Update: Transparency and openness appear to be the leitmotiv for climate scientists embroiled in Climategate.
One of the climate scientists affected by the email releases has spoken out today. of the University of East Anglia has been repeatedly hassled over claims that he deleted emails relating to freedom of information requests from climate sceptics. This morning, he again admitted deleting many emails, but said 鈥� as he has said many times before 鈥� that this was part of routine clear-outs of his inbox.
Jones attended a press conference in London prepared to explain all the email excerpts that were released in a 鈥渞ead me鈥� file yesterday (see below), and place them in their original context. He said they related to 鈥渇rank and honest discussions between scientists鈥�.
Advertisement
The University of East Anglia鈥檚 vice-chancellor, , said that the university had become much more open since 2009, when 鈥渙ur knuckles were collectively rapped鈥� over its policy towards freedom of information requests. He echoed the general sentiment that the release of a second batch of emails had most likely been timed to cause disruption in the lead up to the climate change negotiations in Durban, South Africa, next week.
Original article 22 November 2011
Here we go again. Two years almost to the day after it first happened 鈥� and six days before 鈥� a second batch of private emails between climate scientists has been posted online.
Several dozen excerpts have been gathered into a single 鈥渞ead me鈥� file, and are being widely circulated by climate sceptic bloggers.
An initial examination by New 杏吧原创 found that the content of the emails is similar to the 2009 release, and features climate scientists debating the merits of different studies and discussing the text to be used in major reports.
No evidence of impropriety
A series of inquiries into the 2009 release found no evidence of scientific impropriety, but criticised some of the scientists for their unwillingness to share their data.
As in 2009, the emails have been . Included in the release are roughly 5000 files, each containing multiple emails.
The emails are exchanges between some familiar names, such as of the University of East Anglia. Jones, director of research for the University鈥檚 , was at the centre of the controversy over the 2009 release.
of Penn State University in University Park, the author of the original 鈥渉ockey stick鈥� graph showing a steep rise in global temperatures over the last century, also features, as do a host of other top climate scientists.
Confuse the public
Mann called the new batch of emails 鈥渢ruly pathetic鈥� and said they reflect desperation among climate deniers, who have failed to pick holes in the science. 鈥淭hey have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat.鈥�
Regarding the content of the emails, he said: 鈥淚 hardly see anything damning at all, despite these snippets all being 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.鈥�
In a statement, the University of East Anglia said: 鈥淭his appears to be a carefully timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies 鈥� including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.鈥�
The BEST group consists of scientists well-known for their sceptical views. Last month, it published an independent analysis of global temperatures showing strong evidence that they are warming.
