ClimateGate - The Smoking Gun email

"The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

This is the ClimateGate quote from Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglias Climate Research Unit (the infamous "CRU") sent in July 2005 to Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama.

What information can be gleaned from this email? Consider:

• Dr. Jones admits he knew the globe was cooling for SEVEN YEARS while greenhouse gases were increasing, shooting a rather large hole in the IPCC's insistence that man-made CO2 was causing global warming. Despite the facts, from 1998 through 2005 (and beyond) Dr. Jones and the IPCC maintained their constant global warming drumbeat, and Billions of dollars were spent on further bogus warming research while the public was being whipped into a global warming frenzy. Yet Dr. Jones et al intentionally kept the fact that the globe was cooling from the public (his candid words in 2005 being- "the world had cooled from 1998"). Despite his scientific arrogance, many Americans consider that billions of dollars illicitly diverted towards global warming research while the world is in fact cooling is "statistically significant".
  
• Dr. Jones acknowledges that the "scientific community" would "come down on" him. Although vague, this community sounds like a bunch of meanies to me (some might say unscientific truth hating meanies!). Anyways, despite Dr, Jones acknowledging in the next sentence that cooling is the scientific truth, either his fear of, or kinship to the "community" seems to have won out. "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms" - his exact words. (How "community" wins vs. "facts" in the field of science, I still haven't figured out yet. Perhaps Dr. Jones can explain this.)
  
• Dr. Jones email tacitly acknowledges that Professor Christy of the University of Alabama also knew about the cooling. Christy, often portrayed by the media as a skeptic, has authored as well as been cited in numerous IPCC reports. And apparently Professor Christy and Dr. Jones were quite chatty, as indicated by the email. (The true hallmark of skeptics!)
  

All of this is revealed within a single "smoking gun" email hacked from the University of East Anglias servers in November 2009.

Yet despite this email "hiding in plain sight", the mainstream media (particularly in the US) ignored the fact that the University was even hacked at all. For over two weeks ABC, CBS and NBC didn't broadcast the fact that the emails were hacked and released. Al Gore was nowhere to be seen - the "Pope" of global warming didn't even make a statement.

About two weeks after the release of the emails, the US EPA (heard saying "damn the torpedoes!") declared CO2 a "Danger", widely considered to be the next major step before full on regulation of the gas. Apparently the EPA also found it convenient to ignore the evidence that was hidden in plain sight.

The US congress, currently under the control of Democrats, announced an investigation. However, they only called Climate Change 'alarmists' to testify. Witness after witness denied knowledge of any improprieties, and assured congress that "the science was settled".

Which begs the question - How many others, individuals and corporations, policymakers and pundits, didn't think it was "statistically significant" that the world was in fact cooling, while they raked in funding, sold carbon credits, and stoked the global warming alarm? How many others were a part of this "community" in the know that Dr. Jones spoke of?

Will 'real' journalists step up to ask these hard questions? ("who else knew, and when?", "what politicians and businessmen knew about the deception, and hid the facts?", "Who other than Jones had a financial stake in hiding the truth?")

If these questions aren't asked at all, then perhaps we should ask the Orwellian questions: Is Climate Change Alarmism only allowed to be portrayed as Doubleplus good? and "How did they make global cooling an un-story?" Winston Smith himself would be proud of the work the IPCC, the UN and the major media networks have (un)done here.

So finally I ask you to consider: Perhaps because the mainstream media intentionally ignores this issue and continues the climate fearmongering, perhaps because congress only calls on alarmists to hear one slim point of view and continues the climate fearmongering, perhaps because big corporations are fully vested in global warming and continue the climate fearmongering... perhaps because of all of these things this "smoking gun" email sits there, outside of the reach of the legal arm of Phil Jones' "community" (on a Russian fileserver).

Amazingly, even though it is in plain sight - it still remains hidden.

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: John Christy <john.christy@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

John,
There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week - quite
a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of
your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC
to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC
produced their report.
In case you want to look at this see later in the email !

Also this load of rubbish !

This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached

article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only
7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant.

The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term ! Luckily

I don't live in Australia.

[1]http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/06/first-look-at-scs-msu-vn52.html
Unlike the UK, the public in Australia is very very na

___________________________________________

PS: Bonus email from 1999, also hiding in plain sight on the WWW. In this email, Briffa discusses the scientific communities foregone conclusion and the 'pressure' they are under to tell "a nice tidy story" of "unprecedented warming". It's interesting to note, that although now they say that the climate is definitely warmer than the "medieval warming period' (they have the faked data to prove it), in this mail excerpt, Briffa says it aint so....

9/22/1999: 938031546.txt

From: Briffa To: jones, mann, et al

I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.

For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be a good place to air these isssues.

For the full text of this one, you're going to have to sleuth around online a little. Enjoy.