La verdad es que no sé cuántos científicos del calentamiento global quedan con la caradura de seguir defendiendo lo de “Hide he Decline”.  Últimamente están más preocupados con la gimnasia de llamarle “fuera de contexto” al contexto que suponen esos nuevos cinco mil y pico emails filtrados. Pero para eso tenemos a los pequeños cafres de la blogosfera local, esos que no tienen el valor de defender sus chorradas delante de alguien que se las pueda discutir. Por ejemplo Savonarola, en la siguiente cita. Y  va a leer esto, porque le llega el “pingback” del enlace.  Y porque nos sigue, según confiesa. Para discutir lo que decimos, sin atreverse a entrar aquí, y sin dejarnos participar allí. Pero no hay esperanza; aunque se va a enterar, va a seguir sin dar la cara.


Que este nuevo framing constituya un propósito sincero de los piratas es mucho suponer, pues no sólo su propia condición, por definición, indica métodos tramposos, sino que su insistencia en el dichoso ‘hiding the decline’, cuando ya se ha demostrado mil veces por pasiva (aclaración de los afectados) y por activa (procedimientos incoados, hasta nueve) que no significa ocultación alguna. [–>]

Verás, caradura. Lo que diga el culpable no es algo que alguien con cerebro se tome en serio. Siempre son inocentes. Y los “procedimientos incoados” no han tratado de eso. Y si hubieran tratado ,peor, porque solo un desaprensivo con espíritu de delincuente puede defender tamaña tropelía. Pero aquí vemos Richard Alley (autor principal del IPCC AR4, y hombre de la fe, fuera de dudas) hablando con Keith Briffa. Y cuando hablan entre sí no coincide con lo que le dicen al público. ¿Cómo se le llama en tu pueblo a esa “descoincidencia”? :

Taking the recent instrumentalrecord and the tree-ring record and joining them yields a dramatic picture, with rather high confidence that recent times are anomalously warm. Taking strictly the tree-ring record and omitting the instrumental record yields a less-dramatic picture and a lower confidence that the recent temperatures are anomalous.

Unless the “divergence problem” can be confidently ascribed to some cause that was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem to be justified, and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent warmth is lowered.

If some of the records, or some other records such as Rosanne’s new ones, show “divergence”, then I believe it casts doubt on the use of joined tree-ring/instrumentalrecords, and I don’t believe that I have yet heard why this interpretation is wrong. [–>]

A ver, repite conmigo, rostro de cemento. No es más que la obviedad que llevamos diciendo desde el principio. Si no sabes por qué divergen hoy las temperaturas según los anillos y las temperaturas según los termómetros, no sabes si lo hacían hace mil años, y entonces no sabes si las temperaturas de hoy son las “más calientes de la historia”. Pero si ocultas (sí, to hide) los datos de los anillos, truncando la serie, estás engañando (sí, un “trick”).

Aquí “Hide the Decline”, con el truco a la vista en todo su esplendor:

Y aquí con la trampa ocultada, como se presentó al mundo. Se borra la parte moderna de los anillos, se le encaloma encima la de los termómetros, y ¡hops!, ¡¡¡las temperaturas más altas de la historia!!!

En mi pueblo a eso se le llama engañar. Y ahora nos enteramos que en el pueblo de algunos alarmistas calentólogos también: does not seem to be justified … and I don’t believe that I have yet heard why this interpretation is wrong. Solo que no lo dicen en público, sino exclusivamente cuando hablan entre sí, a la chita callando. Que es otra forma de engañar.

Dos enlaces con profundidades del “Hide the Decline”, en lo de Jeff Id. Es de donde he sacado los emails. El primer gráfico viene de Climate Audit [–>], un trabajo también de esta año sobre el “truco”.

Así que sí; mentiras. Trampas, ocultaciones, trucos, arte de magia para presentar una historia de miedo que convenga a una política suicida. Mentiras por doble, además. Mentiras por ocultar el declive (de los anillos), y mentiras por ocultar que son perfectamente conscientes de la trampa que están haciendo. Lo contrario hubiera sido que fueran subnis, y eso era improbable.

