You remember Climategate: the release of e-mails between the heavy-hitters in the Global Warming industry. They were released in two batches in 2009 and 2011. Now there's been a third, much larger, release of encrypted files that is being scrubbed of personal information before being disseminated online.
We also now have a message from the whistle-blower, Mr FOIA, who is behind the release:
Why did [Mr. FOIA] do it? His answer was both angry and anguished: “Climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material ‘might’ …. The price of ‘climate protection’ with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations,” he wrote. “We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not [taking] away from something and someone else.”I hope the retreat from this AGW insanity continues with this third batch of e-mails. Personally, I don't need much more proof thanwhat we've already seen:
That’s the most important statement so far in the decades-old climate debate: You’re forcing us backward into poverty and ignorance – for nothing, except to further your careers, funding and power.
Less than a week later, London’s Mail on Sunday newspaper ran an outraged feature based on the British Meteorological Office’s recent admission that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in more than 15 years. Citing a chart of predicted and actual temperatures, the Mail noted: “Official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed. The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The chart shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions. The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data.”
Phil Jones wrote, “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working on the IPCC 5th Assessment Report would be to delete all e-mails at the end of the process. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder [the U.S. Department of Energy] in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
The U.S. government was colluding with the hiders, who received tens of millions of dollars over the years.Jones wrote to Mann, “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith Briffa re AR4 [the IPCC 4th Assessment Report]? Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar Ammann to do likewise.”
Why do "scientists" need to hide information? Or, more importantly, why should we pay more for beef, gasoline, air travel, and manufactured products because these "scientists" are hiding information?
Read more about Climategate 3.0 here.