Posted on 11/22/2011 1:58:40 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Five hours ago, FOIA left a link on my blog to a Russian site (I had been away). Emails and comments are streaming through to let me know that the Tallbloke, and Jeff ID have also got them. Tallbloke has opened it and checked for viruses. Jeff ID confirms there are thousands of emails readable and 220,000 more locked behind a password. (H/t Foia (!) Ripper, hunter, RoryFOMR, Janet J,… thanks!)
Assuming (I stress) assuming that these are indeed real, and not an elaborate hoax, wow.
It appears it’s all on again. The sordid details, honest thoughts, and human folly on display. (If true, thank you to Foia.) We need confirmation.
UPDATE #3*** It appears the Guardian is onto this already and Michael Mann is suggesting the emails are real”: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all”. Hat tip: Tom Nelson
The BBC likewise is reporting this, and confirming it — it appears the emails are from 2009 or earlier, and if that’s the case, it means these were probably held back from the first batch. This will be described as being “rehashed old news”, which committee’s have investigated, blah blah blah, but what it shows is scientifically even more damning than the first batch. All of these people were saying it was “settled” beyond doubt, yet agreeing with the “deniers” behind the scenes about the uncertainties, the failure of the models, their inability to predict clouds, and the tropospheric tropical temperatures (ie the hot spot)…
————————————–
(Excerpt) Read more at joannenova.com.au ...
Ping.
fyi
.
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
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 [...]
Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.
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
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
<1577> Jones:
[FOI, temperature data]
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.
<4085> Jones:
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.
Wils:
Sheesh, this is getting so pathetic as to be comical.
Why don't they just write "Don't bother reading on, we'll just tell you what to think about this."
Awesome!
Fraudster Michael Mann should be in jail right next to his Penn State colleague, Jerry Sandusky.
*********************************************EXCERPT****************************************
What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]
<1485> Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.
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”.
Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.
Barnett:
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
<1982> Santer:
there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we’ve applied.
<5111> Pollack:
Someone who has an inside to Newt, please send him this. I tried to send Burt Rutan’s study but have not heard back from anyone or have seen his position change.
*****************************************EXCERPT**************************************
<5111> Pollack:
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
<5096> Cook:
A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.
**************************************
*********************************
JoAnne speaking:
“Don’t bother reading” // hee hee hee
Says a lot, but in this case I bet if you targeted the TO address of those covering from the previous release you would make it much easier to interpret.
I also have the original release merged into a single searchable file.
It will take someone like Newt...in a national debate to bring this out...the MSM will boycott the story.
*********************************EXCERPT********************************************
<3066> Thorne:
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.
<1611> Carter:
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.
<2884> Wigley:
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 [...]
<601> “David Jones”
subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
to: “Phil Jones”
Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single
station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the
Australian data is in pretty good order anyway
h/t Ripper
Jones:
Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.
Humphrey/DEFRA:
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.
Jones:
We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.
<0953> Jones:
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
Crowley:
I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships
Wilson:
I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. [...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
Hat tip Barry Woods!
My point is that he is one of those who believes the AGW crap. Or did you forget about the couch scene with Pelousy?
***************************************EXCERPT**********************************
Shub Niggurath Climate: Climategate II: More skeletons in the closet of anthropogenic global warming
James Delingpole: Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!
From reading the Guardian and BBC links, it appears the e-mails are from 2009 and not recent. They may be relevant just not recent.
I find this story fascinating, but I need all the help I can get. I have a friend who once worked in some science-related capacity for the UN (he's very conservative) who will probably shoot me an e-mail explaining all this to me in a few days. I can't imagine being able to grasp a lot of this at the entry-level at which I do without his help, so I'm betting most people who reflexively buy the Global Warming stuff won't even understand it at that low level.
Just another pause in the give me more federal grants movement by the environmentalists. Nothing new here except maybe they were caught again...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.