These quotes are from the Telegraph. You can download all the emails on Megaupload or have a glance at them on this forum.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Let me get this right. There may be a world wide conspiracy by scientist to fool the world on climate change?
Ah yes.. the smoking gun email !
http://filedropper.com/foi2009
Link to the download on this article.
“may show that man-made climate change is a hoax”
may show??
I think this is a response from one of their partners. Obviously they are trying to imply that the emails are ‘out of context’ or ‘possibly edited’.
This looks to be the best link of the bunch.
And so, yes. Misanthrope, Jagermiester, and the rest,
Global warming is a hoax, a moneymaking ponzi scheme.
Who would have guessed??
Ripping off what someone else said:
Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.
Slashdot has had the story up for a while.
Some of the comments include some explanations of what these things mean including why “Mike’s Nature trick” probably isn’t meant as a hoax or deceptive thing but rather a neat or interesting method.
Who should we believe? All the best scientists or the nutcase anti-science bloggers?
… hmm… that’s a hard call.
Just finished reading all the emails. Apparently Barack Obama isn’t an American? WTF!?!?!
Oh, #10 and #11, global warming deniers. Denying that there is no global warming!
You guys should line up behind the truthers in your fanaticism…
The faithful are already circling the wagons around their green messiah. Yes, the same hypocrites who mock religion.
Kinda ironic, huh?
I am always confused by the whole global warming argument. The fact that kids growing up in cities are 30 times more likely to get asthma is not enough reason to clean up the air? The crazy amounts of pollution in the air and water and the very direct negative effects this has on us and our environment is a more easily seen and provable reason to lower pollution so why even bother floating this global warming idea… must be alternative motives I guess.
GregAllen wrote “Who should we believe? All the best scientists or the nutcase anti-science bloggers?”
How about we believe the best nutcase “scientists” that created this bogus, disturbing, and fear mongering ad:
>> Dr Dodd said, on November 20th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
>> The faithful are already circling the wagons around their green messiah. Yes, the same hypocrites who mock religion.
If you are going to draw a parallel with religion —
the global warming deniers are the same as the evolution deniers.
Both put ideology above science.
Best I can tell, the creationists and global warming deniers are often the same bunch — RIGHT WING CHRISTIANS.
If you want to throw your lot in with those guys, good luck with that!
>> Mark T. said, on November 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
>> how about we believe the best nutcase “scientists” that created this bogus, disturbing, and fear mongering ad:
You think the science nerd guys in white lab coats created that ad? I kind of doubt it.
Perhaps you hate it because it makes a true point effectively. Global warming is killing the polar bears.
GregAllen, sorry to disappoint you but I am an atheist global warming “denier” and proponent of Darwinism. I see the “green” religion in the exact same light that I view any other religion.
Their proponents both have their messiahs, saviors, saints, choirs, apocalyptic stories of the end times, and their faithful flock of sheep. They are also blind to any form of criticism. That is why they call them “religions” and not “sciences”.
All you need is FAITH and ye shall be saved!
It’s all hogwash.
#8 Don’t use fancy reason or facts here. This is Amerika. We argue via vague poorly worded or misleading headlines (like this) and cheap political slogans. Looking at hundreds of pages of reports and detailed statistical analysis ain’t the American way. It’s either Jesus or Britney Spears…anything else is just not going to work.
GregAllen, I hate that ad because it is fear mongering at its ugliest. This is meant to stir images of 9/11. Truly reprehensible. It is disturbing and complete fantasy. The creators of that video are right up there with PETA and MoveOn.org.
It’s like when people (idiots) complain that science doesn’t know what it’s talking about and keeps “changing it’s mind” on health issue. No, you’re just idiots taking bits and pieces of poorly put together headlines from misunderstand studies. Some scientist does a study showing that some components in butter can lead to heart disease (in taken in huge quantities, depending on your body type and genetic characteristics). The details are lost and crap headlines run with “BUTTER KILLS YOU…USE MARGARINE!” Then another science paper reports components of margarine in enough quantities is also bad. So…queue up stupid headlines “SCIENTIST CHANGE MINDS…MARGARINE WILL KILL YOU!”.
The scientist weren’t wrong (about butter, bacon, red wine), dumb people just don’t look at the DETAILS and complexity and all of the caveats of the complex studies and take a generic overwrought bullshit newspaper headline as if that WAS the study.
MarkT,
You wouldn’t be the first atheist threw their lot in with the Christian fundamentalists.
In the run up to the war, many anti-religion atheists joined in the war-chant with anti-Islam Christians… for basically the same motivation.
As you just described it, your position against global warming is religious and emotional rather than scientific.
