Here’s a nice summary of the significant contents of the email dump. Regardless of the validity of the science, these people have thoroughly discredited themselves, and given AGW skeptics a vast arsenal. Thankfully, this is going to make it much more difficult for the warm-mongers to implement their anti-free-market agenda. I suspect that if cap’n’tax wasn’t already dead in the Senate, it will be now.
[Update mid afternoon]
Powerline has been going through the emails. The picture that emerges is not that of scientists seeking truth, but of partisans, protecting (at the least) their own pet theory, and possibly a broader agenda as well, at the expense of truth and the reputations of anyone who dares to question them..
[Sunday morning update]
When in doubt, delete:
These emails appear to show that, when faced with a legitimate request under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act, these global warming alarmists preferred to delete their emails with one another about the crucially important IPCC report–the main basis for the purported “consensus” in favor of anthropogenic global warming–rather than allow them to come to light. This is one of many instances in the East Anglia documents where the global warming alarmists act like a gang of co-conspirators rather than respectable scientists.
I don’t think it’s an act.
gravityloss Says @ November 21st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
See “CRU Files Betray Climate Alarmists’ Funding Hypocrisy” here.
Regarding the Russian email – I have no expertise in Russian tax law. I see somebody for whom English is clearly not their first language asking for money to do research. I don’t see what that email does to “prove” that their data is wrong.
You aren’t getting it are you. This is money going to Americans who are doing research and they are specifically asking that amounts under the $10k IRS limits be sent to their PERSONAL accounts, so that they don’t have to report it for taxes.
the other “smoking guns” are scientists being pissy about non-climatologists questioning them and trying to decide if the data requested is subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act.
They were trying to decide how to deny the request. You may recall at some point Phil Jones allegedly lost his data and thus couldn’t fulfill the current FOIA requests. Now it turns out that he was discussing beforehand deleting data precisely for the purpose of refusing a FOIA request. If he did so, rather than experience a convenient accident. then I gather that is illegal in the UK just as it is in the US.
He provided a wealth of peer reviewed research indicating that we were headed toward the tipping point into another ice age.
Actually, I covered that in my links. He didn’t.
But nice try.
Actually, I covered that in my links. He didn’t.
I really don’t care what is in your links, I have the book in front of me.
Daveon @ November 22nd, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Just curious, were you around in the 70’s?
With the exception of ARPANET, name me one publicly funded science research that encouraged the shrinking of government?
Here is another interesting email in the betrayal of science.
> Ben,
> When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide
> by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a
> screen, to convince them otherwise
> showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the
> types of people we were
> dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the
> Environmental Sciences school
> – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve
> got to know the FOI
> person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals.
> The VC is also
> aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but
> probably doesn’t know
> the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures.
Alleged CRU Email – 1228412429.txt
I really don’t care what is in your links, I have the book in front of me.
Dennis, if it has more than seven cites that claim global cooling, then it falsifies one of Daveon’s links.
Dennis Wingo – so “Tatiana M. Dedkova” is an American? I didn’t know. Reading her email it didn’t seem that English was her first language.
I still don’t see how not wanting to pay taxes proves that her climate data is a fraud. Here in America, arguing that somebody’s generally a bad person and therefore guilty of a specific crime doesn’t work.
“I still don’t see how not wanting to pay taxes proves that her climate data is a fraud.”
Yeah. We need to find out if she ever took any money from any source other than benevolent government or a disinterested, non-agenda driven, non-profit agency. THEN her data are ipso facto fraudulent.
Here in America, arguing that somebody’s generally a bad person and therefore guilty of a specific crime doesn’t work.
Chris, beating up a strawman doesn’t work either. Dennis never called someone “bad” and used that slim bias for an accusation of a crime. Hence, your sentence above is not based on an actual argument of Dennis’s and thus, is a strawman.
Karl – the only way Dedkova’s tax issues are relevant to global warming is if you are going to argue that she is completely untrustworthy. That’s not a strawman, that’s the only way the argument makes any sense.
Karl – the only way Dedkova’s tax issues are relevant to global warming is if you are going to argue that she is completely untrustworthy.