Jonathan Overpeck a Keith Briffa (5/1/2005):

… and am worried about the late 20th century “coolness” in the proxy recon that’s not in the instrumental. [–>]

Me temo que para “worried”, nada como lo que está saliendo ahora.

Para rematar, un listado de lo que han ido poniendo en WUWT. Da una buena idea de cómo han ido sucediendo los descubrimientos:

#4101 – Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is “serious enemy” and “vindictive”. Mike Mann had criticized his work.

Apparently Mann went “a little crazy” over a paper showing the MWP exists.

Details here

  • UPDATE22: 11AM PST 11/24 Am unsurprising admission from a BBC environmental reporter to Dr. Phil Jones that they really have no impartiality at all (ho ho) when it comes to climate issues.
  • UPDATE21: 9:50AM PST 11/24 “FOIA2011″ and Climategate – A Chinese-POTUS connection?
  • UPDATE20: 9:30AM PST 11/24 World renowned climatologist Phil Jones can’t even plot a temperature trend line in Excel. I’ve offered a solution that WUWT readers can help with.
  • UPDATE19: 9AM PST 11/24 Gail Combs finds some disturbing connections between the Team and The World Bank
  • UPDATE18: 1:45PM Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia” wins the award for the silliest climategate rebuttal, ever. It’s like stupid on steroids.
  • UPDATE17: 12:55PM PST 11/23 Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has an excellent piece on “Gatekeeping” related to Trenberth and the Pielke-Landsea hurricane paper and the IPCC. You may recall Landsea resigned from the IPCC over this. Pielke says: “The gatekeeping of the IPCC process is abundantly clear, and the shadowy suggestion that they can find out who the reviewers are from another colleague is a bit unsettling as well.” Trenberth looks particularly bad here.
  • UPDATE16: 11:30AM PST 11/23 Insider scientist at CRU says our “reaction to Mike Mann’s errors was not particularly honest” – story here
  • UPDATE15: 7:50AM 11/23 Ric Werme found an email from the late John L. Daly to Mike Mann and the team – it is well worth a read here
  • UPDATE14: 2:45 AM PST 11/23 Willis Eschenbach offers a guest post here explaining how his FOIA requests went astray. Mr. David Palmer was the Freedom of Information Officer for the CRU at the time. In the newly released emails, he expresses his frustration with the whole procedure.
  • UPDATE13: 12:05AM 11/23 Craig Stone writes:

I have published a searchable database of the emails at

All email addresses and phone numbers are automatically redacted. It’s extremely rudimentary right now, but I’ll be refining the functionality and improving the search capabilities and navigation over the course of the next week.

from: “Michael E. Mann”..
subject: Re: Something not to pass on
to: Phil Jones

I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should
consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.

I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….

  • UPDATE7: 1:20 PM PST Phil Jones and Tom Wigley calls another scientist (The former state climatologist of California) a “jerk” for publishing his UHI results.
  • UPDATE6: 12:08PM PST Here’s an email that collaborates a radio interview I did in Seattle with Thomas Peterson in summer 2007, yes these are 100% real emails, no doubt whatsoever now. More here: Climategate 2.0 – NCDC: “Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position”
  • UPDATE 5: 11:00AM PST In a statement, UEA doesn’t deny these emails, but posts about the whitewash investigations of the past, like they matter now.
  • UPDATE4: 9:45 AM PST I’ve changed the headline from Climategate 2.0 to Climategate 2.0  emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!  with a hat tip to Jerry Seinfeld. The relevance of that headline is particularly interesting in the context of where Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has his office in NYC.
  • UPDATE3: 9:25 AM PST – Having read a number of emails, and seeing this quote from Mike Mann in the Guardian:

When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”

I’m going to conclude they are the real deal. I’ve posted a BitTorrent link to the file below. One big difference between Climategate 1 and 2 is that in 1, it took days for the MSM to catch on, now they are on top of it.

Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages.

  • UPDATE1: 8:20 AM PST These emails have not been verified yet, and this story was posted by one of my moderating staff while I was asleep. Until such time they are verified, tread lightly because without knowing what is behind the rest of the zip file, for all we know it’s a bunch of recipes and collection of  lorem ipsum text files. I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts