Climategate: Scientists forged Climate Research to make up the Global Warming Hoax (Paul Vreymans)
Hundreds of highly compromising emails and documents have been leaked online from the Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia. The leak calls into question scientific methods and the results of several public climate research institutes. The CRU is one of the world’s leading research centers on climate change and the top source of temperature data worldwide. It played a key role in the IPCC’s fourth Assessment Report, which is the scientific base of policy negotiations at the Copenhagen Climate Conference next month. The IPCC fourth Assessment Report provides support for policy to mitigate global warming and for a further implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Proposals for a new Copenhagen Climate Treaty including new regulations and the much disputed Global Emissions Trading scheme costing taxpayers trillions of dollars worldwide were based on the IPCC's claimed research results.
Several authors and recipients of the leaked emails have confirmed their veracity. The emails provide ample evidence that climatologists systematically colluded in manipulating data to support the view that climate change is real, and is being caused by mankind. The leaked emails discuss political pressure on scientists, statistical tricks how to hide inconvenient data, how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer reviews, how to censor information going out to the public, how to decline requests for information under the Freedom of Information act, how to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals, and to boycott journals who did. The climate researchers also repeatedly declined to share their data with fellow scientists. The general picture of the series of emails is one of conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, manipulation of data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, and organized resistance to disclosure.
A list of excerpts from the incriminating emails can be found at Bishop Hill's website including:
* Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.
* Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to "contain the putative Medieval Warm Period".
* Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.
* Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.
* Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results. Analysis of impact here. Wow!
* Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to Freedom of Information request.
* Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.
* Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.
* Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.
* Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather and has threatened to resign from RMS.
* Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.
* David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.
* An anonymous source says that robustness problems with the Hockey Stick are known to anyone who understands his methodology. The source says that there will be a lot of noise over McIntyre's 2003 paper and that knowing Mann's very thin skin he will react strongly, unless he has learned from the past.
The incident has been widely reported in Anglo-Saxon media, but remained silenced in European mainstream media so far.