Like a lot of sceptics I have been following with great interest the revelations contained in the hacked emails that have been the focus of so much interest this week. Putting aside the issue of how the information was made public there is no doubt that the revelations with in this body of evidence is rather damning for the Warminista faith.
Andrew Bolt has of course been giving this story a lot of scrutiny and he sums up very well the questions that this story raises:
It’s in fact a conspiracy of many of the world’s leading global warming scientists that involves massaging data, dodging scrutiny, hounding out sceptical editors, fudging figures, the possible criminal destruction of data under FOI request, tax avoidance, gloating over a sceptic’s death, character assassination of sceptics. admissions of using “tricks” to “hide” inconvenient trends, farming grants, private admissions of grave doubts in their own public warming warnings, close collusion with green groups, the joint concocting of the most alarmist announcements and more.
Andrew Bolt
Andrew has considered various aspects of this scandal here here here here and here
The reactions of the faithful have all gone entirely to the expected script and the Warminista rag the Guardian predictably trying to suggest that the revelations are either of questionable veracity or that the candid comments and opinions are entirely benign.
In another alleged email, one of the scientists apparently refers to the death of a prominent climate change sceptic by saying “in an odd way this is cheering news”.
Ward said that if the emails are correct, they “might highlight behaviour that those individuals might not like to have made public.” But he added, “Let’s separate out [the climate scientists] reacting badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics] to the idea that their work has been carried out in an inappropriate way.”
The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data – reconstructing past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings. “Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just paleoclimate data,” he said. “At the heart of this is basic physics.”
Ward pointed out that the individuals named in the alleged emails had numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. “It would be very surprising if after all this time, suddenly they were found out doing something as wrong as that.”
Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: “I’m not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I’m hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.”
When the Guardian asked Prof Phil Jones at UEA, who features in the correspondence, to verify whether the emails were genuine, he refused to comment.
The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is “value added” by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.

Of course I am reminded of the very many times that my own resident Warministas, PKD and Craigy have relied on the veracity of “peer review” when the emails show that the process can be subject to undue influence from the Warminista faithful, precisely as i have thought for years . This is a story that has a while to run and I think that when it is considered fairly on the facts that we are going to find that there will be a large member of the Green faith laity who are going to be very lost indeed as the foundations of their faith are undermined by the latest revelations.
This story has the legs to run for quite a while and I can’t help wondering if it will be a nail in the coffin of Brother Number One’s ghastly ETS bill or if the prospect of a new revenue stream overwhelms any notion that such action is warranted by the “science”.
Hmm an interesting time ahead for those involved in this debate.
Cheers Comrades