Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Phil Jones' Stunning e-mail admission
Various, CRU e-mail ^ | 12/5/09 | Stingray

Posted on 12/05/2009 7:19:49 AM PST by Stingray

From: Phil Jones xxxxxxxx
To: John Christy xxxxxxxx
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul  5 15:51:55 2005
 
"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

More here:

Jones' e-mail

(Excerpt) Read more at eastangliaemails.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climategate; fraud; globalcooling; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; msm; smokinggun
Jones admits the earth has been cooling since 1998, but spins it as statistically insignificant. Why hide it if it isn't "statistically significant?" If the truth "isn't statistically significant", why cover it up?

Because he and his colleagues were instrumental in helping to create the highly politicized environment that has marginalized, demonized and dismissed global warming skeptics for years, and now this guy is afraid the same would happen to him if he told the truth!

The CRU e-mails contain much hand-wringing over the fact that people were getting on to them, as evinced by this line from the top of the e-mail:

"John, There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week - quite a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC produced their report. In case you want to look at this see later in the email !"

In his concluding comments from the e-mail, Jones wistfully opines:

"As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn't being political, it is being selfish."

Wait a minute! I thought these guys said climate change IS already happening! Of course they knew it wasn't happening according to their theories, but they - and their faithful - persist in repeating the lies even now.

Here are links to what the source code associated with these e-mails say:

American Thinker article

Watts Up With That article

Link to the FOI2009 zip file (download is free, just wait for it) in case you want to do your own digging.

And finally, a "blurb" from the Washington Post about Jones stepping down as East Anglia investigation gets underway.

This country couldn't afford cap & tax if the global warming alarmists were right. We shouldn't have to suffer it for a lie.

By the way, did you know Al Gore's "Inconvienient Truth" took a shot from the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" without attribution? Here's a link to that!

Gore's film, purported to be a documentary, used computer generated animation from a fictional movie and attached no credit or attribution to it, essentially leading the viewer to believe the CG shot from The Day After Tomorrow (a propaganda piece in its own right) was real. And how does Al Gore justify such excesses?

Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Source: grist.org

In other words, it's OK to lie to people as long as you can get them to buy your "solutions." In Al Gore's case, he stands to make a lot of money selling those solutions.

Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrite and needs to be continually exposed for the fraud both he and his junk science are.

1 posted on 12/05/2009 7:19:50 AM PST by Stingray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Stingray; TenthAmendmentChampion; Horusra; Delacon; Thunder90; Entrepreneur; Defendingliberty; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

2 posted on 12/05/2009 7:20:39 AM PST by steelyourfaith (Time to prosecute Al Gore now that fellow scam artist Bernie Madoff is in stir.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stingray
If its "statistically insignificant" it means NO global warming occurred. In other words, the entire theory used to justify higher taxes, bigger government and far-reaching changes in the personal lives of millions was all built on a lie. If it didn't happen, there is no need for the state to run our lives. They won't be honest today and all but the true believers are deserting the sinking "climate change" boat.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

3 posted on 12/05/2009 7:24:52 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

Yep - at every appearance, the Goron MUST be protested, mocked, ridiculed, exposed with good signs, handouts given out to the decieved standing in line for is book signings..,,and then he needs to be sued and arrested and in jail....the sooner the better.


4 posted on 12/05/2009 7:25:54 AM PST by Freedom'sWorthIt (Obama's Deathcare ---- many will suffer and/or die unnecessarily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stingray
Al Gore is a liar and a hypocrite and needs to be continually exposed ...
BTTT
5 posted on 12/05/2009 7:29:02 AM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

We can’t let the MSM win this.

Best ClimateGate clips (show everybody you know):

http://www.BraveNewCommie.com


6 posted on 12/05/2009 7:34:29 AM PST by Islam=Murder (Hitler hated his Jewish side; Omoslem hates his white side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stingray
"The scientific community would come down on me

No the scientific community would not but the high preists of the religious cult of Environmentalism would.

7 posted on 12/05/2009 7:35:13 AM PST by MNJohnnie (Demand Constitutionality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; Stingray

Thanks!


8 posted on 12/05/2009 7:48:20 AM PST by texanyankee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

Wow

What a telling admission

Tell everyone via viral emails ...


9 posted on 12/05/2009 7:56:11 AM PST by DontTreadOnMe2009 (So stop treading on me already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

“No the scientific community would not but the high preists of the religious cult of Environmentalism would.”

Actually, he would have gotten it from both sides: the cultists, who would’ve tried to destroy him, and real scientists, who would’ve asked exactly the same questions we are: “why hide the facts?”

Public science isn’t supposed to work under the cover of darkness. These people were taking public grants to do public research and then hiding and manipulating data to fit their own whacked-out theories. And the IPCC built an entire global environmental policy based on the shoddy and biased work they were doing.

One of the other things you find in the FOI2009 archive is a lot of emphasis on grant writing. I don’t know what’s worse: subverting science for the sake of ideology or money. In either case, does it matter? Science was clearly subverted here and the cost to nations and taxpayers worldwide is unjustified.

Real scientists, as we’re beginning to see, have a problem with this.

But they were also hypocrites, at least in the case of Jones. He was fearful that he would receive the same kind of treatment that he, Mann, and their small cadre of AGW cultists were dishing out on their skeptics.

