The Climategate Chronicles: Emails Speak for Themselves

After reviewing several of the Climategate II emails, I have come to the conclusion that they speak for themselves.  Many of the researchers involved do little or any hiding of their agenda. Most of the emails are readily intelligible for the average educated reader, and so the best advice one can give is to read some of them yourself.

The initial emails set the flavor for the rest to follow. A few examples below.

From FOIA11 Files

0001.

“Jonathan and I [R. Warren] have already talked about this (and he told me about what happened at the meeting regarding economic modelling) and agreed that I need to develop a relationship with DEFRA and get involved in some (but not all) of the meetings we have with DEFRA.  That is, we’ve agreed that I need to be at the really key stakeholder meetings like this one, and to meet occasionally with key (potential!) stakeholders like DEFRA. i.e. that in order to make good decisions about the flagship project, I need to have contact and visibility with key stakeholders. “

What is DEFRA? The U.K.’s Department for Environmental, Food, and Rural Affairs.  A few frontpage headlines show why East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences might be interested in gaining the ear of “key stakeholders” at DEFRA. On December 12th, 2011, in a country with 8.3% unemployment, DEFRA was bragging about giving away a 10 million pound grant to fight “deforestation” in Brazil (at an exchange rate of 1.57, nearly 16 million dollars).  I suppose human beings are supposed to live like monkeys in the trees if some cockamamie British agency deems it so. DEFRA also was slated to disburse a one million pound grant to “tackle” air pollution. It is unclear to me how pound notes control air pollution, unless maybe you stuff them up automobile tailpipes.

0002.

“date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 11:13:21 -0400

from: Edward Cook <drdendro@ldeo.columbia.edu>

subject: Re: forgot

to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

Hi Keith, […]

I agree that Phil and Mike are best left out of this. Bradley? Yeah,  he has done fuck-all except for the Bradley/Jones decadal series,  which he maintains has withstood the test of time. Typical posturing on his part.

Cheers, Ed”

Couldn’t have said it any better myself.

003.

“The bottom line is that if you show the annual map in the Synthesis paper, there are quite a few areas that have not warmed. Incidentally, the significant trends are indicated as areas enclosed in black lines, and southern Greenland and the oceans to the east of it have clearly cooled (though most boxes are NOT significant. Other cooling areas are extreme south east USA ;west central South America; east central Africa and south east China. Probably 95 per cent of the area with data has warmed though.  If you just plug in all areas with at least 25 years coverage , very large areas of the map cool. I am now thinking and talking about the regional projections with Tim.

Keith”

Here we see more of the game-playing with the time frame used to display “climate” to the public. But the climate has changed for many of the scientists in on the global warming alarmist industry – they are no longer allowed to get away with their fraudulent machinations unchallenged.

More:

Climategate 2.0: A new batch of leaked emails again shows some leading scientists trying to smear opponents. – James Delingpole, WSJ
Dropping the Mask of Ecofascism – Ben O’Neill, Mises

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The Climategate Chronicles: Emails Speak for Themselves

  1. What a joke. Cherry-picking select quotations out of stolen emails does nothing to rebut the scientific consensus showing AGW.

    What peer-reviewed scientific papers have been retracted based on stolen emails? None. Why? Because the science speaks for itself. You don’t debunk legitimate science by making shadowy guilt-by-association accusations — DEFRA, DEFRA!

    You challenge science with science. Or at least you do if you have a passing familiarity with how science works.

    Guess what? Many scientists think you are stupid. I have no doubt that if you steal their emails, you will find many comments mocking your stupidity. That may offend the tender sensibilities of the email thieves. But it does nothing to undermine legitimate science.

    1. I didn’t “cherry pick,” schmuck. I picked the first three in the cue, and there’s over 5000 more. Then I tell the reader to read the rest himself or herself, because average readers can figure the scam out. And by average, I don’t mean “average” left-wing ecotard.

      Cheers, Rogue

    2. By the way, you call these emails “stolen.” First of all, science should be based on transparency. Regardless of this, even such a “scientist” as Michael Mann refused to release the raw data for some of his papers, despite FOIA requests. Secondly, due to how emails are transmitted and stored, it is unclear what the source of these emails is.

      Lastly, why don’t you tell me what the supposed science says in scientific language? Then I will tell you to piss off because man only contributes about 0.30% to the greenhouse effect. Even if it were 100%, it would be unclear how that was bad, and how the climate would “change” in the absence of man’s activities, or even if warming is detrimental to human life (man has flourished since the end of the last Ice Age, and particularly in the Medieval Warm Period).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s