Having failed to clean up its act after the release of the climategate emails two years ago, the field of climate science is about to turned upside down all over again. Today there was another release of hacked emails, written by the same collection of global warming scientists. Once again, these emails show that these scientists are anything but scientists. Instead, they seem far more interested in campaigning for a certain result, regardless of the science. A few quotes:
From Phil Jones:
- “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
- “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the next IPCC report] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.”
- “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
Considering that the Department of Energy is a government agency, I don’t see how they can be “happy about not releasing the original station data.”
From Michael Man:
- “The important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.”
- “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.”
- “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”
When does real science ever have anything to do with help any “cause”? I thought science was the objective gathering of knowledge in order to better understand the universe?
There is lots more. However, Raymond Bradley, who in the first climategate emails revealed his dedication to science when he said he wanted to “vomit” in response to the efforts of the other global warming scientists to twist the process of science, once again sums up the weak science behind the work of Michael Mann and Phil Jones:
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”.