Leaked Emails Expose Climate Research Scandal
University of East Anglia (UEA) at the centre of an alleged international scientific conspiracy
Following the refusals of Freedom of Information requests for the release of data that underpins global warming alarmism, a 'whistle-blower' at the UEA has apparently released a treasure trove of emails and files that pose serious questions about the credibility of the claimed climate science consensus. The leaked emails reveal how a 'Team' of international scientists exaggerate and defend climate science on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
ABD Environment spokesman Paul Biggs said,
“There are two scandals here. The first is the tone and content of the UEA emails. The second is the fact that the mainstream media has avoided exposing the leaked emails and their significance. This perhaps isn't surprising, given the fact that a number of journalists are exposed in the emails as willing conduits for misinformation.”
“The ABD's long held belief that the science is far from 'settled' has been vindicated. The claim that there is a 'consensus' is driven by a relatively small group of activist scientists who have a stranglehold on the IPCC and the scientific process in general. Sceptics are often criticised for not publishing their work in peer reviewed journals, yet behind the scenes the consensus side of the argument are busy trying to ensure that sceptical papers are rejected, whilst their own have an easy ride without having to disclose supporting data. Clearly, computer modeled climate alarmism doesn't stand up to scrutiny, so scrutiny must be avoided at all costs. Indeed, 'Team' scientists are revealed as questioning their own data in private and trying to anticipate criticism from sceptics. It follows therefore, that any climate treaty signed, either at Copenhagen in December or subsequently in 2011, will lack a sound scientific basis and political feasibility, with global governance via the UN being the main agenda behind climate alarmism.”
NOTES FOR EDITORS
One of the many startling revelations is how the 'peer review' process is manipulated in order to try and prevent publication of the work of sceptical scientists. Following the inconvenient publication of a critique of Michael Mann's infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) in 2005 by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, the GRL editor responsible for the paper was removed as a result of pressure exerted by the Team, who gleefully exclaimed that "the leak is now plugged." More recently, a comment submitted by McIntyre and McKitrick on a 2008 paper by Team member Ben Santer, highlighting the incorrect results, has been obstructed due to UEA head Prof Phil Jones somehow being able choose the comment reviewers. Other emails talk of how to take revenge on the journal Climate Research for publishing 'sceptical' research, and refusing to publish in Royal Meteorological Society journals if they insist that the supporting data is published.
Other revelations include discussion on how to evade the FOI Act, allegedly with help from the Information Commissioner, and Prof Jones encourages other scientists to delete information subject to FOI requests. A letter to The Times from climate scientists was actually drafted by Greenpeace. The Team are upset by a recent BBC News website story reporting that there has been no warming for the past decade despite the fact that they admit it is true, with scientist Kevin Trenberth exclaiming that it is a "travesty" that they can't account for the lack of warming.
A good summary of the leaked email contents can be found on the Bishop Hill Blog.
Notes for Editors about the ABD