This quote really says it all:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Or maybe this one is better:
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
Oh, there’s just so much deliciousness to choose from. I can’t decide which one is my favorite.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
And we haven’t gotten to dodging FOIA requests yet. I’m still hopeful there will be criminal prosecution on that score. These people are attempt to defraud the U.S. citizenry at a cost of trillions of dollars.
{ 6 comments }
I suspect that, unfortunately, unless there is a major push here by the research community (unlikely) or by some major political figures (also unlikely), this will be forgotten like many other scientific embarassments with strong political support. So many bureaucrats and politicians have staked their claim on this issue being “settled science” and not debateable, it’s going to be like moving mountains to get it paid any real attention to.
We’re going to be digging at this for a while. There’s a lot more in there. The e-mails were just the readily accessible bit.
One particular file, “HARRY_READ_ME.txt”, is really scary. If I’m reading correctly, it’s commentary on debugging HadCRUT3… their published temperature series. It’s not tested.
In other places there are comments like:
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
There are lots and lots of references to “hide the decline”, but we haven’t been able to figure out what it means yet.
The real meat will dribble out over the next month or two.
I have to agree with Dean; it’s not science anymore. Given:
(1) CO2 is still increasing
(2) Global average temperatures have been decreasing for a number of years, and
(3) news stories (like a series of climate change stories on NPR) continue about ice melting and the imact of climate change even while global cooling is occurring
there is a pretty clear disconnect between facts as reported by the media and AGW (models and theory) without a connecting of dots
I disagree with the idea that this can’t be stopped. The climate bill is stalled in the Senate with even less hope of passing than the health care bill. Support for the idea of catastrophic warming occurring is also waning, with only a 35% minority believing in such a thing. Public perception of the issue has turned against the theory and the political hype.
At this point, I expect the climate bill to die or be so watered down as to be meaningless. And I further believe that the some of those who passed the original legislation out of the House will pay a political price in one year. Will the media and the far left (one in the same) continue to sell it? Yes, of course. They haven’t finished propping up water shortages as the next great disaster, so they’ll try to get as much ad revenue and political capital out of this as they can. But the tide has turned and the lie they’ve perpetrated has been exposed.
Let’s not forget the Orwellian terminology switch from “global warming” to “climate change”
This wasn’t trivial.
It was a savvy move to sustain the movement and preempt criticism, if and when temperatures dropped.
So, now ANY change (hotter or cooler) can be explained under the rubric “climate change”
This is called, “Heads I win, Tails you lose” science. If spotted, this is one of the best indicators of junk science on the march.
–HB
I’m seeing a fair swing in the conversations on blogs.
Part of it is that there’s something to talk about right now.
A bigger part is that we now have a huge number of cites available. There are a lot of people (including myself) who have ready access to the CRU files and can quickly pull up a rebuttal citing CRU.
Comments on this entry are closed.