Proof that these scientists were conspiring to hide the decline?
A huge number of emails between the world’s leading climate scientists was released online today in advance of next week’s climate change conference in Durban.
“All your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of AGW, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be,” says Climate Depot’s Marc Morano.
The release echoes the ‘climategate’ leaks of three years ago from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit that prompted government inquiries into the working practices of climate scientists.
The emails have been released in the form of quotes that show bias, or show that scientists were pursuing a particular agenda in their research.
- ‘We’re choosing periods to show warming’
- ‘Science is being manipulated – it might not be too clever in the long run’
- ‘Climate change is a “better label” than global warming’
- ‘Many thanks for your paper – and congratulations for reviving global warming’
There are 5,000 readable emails between scientists, some of which have a distinct feel of PR ‘spin’.
The release was accompanied by a text file protesting the huge expense of anti-warming technologies, and highlights deaths from poverty in comparison to the $36 billion expense of ‘green’ energy.
‘Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day,’ says the release.
‘Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.’
‘Todays’ decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.’
The message includes a sample of quotes focusing on the workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and attempts to block climate skeptics from securing documents via freedom of information (FOI) requests.
One of the most damaging claims in 2009 was that Prof Phil Jones, the head of the UEA’s Climatic Research Institute, had deleted emails to avoid FOI requests.
In one email, not yet specifically confirmed as genuine, Jones writes: “I’ve been told that IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the IPCC’s fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”
The emails appear to be genuine. One of the emailers, Professor Michael Mann at Penn State University has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. (Yes, the same Penn State University that is suspected of trying to cover up the man/boy sex scandal.)
Thanks to Steven Woodcock, Emma Corry, David Swineford, Peter Lamb, Benjamin Napier, James Stoffaire, Hilton Gray and Bill Wilden for these links
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano has jumped into the fray:
Climategate 2.0: Thousands of new emails from ‘confirm great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism’, says Morano.
Some key Climategate 2.0 points:
1) Actively subverting FOIA intent
a) Hockey stick flawed & Steve M. is right,
b) hide decline was dishonest’
c) climate models are pretty bad,
d) cherry picking results like Japan hurricanes to emphasize a pre-ordained message
3) Trying to manipulate (and probably succeeding) who gets to be IPCC author
4) Trying to manage the message (PR concern)
5) Viewing science results as helping or hurting “the cause” — Mann especially’
Climategate 2.0 excerpts:
‘Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive’ — ‘I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic…”…and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year ‘reconstruction’
ClimateGate 2.0: A very large pile of ‘smoking guns’
Mann: ‘The important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [RealClimate.org] is about’ Visit Site
2009> Briffa: ‘I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!’