• Reply 2921 of 3043
    California regulators approve incentives for reducing greenhouse gas emissions


    [JURIST] California's Air Resources Board on Thursday approved measures that will provide incentives to companies and factories that decrease their greenhouse gas emissions. The provisions are envisaged under Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) and include a permit system in which companies are allotted a quota of greenhouse emissions. If a company does not use all of its quota, it can sell to a company that is going to exceed its quota. Companies that exceed their quota can purchase "offsets" from companies involved in activities that lessen greenhouse emissions, like forestry. The program is reportedly the first of this type in the country. Supporters of the bill in California say they felt compelled to enact AB 32 after Congress failed to approve greenhouse gas reduction legislation. They hope they other states will follow suit.

    In June, the US Senate defeated a resolution aimed at limiting the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. The US Supreme Court affirmed the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions under the Clear Air Act in its 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency. In its ruling, the court held that if the EPA could show a link between greenhouse gas emissions and public health and welfare, then the act gives it the power to regulate emissions. The EPA announced last December that it had found that greenhouse gases "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations," and that emissions from motor vehicles contribute to greenhouse gas pollution. The EPA first announced its proposed finding in April before undertaking a 60-day public comment period. Some have suggested that the EPA findings have allowed Congress to avoid the political fallout that could come from passing tough climate legislation. AB 32 was first signed into law by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006.

    At least California is doing something about AGW.
  • Reply 2922 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu's new paper 'On the recovery from the Little Ice Age' published in Natural Science -- Rebuts UN IPCC


    The gradual recovery from 1800-1850 was approximately linear, the recovery (warming) rate was about 0.5°C/100 years. The same linear change continued from 1800-1850 to 2000...The recovery from the LIA is still continuing today... The view presented in this paper predicts the temperature increase in 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2°C, rather than 4°C ±2.0°C predicted by the IPCC

  • Reply 2923 of 3043
    Climate Change Deniers are ?Not Even*Wrong?


    Not even wrong ? refers to any statement, argument or explanation that is so at odds with reality that it is considered uncorrectable.

    2 + 2 = 4* ? is correct

    2 + 2 = 5 ? is wrong

    2 + 2 =* ?§? ? did not understand the question

    (2 + 2)/ zebra * Fugue = ?global cooling? ? is not even wrong


  • Reply 2924 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Jared Olar: The weather gods demand a sacrifice


    By Jared Olar

    GateHouse News Service

    Posted Dec 17, 2010 @ 09:32 AM

    Well then, I would say that pretty much confirms it.

    For quite some time, I’ve harbored the suspicion that both the popular science and the political activity that create and sustain the belief in Global Warmingism are informed by a retrogressively pagan mindset.

    It’s not just that the quasi-religious, pseudo-scientific “Gaia hypothesis” — the belief, taking its name from the pagan Greek goddess of the Earth, that the sum of the parts of the Earth’s ecosystems together make up a living thing — is popular in certain environmentalist circles.

    No, the basis for my suspicion is, in large part, the irrational and superstitious way Global Warmingism proponents and adherents react to any kind of extreme weather as evidence that modern economic and scientific activity is making global temperatures unnaturally rise.

    If it’s a drought, or a long spell of hot and dry weather, they think we must be doing something to nudge up the Earth’s thermostat. If it’s a nasty hurricane or a notably destructive line of tornados, it’s our fault for driving SUVs. If riverside communities get flooded, that’s also the result of global warming. And if we get an unusually harsh and lengthy winter, yes, that, too, is proof that the Earth is getting warmer.

    The Global Warmingists have covered all their bases. No matter what the weather is like, it always turns out to be exactly the kind of weather we should expect if human activity were causing global temperatures to rise.

    The natural sciences have terms for that kind of hypothesis. “Unfalsifiable” is one of them. “Unscientific” is another. An idea may be true, but if it is incapable of being “falsified” or proven wrong, then whatever else that idea is, it certainly isn’t science.

    Another thing that feeds my suspicion that a pagan mindset informs Global Warmingism are the steady and consistent calls for sacrifice — even human sacrifice — to ward off the threatened catastrophes.

    I’m not opposed to moderation and frugality, and we certainly should put aside our avaricious and materialistic ways. Sacrifice, too, is virtuous and meritorious, as long as it is voluntary and sincere.

    But the Global Warmingists seem more intent on making others sacrifice than in making big, painful changes in their own lives (yes, Al Gore, I’m talking to you).

    More to the point, I can’t help but suspect that these calls for sacrifice are, like the Gaia hypothesis, quasi-religious in nature, and at times plainly religious.

