Climategate(redux): Second Verse, Same as the First

By T-Rav

Let’s face it, 2011 has been a rough year for the proponents of global warming ManBearPig climate change. First, they were still dealing with that embarrassing stack of emails showing climate data had been manipulated, better known as “ClimateGate.” Then there was the Solyndra fiasco and a bunch more “the science is settled” studies which turned out to be hogwash. Now we’re in the midst of “ClimateGate 2.0.”

As a refresher, the original “ClimateGate” scandal involved the exposure of a number of highly embarrassing emails from Phil Jones, head of climate research at the University of East Anglia in Britain, and Penn State professor Michael Mann, among others. These showed the deliberate misuse of data by Mann and others to create the infamous “hockey stick” chart venerated by Al Gore and other charlatans. In addition, the so-called scientists were shown to have conspired to silence any critics of their work, and to be refusing FOIA requests, so the rest of us won’t know what’s going on behind the scenes. (For a full recap, see Andrew’s initial article on the scandal.) Mann and his cohorts have been warning each other ever since to delete their communications, lest more damaging emails get out. Well, guess what. More damaging emails got out.

Over Thanksgiving week, FOIA.org kindly released about 5,000 more emails hacked from the accounts of these goons. (There are reportedly another 220,000 lying around encrypted.) They date from about the same time period as the first batch—from the mid-‘90s through November 2009—and are similar in substance as well. There are, however, a number of new gems worth noting:

● Remember how Al Gore claimed global warming was making the snows on Mt. Kilimanjaro disappear? Yeah, apparently no one in a position to know believed him, but of course they lied and said publicly that they did. Multiple professors said in the emails the shrinkage of ice was probably being caused by sublimation, not melting. But they were simultaneously using this as support for their press releases, along the lines of “This is just more evidence of how climate change is impacting our world.” There was also considerably more controversy behind the scenes than we first knew about the truth of the hockey stick graph.

● The blacklisting of skeptics within academia is even worse than we thought. The corrupt climatologists attempted to have Chris de Freitas, professor at the University of Auckland and editor of the journal Climate Research, fired from both jobs. Because he had spoken out against climate change, you might ask? No, because he allowed an article to be published that expressed skepticism. Even worse, the emails make it clear they were planning to manufacture charges to get the man fired. Excerpt from one of the messages: “I hope the co-editors of ‘Climate Research’ can agree on some joint action. . . Any action must of course be effective and also not give the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr – the charge should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than publishing contrarian views as such.” {emphasis added} In other words, they were going to accuse him of being unprofessional when they were really upset at him allowing dissenting views. (Dr. de Freitas, I might add, has his defenders and is doing just fine in lovely New Zealand.)

● In 2007, the National Research Council was established by the U.S. government to review all prior climate studies. One email shows that Phil Jones was in contact with members of this council, discussing how to quash the questions raised by their skeptical colleagues. Not that there were many of these, to be sure: another email, this one from Mann and referring to the council’s review of his hockey stick shenanigans, assuredly states, “The panel is solid. Gerry North should do a good job in chairing this, and the other members are all solid. Chrisy is the token skeptic, but there are many others to keep him in check.” {emphasis added}

● Even the peer-review process, in some ways the ultimate safety valve on bad science, got corrupted. As one example, the head of the American Meteorological Association asked Jones—hardly an impartial figure—to review some of the temperature research being presented. At Jones’ urging, the scientists presenting the research were told to tone down the language of their findings, which argued against a significant increase.

There’s much more, along with evidence of participation in the spin by government and media representatives and some highlighting of the flaws in the actual data, but the big takeaway from these new emails is the conspiratorial, collectivist, and even vindictive attitude of the AGW crowd in the face of criticism. Highly respected scientists have collaborated for years to make sure their version of the truth is the only one heard.

In my opinion, this is the most dangerous weapon in the environmental activists’ arsenal. It’s easy to ignore or dismiss the ranting of Al Gore and other public figures like him; they can be easily identified as blowhards. But it’s not so easy when it comes to the guys with letters after their names. Not only do we put our trust in them, we can’t even comprehend that they might have ulterior motives. I decided a very long time ago that global warming was a bunch of crap, but I couldn’t understand why dedicated scientists would willingly take part in such a pack of lies. In fact, until more recently I didn’t believe it at all; I chalked their collusion up to not thinking about the data in the right way. It’s hard to accept as realistic interpretations like Michael Crichton’s State of Fear, which castigated the scientific community as conspiratorial and only pushing climate change to get research funding.

But with the release of information like this, I can come up with no other explanation than that, for whatever reasons, the leading lights of the scientific community have decided climate change is something we all need to believe in, and to that end are deliberately screwing with the evidence and suppressing opposing views. This is inexcusable and disgraceful conduct.

So what’s come of these revelations so far? Not much, as far as the guilty parties are concerned. In Britain, Phil Jones and others at East Anglia are being covered thus far by the BBC and The Guardian, which seems to think the email hacking and smearing of the “scientists” reputations is the only scandal here. On our side of the pond, Penn State has been backing up Mann and his colleagues, and is even—with monumentally bad timing, in more ways than one—proceeding with a panel on “climate ethics.” The story is, on the other hand, receiving more attention than its predecessor from the mainstream media, at least in the U.K. And the information is out there. If the climatologists can’t stop these leaks, the public will get a growing sense that it cannot trust scientists, at least not in this case. That’s bad news for science but good news for the end of this hysteria (I hope).