Climategate II

E temos uma nova série de emails leakados da CRU (Climate Research Unit). Não vi tudo, mas achei estes "interessantes":

• Como a terra tem arrefecido nos últimos anos, o melhor é mudar o nome de aquecimento global para mudança climática:

Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media

...

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming

• Como os dados não suportam a "causa", o melhor é arranjar um bom título e a partir daí decidir o que se inclui e o que se remove:

Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

• Alguns problemas para convencer o mundo que o aquecimento global está a derreter glaciares:

Jenkins/MetO:

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

Jones:

[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.

• Há que ter cuidado com o que se publica para se conseguir manter alguns contactos:

Crowley:

I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships

• O facto de o aquecimento global não ter trazido as proféticas chuvas àcidas tem sido um problema:

Briffa:

Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?

• Ouch, isto é capaz de machucar a credibilidade:

Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

• Transparência 0:

Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process

• Pesquisa fundada pelo Departamento de energia dos Estados unidos. Certamente não queremos que isso venha a público:

” Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]
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 (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.”