Unauthorized disclosure of the emails and documents database of the University of East Anglia (Hadley) Climate Research Unit hit the Green-Climate-Change-Global-Warming communities like cluster bombs. Knowledgeable observers see it as persuasive evidence of broad-scale fraud designed to mislead governments and populations to believe a false tale of worldwide danger from climate change and anthropogenic (human caused) global warming.
By Wayne Jett © November 27, 2009
The Hadley CRU is one of only two centers in the world responsible for gathering and maintaining global temperature data. The other center is in the U. S. at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies near Columbia University in New York City. Climate scientists in the U. S. are heavily implicated in the fraudulent conduct at Hadley CRU.
Untangling the labyrinthine maze of email exchanges to identify their substance, if any, is a social science within itself. One email is identified as sent by Michael E. Mann, director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center, on February 5, 2007, to Phil Jones, head of the Hadley CRU, and others. But understanding Mann’s email requires tracing the string of emails which formed its prologue.
The Covey Exchanges
In December, 2006, Dr. Curtis C. Covey, Research Scientist at the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California received an email forwarded to him by Andy Revkin, a senior environmental writer at the New York Times. The forwarded email criticized forums such as the Wall Street Journal “that substitute quips, showmanship, hyperbole, and conjecture for substantial discussion."
Dr. Covey responded by email on December 18, stating that, on December 13, Fred Singer had claimed in the Journal that, after the Little Ice Age ended in 1850, more global warming had occurred before 1940 than after. Covey further noted that a letter to the Journal’s editors opined that Singer’s claim may be out of date.
Covey’s December 18 email made its way indirectly to S. Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project located in Arlington, Virginia. Singer responded to Covey December 26 on the substance of the issue and sent copies of his email to, among others, Christopher Lord Monckton, Cambridge-educated former policy adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, who has participated actively in global warming debate as a skeptic of orthodox theories. Singer, in his email to Covey, identified himself as one of a group of 60 scientists who believe international agreements like the Kyoto treaty are “unnecessary” because “the cause of global warming is ‘unknown.’”
Lord Monckton’s Rejoinders
Upon receiving Singer’s email, Lord Monckton responded to Singer by stating his reasons for thinking global temperature changes are not anthropogenic, why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (created by the UN) sea level change estimates were to be revised downward, and the unreliability of IPCC reports based on the “hockey stick” scenario of global temperature increases. In this latter regard, Monckton cited the U. S. National Academy of Sciences description of the “hockey stick” graph as having “a validation skill not significantly different from zero,” and himself called the “hockey stick” temperature graph (attributable primarily to the work of Michael Mann) “defective,” “rubbish,” “useless … absurd and extreme claims.” In addition, in a single paragraph, Monckton impressively demolished the “contention that there is a scientific consensus to the effect that most of the warming in the past half-century was anthropogenic.” Monckton sent a copy of his email to Dr. Covey at Livermore.
Dr. Covey responded to Lord Monckton on December 27, conceded Monckton was correct on IPCC sea level estimates, but stated his views that “most of the warming since about 1850 (or 1900) occurred in the last few decades,” and that “warming rate for the 20th Century was unusually high compared with the past 2000 years” even in one disregards “Mike Mann’s data,” and disagreed that world population would “plummet” in the second half of the 21st Century. Covey further demurred from Monckton’s characterizations of Mann’s work as “rubbish” or “useless” and disavowed what Monckton called “"flagrant dishonesty in which the UN and the scientific journals persist long after the falsity of their absurd and extreme claims has been properly demonstrated."
Monckton responded directly to Covey promptly and cordially, again examining substance of issues in detail. He even added a gracious apology for using terms like “rubbish” and “useless,” though he stuck with his assertion that “no valid scientific conclusion may be drawn from the ‘hockey-stick’ graph.” On February 5, 2007, after the IPCC issued a new position on sea level estimates, Covey wrote back to Monckton and Singer, copying others and commenting further.
Mann Lowers the Boom
At this point in the email chain, Michael Mann’s email dated February 5, 2007, appears. Apparently someone who received Covey’s email provided it, with the preceding chain, to Mann himself. Obviously stung by Monckton’s criticism of his work, Mann wrote to Covey (calling him “Curt”), Jones and others, stating as follows:
“Curt, I can't believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What ib (sic) earth are you thinking? You're not even remotely correct in your reading of the report, first of all. … I find it terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense out in an email to these sorts charlatans (sic) you've done some irreversible damage. shame (sic) on you for such irresponsible behavior! Mike Mann” (Emphasis added.)
The UC Berkeley and Yale educated Mann clearly holds two views: he himself is a heavy hitter among U. S. climate change acolytes, and any dissenter to his opinions and tactics is an enemy to be isolated and demolished. In another of his emails to Phil Jones, Hadley CRU’s head, on October 27, 2009, Mann says: “As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its (sic) about plausibly deniable accusations.”
Mann might say he merely described his opponents’ ethics rather than his own. Even so, since he described such unethical standards as something he knows about those against whom he contends, surely he used the same standards in fashioning his own actions.
George Monbiot, a “climate rationalist” who writes for the very green Guardian in the U. K., laments that “most … environmentalists … have gone into denial” that the Hadley CRU emails and documents will damage the green cause. But Monbiot says “the emails are very damaging,” and he calls for humility, openness and reform to restore “the highest standards of science.” He accuses opponents of climate science of far worse conduct than anything in the Hadley emails, but he calls for Phil Jones to resign or be terminated sooner rather than later.
Lord Monckton on November 23 wrote that “there has been no statistically significant ‘global warming’ for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.” He accused the data manipulators of fraud and crimes, and he encourages prosecution of the offenders.
Frank J. Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University and a significant scientist of physical phenomena, writes of what is being learned from the Hadley CRU database: “The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable…. It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy.” (Emphasis added.)
Yes, integrity in science is important. But the condition of humanity is ultimately the central concern, and here is where Professor Tipler has come very close to nailing the salient point. Fake science is being used to foist a gargantuan hoax on the world “to destroy the world economy” so far as the middle class and poor are concerned.
Those perpetrating the hoax, if they succeed, will not be impoverished. Far from it. They will be enriched and empowered. The functionaries of science and politics will collect the gleanings of their graft. Their sponsors, the financial mercantilists who own and control U. S. government institutions, will be exalted to pinnacles of absolute power in America and globally.
U. S. president Barack Obama is heading to Copenhagen to the climate change summit, almost certainly to commit the U. S. to support the global hoax before people become better informed of the depth of duplicity involved. But, with luck and determination, maybe the database dump has occurred in the nick of time. Perhaps the only jobs lost to phony claims of global warming will be those of politicians who continue to perpetuate the scheme which Hadley CRU serves. ~