Again from the afore-mentioned emails, another I feel actually proves something significant. From Dr Phil Jones:
Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. … I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.
Maybe he needs a backup plan:
MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong
In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.
We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.
Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama’s chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]
A number of vitally important conclusions can be made here, an indictment against both Dr Jones and the AGW warmist supporting “science”.
1. ” I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.”
Firstly, Dr Jones confesses his lack of faith in the AGW “science” and its claims. Claims that have been accepted world-wide and are the basis for well established and continuing global, civilization-changing, socio-economic upheavals.
Secondly, Dr Jones would prefer the warming to be real even if it means “disaster for the planet”, because otherwise he will be proven wrong about the “science”. Perhaps this is an expected human response, but it would be nice to think that our scientific “leaders” would have some social responsibilty.
2. “do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong.”
So they are aware of other influences of significance on global temperatures, (and are in denial about cosmic rays and cloud feedback parameters, Ken Mc), and have no confidence in their warming prediction (hence CO2 theory), being correct.
3. “that explanation is wearing thin.” No comment required.
Come on! What more do we need to be absolutely confident that “our” science is every bit as good as theirs, probably better. There are no grounds for “us” to be shifty, prepared for failure, secretive or elusive.