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

The spirit of Trofim Lysenko lives on.

Cicero43 on November 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM

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”.

If Mann’s colleagues are saying that this paper has been debunked then the editors of the journal which published it ought to consider retracting it. Only ~0.001% of papers published are retracted–a figure far lower than the recommended 1% rate. If there is reform needed in science, then it is in publishing and retracting standards, FWIW.

ted c on November 22, 2011 at 12:11 PM

AGW dies, not with a bang, but a drip, drip, drip.

a capella on November 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.”

“Well all right then…

… The science is settled!” – Libtard/current OWS protester

/

Seven Percent Solution on November 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM

its not helping the cause

 
The idea that a “scientist” said that kind of makes my stomach hurt.

rogerb on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Hiding Criminal Fraud is not what E-Mails are designed for.

The rubes are onto them now. How will Obama’s Gang loot another 100 billion or two from the US Treasury now?

Thanks to the Faked Science Department of the Dem-Soros Party, Phd is becoming just another acronym for a successful criminal conspirator.

jimw on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

So far Climategate 1.0 proved to be a flop once the evidence was studied and looked into. How is this any different? You might call it a whitewash but it is based on multiple inquiries and studies across different countries and institutions.

If the source is interested in good science and uncovering a conspiracy, then why didn’t they release the rest of email which they seem to think proves they are manipulating data during the inquiries rather than now?

lexhamfox on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Whoa! I thought “the science was settled”. The most troubling part is the ‘scientists’ work for a ’cause’ and NOT science – with decisions made by ‘a select core group’!! Those in the core group need to be ID’d stat!

Bob in VA on November 22, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Nothing new here, just more conformation…how much “wrong” can something be before they it is deemed “wrong”.
This is like saying 2 + 2 does not equal 5, when last year we found out 1 + 1 does not equal 3…next year, with more releases of emails, we will find out that 4 + 4 does not equal 13…

right2bright on November 22, 2011 at 12:21 PM

And yet Romney, Newt, and others cannot use the word FRAUD!

jeffn21 on November 22, 2011 at 12:22 PM

So far Climategate 1.0 proved to be a flop once the evidence was studied and looked into. How is this any different?

lexhamfox on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

You are right, climagegate 1.0 didn’t help the cause so it was ignored by “academia”, so this will also be ignored.
After all, metal can’t burn…

right2bright on November 22, 2011 at 12:23 PM

lexhamfox seems to think that this is smearing the good names of above the board climate scientists. Why wouldn’t all the emails be released at once? Think Breitbart and Acorn: give them enough rope to hang themselves.

Look, a lot of the supposed studies clearing the first climategate people–aren’t they supposed to have seen all of these emails, directly from the source? So they KNEW about the stuff referenced in Ed’s post and still called that legitimate science? That’s a lot of egg on their face.

If they DIDN’T know about it, then Mann and his followers have a lot of explaining to do as to why they withheld this stuff.

This is a brilliant strategy, actually. Mann and or the “cause supporters” are discredited completely now, and the “vetting institutions” now have a lot of explaining to do. Assuming this is accurate emails, of course.

Vanceone on November 22, 2011 at 12:23 PM

These “scientists” are merely the ushers in the temple of Gaia rattling the plate to get governments to donate to the cause…They are deacons, elders and shepherds of the people. Algore is the high priest whom preaches the gospel of the Earth, a form of idol worship that these people genuflect towards.

True scientists observe, measure and report–their cause should be the truth, not some concocted narrative about which they coerce people to give money, restrict freedom and limit liberty.

ted c on November 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM

So far Climategate 1.0 proved to be a flop once the evidence was studied and looked into. How is this any different? You might call it a whitewash but it is based on multiple inquiries and studies across different countries and institutions.

lexhamfox on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Based on multiple inquiries and studies across different countries and institutions, Climategate 1.0 was a devastating blow to AGW and it’s proponents.

See how easy that was?

SlaveDog on November 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM

I really am disgusted by this entire mess. I was taught that science was the search for true data. In readings manns emails he keeps referring to the cause. This strikes me as an underground movement that doesn’t care about the facts just that their view point is promulgated.
I applaud those that are releasing the emails, they should shine light on who the high priests are in the religion of AGW.

ColdWarrior57 on November 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM

So far Climategate 1.0 proved to be a flop once the evidence was studied and looked into.

You mean like corruption of the peer review and publication process? The obvious subjectivity of the researchers? Like that?

You might call it a whitewash but it is based on multiple inquiries and studies across different countries and institutions.

Google up Graham Spanier and his skill at diverting investigations.