Oh that. I thought we were discussing CRU and it’s activities. Dodging taxes in Russia and effectively admitting to it in emails is dubious behavior. My view is that if someone is so casual and sloppy about tax evasion in Russia (or wherever), well that bit of evidence is consistent with the signs of academic negligence and perhaps fraud.
The connection with global warming is simply that the CRU maintains certain critical data about climate observations in historical times and makes some of the strongest claims about the degree and effects of global warming. If they’re deliberately distorting their data and exaggerating their conclusions, that may well be successfully biasing the entire field of climate science.
Dennis, if it has more than seven cites that claim global cooling, then it falsifies one of Daveon’s links.
I counted 213 notes in the book with most of them, well over 140 being from the peer reviewed literature.
The narrative of the book weaves these sources into a coherent whole showing that climate has deteoriated from the Holocene climate optimum of about 8000-6000 years ago. There have been several ups and downs in recent millenia, from the Roman warm period, the 500’s cool period, the Mideveal Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
It is interesting that despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Mike Mann, Keith Biffra, Phil Jones and others, using computer modeling have done their best to distort science with their computer models to remove these climate variations that have been recorded in the ice, the sands, the trees, and human records.
It is a perversion of science of the highest order.
Karl – the only way Dedkova’s tax issues are relevant to global warming is if you are going to argue that she is completely untrustworthy. That’s not a strawman, that’s the only way the argument makes any sense.
If an email found from Steve MacIntyre said the same thing as in this email then you would be screaming from the rafters that we should never listen to a tax cheat auditing climate science.
Karl – the only way Dedkova’s tax issues are relevant to global warming is if you are going to argue that she is completely untrustworthy.
Yeah Karl, don’t point out the lack of ethics. Gerrib’s a Democrat supporter. He understands that just because a person cheats at taxes doesn’t mean that cannot be a Treasury Secretary, US Senator, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, or a Climatologist.
But it’s bad of me to mention politicians with scientists. It’s not like the scientist is messing with tax laws.
And oh yeah, Cap and Trade will work by taxing those horrible people that use excessive amounts of energy.
Dennis Wingo – climate variability is not news. For example, from a RealClimate link: Climate on Earth has changed on all time scales, including long before human activity could have played a role. Also, you don’t “audit” science. If you don’t think global warming (or any other scientific idea) is real, get your own data and run your own tests.
Leland – you can’t even prove tax evasion, let alone false data.
Gerrib – you can’t even understand the difference between unethical and illegal.
I should have added that scientist do indeed audit data. Perhaps the scare quotes are their to imply some other meaning of the word? Tax audit?
If you don’t think global warming (or any other scientific idea) is real, get your own data and run your own tests.
If I ever I need a reminder that Gerrib is a science fiction author, not to be confused as a scientist; I’ll have this quote.
Dennis Wingo – climate variability is not news. For example, from a RealClimate link
Disengenuous horsepucky. One of the central arguments of AGW is that the modern warming is unprecedented. If this is shown not to be the case, then the entire edifice of AGW falls apart. There is a HUGE body of peer reviewed evidence, from Sierra tree lines, to pacific and gulf sediment records, to Finnish and Greenland paleotree data that supports that the Mideveal Warm Period was warmer than today.
What this does is to remove the central underpinnings of AGW, which is that if we do not curtail our CO2 emissions that catastrophe will ensue. If it is demonstrated that climate was warmer just a thousand years ago, this his falsified. This is what is at the heart of the effort of Mann, Biffra, and Jones to erase the MWP through computer modeling.
Dennis Wingo – no, the argument is not that the temperatures would be unprecedented. We have had extremely warm periods before – like dinosaurs and broad-leaf trees living below the antarctic circle.
The argument is that we would shoot past the high point of the MWP and go to levels that would be climalogically problematic, like crop failures in Iowa problematic.
The argument is that we would shoot past the high point of the MWP and go to levels that would be climalogically problematic, like crop failures in Iowa problematic.
No it isn’t. The argument has been that TODAY’s temps are already beyond that of the MWP and thus the catastrophe.