failure of the EU tax in 1992 and of COP6, and which will be an 'hidden' division line within the EU) The third priority should be the topic 1 made by Klaus. For me the two first modelling efforts I described briefly are outmostly important to bring new insights for responding the question of the instruments. However, we have, before waiting for the acheivement of a new generation of models (which will respond to point 2 and 3 of Klaus's paper), it matters to develop in parallel a specific programm on international coordination architecture given the failure of COP6 and the lack of understanding of economic and social implications of the selection of this architecture (coordination through prices or quantities, full agreement or partial expanding coalition, issue linkages, perceived equity etc ....). This workprogramm should build on advances on the role of economic and non economic instruments in fostering innovation, and on the distributive static and dynamic implications of such instruments. These are very brief remarks, simply to give you some ideas about my current perspectives.

“Western populations would accept serfdom if it was packaged as saving the earth"
Bertrand Russell

This is an absolute must read for any self respecting scientist, or anyone else interested in how science has been perverted to meet the needs of its political masters

In the wake of the fact that the Guardian is now actually reporting Climate gate, this seems remarkably incongruous:
George Monbiot’s Climate Denier cards: “Monbiot’s royal flush: Cut out and keep climate change denier cards ”
Stocking fillers for all Guardian readers’ kids next Christmas?
Too creepy for words.
Click here

Here is an important paper that can help us to understand the issues arounf Mann's disputed Hockey Stick graph used in the IPCC third assessment.
It doesn't paint a great picture of the state of our science

From the great Richard Feynman-

Washington DC: NASA warming scientist James Hansen, one of former Vice President Al Gore’s closest allies in the promotion of man-made global warming fears, is being publicly rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA. Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fears soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of anthropogenic global warming fears

Great article on the collapse of AGW, as he sees it.