While reading a Dilbert comic linked to by commenter Amino Acids in Meteorites on Wattsupwiththat.com, I noticed this comment at the top of the list under the comic.

Aug 23, 2010
Whether we as humans are causing global warming is moot at this point for two reason:

1) Whether we're causing it or not, it's wise and the right thing to do to take care of our environment. To hide behind beliefs that we as humans aren't causing global warming is, frankly, asinine. The reason it is asinine is because even if we're not causing global warming, I'm still seeing smog in L.A., trash on the roadways and urban sprawl way out of control. We're not helping the environment.

2) The point is moot because, hey, this is a freakin' comic! Enjoy the humor of it and let's move on! =D

Firstly, it's kind of arrogant for the commenter to preach to us about the right thing to do and then say it's just a comic, move on.

Here are a few choice quotes from Michael Mann from the ClimateGate emails.

August 26, 2005: email 1125067952: He has engaged in some very nasty, and in my opinion unprofessional email exchanges with some close colleagues of mine who have established some fundamental undisclosed errors in work he co-published with von Storch.

Of course, all of Mann's email exchanges and postings at RealClimate are professional...

August 26, 2005: email 1125067952: There are some similarly problematic issues with Cubasch, who, like von Storch, … has engaged in inflammatory and personal public commentary. There is no room for that on any side of the debate.

Except when it's Mann himself accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being in the pocket of "big oil".

April 26, 2006: email 1146062963 : [Mike Mann referring to data requests from Steve McIntyre] I’m saddened to hear that this bozo is bothering you too, in addition to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Sciences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and everyone else. Rest assured that I won’t ever respond to McIntyre should he ever contact me, but I will forward you any email he sends related to this. I assume Scott feels the same way…

Another totally professional comment by The Mann! Is "bozo" a climate science term?

May 12, 2006: email 1147435800: [Again, Mann referring to McIntyre] Personally, I don’t see why you should make any concessions for this moron.

Ditto...

Inspired by ClimateGate...

• 10. Rorschach tests
• 9. Paper cutout dolls
• 8. Make funny hats
• 7. Confuse Al Gore
• 6. Paint people as less than human
• 5. Confuse Al Gore
• 4. Cause thousands of species to go extinct just by saying they're extinct
• 3. Cause polar ice caps to melt without them actually melting
• 2. Make fudge

And, the number one thing you can do with climate data: Scare the hell out of billions of people for no good reason.

Here is an example of the "settled science" of AGW. In one of the emails from the CRU "hack", Dendrochronologist Edward Cook states the following:

Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I
almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will
show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year
extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fu**-all about what
the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fu**-all).

I guess "fu**-all" is a sciency term for "the science is settled".

If someone feels I've taken this out of context, please enlighten me

In an interview for Investigatemagazine.com, Dr. Phil Jones of the UK Climate Research Unit (CRU), says the following:

“I’m not sure what we’re going to do. I’ll have to talk to other people here. In fact, we were changing all our passwords overnight and I can’t get to my email, as I’ve just changed my password. I’ve gone into the Climate Audit website because I can’t get into my own email.
“It’s completely illegal for somebody to hack into our system.”

Hey Dr. Phil, isn't it also completely illegal to destroy information which is the subject of an FOIA request, as you imply here, and here:

Email 555-5555):

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote to Michael Mann :

Mike,
…
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.

We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

Here is a link to an excellent post at Bishop Hill's blog, which has a good, concise compilation of some of the more egregious emails from the CRU file reported previously.

I'll comment on some of them separately in coming days.

I'm sure everyone passing by here has heard of the recent CRU "hack" and release of email and data as reported at various blogs.

Some are over-reacting, in both directions, others are being prudently cautious, and yet others are trying to ignore it. A lot of questions remain to be answered, but what IS clear is that the emails appear to be legitimate.

Of course context is important, and I'm sure much of this is not taking that into account, or assuming a certain context. However, some of the more incriminating emails would be damning in any context.

What has been revealed is indeed a catastrophe, a catastrophe of elitist science and corruption of the peer-review process. At the very least, these "scientists" stand accused of hiding inconvenient results, gross hyperbole against other scientists, and probably outright fraud.

For what it's worth, I am willing to believe that CO2 might be a problem, but when we see incompetence and espionage such as these "scientists" have engaged in, it's difficult for me to take anything they say seriously ever again. They HAVE betrayed the public trust, and they don't seem to care. They have engaged in unethical practices made famous by "green" groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, RAN, and others, by grossly overstating their case, manipulating results, and creating something that isn't there.

My hope out of all this, that one of the "elite" in these emails will step forward and tell the truth. But I'm not holding my breath.

Update: Just found this quote at the end of the "Rules of the Game" PDF included with the "hacked" file compilation:

“First they ignore you; then they laugh
at you; then they fight you; then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi

'Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change'

This is old news. Many have exposed the Green Agenda for what it is, a means of population control/reduction, and de-industrialization of the West. This just proves the point so many of us have been making.

Greens don't want cheap, clean energy. They want fewer humans on the planet, but are incredibly unwilling to lead by example.

If you watch American television, you may often see the advertisements sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) where the actor Noah Wyle tells us that Polar Bears are on the edge of extinction.

Funny that, when I go to the WWF site about Polar Bears, one finds the following curious statement:

With 20-25,000 polar bears living in the wild, the species is not currently endangered, but its future is far from certain.

Hmm, so on one hand WWF tells us they're on the verge of extinction, then tells us that they're not even endangered, yet. Of course they go on to say that "global warming" will most likely cause Polar Bears to go extinct within 100 years. They provide no evidence for this, just gratuitous assertions.

We know that Polar Bears have been around as a distinct species (though there are some who argue they are a sub-species of Brown Bear) for about 200,000 years. Which means they've lived through at least one other interglacial period. Our knowledge of previous interglacials shows that, according to Ice Core analysis, most were warmer than the current Holocene interglacial. So, if Polar Bears have survived previous warmer interglacial times, and warmer periods within the current interglacial, why is it that this less warm time is going to wipe them out?

WWF also seems to ignore the fact that Polar Bears live perfectly well on land as well as ice.

I won't go into the fact there there has been no established direct or even indirect link between human industrial CO2 emissions and melting of Arctic sea ice (or retreating glaciers, melting ice sheets, etc). But apparently for WWF and many other political organizations, it's a foregone conclusion. They don't need to wait for actual evidence, apparently.