A link to where to download the new FOIA2011.zip file is posted below the fold – This will be a top post for a few days -NEW STORIES APPEAR BELOW THIS ONE -I’ve also reversed the order of the updates to be newest at top for better visibility – Anthony
UPDATE50: 1:15 PM PST 11/30 The genesis of RealClimate.org seems to have been found. Surprisingly, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin seems to have been involved in the genesis meeting.
UPDATE49: 10:00 AM PST 11/30 While not email related, just as Climategate breaks David Suzuki commits an egregious propaganda error second only to the 10:10 video where kids are blown up for not going along with carbon reduction schemes at school. He’s targeting kids and Santa Claus at Christmas – Santa’s home is melting.
UPDATE48: 9:20 AM PST 11/30 Dr. Phil Jones on the “lack of warming” -he may need a backup plan.
UPDATE47: 9AM PST 11/30 Fudge factor collection in the emails, or is climate modeling a social issue?
UPDATE46: A look at UEA/CRU’s email infrastructure and email systems in general suggests that the “deleted” emails to/from Phil Jones and others at CRU probably still exist and can be subject to FOIA.
UPDATE45: 1:30PM PST 11/29 If there was award for clueless timing, this would win it no contest: Penn State to lecture on “climate ethics”
UPDATE44: 9AM PST 11/29 Mike Mann reprises the role of Captain Queeg in The Cain Mutiny when seeing de Freitas being vindicated by the publisher of Climate Research (see the update in the article).
UPDATE43: 8AM PST 11/29 An Excel Spreadsheet with Climategate 1 and 2 emails ordered chronologically should be helpful in determining that supposedly missing”context”
UPDATE42: 7AM PST 11/29 The CRU crew says: “what we really meant was…”
UPDATE41: 4AM PST 11/29 James Padget schools Steve Zwick – Guide to Defending the Indefensible. Some people just can’t handle Climategate.
UPDATE40: 12AM PST 11/29 Penn State has the same “look the other way” problem with Climategate as they did with the Jerry Sandusky scandal.
UPDATE39: It seems “vexatious” is Dr. Phil Jones favorite new feeling word after summer 2009.
UPDATE38: Severinghaus says Mike Mann didn’t give a straight answer regarding why trees don’t work as thermometers after 1950
UPDATE37: Climate sensitivity can’t be quantified with the current data according to NCAR’s Wigley, with paleo data – even less so.
UPDATE36: Dr. Chris de Freitas responds to the ugly attempt by The Team at getting him fired.
UPDATE 35: “Stroppy” Dr Roger Pielke Sr. shows just how much a “old boys network” the peer review process is.
UPDATE34: More internal dissent of the hockey stick. Mann tries to beat down the concern over “hide the decline” while not letting the dissenting scientist know there was a decline.
UPDATE33: Gobsmacking! Rob Wilson proves McIntyre and McKittrick correct in an email to colleagues at CRU, showing that when random noise time series are fed into Mike Mann’s procedure, it makes “hockey sticks”. The confirmation that M&M is right never leaves the walls of CRU.
UPDATE32: 9:30PM PST 11/27 BREAKING – Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol. Another Climategate fallout ?
UPDATE31: 4:30PM PST 11/27 BOMBSHELL An absolutely disgusting string of communications that shows the tribal attempt at getting an editor of a journal fired on made up issues – all because he allowed a publication that didn’t agree with “the Team”. This is ugly, disturbing, and wrong on every level.
UPDATE30: 9:45 AM PST 11/27 Newsbytes. Major crack in the warming wall at the UK prime minister’s office. BBC in collusion with Climategate scientists.
UPDATE29: 9AM PST 11/27 The saga of the missing station data at CRU and the “pants on fire” defense of it as told by Willis Eschenbach. Dr. Phil Jones is between a rock and a hard place, quite.
UPDATE 28: 1:30PM PST 11/26 An email shows the UNFCCC considers activists an essential tool saying “…organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process…”
UPDATE27: 7AM PST 11/26 Climategate 2 features prominently in WUWT’s newest feature “Hits and Misses”
UPDATE26: 2:50 PM 11/25 Two separate examples show obstruction and collusion by members of “The Team” to prevent any dissenting science from being properly considered by the NRC in 2007.
