If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Angliaâ€™s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files â€“ including 1079 emails and 72 documents â€“ you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be â€œthe greatest in modern scienceâ€. These alleged emails â€“ supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory â€“ suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:
â€œIn an odd way this is cheering news.â€
But perhaps the most damaging revelationsÂ â€“ the scientific equivalent of the Telegraphâ€™s MPsâ€™ expenses scandal â€“ are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.
Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because â€“ though Hadley CRUâ€™s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room â€“ he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:
Manipulation of evidence:
Iâ€™ve just completed Mikeâ€™s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keithâ€™s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we canâ€™t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we canâ€™t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. Heâ€™s not in at the moment â€“ minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I donâ€™t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, Iâ€™ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
â€¦â€¦Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K backâ€“I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to â€œcontainâ€ the putative â€œMWPâ€, even if we donâ€™t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far backâ€¦.
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
â€œThis was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the â€œpeer-reviewed literatureâ€. Obviously, they found a solution to thatâ€“take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering â€œClimate Researchâ€ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial boardâ€¦What do others think?â€
â€œI will be emailing the journal to tell them Iâ€™m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.â€â€œIt results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Iâ€™ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice!â€