Det finns ingenting att se här, cirkulera! Ungefär då låter det i en femsidors rapport om Climategate som beställts av förövarna själva – University of East Anglia. I stora drag är det en ren helgonförklaring av de “män i vita rockar” som ligger bakom IPCC:s senaste rapport. Rapportens författare är en Ron Oxburgh, som till vardags jobbar som klimatlobbyist för organisationen Globe International – säkerligen en oberoende undersökning som alla kan lita på(?) De flesta journalister verkar tycka att så är fallet.
Om jag själv var forskare i en annan disciplin skulle jag personligen inte tycka att Climategate-gänget (som är tongivande för IPCC) gav en särskilt smickrande bild av mitt skrå:
Några e-brev från Climategate-härvan:
From: Tom Wigley, Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important
From: Michael Mann Date: 27/10/2009, 16:54
[…] As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.
From: Gary Funkhouser, Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. (…) I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have
From: Keith Briffa, Date: Wed Sep 22 16:19:06 1999
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.
From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 10:17:57 -0400
[…] it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back
From: Phil Jones, 2/2/2005 09:41 AM
The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005
If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
From: Michael E. Mann, Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC (RealClimate) in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through,
From: Tom Wigley, Date: 1/20/2005 04:30 PM
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
From: Edward Cook, Date: 6/4/03 09:50 AM -0400
I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. (…) If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (…) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.
From: Phil Jones, Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Allt detta och mycket mer är forskning när den är som bäst, och helt enligt normala forskningsetiska principer?