Climategate 2.0 – Another Nail in Kyoto’s Coffin

by Marlo Lewis on November 23, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Climategate 2.0 – Another Nail in Kyoto’s Coffin

The individual (or individuals) who, in November 2009, released 1,000 emails to and from IPCC-affiliated climate scientists, igniting the Climategate scandal, struck again earlier this week. The leaker(s) released an additional 5,000 emails involving the same cast of characters, notably Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, and Michael Mann, creator of the discredited Hockey Stick reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature history. The blogosphere quickly branded the new trove of emails “Climategate 2.0.”

The timing in each case was not accidental. The Climategate emails made painfully clear that the scientists shaping the huge — and hugely influential — IPCC climate change assessment reports are not impartial experts but agenda-driven activists. Climategate exposed leading U.N.-affiliated scientists as schemers colluding to manipulate public opinion, downplay inconvenient data, bias the peer review process, marginalize skeptical scientists, and flout freedom of information laws. Climategate thus contributed to the failure of the December 2009 Copenhagen climate conference to negotiate a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. Similarly, Climategate 2.0 arrives shortly before the December 2011 climate conference in Durban — although nobody expects the delegates to agree on a post-Kyoto climate treaty anyway.

Excerpts from Climategate 2.0 emails appear to confirm in spades earlier criticisms of the IPCC climate science establishment arising out of Climategate. My colleague, Myron Ebell, enables us to see this at a glance by sorting the excerpts into categories.

They know the climate models are junk, but say the opposite in the IPCC reports:

<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.

<1982> Santer:

there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we’ve applied.

Intentional cherry picking of data:

<2775> Jones:

I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.

<5111> Pollack:

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

<5039> Rahmstorf:

You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing

<0953> Jones:

This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.

<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.

<3994> Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no

<4241> Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[…] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

<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 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!

<0121> Jones:

[on temperature data adjustments] Upshot is that their trend will increase

Cherry picking of authors to get the right spin in the IPCC reports:

<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)

Subordinating science to a political agenda:

<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

<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/

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

<3332> Kelly:

the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[…] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable

<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and

<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.

Intentional cover-up:

<2733> Crowley:

Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.

<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

<1577> 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.

Candid comments not reflected in public statements:

<4693> Crowley:

I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media

<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably […]

<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

Predictably, Michael Mann asserts that these excerpts are “taken out of context.” To my knowledge, neither Mann nor his comrades has supplied the context that supposedly puts these comments in a better light. Note too that Mann and all other Climategate malefactors assert that the leaked emails were “hacked” and “stolen.” There is no solid evidence to support this allegation. For all we know, the leaker was an insider — a whistle blower fed up with CRU’s refusal to comply with freedom of information laws. When they decry the “illegal hack” of the CRU server, they speak not as scientists weighing evidence but as partisans pushing spin. Exactly the portrait that emerges from the leaked emails.

Science reporter David Appell, hardly a climate change skeptic, writes that, “Even trying to guess at the context and keeping it in mind, some of these [Climatgate 2.0] excerpts are inexplicable.” In fact, Appell states, “just reading the README file emails, these sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating.”

That the leaker opposes the IPCC agenda of climate alarm and energy rationing is obvious — why else release the emails in the run-up to U.N. climate conferences? But it is far from obvious — as IPCC apologists assume — that the leaker is a shill for Big Oil or King Coal. A possible explanation of motive may be infered from the README file’s opening lines:

/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

I would put it this way. There are risks of climate policy as well as of climate change, and the former may far outweigh the latter. More than one billion people on planet Earth live in energy squalor and struggle to survive without electricity, motor vehicles, and mechanized agriculture. Putting an energy-starved world on an energy diet is neither humane nor enlightened.