(anti-religious but religious nevertheless)
That make you just like the Creationists.
#16-Greg Allan-Best I can tell, the creationists and global warming deniers are often the same bunch — RIGHT WING CHRISTIANS.
Right Wing Christians? That would be false advertising since last I heard everyone is welcome.
The earth goes through warming and cooling cycles so I do not deny warming, only the man-made kind. And yes, environmentalism falls into the category of a religion.
MarkT,
OK. Fair enough. (I didn’t see it that way.)
But you used one ad to de-legitimize science.
That’s silly and makes you seem like you are grasping for straws in a vain attempt to deny the undeniable.
> Dr Dodd said, on November 20th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
>> #16-Greg Allan-Best I can tell, the creationists and global warming deniers are often the same bunch — RIGHT WING CHRISTIANS.
> Right Wing Christians? That would be false advertising since last I heard everyone is welcome.
I’m a evangelical Christian, myself, and I can tell you that the conservative fundamentalists I know are also global-warming deniers.
It’s all the same anti-science mindset. Emotions, faith/philosophy, politics, etc trump science.
… and don’t tell me that atheists are incapable of acting irrationally too.
Well, I gotta go.
GregAllen, um, WTF are you going on about. How did the war in the Middle East come into this?
How exactly is my position opposing global warming hysteria make me religious? What religion does that make me? Christian?!?! WTF! Your logic needs some review.
If one is does not believe in religion then does that make one religious? So, does that mean that athiests don’t really exist?
Oops, I just vanished in a puff of logic.
Why is there so much missing data for the South Pole? The period Jan 75 thru Dec 90 is all missing except Dec 81, July & Dec 85, Apr 87, Apr & Sept 88, Apr 89. Also, from and including Aug 2003 is missing.
Also — more seriously but correctable. The S Pole is just represented by a single box at 87.5S (N Pole ditto I suspect). This screws up area averaging. It would be better to put the S Pole value in ALL boxes at 87.5S.
I have had to do this in my code — but you really should fix the ‘raw’ gridded data.
December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
GregAllen, don’t get me wrong. I love science. It is only that this science is premature and has been hijacked by politicians that want to mold society and raise taxes. That is a dangerous mix.
I need to point something out..
HEAT will cause precipitation.(RAIN, CLOUDS,…)
This sets up an inversion layer, over the planet.
MORE heat, MORE clouds.
There is a point, that its TO HOT, and the clouds rise HIGHER, and HIGHER..
IF it rains from HIGH altitude, you will get WARM RAIN.
The area above the clouds is a buffer. Its like insulation. DO your math FROM THERE. which is, kinda, hard. as we dont have numbers FOR ABOVE THE CLOUDS.
There will be a point that the clouds will be TO HIGH, and cause a giant haze.. THAT haze will, PROBABLY, work like a Lens, and increase the temp. consider a HOT MUGGY DAY, across the world.
This is going to happen SLOWLY, in human terms.
Your REAL warning will be from the Himalayas..
When THAT snow starts to dissipate…we have a problem, and it will be to late.
The PROBLEM I see. it its MOSTLY a chemical reaction. and SOMEONE is trying to point a finger at 1 problem, and FORGET the rest.
we could blame parts of this on Acid rains, melting snow.
THE PROBLEM is that NO ONE will come up with an idea(there are lots of them) that they will GIVE FOR FREE.
We are a land of assholes and idiots.
we only THINK about what is STUCK in our face. We are so SHORT sighted, that we dont consider the rules OF OLD, like NOT to piss within 200 feet of a water source.
Questions NEED to be asked and answered. Everyone is coming up with Different numbers and saying “THAT DID IT”.
Who remembers SNOW in the 70’s?? and NOW there isnt ANY IN THE LAST 30 YEARS..
Damn I’m sick of this whole phoney debate. Either way the rich get richer and our environment gets screwed. Some elites masturbate over ‘green’ money making schemes while others cry poor and jockey for a position at the public tax trough, leaving the misinformed public in a state of fear and confusion.
Honestly, how do you know this stuff is legit? Even if it is, strange how it has been released during a climate summit. Who could possibly have a large financial stake in seeing fossil fuels get the ‘all clear’?
It is too much to ask for some common sense and a return to the goals of pollution reduction, preservation of the environment, research and investment renewable energy and meaningful employment? Nah, its easier to write off all things green as a liberal tax scam and go back to turning the planet into a carcinogenic sewer in the name of cheap goods. Thanks for dicking us on the environment, Gore.
Preservation of the environment is not only about WEALTH CREATION, its mostly about QUALITY OF LIFE.