UPDATE25: 2PM 11/25 Keith Briffa asks another colleague to delete email to avoid FOIA
UPDATE24: 1:30PM 11/25 New Climategate 1/2 combined search engine here
UPDATE23: 9AM PST 11/25 via bishop-hill, strange infighting:
#4101 – Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is “serious enemy” and “vindictive”. Mike Mann had criticized his work.
Apparently Mann went “a little crazy” over a paper showing the MWP exists.
Details here
UPDATE22: 11AM PST 11/24 Am unsurprising admission from a BBC environmental reporter to Dr. Phil Jones that they really have no impartiality at all (ho ho) when it comes to climate issues.
UPDATE21: 9:50AM PST 11/24 “FOIA2011″ and Climategate – A Chinese-POTUS connection?
UPDATE20: 9:30AM PST 11/24 World renowned climatologist Phil Jones can’t even plot a temperature trend line in Excel. I’ve offered a solution that WUWT readers can help with.
UPDATE19: 9AM PST 11/24 Gail Combs finds some disturbing connections between the Team and The World Bank
UPDATE18: 1:45PM Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia” wins the award for the silliest climategate rebuttal, ever. It’s like stupid on steroids.
UPDATE17: 12:55PM PST 11/23 Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has an excellent piece on “Gatekeeping” related to Trenberth and the Pielke-Landsea hurricane paper and the IPCC. You may recall Landsea resigned from the IPCC over this. Pielke says: “The gatekeeping of the IPCC process is abundantly clear, and the shadowy suggestion that they can find out who the reviewers are from another colleague is a bit unsettling as well.” Trenberth looks particularly bad here.
UPDATE16: 11:30AM PST 11/23 Insider scientist at CRU says our “reaction to Mike Mann’s errors was not particularly honest” – story here
UPDATE15: 7:50AM 11/23 Ric Werme found an email from the late John L. Daly to Mike Mann and the team – it is well worth a read here
UPDATE14: 2:45 AM PST 11/23 Willis Eschenbach offers a guest post here explaining how his FOIA requests went astray. Mr. David Palmer was the Freedom of Information Officer for the CRU at the time. In the newly released emails, he expresses his frustration with the whole procedure.
UPDATE13: 12:05AM 11/23 Craig Stone writes:
I have published a searchable database of the emails at http://foia2011.org
All email addresses and phone numbers are automatically redacted. It’s extremely rudimentary right now, but I’ll be refining the functionality and improving the search capabilities and navigation over the course of the next week.
UPDATE 12: 9:30 PM PST We’ve known for some time that Al Gore made up a bunch of claims in his AIT movie that simply weren’t true. Now this revelation in the new email batch shows that in the case of Kilimanjaro’s disappearing snows, even Phil Jones and Dr. Lonnie Thompson don’t believe global warming is the cause, even though Thompson put out a press release nearly a year ago saying just that. Told ya so. Pants on fire and all that. Anything for “the cause” right?
UPDATE11: 4:45PM PST Kevin Trenberth gets all misty eyed and sing-songy at Christmas here
UPDATE10: 4:30PM PST Some thoughts on cracking the big remaining all.7z file here
UPDATE9: 2:25PM PST Josh weighs in with the first satirical cartoon here
UPDATE8: 140PM PST Mike Mann shows his true colors:
email 1680.txt
date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”..
subject: Re: Something not to pass on
to: Phil Jones
Phil,
I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should
consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.
I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.
I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….
UPDATE7: 1:20 PM PST Phil Jones and Tom Wigley calls another scientist (The former state climatologist of California) a “jerk” for publishing his UHI results.
UPDATE6: 12:08PM PST Here’s an email that collaborates a radio interview I did in Seattle with Thomas Peterson in summer 2007, yes these are 100% real emails, no doubt whatsoever now. More here: Climategate 2.0 – NCDC: “Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position”
UPDATE 5: 11:00AM PST In a statement, UEA doesn’t deny these emails, but posts about the whitewash investigations of the past, like they matter now.
