Vitriol shows in climate scientist e-mails

Vitriol shows in climate scientist e-mails

Here are excerpts from some of the 1,073 climate e-mails from climate scientists, hacked from a computer network server at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and posted online last month.

Many of them capture exchanges between Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann and Phil Jones, who stepped aside as director of East Anglia’s climate center, pending an investigation into his behavior regarding the e-mails.

Several messages also mention the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. body charged with taking stock of the scientific evidence of climate change.

“There is nothing we can do about them aside from continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit).”

— Scientist in a March 12, 2003 e-mail about the work of two skeptics. Their paper minimizing the impact of human activity on climate change was eventually discredited when it was found to have been funded in part by the oil industry.

“In an odd way this is cheering news !”

— A climate scientist reacts to the death of a climate change skeptic in January 2004.

“Next time I see (a certain climate skeptic) at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”

— Another scientist talking in an Oct. 9, 2009 e-mail.

“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 (sic) 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.”

— Phil Jones in a Feb. 2, 2005 conversation with Michael Mann.

“Personally, I wouldn’t send him anything. I have no idea what he’s up to, but you can be sure it falls into the ‘no good’ category.”

— Mann, in a Sept. 2, 2004 conversation with Jones about scientific rival Steve McIntyre’s requests for data.

“It is my understanding that IPCC contributors have to be a little careful about getting involved in political matters that could be used to impugn the integrity of the process — well I am starting to do just that.”

— Scientist Tom Crowley in a Jan. 25, 2005 e-mail explaining to his colleagues why his connection with their work should be kept under wraps.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.”

— Jones in a July 8, 2004 e-mail to Michael Mann marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.” In fact, the two papers did appear in the IPCC report, according to the journal Nature.

“We cannot afford to being caught doing anything that is not within the regulations.”

— Norwegian scientist Eystein Jensen in an August 2006 e-mail asking whether he can cite a paper that has yet to be published.