If the source is interested in good science and uncovering a conspiracy, then why didn’t they release the rest of email which they seem to think proves they are manipulating data during the inquiries rather than now?
lexhamfox on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Because they understand how the media works and they understand the media itself isn’t objective.

a capella on November 22, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Maybe they can get Freeh to investigate both.
(RAPE FIRST!, Theft Second.)

I would love to hear a professional interrogate the members of that committee that “investigated” Mann before, but this time UNDER OATH.

barnone on November 22, 2011 at 12:27 PM

lexhamfox on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Denial is not a river in East Anglia.

NotCoach on November 22, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Penn State can burn in hell. Can we volunteer that campus for Iranian nuke testing?

Seriously – that University is a complete embarrassment.

HondaV65 on November 22, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Ed, its probably the right time to remember that Michael Mann is the same researcher that was investigated by Penn State and they shockingly found nothing wrong with his conduct as a researcher. This is the same Penn State that shockingly allowed Jerry Sandusky to resign and have the rape story covered up by the entire administration after he was spotted raping boys in the showers.

ted c on November 22, 2011 at 12:32 PM

If, as seems the case, that these people and institutions lied about the data to secure more public funding – then they need to reimburse the taxpayers for every penny taken, or go to jail.

Rebar on November 22, 2011 at 12:35 PM

Phd; Piled higher and deeper

I am not a racist on November 22, 2011 at 12:35 PM

An update at WUWT seems to confirm the genuineness of these emails.

NotCoach on November 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM

A good question to ask right now is what the hell is going on with investigations at Penn State??? If Sandusky’s actions could be covered up, then were Mann’s actions covered up as well? Can Penn State reliably perform ANY internal investigation?

ted c on November 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM

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 [...]

Apparently, the “Cause” at PSU involves occupying the south facing end of north facing boys and taxpayers.

ted c on November 22, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I’ve just reported “FOIA.org” to AttackWatch.

This is all just right-wing and rethuglican lies sponsored by Foxnews, Americans For Prosperity, Rush Limbaugh, and Big Oil.

There is no doubt that “FOIA.org” are all “1%” racist, bigoted, fear-mongering, greedy extremists that don’t want to debate, but only to destroy the presidency of Obama because they are racists.

visions on November 22, 2011 at 12:40 PM

So far Climategate 1.0 proved to be a flop once the evidence was studied and looked into. How is this any different? You might call it a whitewash but it is based on multiple inquiries and studies across different countries and institutions.

lexhamfox on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Do you still put your hands over your eyes and tell people “you can’t see me”?

Are the words “objectivity” and “scientific method” missing from your world view?

arnold ziffel on November 22, 2011 at 12:41 PM

AGW is a money grab, pure and simple…

Khun Joe on November 22, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Oh yes, Peer Review at it’s finest. You get a bunch of people with an agenda together, and claim that it’s “good science” even when it’s just outright lies and crap.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 22, 2011 at 12:46 PM

AGW and collusion among “scientists” that have a vested interest in manipulating data?

“It literally made my skin crawl.” – Mika Brzezinski

.
Finally, she got one right!

ExpressoBold on November 22, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Not to deflect attention from PSU, but Limbaughs opening monologue sure sounded like an endorsement of Bachmann.

After Beck, I’m left to ask; Is there a rightwing talk-radio conspiracy going on?

listens2glenn on November 22, 2011 at 12:48 PM

If I could ask one, and only one question, it would be:

“Define for us what ‘the cause’ is.”

BobMbx on November 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Neither Climategate 1.0 nor 2.0 would have been caught had the proposed multi-trillion dollar solution (if I dare call it that) hadn’t been so far-fetched. One doesn’t react to a world-crushing problem as if they expect to win the lottery. Cap and Trade is a scam, pure and simple. The science was mere justification. No matter how perfect it was or could have been, the science cannot overcome massive problems with the solution.

Here’s what I’m going to do about “global warming” or “climate change.” 1) Raise arm. 2) bend it. 3) pat myself on the back for having resisted this sham from the beginning. If this applies to you, please do the same.

KillerKane on November 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM

the cause

Which is what, exactly?

One-World Technocratic Socialism?

pseudonominus on November 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM

So far Climategate 1.0 proved to be a flop once the evidence was studied and looked into.

lexhamfox on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Except for that slapping sound as Mann et al. had their way with the scientific process.

pedestrian on November 22, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Has Brian Huntsman responded to the new email dump yet? Is he still doing his part to help the cause :) A smart politician would have been distancing themselves from this carbon credit hoax a long time ago.