UPDATE4: 9:45 AM PST I’ve changed the headline from Climategate 2.0 to Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular! with a hat tip to Jerry Seinfeld. The relevance of that headline is particularly interesting in the context of where Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has his office in NYC.
UPDATE3: 9:25 AM PST – Having read a number of emails, and seeing this quote from Mike Mann in the Guardian:
When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”
I’m going to conclude they are the real deal. I’ve posted a BitTorrent link to the file below. One big difference between Climategate 1 and 2 is that in 1, it took days for the MSM to catch on, now they are on top of it.
UPDATE2: 8:45AM PST The Guardian has a story up by Leo Hickman, and this excerpt suggests they may be the real deal:
Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.
The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages.
UPDATE1: 8:20 AM PST These emails have not been verified yet, and this story was posted by one of my moderating staff while I was asleep. Until such time they are verified, tread lightly because without knowing what is behind the rest of the zip file, for all we know it’s a bunch of recipes and collection of lorem ipsum text files. I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts
===============================================================
Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.
The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there.
Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:
<3373> Bradley: 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”.
<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.
<0810> Mann: 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
<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.
JeffId has some initial reaction
From the ReadMe file:
/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“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.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.
The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.
We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
as…
==============================================================
Here’s one about UHI that is convincing:
cc: liqx@cma.xxx
date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:16:37 +0800
from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= <limmy@xxx>
subject: Re:Re: thank you
to: p.jones@xxx
Dear Phil,
Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you.
From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your
list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt
discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only
been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation
during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations.
I partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat
island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren’s. But I think
different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most
important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some
conclusion in this topic. I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale
and in China.
Best
Qingxiang
—– Original Message —–
From: “Phil Jones” < p.jones@xxxx >
To: “Rean Guoyoo” < guoyoo@xxxx >
Cc: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4” < limmy@xxx>, < liqx@cma.xxx >
Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800
Subject: Re: thank you
Dear Guoyu,
I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week,
but here this week.
I do think that understanding urban influences are important. I will
wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am
quite busy the next few weeks.
Best Regards
Phil
At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote:
The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via
this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang.
Regards,
Guoyu
Dear Phil,
Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry
for the delayed response.
I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of
climate change.
In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air
temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we
analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there
might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses
are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990
period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations
used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be
more representative for the baseline change.
We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent
our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air
temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are
going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome.
As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his
group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the
past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his
center. The datasets we used are also from his center.
I’d be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a
co-author because my contribution would be rather minor.
Best regards,
Guoyu
NCC, Beijing
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today!
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
=======================263ÌìÏÂÓÊ£ÐÅÀµÓÊ×Ôרҵ=======================
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\Detecting and Adjusting Temporal Inhomogeneity in
Chinese Mean Surface Air Temperature Data.pdf” Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\To
Jones.rar”
====================================================================
Here’s a bit torrent link to the FOIA2011.zip file
You’ll need a bit torrent client
BETTER LINK:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37
Documentation Of A Cozy Interaction Between An AMS BAMS Editor And Phil Jones
Maybe my memory is playing tricks. In the OP it says that the MSM took days to begin reporting on the original Climategate story, as I recall there was a deafening silence for weeks. The blogs were buzzing about the subject and as time went on it was impossible to believe that the MSM were not fully aware of the story but hoping that if they kept quiet for long enough it would go away.
@A Physicist
It is a bit difficult to see how we could do an in depth analysis of climate data when those involved fight tooth and nail to prevent their data entering the public domain. Pop science books by Dawkins, Sagan, Goldacre etc, assure me that scientists welcome intense scrutiny of their work because only then can they be sure that they have the truth. If they are in the right even the best efforts of the sceptics will fail to prove otherwise. If you are indeed a physicist, why are you defending people who hide their data and resort to name calling to deflect attention from that?
“The history shows plainly that — much like America’s Founders — America’s scientists have been pretty much right-on-target for eighteen decades in a row …”
America’s founders thought that the Constitution had long term sustainability.
