25 Nov 2009.
For immediate release.

Contact the ABD

Press Release

Climategate : Media Gloss Over Vital Issues
Emails reveal inconvenient truths about the scientific process and IPCC reports
Given the likely negative impact of any Copenhagen Treaty on our lives, justified by scientific 'consensus' promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is shameful that the vitally important issues exposed by the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) are being glossed over by much of the mainstream media.
ABD Environment spokesman Paul Biggs said:
“UEA is at the centre of research on current and past temperatures, which claims that the modern warm period has been unprecedented due mainly to man-made CO₂ emissions. But what if the scientific process has been manipulated, by an influential group of scientists who also dominate the IPCC, in order to make a stronger case for man-made global warming and create and protect a consensus? Some unambiguous emails suggest that this is exactly what has happened.”
Thou Shalt Not Publish Papers That Challenge The Consensus
The emails reveal that the scientific research publication process via climate journals has been loaded against so-called 'sceptical' scientists by a group consisting of UEA scientists and their international colleagues. This group is totally intolerant of any scientist or journal editor that does not conform to their scientific perspective. Indeed, a campaign against the Geophysical Research Letters editor (Prof Saiers) who allowed publication of the critique of the infamous 'Hockey Stick' graph resulted in his removal. A leaked email states that "the leak has been plugged." The same fate befell Hans Von Storch at the journal Climate Research. More recently, an email from Prof Phil Jones reveals his influence in choosing 2 referees to review a critical comment of Ben Santer's 2008 paper.
Phil Jones (29/1/2009):
“With free wifi in my room, I've just seen that M+M have submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic - using more years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data — laughing at the directory name — FOIA?....Anyway you'll likely get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I'll suggest this.”
Ben Santer replied:
“It would be great if Francis and Myles got McIntyre's paper for review.”
Needless to say, the paper hasn't been published, despite the fact that Santer would have had the right to reply.
The IPCC Process - Politics Leading Science
Email discussions between scientists involved in the IPCC reports of 2001 and 2007 are also very revealing:
Keith Briffa (22/9/1999):
I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich cycles) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate.
Giorgio Filippo (University of Trieste) (11/9/2000):
“Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this.”
Phil Jones (8/7/2004):
“The other paper by MM is just garbage — as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well — frequently as I see it. 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!
Keith Briffa (29/4/2007):
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same.

Notes for Editors about the ABD