They weren’t doing science. They were defending dogma and, in the end, couldn’t retreat from the ground they had staked their reputations on even in light of the overwhelming evidence they knew was arrayed against them.

They should be fired, stripped of their academic titles and degrees, and any funding they received should be returned to the agencies that provided it.


10 posted on 12/05/2009 8:33:45 AM PST by Stingray (Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

such scum, so little time.

Life has become a horror movie.


11 posted on 12/05/2009 8:43:09 AM PST by dforest (Who is the real Jim Thompson? I am.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Islam=Murder

Well ya could have told me that Alex is a Truther of the highest order.


12 posted on 12/05/2009 8:52:16 AM PST by Leonard210 (Tagline? We don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

Here is another email I found, just by clinking on your link and going to the next email in the sequence:

From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: “Neville Nicholls” N.Nicholls@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RE: Misc
Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005

Neville, Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25 years.
I’ll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil

Hmmm... he is concerned about his US DoE grant... all this fudging can’t be related to protecting his grant money can it? (sarc)


13 posted on 12/05/2009 11:49:38 AM PST by SDShack (0zer0care = Socialized Soylent Green Healthcare)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stingray
I'm posting the following pair of e-mails to let you all see that realclimate.org was not only created by this group of AGW propagandists but - like their approach to the peer review process (documented elsewhere) - was used to silence debate and to assist in spreading their own disinformation.

From: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mprather@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robert.berner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rjs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dshindell@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rmiller@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drind@xxxxxxxxx.xxxbey, td@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, james.white@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hfd@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wuebbles@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.3@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, thompson.4@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juerg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jto@u.arizona.edu, tcrowley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schrag@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jlean@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, weaver@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, robock@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mmaccrac@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, schlesin@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dkaroly@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, berger@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, david@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mcane@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, meehl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, myles.allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, natasha@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, m.manning@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, nmantua@u.washington.edu, Jeffrey.Park@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jseveringhaus@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jcole@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, juliebg@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rich@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, hegerl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, dcayan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, chris.folland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, masson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, goosse@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, atimmermann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ajb@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, penner@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, solomon@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, jmahlman@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbierbau@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: RealClimate.org
Date: 10 Dec 2004 08:56:42 -0500
Cc: Mike Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Eric Steig <steig@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, aclement@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rasmus.benestad@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rahmstorf@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


Colleagues,

No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of
media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see
agenda-driven "commentary" on the Internet and in the opinion columns of
newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on
educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and
letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task.

In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below)
have recently got together to build a new 'climate blog' website:
RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days at:

http://www.realclimate.org

The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where
we can mount a rapid response to supposedly 'bombshell' papers that are
doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or
events.

Some examples that we have already posted relate to combatting
dis-information regarding certain proxy reconstructions and supposed
'refutations' of the science used in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment.
We have also posted more educational pieces relating to the
interpretation of the ice core GHG records or the reason why the
stratosphere is cooling. We are keeping the content strictly scientific,
though at an accessible level.

The blog format allows us to update postings frequently and clearly as
new studies come along as well as maintaining a library of useful
information (tutorials, FAQs, a glossary etc.) and past discussions. The
site will be moderated to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio.

We hope that you will find this a useful resource for your own outreach
efforts. For those more inclined to join the fray, we extend an open
invitation to participate, for instance, as an occasional guest
contributor of commentaries in your specific domain, as a more regular
contributor of more general pieces, or simply as a critical reader.
Every time you explain a basic point of your science to a journalist
covering a breaking story, think about sharing your explanation with
wider community. RealClimate will hopefully make that easier. You can
contact us personally or at contrib@xxxxxxxxx.xxx for more
information.

This is a strictly volunteer/spare time/personal capacity project and
obviously nothing we say there reflects any kind of 'official' position.
We welcome any comments, criticisms or suggestions you may have, even if
it is just to tell us to stop wasting our time! (hopefully not though).

Thanks,

Gavin Schmidt

on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
- Gavin Schmidt
- Mike Mann
- Eric Steig
- William Connolley
- Stefan Rahmstorf
- Ray Bradley
- Amy Clement
- Rasmus Benestad
- William Connolley
- Caspar Ammann


From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

<x-flowed>
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we
put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre
thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go
there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way
you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about
what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any
questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd
like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone...

mike
14 posted on 12/05/2009 12:32:16 PM PST by Stingray (Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

Just to reinforce the point of my last post: realclimate.org - just like everything else these people have touched or created - is tainted by them and their corrupt science until they can prove otherwise. Realclimate.org should be taken down, and all the frauds they’ve foisted on us should be purged.

Time to let real adults do the real science.


15 posted on 12/05/2009 12:39:20 PM PST by Stingray (Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SDShack

“Hmmm... he is concerned about his US DoE grant... all this fudging can’t be related to protecting his grant money can it? (sarc)”

He claims he isn’t political, so he’s either a “true believer” or he’s in it for the money. Hard to tell with some people these days.


16 posted on 12/05/2009 12:40:59 PM PST by Stingray (Stand for the truth or you'll fall for anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Stingray

bump


17 posted on 12/05/2009 1:04:13 PM PST by VOA (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson