Gotta love the dedication. Tom Nelson writes:
For a while, I was looking at the ClimateGate 2.0 emails by searching them for certain names and keywords.
Now, my plan is to read all 5,349 of them at this link. I didn’t want to start at #1, so I started at #5000, read to the end, then went back to 4,000. I’m currently about 1,000 emails into this project. If you don’t want to read a lot of ClimateGate email excerpts, you might want to avoid this blog for a while. I can’t wait to see what’s in the next 4,300 emails.
So far, it’s been fascinating to get a look at the climate hoax from the inside. The data fudging, the demonization of doubters, the knee-jerk rejection of alternate hypotheses, the quest for funding, the travel to exotic locations, the pal review, the left-wing politics, the fear of debate, the swagger in the early days, then the panic as the skeptics closed in–it’s all there.
Another thing I’ve learned is that Michael Mann is evidently vastly smarter than me, because while it’ll take me months to finish all of these emails, he finished up his stellar analysis back on Day 1.
I’ll do regular WUWT updates as Tom progresses.
Here’s some recent samples:
Email 4160, Warmist Richard Somerville: “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long.”
I also think people need to come to understand that the scientific uncertainties work both ways. We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand aerosol indirect effects. The list is long. Singer will say that uncertainties like these mean models lack veracity and can safely be ignored. What seems highly unlikely to me is that each of these uncertainties is going to make the climate system more robust against change. It is just as likely a priori that a poorly understood bit of physics might be a positive as a negative feedback. Meanwhile, the climate system overall is in fact behaving in a manner consistent with the GCM predictions. I have often wondered how our medical colleagues manage to escape the trap of having their entire science dismissed because there are uncured diseases and other remaining uncertainties. Maybe we can learn from the physicians.
Email 4180, July 2000, on who should be on the Tyndall Centre Climate Change Hoax advisory board: “Certainly we need advice but we also want cash”; how about these wind power guys?
subject: Re: TC Advisory Board
…On the SME front I would suggest:
Mr Alan Moore MD of National WInd Power (a subsidiary of National Power) or
Dr Andrew Garrad MD of Garrad Hassan (UK wind energy consultancy with 45 staff)
Please let me know if you are interested in either of these and I will call them to ensure they will devote the time to the TC which we need
I think British Biogen may be a Trade Association but I am not sure.
I would like us to be very clear on what we want from the Advisory Board. Certainly we need advice but we also want cash (i.e industrial support for projects PhD students etc). Therefore the Business Members need to have both the desire and ability to support us.
Email 4225, Aug 2001: Warmists Rob Swart and Tom Wigley agree that cutting CO2 emissions would not make any distinguishable difference to the climate until “well into the second half of the century”
[Rob Swart] My expectation would indeed be that comparing climate changes resulting from reference cases and from stabilization cases would not be distinguishable until well into the 2nd half of the century (like in the GRL paper), but if this is so, so be it.
[Tom Wigley] YES — BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON’T EVEN REALIZE THIS.
Email 4047, May 2001, Mike Hulme: “The earlier part of the morning will ‘sell’ environmental science in the broader context, before we sell the particular challenge of climate change.”
Email 4055, June 2005: Warmist Ray Bradley: “We got the $$ from a Congressional earmark…We hope to get another one next year, so as to give us an additional couple of years cushion.”
…We got the $$ from a Congressional earmark, so it comes directly through NOAA. We hope to get another one next year, so as to give us an additional couple of years cushion….
Email 4478, October 2008, UEA’s David Palmer on requests for data: “quite frankly, I am surprised that not more requests of this nature have been made”
As to Tim’s larger point regarding the provision of data ‘in response to requests’, a request for data is a request for information like any other under FOIA or EIR and has to be treated similarly on its merits. If there is a valid exemption and public interest not to disclose, then that is what we do; otherwise a requester is entitled to see the data (and yes, I am aware of the implications for the research community writ large of this – quite frankly, I am surprised that not more requests of this nature have been made). [Dave Palmer]
Email 4559, Phil Jones, Aug 2003: “The Science Editor-in-Chief’s response…should be rammed down Singer’s throat…”
date: Fri, 01 Aug 2003 13:50:08 +0100 from: Phil Jones
subject: Aug 1 Science issue to: “Michael E. Mann” ,Tom Wigley , Keith Briffa , Michael Oppenheimer , Raymond Bradley , Malcolm Hughes , Jonathan Overpeck , Kevin Trenberth
,Tom Crowley , Ben Santer ,Steve Schneider , Caspar Ammann ,Gabi Hegerl , firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear All, The letter exchange on pp595-6 is worth a read. The Science Editor-in-Chief’s response is a fantastic put down ! Brilliant – should be rammed down Singer’s throat when he does similar things in the future. I hope Kennedy enjoyed writing it as much as I enjoyed reading it. I can’t see Singer writing to Science again !