My summation of the entire mess is that you’ve got a bunch of AGW scientists intent on clinging to their jobs, with heavy focus on fundraising to do just that. Add to that the derision for fellow scientists who question their findings, not to mention manipulation of data and outright ignoring of FOI requests.
Big Oil is also apparently Big Green
From: “Mick Kelly”
To: m.hulme, t.oriordan
Subject: Shell International
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 13:05:29 +0100
Mike and Tim
Notes from the meeting with Shell International attached.
Sorry about the delay.
I suspect that the climate change team in Shell International is probably
the best route through to funding from elsewhere in the organisation
including the foundation as they seem to have good access to the top
levels.
Mick
*******
From: Mike Hulme
To: barker,vira
Subject: Fwd: BP funding
Date: Sat Nov 4 16:45:25 2000
Any idea who at Cambridge has been benefitting from this BP money?
Mike
From: “Simon J Shackley”
Organization: umist
To: m.hulme
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:44:09 GMT
Subject: BP funding
Reply-to: Simon.Shackley
CC: robin.smith
brian.launder
dear TC colleagues
looks like BP have their cheque books out! How can TC benefit from
this largesse? I wonder who has received this money within Cambridge
University?
Cheers, Simon
17) BP, FORD GIVE $20 MILLION FOR PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
EMISSIONS
STUDY
Auto.com/Bloomberg News
October 26, 2000
Internet: [1]http://www.auto.com/industry/iwirc26_20001026.htm
LONDON — BP Amoco Plc, the world’s No. 3 publicly traded oil
company, and Ford Motor Co. said they will give Princeton
University $20 million over 10 years to study ways to reduce
carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. BP said it will give
$15 million. Ford, the world’s second-biggest automaker, is
donating $5 million. The gift is part of a partnership between the
companies aimed at addressing concerns about climate change.
Carbon dioxide is the most common of the greenhouse gases believed
to contribute to global warming.
London-based BP said it plans to give $85 million in the next
decade to universities in the U.S. and U.K. to study environmental
and energy issues. In the past two years, the company has pledged
$40 million to Cambridge University, $20 million to the University
of California at Berkeley and $10 million to the University of
Colorado at Boulder.
******
From: John Shepherd
To: Mike Hulme
Subject: Re: BGS, Esso, & CV for Tyndall bid
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:37:30 +0000
Mike
BGS are now on board, so please leave them in the text : I have drafted a
letter for David Falvey to sign and sent it. I hope we shall get it back in
time…
The Esso (Exxon-Mobil) situation is still promising, but they’re having to
get clearance from HQ in the USA (my best contact retired (with cancer)
just a few weeks ago, so we’ve had to work around the new CE, to whom all
this is news…). They know the deadline and will do their best for us.
Finally, my short informal CV is attached, as requested.
Hope the drafting is coming together well.
John
“Oh those annoying skeptics and their FOI requests”
From: Phil Jones
To: Scott Rutherford
Subject: RoG Data
Date: Fri May 7 16:34:52 2004
Cc: “Michael E. Mann”
Scott and Mike,
It’s been a long week catching up from 3 weeks away. Getting another email from
McIntyre asking me for paleo data series I don’t have (I’m not going to reply, by the way
even though he calls me Phil and other emails he sends me are to Dr Crowley and Dr.
Briffa who’ve also not replied) reminded me that I agreed with Mike to put together as
many of the series from the RoG paper onto a page on the CRU web site.
So, with this in mind, can you send me the data for the various plots. I checked the
paper and Fig 1 doesn’t need anything, so this leave Figs 3 (on the boreholes), 5 (with
the various NH/SH/Global series) and 8 (with all the various model runs).
Figure 3 should be trivial as borehole data are only every 50 years. For the other
2 plots I’m after the annual values of each series and the smoothed ones that get plotted. Hope
this won’t take too long to do. I’m going to send emails to a few people to check we can make
the data available (mainly the modellers, but also Tas van Ommen).
Cheers
Phil
Discredit fellow scientists
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: See the attached
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:17:58 -0500
Phil,
I’ve seen this junk already. Look at the co-authors! DeFrietas, Bob
Carter: a couple of frauds. I dont’ think anyone will take this seriously…
Do you have any advance knowledge you could pass along that would help
us gear up to do something on RealClimate? I assume that there will be
no surprises in the paleoclimate chapter, but I haven’t seen the final
draft. Any hints you can drop would be great…
thanks,
mike
Manipulate data (aka If it doesn’t fit, make it fit)
Okay you’ve probably seen this example here, and the spin doctors tried lamely to explain it away over here (personally, I’m not buying it).
And email #1123611283 seems to suggest to me that they want to leave out data in order to give a more consistent appearance: We agree that the uncertainties on the borehole curves should be removed to make the
display more consistent. Is that scientific?
Fundraising
From the Word document “A Report of the Successful Grant Writing Meeting 22 November 2000″, this chart shows the AGW crowd is very successful at lobbying government and business in particular.
Number (%) of Grants Applied Forby Funding Source |
Success Rate %
|
|
| Research Councils | 321 (35%) |
52% |
| EU | 200 (22%) |
44% |
| Charities | 91 (10%) |
54% |
| Government | 92 (10%) |
93% |
| Business | 56 (6%) |
96% |
| Other | 156 (17%) |
65% |
| Total | 923 |
60% |
There’s so much more, but I’ve read as much as I care to, not to mention I can’t spare any more time.
Please read this article: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? by James Delingpole.
Plus go to Climate Audit — Steve McIntyre’s site. It’s been a little slow loading because of the amount of traffic (I assume).
And, of course, you can download the entire mess here yourselves.
{ 4 comments }
For the past few years the sane people of the world have been fighting an uphill battle against the sham science of the AGW crowd. The so-called deniers have had to contend with fabricated numbers, unworkable climate models, lies, and slander. Progress was being made in the battle against this pseudo-science as more and more reputable scientists joined the anti-AGW groundswell. These people, I believe, joined the cause primarily because they did not want to see their particular disciplines held up to disrepute and ridicule. They realized that if they did not expose the duplicity and avarice of the global warming charlatans that science, in general, would suffer a loss of prestige when the whole AGW scam was revealed for the con that it is. Now, their efforts have been rewarded as the panic mongers have been shown up for the shysters that they are. The fight to expose this fraud will now be downhill.
Plus I think there are many reputable scientists who’ve been ostracized for several years simply because they object to the hype that’s surrounded AGW. They were ostracized by various scientific journals, which is why they had to get their own (one of the emails refers to this). These scammers also refer to Steve McIntyre as “Mr. Fraudit” and his site as “Climate Fraudit”.
I think even before this there was a glimmer of hope — many more people had become skeptical of their nonsense. First of all, the planet’s been in a cooling phase for some time (admitted by one of their own) even though CO2 levels are still rising. But also, it’s hard to get public support for something that will cost us more in taxes and higher energy rates when there’s so many unemployed or hurting financially.
Of course, I’m naturally skeptical — I was when they touted the coming ice age back in the ’70s and the Y2K nonsense as well. And I’m not anti-environmental: I just think the whole CO2 thing was a joke; reducing pollution and waste is a good thing, but CO2 is not a pollutant.
It’s clear to me that these scientists and their benefactors have had an agenda from the start. It’s all about the money — carbon trading scam.
I haven’t been keeping up with this story. Is the hacking for real, proven to be the real thing?
Devastating to the environuts, if so!
Yep, confirmed: CRU director admits hacked files genuine
I think they’re in damage control mode now — too late!
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }