ClimateGate 2.0 – Protecting The Cause And Hiding The Information

I’m way behind the curve in posting about the release of some 5,000 emails between “climate scientists” (link to the torrent here) due to doing that pesky work thing yesterday. It’s a pain in the rear to cut and paste and format so much using the WordPress app for Android. I did read quite a bit of what was posted, and here are a few wonderful snippets, via Watts Up With That? (make sure to read the whole post for lots of other interesting revelations)

<3373> Bradley: 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”.

<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.

<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause

Anything to help “the cause”, eh? I wasn’t aware of science being about a “cause”, but, then, perhaps that is why most of these folks who push anthropogenic global warming fail to live the lives they say everyone else should be forced to live.

Then we get

<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.

In other words, they are trying to hide their correspondence. If the science is so sound, why would they need to do that?

And there there is this, via Tom Nelson

On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

Hi Tom (note: not Tom Nelson, but probably Tom Wigley)

How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!

Kevin

Remember, science!

The Warmists are attempting to strike back with their typical reasoned, well thought out responses that show support for their science….ah, who am I kidding, they are offering typical ad homimem attacks. James Delingpole highlights their “seven stages of grief.”

Junk Science has a great list of the emails.

Make sure you follow Tom Nelson and Climate Depot for the best links as more and more info is released.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend