Climategate 2..new emails released..WSJ: The real peril comes from the economically catastrophic policies being pushed in its name
Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person – or persons – unknown. And as before, they show the “scientists” at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa – all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they’d like it to be.
In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower ‘FOIA 2011’ (or “thief”, as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.
As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
“Poverty is a death sentence.”
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I particularly like the ones expressing deep reservations about the narrative put about by the IPCC:
/// The IPCC Process ///
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
And here’s our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.
Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.
Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)
Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – actually putting pressure on climate “scientists” to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:
I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.
Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:
we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
[…] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” […] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef […]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers […] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change […] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.
I’ll have a deeper dig through the emails this afternoon and see what else I come up with. If I were a climate activist off to COP 17 in Durban later this month, I don’t think I’d be feeling a very happy little drowning Polie, right now. In fact I might be inclined to think that the game was well and truly up.
Lots of information here: http://barnabyisright.com/2011/11/23/new-climategate-emails-released/
The Climategate scandal is back, as more emails between leading climate scientists are posted online. The latest leak from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has re-ignited the wrangle around manmade climate change.
Much like the scandal of 2009, Tuesday’s leak comes just days before UN climate talks, set to kick off in Durban, South Africa on 28 November.
Critics who have long accused climate scientists of cherry-picking their data to prove that manmade climate change exists, might feel vindicated by some messages. One email from a climate researcher identified as Overpeck reads: “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”
Another scientist expressed his fears regarding potential data manipulation: “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.” The scientist went on to stress a “need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”
It appears that various government bodies have put pressure on climate scientists to justify their own policy initiatives, ranging from restrictive environmental taxes and regulations, switching from fossil fuels to alternative sources of energy, to re-appropriating farm land for profitable biofuel schemes.
Speaking of the governmental influence on climate change policy, one scientist said:
“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”
Based on the government-led drive, one email demonstrated the need to spin the climate change debate for public consumption:
“Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. […] the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible.”
Amid mounting pressure to come up with the right results, one scientist said “they’ll probably kill us” if the researchers’ findings indicated that climate change had resulted from natural fluctuations and not manmade actions.
These are a few excerpts from a cache of 5,000 previously unreleased emails, uploaded onto a Russian server Tuesday by a group calling itself FOIA (FOIA usually stands for Freedom of Information Act).
And while the latest e-mails appear to be authentic, the University of East Anglia has been unable to confirm this, on account of the bulk of information. Nevertheless, one of the emailers, climate scientist professor Michael Mann, believes they are genuine.
The fact that none of the emails postdate those released in 2009 suggests that the latest collection was most likely obtained during the initial Climatic Research Unit (CRU) controversy.
None of the information is likely to be new, but it does show that the security breach appears much larger than initially thought, as FOIA claim to have obtained some 220,000 emails in total.
Apart from the 5,000 emails released online, dozens of excerpts have been gathered into a single “read me” file which has already been widely circulated in the blogosphere.
Many emails pointed at discomfort some scientists apparently had with the narrative put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). An excerpt from a scientist identified as Carter expressed such reservations: “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”
Mann for his part has called the latest leak “truly pathetic,” alleging skeptics have been forced to rely on black PR as they’ve been unable to challenge the actual science.
“They have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat,” Mann told the New Scientist.
Critics, however, contend that the latest collection of emails show that political activism, as opposed to science, is what really drives the global warming debate.
The Climategate controversy erupted in November 2009, when the server at the CRU of the University of East Anglia was hacked in the run-up to the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change. Those who obtained the 160 MB of information then went on to copy thousands of emails and related files to numerous internet sites.
While many climate scientists believe the leak uncovered no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, the perceived lack of openness on the part of the researchers greatly undermined public belief in manmade climate change.
Climategate 2.0. Is it (a) the gift that goes on giving? Or (b) an act of “sabotage” whose seriousness merits investigation by “the full force of the world’s intelligence community” so that the perpetrators can be brought to justice?
The correct answer depends on who you are, of course. If you’re a climate skeptic it’s going to be (a). If you’re U.S. Congressman Ed Markey (or any his fellow-travelers on the great Man Made Global Warming gravy train) it’s inevitably going to be (b). Unless, perhaps it’s (c) a tired, warmed-over non-story of no significance whatsoever. But how are we supposed to make up our minds?
read it and weep..you assholes..
“Svensson: the greatest contributor to worldwide temperature changes is the variation in solar influx on earth”
my favorite so far..whats yours?