I am always prepared to climb out on a limb for the sake of making a point. So far I have avoided any embarrassment. I am not too worried this time either. The risk here is the remote possibility that the emails are not genuine, but it seems unlikely.
It is also unlikely that their meanings are innocuous as suggested by the warmist scientists and supporters. Apparently there are many people with “cognitive dissonance”, apologies to my friend Martin.
How can anyone with an above-average intelligence deny the evidence of the science being over-ridden by agenda? (That’s a bit below the belt, but I am tired of being nice!)
Thanks to JustmeinT who points out JoNova’s post referred to here.
Some alleged emails — choice picks:
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 […]
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
[FOI, temperature 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 (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be correct.
What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably […]
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 “reconstruction”.
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly cannot be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.
[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
there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied.
A growing body of evidence clearly shows  that hydroclimatic variability during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the “Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.
I am updating live. There is a lot more….
More emails! IN PARTICULAR read this: “Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the Australian data is in pretty good order anyway”.!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Make my day!)
More alleged emails
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.
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.
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 […]
<601> “David Jones”
subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
to: “Phil Jones”
Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week. Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the Australian data is in pretty good order anyway
Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.
I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.
We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written […] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships
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.
Hat tip Barry Woods!
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.
The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases […] As it stands we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.
Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[…] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.
If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.
would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?
[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.
There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent extreme weather is due to global warming”] – at least not a climatologist.
Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even real?
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.
He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.
I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause
“I rest my case – Gentlemen of the Jury, What is your Verdict?” Or do you need me to highlight the obvious?
I think I have successfully made my point. However, all this and more, with probably more yet to come, is to be found on Jo’s website ,
” Jo’s post .”
Please save me the trouble of copying it all on this site. This is one of my better days, when it seems that all this is not in vain.
- AGW – Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular! (tgrule.wordpress.com)
Climategate 2 (papundits.wordpress.com)
Climategate 2.0? (hotair.com)
AGW – One man’s science is another man’s pseudo-science! Part 2. (tgrule.wordpress.com)
The truth about AGW is becoming CLOUDy (thebrightlibertarian.blogspot.com)