You are here

Climategate 2: The Scandal Continues

News Releases

Title

Climategate 2: The Scandal Continues

New Emails Reveal Scientific Conspiracy and Cover-up

Washington, DC, November 22, 2011 – The 2009 Climategate scandal was re-ignited today with the release on the Internet of thousands of more e-mails from scientists working on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports. Numerous e-mails confirm that some of the top IPCC scientists were consciously misrepresenting the scientific literature in order to support their global warming alarmist agenda and were engaged in trying to cover up their misdeeds.

The disclosed emails and documents are closely linked with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Among the senders and recipients are familiar players in international global warming politics who have often been described as the world’s leading climate scientists, including Phil Jones and Keith Briffa of University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Michael Mann of Penn State University, and Kevin Trenberth and Tom Wigley of the U. S. National Center for Atmospheric Research.

“If there were any doubts remaining after reading the first Climategate e-mails, the new batch of e-mails that appeared on the web today make it clear that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response,” said Myron Ebell, Director of CEI’s Center on Energy and Environment.

“Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars,” said Ebell.

Here are four excerpts from the e-mails released today from Professor Phil Jones, the disgraced head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and lead author of one of the key chapters in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007):

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.

…what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

I’ve been told that IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process.

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.

And here are two e-mails candidly commenting on the work of Professor Michael Mann of Penn State University, the chief inventor of the infamous hockey stick:

Professor John Mitchell, U. K. Met Office: Is the PCA [principal components analysis] approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems to me that in the case of MBH [one of the key hockey stick scientific articles by Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, and Malcolm K. Hughes] the answer in each is no.

Professor Raymond S. Bradley, University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Mann’s co-author on the MBH hockey stick paper: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL [scientific article by Michael Mann and Phil Jones published in Geophysical Research Letters] paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction.”