hi there. New climategate emails leaked (nov 2011)

Hi there. Im only writing this because I just read on the bbc website that new climate emails have been leaked, and i couldnt believe that it hadnt been reported on ATS yet.

reply to post by theDarthvader


link? pictures? something to read or debate?

reply to post by theDarthvader


Introductions threads are for introducing yourself to the forums, not for posting articles. A mod will be around to post up the info you need.

i dont have enough posts to start a thread, its breaking news on the bbc website about new climate gate emails, go there and have a look. i dont know how to post links but the website is www.bbc.co.uk

if i had enough posts i wouldve made a thread about it. I have lurked on ats for several years but never really feel the need to post until now

I will help you out here only once.

What appears to be a new batch of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has been released. Contents include more than 5,000 emails and other documents, some relating to work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A similar release in 2009 triggered the "ClimateGate" affair and accusations of fraud that inquiries later dismissed. Now, as then, the release comes shortly before the annual UN climate summit. The university has yet to comment on the document cache, which is posted on a Russian server. A text file included with the batch, apparently written by someone involved in the release and headed "FOIA 2011 - Background and Context", reads: "'One dollar can save a life' - the opposite must also be true. "Poverty is a death sentence. Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels." It then picks a number of phrases from the email batch, whose senders and recipients - if the batch is genuine - include UEA's Phil Jones and Michael Mann from Penn State University in the US. Reviews of "ClimateGate" in the UK, of the IPCC, and of Michael Mann's work by Penn State authorities, have all cleared scientists of fraud and malpractice, although recommendations were made on increasing openness. The writer of the "FOIA 2011" file claims to have 220,000 more emails, but says he/she will not be releasing them.

www.bbc.co.uk...

There is a discussion going on about it at 'the air vent' - here are some quotes from the new emails.

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

[...] Thorne: 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.

Carter: 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.

Wigley: 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 [...]

Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.

Overpeck: I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about “Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?

Wanner/NCCR: In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I critcized [...] the Mann hockey[s]tick [...] My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science. Coe:

noconsensus.wordpress.com...-12598


Also an interesting article on how they arrived at the consenus of scientist support AGW nonesense - unbelievably fraudulent!

wattsupwiththat.com...-51503