For more selections, go to the original batch of selections posted here. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/
The original files (173 MB) of all the e-mails released here: http://globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/FOIA2011.zip
<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 [...]
<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.
<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 [...]
<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.
<0170> Jones:
Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC [tropical cyclone] activity.
<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
<1790> Lorenzoni:
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and evolving phenomenon
<3062> 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.
<1485> Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.
<2428> Ashton/co2.org:
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
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media
<5111> Pollack:
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP [medieval warm period] go away in Greenland.
<1682> Wils:
[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]
<5315> Jenkins/MetO:
would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?
<2292> Jones:
[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.
<4693> Crowley:
I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships
<2733> Crowley:
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.
<0953> Jones:
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH [northern hemisphere] temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
<4944> Haimberger:
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
<4938> Jenkins/MetO:
By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI [urban heat island effect] has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.
<4789> Wigley:
there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets – we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].
Jones: The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at all Californian sites.
<4165> Jones:
what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
<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”.
<4758> Osborn:
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD [maximum latewood density] has a non temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
<4369> Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.
<2132> Wigley:
I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse skeptics have extreme religious views.
<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]: [...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We must pray that they pick up that message.
<5131> Shukla/IGES:
["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
<0850> 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
<5066> Hegerl:
[IPCC AR5 models] So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
<4443> Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.
<3594> Berger:
Phil, Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.
<4184> Jones:
[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it’s been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
<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
<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.
Thanx for the ping Amagi!
Beam me to Planet Gore !