Climategate 2.0: E-mails Reveal Shortcomings of Climate Change Assertions

From the Article:

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, 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;

(2) these scientists view global warming as a political "cause" rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and

(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.

----------

Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

"I've been told thatIPCCis above nationalFOI[Freedom of Information]Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working inAR5would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,"writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

"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," Jones writes in another newly released email. "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. "Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?" Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. "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!!"

The new emails also reveal the scientists' attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what'sincluded and what is left out" of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC's most recent climate assessment.

"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," wrote Mann in another newly released email.

"I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose" skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

---------

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

"Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropicaltroposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount awealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate theuncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss thesefurther if necessary," writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

"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," Thorne adds.

"Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and byIPCC," Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.

----------

Full Article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

I thought this already happened, but I guess this is a new series of emails.

Yay, I was beginning to miss the weekly rightwing conservative 'there is no man made global warming' thread.

So which oil companies are funding this one?

I've personally given up on this debate. The debate on climate change is like the debate on evolution; if someone has convinced themselves that climate change is not a problem that needs urgent attention, then there's no way that any rational debate is going to sway them. LordXelNaga

on topic:i see the alarmists as far more dangerous than deniers, and as a good rule of thumb both extremes are equally as crazy. the alarmists argue we have absolute power to control the weather, deniers state we have no impact on the climate, and the truth, the actual debate is to what degree do we impact the environment.

[QUOTE="LordXelNaga"]I've personally given up on this debate. The debate on climate change is like the debate on evolution; if someone has convinced themselves that climate change is not a problem that needs urgent attention, then there's no way that any rational debate is going to sway them. surrealnumber5

on topic:i see the alarmists as far more dangerous than deniers, and as a good rule of thumb both extremes are equally as crazy. the alarmists argue we have absolute power to control the weather, deniers state we have no impact on the climate, and the truth, the actual debate is to what degree do we impact the environment.

Planet, I'll read through this later (gotta go for now) so I won't comment directly on this thread until I do read it .chessmaster1989

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/a/u/0/4OB2prBtVFo

Debunked. The science behind climate change is sound, your naive fantasy world beliefs won't change it. They're already done an investigation behind the whole original "climate gate" emails, no wrong doing was found or falsifying of data.

And just for some fun, lets take a look at a study done in response to the leaked emails that was spear headed by a climate sceptic and funded by the Koch brothers. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/21/new-independent-climate-study-confirms-global-warming-is-real/.

Oops.

I watched a video about global warming/climate change in my chemistry class, recently. It was a scientifically-based presentation. I think it's worth looking at. It's informing, to say the least. The speaker explains the problem with a number of things, including (but not limited to) acting like the entire worldwide scientific community is in unison about this situation. Take a look.

Global Warming. Is CO2 the cause part 1

part2

part3

part 4

I thought this already happened, but I guess this is a new series of emails.

sonicare

http://skepticalscience.com/Climategate-Skeptics-serve-up-two-year-old-turkey.html

I watched a video about global warming/climate change in my chemistry class, recently. It was a scientifically-based presentation. I think it's worth looking at. It's informing, to say the least. The speaker explains the problem with a number of things, including (but not limited to) acting like the entire worldwide scientific community is in unison about this situation. Take a look.

Global Warming. Is CO2 the cause part 1

part2

part3

part 4

BranKetra

What national or international organizations are in opposition to man made climate change? What percent of climatologists are in disagreement over anthropogenic global warming? As far as unison goes, the scientists studying it are pretty much on the same page.

Do we really need to read emails to figure outthe IPCC and AR4is about a political agenda? One just needs to read AR4 to come to that conclusion.DaBrainz

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"]Do we really need to read emails to figure outthe IPCC and AR4is about a political agenda? One just needs to read AR4 to come to that conclusion.-Sun_Tzu-

George Soros, too. Oh, and reanimated Lenin. Whoops, I've said too much.

How could there be a climategate 2.0 if there wasn't a climategate 1.0?-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

I watched a video about global warming/climate change in my chemistry class, recently. It was a scientifically-based presentation. I think it's worth looking at. It's informing, to say the least. The speaker explains the problem with a number of things, including (but not limited to) acting like the entire worldwide scientific community is in unison about this situation. Take a look.

Global Warming. Is CO2 the cause part 1

part2

part3

part 4

HoolaHoopMan

What national or international organizations are in opposition to man made climate change? What percent of climatologists are in disagreement over anthropogenic global warming? As far as unison goes, the scientists studying it are pretty much on the same page.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

I watched a video about global warming/climate change in my chemistry class, recently. It was a scientifically-based presentation. I think it's worth looking at. It's informing, to say the least. The speaker explains the problem with a number of things, including (but not limited to) acting like the entire worldwide scientific community is in unison about this situation. Take a look.

Global Warming. Is CO2 the cause part 1

part2

part3

part 4

BranKetra

What national or international organizations are in opposition to man made climate change? What percent of climatologists are in disagreement over anthropogenic global warming? As far as unison goes, the scientists studying it are pretty much on the same page.

Good ol' Climategate: the incident so damning three separate independent reviews found the research to be both robust and above-board.