Dr Evil on November 22, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Does this really surprise anyone?
We have known that from the dawn of man “Priests” have lied to the public in order to get them to do as the “Priests” want. The sad thing to me is, we are at the same point in time with regard to “science/religion” as we were back in the time of Galileo. “Don’t you DARE turn that telescope to the sky and prove anything we say/said as wrong” Circa 1615. I guess priests of AGW have been treading water for the past 396 years.

ColdWarrior57 on November 22, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Cause Marketing meet Cause Science

Delta Tango on November 22, 2011 at 1:15 PM

What Mann and the rest of the Hockey Team have been engaged in is not science. It’s propaganda.

chimney sweep on November 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM

I predict that Gaia will become angry because the words of her prophets are not only doubted but actively mocked.

There will be floods, hurricanes, droughts, snow, glaciers freezing and melting, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes and tsunamis.

Just you wait.

You’ll see.

You’ll all see.

Lily on November 22, 2011 at 1:30 PM

If I could ask one, and only one question, it would be:

“Define for us what ‘the cause’ is.”

BobMbx on November 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Easy one. “The Cause” is maintaining the free flow of research grant money and highly-compensated speaking engagements. With some one-world government utopian/socialist tendencies on the side.

iurockhead on November 22, 2011 at 1:30 PM

The sad thing to me is, we are at the same point in time with regard to “science/religion” as we were back in the time of Galileo. “Don’t you DARE turn that telescope to the sky and prove anything we say/said as wrong” Circa 1615. I guess priests of AGW have been treading water for the past 396 years.

ColdWarrior57 on November 22, 2011 at 1:12 PM

“The cause” that Mann, et al, refer to is not AGW. AGW is just the means. The cause is worldwide communism. The religion is total gov’t control and wealth re-distribution.

that is why every “solution” to AGW involves the west giving up rights and progress as well as material wealth. If AGW is defeated as fake science (which it will be), they will all migrate to another claim – just as they migrated to AGW from their “ice age” predictions in the 70s. For whatever reason, nobody holds these idiots accountable for always being wrong.

It is transparent, but when the media is in on it, it’s hard to get the middle to see it.

Monkeytoe on November 22, 2011 at 1:30 PM

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37

needtoknow on November 22, 2011 at 1:31 PM

If I could ask one, and only one question, it would be:

“Define for us what ‘the cause’ is.”

BobMbx on November 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM

In short, the cause is power.

hawksruleva on November 22, 2011 at 1:44 PM

So far Climategate 1.0 proved to be a flop once the evidence was studied and looked into.

lexhamfox on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Really? Have you seen the polling on climate change? Support for global warming policy changes dropped a lot after climategate.

It’d be nice to say polling isn’t relevant to climate science, but honestly that “science” is mostly about trying to shape public policy.

hawksruleva on November 22, 2011 at 1:46 PM

It’d be nice to say polling isn’t relevant to climate science, but honestly that “science” is mostly about trying to shape public policy.

hawksruleva on November 22, 2011 at 1:46 PM

There is no science. It just The Cause. “Science” is just a prop to support The Cause. These are shills, not scientists.

theCork on November 22, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Correction

There is no science, just The Cause. “Science” is just a prop to support The Cause. These are shills, not scientists.

theCork on November 22, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Grocery shopping this morning, I had 4 Coke products in my basket until I saw the “Save the Polar Bear Habitat” on one of the bottles. Put them all back on the shelf. Talk about dishonest greed….OWS should go after them (but of course they won’t.)

Christian Conservative on November 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM

lexhamfox on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

I painstakingly perused through that 1st set of emails.
Those people most certainly are liars & did their best to save their own collective a$$e$ by obfuscating the issue.
You’d do well to read through them.
ALthough I will admit, it’s so much easier to just pick up your talking points at HuffPo.

Badger40 on November 22, 2011 at 2:06 PM

The Nature Conservancy ad above helping you calculate your carbon foot print is hilarious

Badger40 on November 22, 2011 at 2:07 PM

And we still need to consider the OBIVOUS and that is:
CO2 has never been found to cause atmospheric temps to rise.
We do find rising concentrations of CO2 when atmospheric temps rise.
And gee, why would temps be rising?
Could it be perhaps cycles of the Sun?
Coul it also be in part due to the Milankovitch effect?
Could cycles like El Nino & La Nina possibly have ANY effect on gloabal climate?
You really worried about greenhouse gases? GET RID OF WATER VAPOR.

Badger40 on November 22, 2011 at 2:13 PM

If the source is interested in good science and uncovering a conspiracy, then why didn’t they release the rest of email which they seem to think proves they are manipulating data during the inquiries rather than now?

lexhamfox on November 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Good point there, sport. Why does Michael Mann go to extremes to cover up all of his publicly funded research? Why does the scientific fraud continue to withhold data, notes, and yes, e-mails?

