Climategate 2: “the cause”

When scientists are working for a cause, then it ceases to be science.

Almost exactly two years after the first “Climategate” emails were leaked onto the internet, another batch has mysteriously made its way online.

The “climategate” emails highlighted the accepted orthodox of man-made global warming/climate change – the consensus – was actually a small, highly (government) funded cabal of scientists such as Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, and Phil Jones working closely together to fudge data, suppress data, delete data, cherry-pick data, abuse the peer-review process, and attack any scientist who dare question their often secretive work.

And now there’s more; scientists working for “the cause”.

That in itself should ring alarm bells in anyone’s mind.

From whoever leaked the emails:

/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics…

Junkscience has a bunch of links here including emails discussing:

  • Mann says true temp anomaly not known well
  • Wigley accuses ‘Mike’, other IPCC-ers of deception, dishonesty
  • Department of Energy involved in hiding temperature data?
  • All models wrong
  • IPCC models not worth a darn
  • Hockey stick debunking confirmed
  • Feelings more important than truth”.

Jo Nova has some good info here.

This includes:


Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]


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 FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

Additional reporting here.

Meanwhile a report by UBS has concluded “Europe’s $287 Billion Carbon ‘Waste'”.

SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year.

Gotta fly, but on a final (for now) note, it would we wise to remember the same university these climategate emails originated from – the University of East Anglia – is also the same university that was found to have given £15,000  in “grants” to an alarmist BBC climate journalist.

Should be interesting with the Durban climate conference coming up soon.

With a big thanks to readers Phil Jourdan and Sean of Deer Park for the tip off


I’m having to do this post in breaks between classes. Luckily, Andrew Bolt has a bit more time on his hands to go through more of the emails.

Discussions include:

  • How to deal with the lack of warming
  • What to do about the (warmer) Medieval Warm Period
  • Keeping any doubts away from the public
  • Difficulties in making current warming seem unusual or alarming
  • Introducing faith into the process
  • Climate models not working as hoped

original post altered slightly for clarity


James Delingpole on Phil Jones trying to stuff the IPCC full of scientists they can “trust” i.e. rigging the IPCC process only with scientists who support “the cause”.

FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you’re going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you’re going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you’re going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Delingpole finds evidence of:

  • stacking the branches with scientists who support “the cause”
  • concerted efforts to sideline any who have evidence against “the cause”
  • manipulations to make the benign sound scary
  • governments putting pressure on climate “scientists” to ramp up their message
  1. Hi,
    I have read a lot of them, will have to read more latter.
    I’m sure these e-mails will be no different than the last lot of e-mails, in that I mean the MSM most likely will not even acknowledge they even exist, or if they do, it will be put down as a hoax I think it was how the ABC put it after many, many, months of saying nothing.

    • J.M. Heinrichs
    • November 23rd, 2011

    A reminder:


    • Indeed.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • November 23rd, 2011

    This was a really good summary, BB. Thanks!
    Had a good day today; busy, but. (*Struts around like, ‘Pepe Le Pew’*)

    Seriously, my hands are bleeding! Catch’n up on all the goings on at the moment…, and knew I could count on your blog for a good news update! Looking forward to Delingpole. Will go their next. Ta.

      • Sean of Deer Park
      • November 23rd, 2011

      there; not their!!! (*puts hands out, palms up*)

      • Up twinkles!

          • Sean of Deer Park
          • November 23rd, 2011


  2. Thought it might be worth throwing my own half-snarky/half-serious observations into the mix.

    I’m certainly giddy to unwrap all my gifts this year.

      • Sean of Deer Park
      • November 24th, 2011

      Very good read. 😆

      • It is high time for the manmade climate change “consensus” to start backing up its claims by providing more substantiated evidence to the public, which will be cross-examined by other scientists with a mind to getting to the truth of the matter, rather than simply ratifying the preferences of their political backers. Such would spell the end of the manmade climate change “crisis,” which in any event has been dragging on for decades now, with no discernible apocalypse in sight.

        Fuck he’s good, isn’t he?

        The trick!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Surely you're thinking something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: