Climategate 2.0?

posted at 12:05 pm on November 22, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Two years ago, a group calling itself FOIA.org dumped a treasure trove of e-mails from climate-change advocates and researchers that revealed abundant evidence of data manipulation and dishonest attempts to silence and discredit critics.  Called “Climategate,” the exposure greatly damaged the standing of the scientists involved and their public statements.  Now the same group has celebrated the second anniversary of the Climategate release with another release of 5,000 e-mails, which have only begun to be parsed by interested bloggers:

What appears to be a new batch of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has been released.

Contents include more than 5,000 emails and other documents, some relating to work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A similar release in 2009 triggered the “ClimateGate” affair and accusations of fraud that inquiries later dismissed.

The timing is not accidental.  The UN’s IPCC is about to hold another climate summit, and the people behind the shadowy FOIA.org group clearly want to disrupt their narrative.  The BBC says that the group holds another 220,000 e-mails, but won’t release them all at once, employing a drip strategy to keep the AGW-theory advocates on the defensive.

So what’s in the new e-mails?  The blog TallBloke has already begun crowdsourcing the cache, and finds a few tidbits from Penn State’s Michael Mann, among others, assuming that these are genuine (via Watts Up With That):

<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 [...]

<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 [...]

<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”.

<3115> Mann:  By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

<3940> Mann:  They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.

<0810> 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 [...]

Well, we all know that science is all about supporting a cause rather than testing hypotheses and eliminating them when evidence arises to their contrary.  Maybe the previous whitewash on the first Climategate will have to get revisited.  In the meantime, if these e-mails are genuine, expect skepticism about AGW theory to rise even more.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Comment pages: 1 2