Could this be the end of AGW?

I have downloaded the files and have read many of them. There is one theme that emerges. These are not people behaving as real scientists. They are scientists who are working on ways to prove that global warming is real. There is an utter contempt of scientists who disagree with them. They are looking at ways to avoid releasing information, and thus violating the freedom of information act.

There is more scandalous items.

From: Kevin Trenberth

To: Michael Mann

Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate

Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600

Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’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.***

From: Phil Jones

To: “Michael E. Mann”

Subject: IPCC & FOI

Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil

From: “Michael E. Mann”

To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa

Subject: update

Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500

Cc: Gavin Schmidt

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold

comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

Here is more data manipulation:

From: Tom Wigley [...]

To: Phil Jones [...]

Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600

Cc: Ben Santer [...]

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.

So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.

Manipulation of the peer review process

At 03:52 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote:

I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can

>>do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick

>>turn-around time (he didn't quantify this) and he will also "ask

>>(the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online

>>asap after the authors have received proofs". He genuinely seems

>>keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible.

>>He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I

>>emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the

>>hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et

>>al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could

>>appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process.

The truth is there has been some increase in temperature in recent decades. The climate also went back and forth in the 20th century which pretty well correlated with not CO2 but sunspots. There is an 180 billion dollar global warming industry which can be comprized of a range of the very very sincere to also being a convenient tool for people to use for green party types and overly zealous population control proponents. The combination does not make for the pursuit of truth but for achieving a political end. Very likely global warming is due to increased level of sunspots and curtailing economic growth thinking reducing co2 emissions is the answer may make us less able to address poverty and lift more people out of poverty, in the end harming people with no benefit. The end would NOT be justified by the means, no goodness would be achieved.

The link does work for me either and I've seen nothing damning come from this except that deniers seem to have no problem with people breaking laws to help their cause. Did you cheer on the Watergate burglars too?

EDIT for jim z and other scofflaws: I don't know what's going to come of this, I haven't seen emails that are damning, and the link would not work when I tried it. However, if people broke into a computer system and stole information from it, there is no way I think that's a proper thing to do, that's illegal. It's not making a movie, it's a felony and it should be prosecuted. Even if there is something that indicates malfeasance on the part of scientists, it probably could not be used in U.S. courts anyway because it is "fruit of a poison tree." We'll see if there are any revelations from the emails, but for right now criminals are criminals, and that's what the computer hackers were.

Ah yes, a broken link. Very incriminating. It'll be very difficult for us "lefties" to rebut a blank page.

I love how the deniers take what you said at face value. It doesn't matter if you're right, you just have to agree with them.

I remember when ACORN was found to engage in outrageous illegal activities. The left's response was to attack the film makers. Do I see a hint of this same thought process from Pegminer? I will wait to see if these accusations of collusion in the emails are found to be true. If they are, I won't really care about someone accessing emails. I will care about a much bigger problem and that is people attempting to lie and exaggerate about something that will cost us much more. Apparently alarmists are only interested in protecting their dogma.

They've dismissed 'deniers' as 'conspiracy theorists' for so long but now I guess there's more evidence of a conspiracy theory than there ever was of man-made global warming.

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Well Pegminer made true one of your predictions. If this is true, finally, what everyone knew would happen, just a matter when. But it will forever hurt the profession of scientists as I had already predicted, which is not good.

Edit: How much does anyone bet that the media won't run the story?

Unfortunately the link isn't working for me so they will do the usual insulting and ranting about how they know so much but cant prove a single thing!

If one of the insiders squeals publically and loudly, it could get REALLY interesting.

I love how these junk scientist wannabes are all worked up over the crushing blow this hacker gave to their "theories".

I guess there are a lot of dope smoking environmentalists who will be out of jobs soon.