A real scientist invites scrutiny of his work. That is the essence of the scientific method? I wonder why Mann doesn’t?

MNHawk on November 22, 2011 at 2:15 PM

A hacker entered a backup server at the university and downloaded a file containing administrative passwords

Then they deserved to be hacked (well, if not for all the other reasons).

Into these people’s hands we want to trust our future? Really? Keep their admin passwords in a file on the server? Did they scratch their combination on their locker in Jr. High?

29Victor on November 22, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change

Mann

What a tool. I mean, we all know he’s a tool already, but c’mon. Destroying FoIA stuff and then “BIG OIL! BIG OIL!” when someone shines the light on his “science.” We don’t even know yet who hacked them do we? But yelling “BIG OIL” apparently means not having to answer questions about your research.

How does this guy have any credibility at all with anyone in the scientific world?

29Victor on November 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM

A real scientist invites scrutiny of his work. That is the essence of the scientific method? I wonder why Mann doesn’t?

MNHawk on November 22, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Yep. Such a sharp contrast between the “FTL nutrino” scientists and these guys. One is real science, the other politics.

29Victor on November 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM

What Mann and the rest of the Hockey Team have been engaged in is not science. It’s propaganda.

chimney sweep on November 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM

Do not associate the greatest game on the planet with these scumbags.

emz35 on November 22, 2011 at 2:31 PM

Yep. Such a sharp contrast between the “FTL nutrino” scientists and these guys. One is real science, the other politics.

29Victor on November 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM

And which prominent physicists dispute global warming science? Is it a significant percentage? Any members of the US Academy of Sciences- or are you just throwing out a conjecture that the physicists themselves would strongly disagree with?

bayam on November 22, 2011 at 2:38 PM

bayam on November 22, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Comparing how actual science is done in one field to how propoganda is done in another is a claim that physicists reject the religion of AGW? Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. But 29Victor certainly did not speak to that issue.

NotCoach on November 22, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Yep. Such a sharp contrast between the “FTL nutrino” scientists and these guys. One is real science, the other politics.

29Victor on November 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Exactly what I thought when the nutrino guys threw their data out to the world, and invited others to scrutinize it.

Which is why the fraudulent red herring throwers are so threatened by the example you gave.

MNHawk on November 22, 2011 at 2:55 PM

29Victor on November 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM

MNHawk on November 22, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Neutrino.

NotCoach on November 22, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Is it a significant percentage?

bayam on November 22, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Junior, you wouldn’t be dumb enough to bait us, in some attempt to play gotcha, with a “97%” figure, would you?

Go for it, sport.

MNHawk on November 22, 2011 at 2:58 PM

“Misguided men will torture science by refuting facts with theories; but a fact is no less a fact when science opposes.”

Quote from:

Etidorhpa or the end of the earth

dirtseller on November 22, 2011 at 3:01 PM


bayam on November 22, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Comparing how actual science is done in one field to how propoganda is done in another is a claim that physicists reject the religion of AGW? Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. But 29Victor certainly did not speak to that issue.

NotCoach on November 22, 2011 at 2:44 PM

Yep. And I wouldn’t expect physicists to speak out on Mann Made Global Warming any more than I would expect a climate scientist to write a paper about FTL nutrinos, since it isn’t their field of expertise. What I would expect is for climate scientist to welcome and even encourage debate about their findings instead of, well…this.

I realise that the MMGW side has no problem with non-climate scientists heading up UN programs on global warming & signing on to declarations about which they know next to nothing and (in America) using Bill Nye the Science Guy (not a scientist at all, but an engineer in a lab coat) and a politican to “spread the word” and “prove MMGW” to masses who know even less climate science then they do. But that’s not how we were all taught in school that science is supposed to work.

Your question was absolute bunk, but you do get high marks in absolutly missing the point my comment. As such, you are a fine representative of you side of the issue (except you forgot to brand me as a moll of “Big Oil).

29Victor on November 22, 2011 at 3:03 PM

Still more evidence these communist asshats desired deeply to promote their cause. Thanks for sharing Ed.

dogsoldier on November 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Neutrino.

NotCoach on November 22, 2011 at 2:57 PM

In the pocket of “Big Spelling” I see.

/

thx

29Victor on November 22, 2011 at 3:05 PM

A real scientist invites scrutiny of his work. That is the essence of the scientific method? I wonder why Mann doesn’t?