    Like the pagans of old thought they could appease the angry gods or win their favor through sacrificing the things most dear to them — their livestock, and if that didn’t work, human beings, even their own children — so it appears that Global Warmingism demands that we sacrifice. And it’s not really sacrifice because it’s moral or sensible or good for us, but sacrifice to appease the offended ecosphere.

    It’s the old, old thought process of: “Bad things are happening and we don’t know why. How can we stop these things? How do we control what we don’t understand? We must be to blame. We must do something, anything, to make amends.”

    It doesn’t matter that our efforts don’t have any demonstrable connection to the problem, or that they don’t do a thing to improve our situation but instead cause even more harm. All that matters is that we do something, and the bigger and more painful it is the better.

    And so it was that the United Nations, having figured out that it’s bad for propaganda to engage in handwringing over global warming during a Scandinavian behemoth of a blizzard (like they did last time), gathered this winter month in balmy Cancun, Mexico — and once again failed to reach a binding international agreement on which of us should sacrifice and how much.

    They failed despite opening their meeting with (I kid you not) religious rites invoking the supernatural assistance of an ancient Mayan jaguar goddess.

    Yes, I would say that pretty much confirms it.

  • Reply 2925 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Debunking the dumbest denier myth: ?Climate Change? vs. ?Global Warming?


    Some myths pushed by the anti-science crowd are so laughably backwards that repeating them should be grounds for expulsion from homo ?sapiens? sapiens. And so it is with the doubly wrong claim that progressives are now using the term ?climate change? because the planet has supposedly stopped warming.

    Of course, it hasn?t actually stopped warming (see NASA reports the 12-month running mean global temperature has reached a new record in 2010 ? despite recent minimum of solar irradiance ?We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade? and ?there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s?).

    But since the deniers make up stuff about the science, why shouldn?t they make up stuff about everything else? The most recent iteration of the dumbest denier myth came from hominid Tim Phillips, president of Americans For Prosperity, the anti-science, anti-EPA, polluter-funded group that is a driving force behind the Tea Party:

    We started looking now at the scientific impact and the fact that over the last ten years it appears it was cooling and not warming. Hence the name change, you notice how it went from ?global warming? to ?climate change.? Whenever the left gets in trouble, they change the name! It was liberals, now the public has repudiated liberalism, and now it?s ?progressivism.? They did the same thing with ?global warming? and switched over to ?climate change.?

    Progressivism, of course, is a very old idea.

    Actually it is conservatives who typically change the names of things, as in refusing to say ?Democratic? but only ?Democrat? and insisting on ?death tax? rather than ?estate tax,? even though only big estates are taxed, not death.

    That latter switch was championed by the GOP?s spinmaster, Frank Luntz, who, as it turns out, also championed switching from ?global warming? to ?climate change? in 2003. Scientists, environmentalists, progressives, and frankly the whole darn planet have always used both terms ? hence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established in 1988.

    In a confidential 2003 memo, Luntz asserted that the Administration and conservatives should stop using the term ?global warming? because it was too frightening:

    It?s time for us to start talking about ?climate change? instead of global warming and ?conservation? instead of preservation.1) ?Climate change? is less frightening than ?global warming?. As one focus group participant noted, climate change ?sounds like you?re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.? While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

    Peter Sinclair has devoted an entire video to debunking this myth:

    use both terms, though, as I?ve said many times, I prefer ?Hell and High Water,? since is more descriptive of what is to come:

    Royal Society special issue details ?hellish vision? of 7°F (4°C) world ? which we may face in the 2060s!

    A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice

    Others prefer ?Global Weirding.? Whatever you call it, it ain?t gonna be pretty.

    HAD TO HAPPEN...A NEW THREAD ON GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE.....Ciao!!!....Has to be better than this.

  • Reply 2926 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by sheilafoster View Post

    Climatic Research Unit controversy mail started in November 2009 when thousands of emails and other documents of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research has been published. According to the Government of the United Kingdom, e-mails and documents that were illegally released after they were obtained through a computer hacking UEA.

    Thank you for your input. This is a rather long thread as you can tell. I think that most of us have moved on to "Short-term Weather Patterns: They Mean Nothing."


    Welcome to PO
  • Reply 2927 of 3043

    ....Norway all had their coolest years since 1996....

  • Reply 2928 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by marcUK? View Post


    Cold winters in the northern hemisphere is explained in these. Overall global temperatures are still on the rise with 20 of the warmest years occurring within the last 25 years:

    The complete guide to modern day climate change

    More cold and snowy winters to come


    Loss of sea ice causes major climate change

    Continued rapid loss of sea ice will be an important driver of major change in the world's climate system in the years to come.


