It’s on again! Climategate- Round 2

New climategate emails have been released. All our favourite players are back, with Jones and Mann bringing their usual best. All indications are that they are authentic. Mr Big in the climategate arena, Mike Mann himself is suggesting such.

When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”

What are the odds that so many emails could be taken so badly out of context?

Furthermore, Anthony Watts has reason to conclude that the new batch is genuine.

Here are some tasty tidbits.

Phil Jones: Bryan Weare is at US Davis. He would know about some of the things you
mention. The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban
 warming at all Californian sites.

Anthony Watts is all over this one, and is pretty infuriated. Certainly it is not healthy scientific practise to label colleagues you disagree with as “jerks”.

Mike Mann: They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should
consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.

I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests. Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….

I’ve got an idea Mikey. Why not just focus on your work instead of going with personal attacks against a retired economist?

Ray 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”.

This is the bloke that thinks MBH98 is a “solid as a brick outhouse“. If he thinks Mann/Jones is bad, then it must be bad.

Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause.

There are repeated references by Mann to “the cause” as if they are seeking a certain result to further some sort of objective. Shouldn’t science be about the pursuit of truth?

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.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

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

You mean the models that projected a catastrophe that hasn’t come are wrong?

Jones: 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.

My work is good. You can take my word for it. You don’t have to check for yourself.

Mann: the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.

Why does a scientist concern himself with PR?

James Pollack: But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.

Silly me, but this seems to indicate that this bloke is searching for a particular conclusion, and well I would have thought that he should report whatever he finds, regardless of the implications.

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.

Again, shouldn’t they be reporting all of their findings instead of cutting out the stuff that isn’t apocalyptic?

Jones: There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent extreme weather is due to global warming”] – at least not a climatologist.

Goodbye academic freedom.

Tom Wigley: Although these all show the hockey stick shape, the differences between them prior to 1850 make me very nervous. If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences between them as an argument for dismissing them all.

And he seems to regard catholicism as a extreme religion.

Wigley:I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse skeptics have extreme religious views.

 

Advertisements

About Climate Nonconformist

Hi, I'm the climatenonconformist (not my real name), and I am a global warming skeptic, among the few in generation Y. With Australia facing the prospect of a carbon tax, we need to be asking the simple question; where is the evidence that our emissions are causing any dangerous warming?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s