MNHawk on November 22, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Thats how I was raised, They were very cautious about proposing things because they wanted to make sure all the ducks were in a row. Then they would publish their findings and wait on pins and needles to have their theory either verified or crush. And if it was verified then it was an ” IN YOUR FACE” sort of triumph.
They had bragging rights. The AGW crowd does not want any verification on the topic because they know they are WRONG !

ColdWarrior57 on November 22, 2011 at 3:37 PM

What Mann and the rest of the Hockey Team have been engaged in is not science. It’s propaganda.

chimney sweep on November 22, 2011 at 1:28 PM
Do not associate the greatest game on the planet with these scumbags.

emz35 on November 22, 2011 at 2:31 PM

I smell a fight starting !!!!! LOL

ColdWarrior57 on November 22, 2011 at 3:38 PM

I smell a fight starting !!!!! LOL

ColdWarrior57 on November 22, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Cool. A hockey game might break out!
/Old Joke

As to your previous comment. That’s how I was raised to think of science too. But living through the current era and studying the hisotory of science a bit, I’m beginning to wonder if that’s actually true or if it’s just what we have been taught. The history of science (even modern science) is not necessarally as “open minded” to ideas that challenge the status quo as the scientific community would like us to think.

29Victor on November 22, 2011 at 4:04 PM

What we are seeing is NOT “science”….it is a very bad remake of Mark Twain’s “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court by bad actors!!!

…complete with evil Sorcerer, ignorant serfs, outrageous claims of power over the sun, etc….EXCEPT that the character in the book is benevolent and conservative, while the AGW characters are evil and selfish leftists.

landlines on November 22, 2011 at 4:22 PM

The BBC story is by Richard Black – he is so far up the Hockey Team’s backside that he even looks like Michael Mann.

Please note that Black’s story prints the defence by the Uni of East Anglia in full – but fails to include a single quote from the new batch of emails.

So – there is more actual “news” here in the HotAir posting and among the comments than we in the UK get from the compulsory tax we pay to the BBC.

Incidentally – it has just been revealed that another of the BBC’s “environment” hacks – none of them has any scientific qualification – received £15,000 in fees from the ClimateGate crowd at the Uni. of East Anglia.

You think your US mainstream media are biased ? The BBC is as extreme left as MSNBC and really dominates the UK news scene.

JohninLondon on November 22, 2011 at 4:44 PM

There will be floods, hurricanes, droughts, snow, glaciers freezing and melting, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes and tsunamis.

Just you wait.

You’ll see.

You’ll all see.

Lily on November 22, 2011 at 1:30 PM

You forgot beer summits, country music night, and Wygu beef feeds at the White House.

Yoop on November 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM

What happens when you are influencing the editorial decisions and review committees for publications in science? This:

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”.

Yeah, that is a ringing endorsement of the publication system as rigged by the AGW backers.

When the people on the inside complain about the quality of what is published, then there is a huge problem.

ajacksonian on November 22, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Ah, the depressingly familiar cycle:

1) “Proof” that AGW is a fraud is paraded around.
2) The “proof” is show to be wrong.
3) The “proof” is still considered proof.

In this case:

1) Climategate erupts.

2) Richard Muller and BEST — premiere climate skeptics — show that the climate data is accurate.

3) Climategate erupts again.

I do admire the eco-sensitivity of recycling the same arguments over and over and over.

Hal_10000 on November 22, 2011 at 6:35 PM

It’s hard to believe that these guys would trust their email after what happened last time. Does it seem fishy to anyone that this place has been hacked twice, surely the fortified the site after the first time. Could this be an inside job?

Cindy Munford on November 22, 2011 at 7:15 PM

You know sometimes I wish Yellowstone would just catastrophically blow.
I might die, or be greatly inconvenienced, but at least the climatologists left alive would have some real data to study.

Badger40 on November 22, 2011 at 8:27 PM

It’s hard to believe that these guys would trust their email after what happened last time. Does it seem fishy to anyone that this place has been hacked twice, surely the fortified the site after the first time. Could this be an inside job?

Cindy Munford on November 22, 2011 at 7:15 PM

These emails are from the original hacking and released by the same people who released the first batch. They still have more unreleased files.

NotCoach on November 23, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Yep. Such a sharp contrast between the “FTL nutrino” scientists and these guys. One is real science, the other politics.

29Victor on November 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM

And which prominent physicists dispute global warming science? Is it a significant percentage? Any members of the US Academy of Sciences- or are you just throwing out a conjecture that the physicists themselves would strongly disagree with?

bayam on November 22, 2011 at 2:38 PM

You don’t know what “FTL neutrino” scientists refers to, do you, bayam?
Or, were you just trying (and failing) to deflect?

Solaratov on November 23, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2