The widespread paranoia about global warming and its obvious benefits to certain special interest groups have always been suspicious signs of a giant world wide hoax, very much of the likes of the Y2K scare and the current swine flu panic.
It has around thirty research scientists and students and has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models.
Here are some of the emails that have leaked (I downloaded them all here but found these on Mish’s blog):
Here Are A Few Choice Emails
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email email@example.com
From: Gary Funkhouser
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700
Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I’ll send it to you.
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.
Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I’d be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.
Yeah, I doubt I’ll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I’d like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (520) 621-2946
fax: (520) 621-8229
My take on the global warming debate is this: Any of the theories advanced may or may not be accurate. Everybody is entitled to his opinions on this. Whether it is man-made or not has absolutely no bearing on the general steps that have to be taken toward reducing our waste of resources, reducing emissions, and improving the way we treat our resources.
After all, the biggest polluters in the country are the federal and state governments and their hired contractors! I am all for shutting down every single one of their polluting activities. I am all for unlimited responsibility by corporations, governments, and individuals alike, when their actions harm someone else’s life, health, or property. But unfortunately it has been deliberate government policy that has again and again granted sovereign immunity and corporate privileges, infringing upon the independence of civil and criminal courts who would have been the proper mediums to deal with the environmental issues in question.
What is so dangerous about the global warming debate is that a lot of the arguments advanced ultimately seem to be leading people to think that we need that same federal government to get involved and attempt to regulate activities that impact our environment even more.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. You simply can’t expect the fox to guard the hen house. Cap and Trade – Lobbyism Gone Wild With Your Tax Dollars will be just one of the inevitable result of all such policies. I hope that a healthy dose of scepticism can put all these nonsensical programs to rest and let us return to discussing real change and real solutions as opposed to more of the same.