    "While the emerging impact of greenhouse gases is an important factor in the changing Arctic, what was not fully recognised until now is that a combination of an unusual warm period due to natural variability, loss of sea ice reflectivity, ocean heat storage and changing wind patterns working together has disrupted the memory and stability of the Arctic climate system, resulting in greater ice loss than earlier climate models predicted," says Dr Overland.

    "The exceptional cold and snowy winter of 2009-2010 in Europe, eastern Asia and eastern North America is connected to unique physical processes in the Arctic," he says.....

    Cold winter in a world of warming?

    Simple rebuttals to denier talking points ? with links to the full climate science
  • Reply 2929 of 3043
    Who was that Republican who spent the winter holiday in DC last year making an iglo to prove GW was false? Could it have been Inhofe?

    Maybe he (and many like him) should read up on the science behind the current winter weather.
  • Reply 2930 of 3043
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

    Cold winters in the northern hemisphere is explained in these....

    What I meant was I was very unlucky then! I went to Norway in 2010 and its was fucking cold, and pissed down relentlessly... Now I know I was just unlucky!

    Never mind, there is always 2011
  • Reply 2931 of 3043
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,340member
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

    Who was that Republican who spent the winter holiday in DC last year making an iglo to prove GW was false? Could it have been Inhofe?

    Maybe he (and many like him) should read up on the science behind the current winter weather.

    I understand what is being explained there but don't see how climate shifting is the same thing as climate changing. The reasoning amounts to, it's colder here because it was warmer there. Another link used the analogy of leaving a fridge open and the heat would escape out until the surrounding area thus cooling it. The energy merely equalizes though given the open door. There isn't more of it.
  • Reply 2932 of 3043
    floorjackfloorjack Posts: 2,726member
    Right on queue the NYT comes out with this.

    Bundle Up, It?s Global Warming

  • Reply 2933 of 3043
    finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

    Right on queue the NYT comes out with this.

    Bundle Up, It?s Global Warming

    Cold comfort: Canada's record-smashing mildness


    Some fascinating weather has unfolded across the Northern Hemisphere over the last month, but you may have only heard about part of it. The media dutifully reported on the heavy snow that battered the mid-Atlantic and New England states in late December. It was also the United Kingdom?s coldest December in at least the last century. Meanwhile, the sparsely populated Canadian Arctic basked in near-unprecedented mildness.

    It?s the second chapter of a tale that began a year ago, when Canada as a whole saw the warmest and driest winter in its history. Much of the blame went to El Niño, which typically produces warmer-than-average weather across Canada. So far, so good?but similar things are happening this winter, even with a La Niña now at the helm.

    Surface temperature anomalies for the period 17 December 2010 to 15 January 2011 show impressive warmth across the Canadian Arctic. (Image courtesy NOAA/ESRL/PSD Map Room.)
  • Reply 2934 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Now this is interesting...

    The Climategate Hacking Scandal Link


    What links Climategate and the News of the World phone hacking scandal? Try Thursday’s arrest of Neil Wallis, former deputy editor of the recently defunct UK tabloid, and the man hired by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson as his “personal media advisor”. The ‘relationship’ is currently the center of a media storm over potential collusion between the press and police. Wallis, however, also happens to be Managing Director of Outside Organisation, the same PR firm hired by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), a government-funded research group, tasked with carrying out “covert” activity after the leaked emails scandal broke.

  • Reply 2935 of 3043
    hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    "The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house.

    The move follows a testy interview given by Monckton to an Australian radio station earlier this month in which he repeated his long-stated belief that he is a member of the House of Lords. When asked by ABC Sydney's Adam Spencer if he was a member, he said: "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote … [The Lords] have not yet repealed by act of parliament the letters patent creating the peerage and until they do I am a member of the house, as my passport records. It says I am the Right Honourable Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So get used to it."

    The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords' website, states: "You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms."


    "Last year, the then clerk of the parliaments, Michael Pownall, wrote to Monckton stressing that he was not entitled to call himself a member, nor should he use parliament's famous portcullis symbol on his letterheads or lecture slides, as he has done for a number of years."

  • Reply 2936 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Here Comes Climategate, Part II

    Text of article follows:

    __________________________________________________ ______

    Breaking news: two years after the Climategate, a further batch of emails has been leaked onto the internet by a person ? or persons ? unknown. And as before, they show the "scientists" at the heart of the Man-Made Global Warming industry in a most unflattering light. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa ? all your favourite Climategate characters are here, once again caught red-handed in a series of emails exaggerating the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming, while privately admitting to one another that the evidence is nowhere near as a strong as they'd like it to be.

    In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism. This, it seems, is what motivated the whistleblower 'FOIA 2011' (or "thief", as the usual suspects at RealClimate will no doubt prefer to tar him or her) to go public.

    As FOIA 2011 puts it when introducing the selected highlights, culled from a file of 220,000 emails:


    ?Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.?

    ?Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.?

    ?One dollar can save a life? ? the opposite must also be true.

    ?Poverty is a death sentence.?

    ?Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.?

    Today?s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.

    FOIA 2011 is right, of course. If you're going to bomb the global economy back to the dark ages with environmental tax and regulation, if you're going to favour costly, landscape-blighting, inefficient renewables over real, abundant, relatively cheap energy that works like shale gas and oil, if you're going to cause food riots and starvation in the developing world by giving over farmland (and rainforests) to biofuel production, then at the very least you it owe to the world to base your policies on sound, transparent, evidence-based science rather than on the politicised, disingenuous junk churned out by the charlatans at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    You'll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke's website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent.

    I particularly like the ones expressing deep reservations about the narrative put about by the IPCC:


    /// The IPCC Process ///

    <1939> Thorne/MetO:

    Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]

    <3066> Thorne:

    I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

    <1611> Carter:

    It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

    <2884> Wigley:

    Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

    <4755> Overpeck:

    The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what?s included and what is left out.

    <3456> Overpeck:

    I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about ?Subsequent evidence? [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge ? more evidence. What is it?

    And here's our friend Phil Jones, apparently trying to stuff the IPCC working groups with scientists favourable to his cause, while shutting out dissenting voices.


    <0714> Jones:

    Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital ? hence my comment about the tornadoes group.

    <3205> Jones:

    Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue ? on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be have to involve him ?)

    Here is what looks like an outrageous case of government ? the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ? actually putting pressure on climate "scientists" to talk up their message of doom and gloom in order to help the government justify its swingeing climate policies:


    <2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

    I can?t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don?t want to be made to look foolish.

    Here is a gloriously revealing string of emails in which activists and global warming research groups discuss how best to manipulate reality so that climate change looks more scary and dangerous than it really is:


    <3655> Singer/WWF:

    we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and b) in order to get into the media the context between climate extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and energy

    <0445> Torok/CSIRO:

    [...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed ?global icons? [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...] It also became apparent that there was always a local ?reason? for the destruction ? cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an ?unchanging? environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate change

    <4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

    In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media


    I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming


    What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves like that of last summer? That?s the sort of thing we need to think about.

    I'll have a deeper dig through the emails this afternoon and see what else I come up with. If I were a climate activist off to COP 17 in Durban later this month, I don't think I'd be feeling a very happy little drowning Polie, right now. In fact I might be inclined to think that the game was well and truly up.
  • Reply 2937 of 3043
    brbr Posts: 8,320member
    Seems to be much ado about nothing, again.


    A new batch of nearly 230,000 illegally hacked emails is up online in the same old places the last batch went up in November of 2009. It seems like old times. Jeff Id, the Air Vent blogger, has a batch up again, as do other climate deniers. And get this -- they all appear to predate the 2009 release and so are just more of the same, held back until now.

    What's most remarkable is that the emails are so -- well, normal. Here are the shocking -- and I mean shocking -- things that climate scientists are emailing each other, according to Id:

    We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.

    Wow. That's a shocker. A scientist saying they need to communicate the uncertainty in their data. Which, by the way, they do in every study they publish. It's a required part of science.

    I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

    Geez. Another shocker. A leading expert of temperature reconstructions is skeptical of temperature reconstructions but still lets the data guide his ultimate conclusions. Isn't that sort of skepticism what we want? And oh, by the way, the National Academies has done extensive work that -- huh -- confirmed proxy data temperature reconstructions and even extended the data set.

    This is a bit like the loony old argument that it's just a theory -- when in science a "theory" is the one explanation that's supported by all the experiments and data we've accumulated to date.

    The illegally hacked personal emails go on like this for reams and reams of mind-numbing back and forth that even the climate deniers that are happily hosting them say they haven't had time to read -- they just do text searches for any damning-sounding words they can think of, pull up those highlights, take the ones that seem to confirm their position out of context, and direct attention to them.

    And the mainstream media are supposed to now lap this new manufactured controversy up like stupid puppies.

    In 2009, the "climategate" hack "coincidentally" happened just before the Copenhagen climate summit and the build-up to the climate bill in congress. In yet another strange coincidence of timing, this new theft just happens to come just before the upcoming U.N. climate conference in South Africa and on the heels of the IPCC's new report linking the increase in extreme weather events to climate change, together with the BEST study.

    BEST, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, was run by physicist Richard Muller, a climate skeptic. To the dismay of the energy industry-funded denialist community, after crunching 1.2 billion data points Muller found last month that in fact climate scientists have been right all along and their data is solid -- the Earth is getting warmer at a very rapid pace.

    Muller published a striking op-ed about it in the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal. The Journal published the op-ed online but, not surprisingly considering their owner, they decided not to run it in their print edition. Muller said the time for skepticism is over. Murdoch-owned Fox News was a major promoter of the last climate email scandal-that-wasn't, and a Fox executive actually ordered Fox News reporters to slant their coverage of climate change to favor deniers.

    So now that the science is getting even stronger, it's time to redirect the public's attention with renewed personal attacks and illegally hacked emails that cherry pick quotes, take them out of context, and try to spin them and confuse the public. What the heck -- it worked last time.

    After the last climate email scandal, six separate investigations found that there was no scandal, it was cooked up out of nothing, and the underlying data was solid. The only question is will reporters allow themselves to be manipulated by energy industry front groups and fringe denialist cranks blowing smoke and slime to further promote spin and obfuscation on the largest policy challenges facing the United States? Or will they do their job and report what's really happening based on research, data and investigation?

    Because multiple independent lines of data accumulated by thousands of researchers over the last fifty years all point in the same direction and even some leading climate skeptics are now admitting that and reversing their previous positions.

    That's not going to change no matter what the random scientist happens to say in the odd personal email.

  • Reply 2938 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    From the Climategate 2.0 emails, Phil Jones instructs on how to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests:

    "I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process"

    No, we can't have the public seeing the truth, can we?
  • Reply 2939 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Phil Jones reveals the Department of Energy supports hiding temperature data:

    "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."

    What's this? Government complicit in hiding data in order to ensure continuation of mutually beneficial crony agreement funded by tax dollars? Never!
  • Reply 2940 of 3043
    jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    More info on Climategate 2.0 from The Guardian


    A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009.

    The initial email dump was apparently timed to disrupt the Copenhagen climate talks. It prompted three official inquiries in the UK and two in the US into the working practices of climate scientists. Although these were critical of the scientists' handling of Freedom of Information Act requests and lack of openness they did not find fault with the climate change science they had produced.

    Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is "of interest" to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

    The emails appear to be genuine, but the University of East Anglia said the "sheer volume of material" meant it was not yet able to confirm that they were. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday.

    In the new release a 173MB zip file called "FOIA2011" containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called today. An anonymous entity calling themselves "FOIA" then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. The same tactic was used in 2009 when the first 160MB batch of emails were released after being obtained – possibly illegally – from servers based at the University of East Anglia, where a number of the climate scientists involved were based.

    One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed "background and context" which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations. Following some bullet-pointed quotes such as "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day" and, "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels," the message states:

    "Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline. This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase. We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics."

    The use of points instead of commas to mark the thousands when writing a number – highly unusual in both the UK or US – is sure to lead to speculation about the nationality of those responsible.

    The message then includes a sample of cherry-picked quotes selected from a small handful of the emails focusing on apparent disagreements between the scientists, the workings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and attempts to block climate sceptics from securing documents from the scientists via freedom of information requests. Many of the same issues were highlighted in the 2009 release.

    One of the most damaging claims in 2009 was that Prof Phil Jones, the head of the UEA's Climatic Research Institute had deleted emails to avoid FOI request. One of the reviews into the content of the emails, conducted by Sir Muir Russell, concluded that "emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them" - something that Jones has denied. At the time CRU was coming under sustained pressure by an organised campaign to release information, which the scientists saw as distracting from their work.

    The new emails include similar statements apparently made by the scientists about avoiding requests for information. In one email, which has not yet been specifically confirmed as genuine, Jones writes: "I've been told that IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the IPCC's fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process".

    In a statement, the University of East Anglia said: "While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems. If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks."

    It continued: "As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. Following the previous release of emails scientists highlighted by the controversy have been vindicated by independent review, and claims that their science cannot or should not be trusted are entirely unsupported. They, the university and the wider research community have stood by the science throughout, and continue to do so."

    Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, who is quoted in the batch of released emails described the release as "truly pathetic".

    When asked if they were genuine, he said: "Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad."

    He said, the people behind the release were "agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can't contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial."

    An ongoing investigation by Norfolk Police into the 2009 release of emails has so far failed to result in any charges or arrests. A spokesperson said: "We are aware of the release of the document cache. The contents will be of interest to our investigation which is ongoing."

Sign In or Register to comment.