BobRGeologist November 24, 2011 at 11:54 pm

The above statement “Nations must invest $37trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels” scares the hell out of me that these Global Warming scaremongers know nothing about the natural world and the power of geological processes. Obviously they have not studied the history of the Pleistocene Ice ages of which we just emerged from the 5th 100,000 year glaciation only 10,000 years ago. Our tropics have warmed only 4 degC since the last glacial maximum just 36,000 years ago. The facts that should blow these warmers away is that our sun is too weak at times to prevent another lengthy glaciation without a robust greenhouse gas to keep the sun’s warmth from radiating into space. As long as we have iced up poles we are vulnerable to Pleistocene ice age #6. We need to warm a bit to avoid an inevitable return of the ice in my opinion and stop worrying about it. Life thrived and evolved all through the warmer Mesozoic Era that ended 65 million years ago. And, since life evolved over a billion years ago, there is nothing in the geologic record to believe that the Earth was ever too warm for life.

Donald Weetman Cameron November 28, 2011 at 1:27 pm

Air conditioning and heating.

Global warming is being caused by heat displacement.

the total BTU’s recorded by the outdoor temperature machines, then
subtract the BTU’s required for all temperature controlled indoor
environments, stationary and mobile.

I suspect the difference could show a cooling rather than a warming.

Let us get a sense of what we are dealing with here.
I’ll start and everyone can join in.
Cubic miles of indoor office space.? any scientists or mathematicians? C’mon get famous.

CB November 29, 2011 at 7:18 am

Stalin and Mao were also ideologically-driven activists, seeking to being about a humanist utopia for their country and the majority of the inhabitants. 100 million murders – the words ‘humane’ or ‘enlightened’ are rather massively euphemistic, are they not?

Consider the total ban on DDT, another humanist triumph – about 40 million dead, mostly children. Humane? Enlightened?

Humanist ‘interventions’ has caused more death and misery, by several orders of magnitude, than all the supposed ‘evils’ of the Christianity which it supplanted. Yet, despite that, it is still held up as an ideal, blameless as a summer breeze.

The corruption of Mann and Jones are a pale imitation of what occurs in the biological sciences in support of the CORE dogma of humanism, namely the Absolute Consensus-Based Truth of Evolution. Here lies the root of the tree, nourished with lies, deception and manipulations, from which a true form of hell on earth has spread.

But since when has fact, logic or reason ever mattered to hippies. God damn you all, for the sheer mass of human misery your mindless foolishnesses have created screams to high heaven.

Clifford T. Shea December 3, 2011 at 5:34 am

I”ve read the articles in this website with great interest. The environmental zealots are poisoning the debate with their extreme rhetoric. We need an international counterpoint to Earth Day, say , Peoples Day, in which informed opinion contrary to the environmentalists can be presented. It seems the mainstream media solidly is on their side. Using the internet, we can and must get out the truth about global warming/climate change. Thank You for both your website and this chance to speak my mind!

Johan Booyens December 6, 2011 at 4:49 am

As a retired South Africanjournalist who handled a lot of popular scientific reporting, I am saddened by the superficial approach to COP17 in local media – and the lack of honest reporting and research into the whole GW scam, even after Climategate and now Climategate 2.0.

All Gore was welcomed as some kind of hero by SATV programmes, while wild statements by supposedly leading reporters made me cringe. This includes assertions that South Africa was one of the top atmospheric “heat polluters” – contrary to statistical material freely available on internet – and that we should all join in “to fight against climate change.”

There is no voice of dissent about the assumption in the local media that PEOPLE caused the change and must change it back to what it was. Even the South African Department of Environmental Affairs have jumped on the bandwagon with a TV ad blaring out warmers’ unproven truths.

The event also shows up demonstrators as mostly people with some mental baggage, as they act on assumptions – even go as far as demonstrating on a beach with their heads in holes in the sand “like ostriches”! An ostrich cannot put it head in the sand and will suffocate if it tried. When leadin wild dogs or other animals of prey away from a clutch of chicks, the will run away and hide by flopping down with legs and neck outstretched in an effort to camouflage themselves amongst the natural scrub of their environment – and often succeeding! If demonstrators (and some reporters reporting on this event) accept this hogwash about ostriches, they may well be the natural prey of Climategate’s Phil and co.

I plead for some clear thinking in the media to educate people, but this maybe dreaming of Easter Eggs pecking – fear sells much better and to hell with facts…..

Mooi Loop! Sala Gahle! Via con Dios! Go Well!

Comments on this entry are closed.

{ 10 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: