Lagom till nästa klimatspektakel i Sydafrika har signaturen FOIA (anspelar på Freedom of Information Act, ung. offentlighetsprincipen) släppt del 2 av Climategate och det pågår gissningsvis återigen frenetisk aktivitet på både tidningsredaktioner och universitet för att med alla medel sopa det här under mattan så effektivt som möjligt. Det är naturligtvis för sent – godbitarna är redan ute i det fria och minst lika förödande för den korrupta klimatvetenskapen som den förra omgången. Vi får se hur många “utredningar” som går åt för att rentvå de inblandade den här gången.”Taget ur sitt sammanhang” är ett argument som redan gjort comeback, men precis som förra gången är det svårt att uppfinna ett sammanhang där de här mejlen kan vara OK.
Hela härligheten kan laddas ned här. En pikant detalj är att det utöver de mejl som nu släppts finns ytterligare en kvarts miljon som är krypterade och lösenordsskyddade. Möjligtvis har personen eller personerna bakom filen sett till att säkra bevisen mot otillbörlig radering genom att se till att resten av godsakerna finns på var och varannan dator och kan låsas upp med ett enkelt lösenord.
I Climategate 2 får vi bland annat lära oss mer om hur IPCC-processen fungerar:
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
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 [...]
<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.
<3456> Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
Vår gamle bekant Phil Jones gör också en storstilad prestation även i Climategate 2:
<4443> Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.
<2775> Jones:
I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
<3205> Jones:
Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)
<3062> Jones:
We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
[...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.
<2292> Jones:
[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.
<1788> Jones:
There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent
extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.
Och många andra blivande klassiker som:
<1682> Wils:
[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
Kjellén:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming
“MWP“=medeltida värmeperioden, då vikingarna koloniserade Grönland:
<5111> Pollack:
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
<5039> Rahmstorf:
You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing
<5096> Cook:
A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.
Hockeyklubban:
<3373> Bradley:
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”.
Fiffel:
<1577> Jones:
[FOI, temperature data]
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.
Det här är bara toppen på (det smältande?) isberget. Och sedan har vi de övriga 250 000 mejlen som är en riktig cliffhanger inför “Climategate 3″, som kanske släpps i samband med nästa klimatjippo – om det blir något sådant.