ClimateGate 2 – The New Global Warming Scandal!
Climategate 2: The Scandal Continues. New Emails Reveal Scientific Conspiracy and Cover-up. By Nicole Ciandella. November 22, 2011. Print · Email. Washington, DC, November 22, 2011 – The 2009 Climategate scandal was re-ignited …
Does Climategate Matter? By Kelly Jane Torrance • July 13, 2010, 1:15 PM · Tweet. Pat Michaels, writing in The Wall Street Journal, examines the so-called “independent” review of the Climategate scandal. A quick history, from Michaels: …
A new batch of around 5,000 emails were released anonymously yesterday, and they clearly show how a great number of scientists continue to try and mislead the public, and they make clear their desire to politicize the whole "global warming" issue.
You can download the new ClimateGate emails, but it’s a relatively big file, 173mb.
Three Obvious Themes Stand Out
Prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions.
These scientists view global warming as a political "cause" rather than a balanced scientific inquiry.
Many of the scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Abuse Of Scientific Transparency
A defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations.
But the email exchanges between Climategate scientists show a concerted effort to hide rather than to disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
Phil Jones, who is a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), wrote in one newly released email.
"I’ve been told that IPCC 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".
And in another email.
"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 (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data".
The original ClimateGate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles.
Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0
"Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment)?".
"Keith will do likewise. We will be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise. I see that CA (the Climate Audit Web site) claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!"
The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance the predetermined outcomes.
Jonathan Overpeck, the coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment wrote.
"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out of IPCC reports".
And Michael Mann wrote in another email.
"I gave up on (Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor) Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause".
and very damning,
"I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre".
ClimateGate 2 Highlights The Lack Of Scientific Evidence
Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office wrote.
"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".
An Even Greater Furore Is Needed
There are certain to be a far greater number of revelations released as more and more emails are read, and the scandal will grow, but it needs to grow into something huge.
The offending scientists need to be fired, and if not fired, they need to forced to return their research grants,.
They were paid in good faith but failed to respond in kind.
A Related Issue
A harshly critical new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change claims that reports were often written by graduate students with either little, or no experience in the field.