Wednesday, 23 November 2011

Climategate 2: The Scandal Continues

Cartoons by Josh

Press Release fom CEI:

New E-mails Reveal Scientific Conspiracy and Cover-up

Washington, DC, November 22, 2011 – The 2009 Climategate scandal was re-ignited today with the release on the Internet of thousands of more e-mails from scientists working on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports. Numerous e-mails confirm that some of the top IPCC scientists were consciously misrepresenting the scientific literature in order to support their global warming alarmist agenda and were engaged in trying to cover up their misdeeds.

The disclosed e-mails and documents are closely linked with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Among the senders and recipients are familiar players in international global warming politics who have often been described as the world’s leading climate scientists, including Phil Jones and Keith Briffa of University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Michael Mann of Penn State University, and Kevin Trenberth and Tom Wigley of the U. S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

“If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,” said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center on Energy and Environment.

“Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars,” said Ebell.

Here are four excerpts from the e-mails released today from Professor Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and lead author of one of the key chapters in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007):

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.

…what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

I’ve been told that IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.

Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.


And here are two e-mails candidly commenting on the work of Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, the chief inventor of the infamous hockey stick:

Professor John Mitchell, U. K. Met Office: Is the PCA [principal components analysis] approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH [one of the key hockey stick scientific articles by Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes] the answer in each is no.Professor Raymond S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Mann’s co-author on the MBH hockey stick paper: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [scientific article by Michael Mann and Phil Jones published in Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction.”

About CEI

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty. Our mission is to promote both freedom and fairness by making good policy good politics. We make the uncompromising case for economic freedom because we believe it is essential for entrepreneurship, innovation, and prosperity to flourish.

Here’s the link to the whole file: http://globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/FOIA2011.zip

ClimateGate 2 - The Leaks

More from FOIA2011

The Climategate CRU knew that the MBH98 HockeyStick was garbage but they still used it (From Junk Science via Marc Morano):

Swiss researcher Heinz Wanner writes: 'In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I crit[i]cized [...] the Mann hockey[s]tick [...] My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times...I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science'

 Phil Jones instructs on how to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests:
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
 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!
 Jones:
I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
 Trenberth:
[...] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
Japanese.
 Jones:
We can put a note in that something will be there in the next draft, or Kevin
or I will write something – it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.

ClimateGate ll

Reports of FOIA2011 and Climategate ll

The Press Association
Thousands more emails from the university at the centre of the "climategate" row over global warming science two years ago appear to have been posted online.
Nature News

Yet another ClimateGate? - November 22, 2011

A new set of climate science-related emails and documents has apparently been released from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK.
The files, including more than 5,000 emails of as yet unconfirmed authenticity, have been posted on an anonymous server in Russia.
A text file included with the released emails and documents seems to quote prominent researchers discussing which each other the quality of climate reconstructions and the possibility that natural climate fluctuations might be behind the 20th century warming trend.
“I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present [climate] reconstructions,” one researcher is quoted as having allegedly remarked.
BBC News 
New release' of climate emails
The university says it has "no evidence of a recent breach in our systems", and suggests that the cache - posted on a Russian server - has "the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks".
Its statement continues: "This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies - including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group."
Joanne Nova writes of FOIA2022 -

Breaking! Apparently, more emails released. Climategate II?

Five hours ago, FOIA left a link on my blog to a Russian site (I had been away). 


ClimateGate 2

Before Copenhagen COP15, emails from the Warmist scientists were leaked. These leaks became known  as Climategate.

Now as we approach COP17 at Durban, it appears that there have been a fresh lot of leaks which are being dubbed as ClimateGate ll.

As reported by The Guardian:

Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online

A file containing 5,000 emails has been made available 
A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009.

TCS blog is seeking verification before publishing.

Stay tuned.