Last Tuesday, a new spate of “warmist” e-mails were anonymously released to the public. The e-mails were exchanged among scientists who claim humans are causing a global warming crisis, which requires drastic and coordinated measures on the part of the world’s governments.
James Taylor writes in Forbes.com, Nov. 23, 2011, that the newly-revealed e-mails are igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:
1. Prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions, in total contravention of science’s defining and necessary Principle of Intersubjectivity. The latter refers to 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 the theory’s assertions, observations or experiments.
Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
In a newly-released email, Phil Jones — a leading warmist climatologist at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) who’s working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s premier and most influential institution on global warming — writes:
“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.”
In another email, Jones writes of a collusion with the U.S. Department of Energy to conceal data:
“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. In an email released in Climategate 1.0, Jones wrote to a warmist colleague, Penn State University scientist Michael E. Mann:
“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!!”
2. The “warmist” scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry. The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate, advance predetermined outcomes, and coordinate attacks on skeptical scientists.
Mann writes in another newly released 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.”
In another email, Mann writes:
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre.
These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.
3. Many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona and the coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment, writes in an email:
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports.
Peter Thorne — who worked at the UK Met Office until 2010 and now, God help us, is with the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center in North Carolina — writes in an email to Phil Jones:
“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.”
In an email to Michael Mann, Tom Wigley acknowledges the lies:
“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.”
The legal definition of “conspiracy” is:
An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.
The Climategate 1.0 and 2.0 emails are evidence of a conspiracy of warmist scientists. If the Republicans in Congress have a set, they’d hit these criminals with the RICO Act. But they don’t, and they won’t.
I found the photos of these pseudo-scientists to post here so that we know what they look like. Consider the photos to be their mug shots!
Lest we forget, Americans having notoriously short memories, the two leading GOP presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich both were/are believers in manmade global warming.
In Romney’s case, as recently as in his 2010 book, No Apology, Mitt said that, yes, there is global warming/climate change and that it’s human caused. Now that he’s running to be the GOP nominee for 2012, he’s started to hem and haw.
As for Newt Gingrich — the smartest Republican, ever — he so believed in manmade global warming that he appeared, with Nancy Pelosi, in a 2008 TV ad on global warming created by über climate fraudster Al Gore. As recently as November 8, 2011, Newt still maintains that, gosh darn, he just “doesn’t know if global warming is occurring”.