they are very revealing
here are some samples:
FAITH, NOT SCIENCE: “This is all gut feeling”
Phil Jones shows his faith:
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.
Phil Jones to his CRU staff:
I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020. I’d rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office press release with Doug’s paper that said something like - half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on record, 1998!
From Phil Jones to Adelaide-born Tom Wigley, now of the US University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, saying he cannot believe the Medieval Warm Period really was warmer:
Bottom line - there is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years ... this is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and variability.
From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, on the death of Australian sceptic John Daly:
In an odd way this is cheering news!
COVERING UP: “Destroy the emails”
Phil Jones warns Michael Mann that Steve McIntyre and Prof Ross McKittrick, two sceptics who first debunked Mann’s “hockey stick”, are now wanting to check CRU data:
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 ... We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.
From Phil Jones to Michael Mann and others:
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!
Phil Jones to American climatologist and IPCC lead author Benjamin Santer:
I did get an email from the FoI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails - unless this was normal deleting to keep emails manageable!
Phil Jones to Michael Mann, just three weeks after an FOI request from sceptic David Holland:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise ... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
SILENCING SCEPTICS: “Beat the crap out of him”
Ben Santer on a sceptical climatologist :
Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him.
Phil Jones on cheating on deadlines to sneak warmist material into the IPCC:
Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don’t give those sceptic something to amuse themselves with.
Tom Wigley on ousting the editor of Geophysical Research Letters (achieved):
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
Phil Jones to Michael Mann on keeping two sceptics’ papers from the IPCC:
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Michael Mann on removing the editor of Climate Science (achieved):
How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that anti-greenhouse science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).
Michael Mann to the CRU’s Tim Osborn and Keith Briffa, on blocking sceptics’ comments on his RealClimate website:
We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not ...
OUR THEORY ISN’T WORKING! “Where the heck is global warming?”
IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth privately tells Mann, Santer, Wigley, Jones and leading alarmists such as Stephen H. Schneider and James Hansen that the data doesn’t show what their climate models predicted:
… where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. ... The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?
It doesn’t mean all global warming science is bogus. But it does mean the process used to produce it is corrupted.
It means “peer review” is too often “mates’ review”. It means sceptical scientists have not had the hearing they deserve, and leading warmist scientists have not been honest or frank.
It means the “consensus” of scientists we hear of may not actually exist and the IPCC reports cannot be trusted to be balanced.
It means that claims we’ve never been hotter are false or unproven, and much research now needs to be rechecked.
And at heart it means global warming theory is too weak to accept, being contradicted by a decade of climate.
Even Tim Flannery, the alarmist who claimed global warming could cause Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide to run out of water by last summer, now admits - after reading some of these emails - that “the computer modelling and the real world data disagree”, since “for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend”.
while gullible sock puppets and sheeple are busy arguing over whether global warming is "man made" they are not noticing the more critical point...THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING - IT'S GETTING COLDER......