A chap called de Tocqueville foresaw that the system would only be sustainable until the politicians realised that they could buy votes with taxpayer money.
We are now on the cusp of determining which was correct.
I pray that de Tocqueville was wrong but the numbers say otherwise.
sceptical says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:25 am
It will be interesting to see how partial quotes taken out of context will be spun this time. Last time, those who did the spinning were left with egg on their face after numerous investigations.
There is a neologism that has gained quite a bit of currency lately. The word is “beclowning”. You would do well to look it up.
David Falkner says:
November 22, 2011 at 8:34 am
The celebrations are a bit premature, I think. Are they actual emails? How will we know for sure? If they are, I am personally beginning to wonder if the leaks aren’t coming from a foreign governmental entity. China and Russia have been doing quite a bit of hacking recently.
_______________________________
In that case politely thank them.
November 22… another day that will live in history… oh wait, it already does: 1963.
Just randomly spot-checking through the emails I’ve seen enough incriminating text to, at the very least, fire many of these people, and possibly have them in front of a court.
Really? Have your FOI person call my FOI person? They probably already know each other? The outright discussion of how to avoid legal requirements SHOULD be answerable in a court of law.
We (here, at WUWT) already had pretty low respect for the Team, and their Cause, but this takes it to a whole new lower level. Frankly, I wouldn’t want any of them so much as serving me at McDonalds. Hey… Briff… TWO COATS of wax you idiot…
“Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. ”
I guess he was expecting the emails to be damning. Not a very good admission to make.
I’d like to see the log of rejected comments at RealClimate right now. Somehow they have only had 12 comments today on this story….
This one is funny:
===========================================
Could you put these in context, please?:
[John] Cook: “I am afraid that Mike [Mann] is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”
[Response: Not “John”, Ed, and this was in 2002, related to the Briffa/Osborn perspective in Science 2002. Those were early days in the paleo-reconstruction business and different groups had different opinions about how to proceed and interpret the results. Normal science…. – gavin]
Bradley: “I’m sure you agree–the [Mike] Mann/ [Phil] Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year ‘reconstruction’.”
[Response: Again, people are free to make their own judgements on papers. This was in 2003 (discussing Mann and Jones (2003)). – gavin]
Crowley: “Phil [Jones], thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.”
[Response: The discussion is related to SST anomalies, but I don’t really understand crowley’s characterisation. The difficulties in the SST record have been well discussed in the literature – most recently in Kennedy et al. – gavin]
[Phil] Jones: “There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA [University of East Anglia] with different views (from “recent extreme weather is due to global warming”) – at least not a climatologist.”
[Response: Jones is pushing back against the idea that there are always ‘two sides’ on science discussions for a media event, where the organisers wanted someone else from UEA to argue with Jones. – gavin]
==============================================
So they have simply accepted that these are the real deal over at RC and have started the PR work.
from another blog:
From: Phil Jones
To: mann@virginia.edu
Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice – YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004
Mike,
This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please ! I’m trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
kettle
black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
message
so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
more
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm
Cheers
Phil
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1074277559.txt
The story is now on Drudge. (Link is to The Guardian story at this time). Floodgates = Open.
I sense a disturbance in Teh Force. I really do. There is a shift in the narrative from argument from authority to argument from Bass Pro-Shops. Wonder what that is in Latin. “Everybody is on the Catastrophic Wet/Dry Warm/Cold bandwagon even these murderous hunting organizations or Up With Ducks” or whatever that was.
Where are the trolls of yesteryear. I miss our old trolls and wish we had them back. These new trolls are inferior trolls. Someone without a life should compile a climate troll registry so we would never forget.
One thing great about all this is that we are witnessing the destruction of the Green brand. When Solyndra is gone, the electric cars are gone, the Polar bears are still here, the windmills we will have with us always, when the rent seekers are in jail, that green e is going to look like kim chee gone bad. Actually kim chee is born bad. Any way expect the search for a new symbol soon.
All I can sayis..
“This is cheering news”!
vide my earlier post:
For the uninitiated, ‘nonce’, for British prisoners at least, is a convicted sex-offender.
Apologies for having posted on a later thread..
A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
Let’s see… I’ve been a CEO, (but not a military strategist although I do have two sons in the military), have been a farmer, and a fisherman, a hunter, have minor degrees in math and physics and an MS & BS in geology and an ME and BS in mining engineering, work as a computer systems engineer…. and I find the “peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watts Up With That” you speak of is:
a) Exactly what it should be–both practical and to the point,
b) Particularly devastating to The Cause (and proportional to the attraction it has on trolls like you so it must be doing great!).
c) A black hole for trolls that try to downplay or refute the damage ClimateGate 2 is doing to their pet watermelon project and the UN’s IPCC.
d) Just opposite of the hysterical, unfounded (untruthful), unscientific pronouncements from the likes of Gore, Mann, and others in The Team and elsewhere in cushy positions feeding from the public trough.
Nice try, “physicist”, but yours is a case of Epic Fail. (I also seriously doubt you’re a “physicist” or anything else, but what really matters is that some of our great establishments of academia have been suckered on this whole topic, so you may be excused.)
John-X says: “Is the “perpetrator” (as described by the crack [smoking?] Norfolk police) really saying we need to find USD37,000,000,ooo,000 to spend on bird choppers, solar panels, lunar panels, perpetual motion machines, and other “sustainable” energy, so we can “stabilize” (American spelling) our emmissions at “sustainable levels” (whatever that means) ???”
I believe they are not.
The reference to $37trillion is a figure the International Energy Agency produced two years ago. Contrast that with the preceding points on poverty and the following remark on how “Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.” and I take their message to be one of incredulity that politicians and environmental advocates are seriously intending to commit *massive* amounts of resources and redirect *enormous* proportions of our productivity into chasing something so vague (and possibly even beneficial!) in comparison to real crushing abject poverty that affects a huge number of people day in day out, all year round, whether the world is warming or cooling.
They are making a statement about priorities and honesty.
Ok, still waiting for something interesting…
Dave Wendt says:
November 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm
I like your new word,’beclowning’. I heard another the other day. ‘Testiculating’. It means waving your arms about whilst talking bo***cks.
“A physicist” obviously works for a government organisation and is therefore a grant addict, and/or someone who is required to preach the party line of giving politicians the rationale for taxing the wrong things in order to support welfare dependence schemes etc.
This latest chapter in the Climategate saga may prove to be more fun than a bucketful of doorknobs!
John says:
November 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm
May I suggest you wash your glasses with soap and water and start, oh, several years ago…. Then return and report.
elmer says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:47 am
What is the catch phrase for my next video? Is their anything as quotable as “Hide the Decline”?
_______________________
Thank you for the “Hide the Decline” video, I loved it.
Also thank you for the posting the information about the abandoned windmills blotting the landscape. I had been wondering about that recently. Looks like the “Green ” Corporations take the grants and subsidies and leave their messes behind for the little people to clean up as usual.
http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/
John says:
November 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm
John’s in denial! John’s in denial!….
Dana Loesch @ur momisugly Breitbart mentions ClimateGate 2.0; will discuss details tomorrow.
@a physicist
Listing groups whose administrators may have joined in the cacophony of bogus AGW claims, is not the same as listing individuals. This is starkly visible in the refusal of AGU to put the question to their membership. APS is the same. Scratch a Geophysicist and you find a strong sceptic with nearly 100% certainty (note I said nearly, I know some folks whose politics get in the way of reason just like some folks religions do).
Do note that unlike the Warmists, we don’t use the 3 Billy Goats Gruff to keep you at bay. You’re free to live beneath you bridge all you want.
I wouldn’t be altogether surprised if the underground support for Mann, Jones, et.al. disappears as the movers and shakers move their emphasis to their backup strategy, ‘ocean acidification’, now that the ‘global warming’ crowd is getting freighted with more and more questionable practices and outright scandals
Someone should take away M Mann’s twitter key before he hurts himself