Has Climategate 2.0 just started?

http://files.sinwt.ru/download.php?file=25FOIA2011.zip

Update: The above link has been taken down. You can get the files at:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37

For greater insight:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

Update: Massive commentary can be found here, at the world's most viewed climate website:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

All "climategate 1" did was show that the denalist right-wing camp will latch on to anything that makes CC proponents look bad, no matter how much they cherry-pick quotes and take them out of context - cheered on by their allies in contrarian media. This latest incident doesn't prove anything besides the credulity of those with an ideological axe to grind.

Well, there is no way this thread can go wrong.

In before the lock.

It appears to be a bunch of additional emails taken from the original hack, but not released at the time. Presumably just a desperate attempt to kick up another storm, given that the previous complaints were all rather soundly quashed.

The MSM is starting to report this:

"In the wake of Climategate 2.0, the need for action on the IPCC is as imperative as ever."

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/11/22/terence-corcoran-climategate-2-0-reveals-familiar-cast-of-characters-blundering-glory/

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/11/22/peter-foster-peak-oil-vanishes-peak-green-arrives/

@AndyC: It's timed to try and cause disruption to another climate conference (as was the original release).  It shows this isn't about 'fighting to get the truth' it's just political manoeuvring. Still does nothing to alter the science (which was upheld in all enquiries). A bit of a non-event, really, since it's not from a new time-frame.

Herbie

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/11/22/fix-it-or-fold-it/

I'm not allowed to debate global warming anymore

Or as they call it now; man made local extreme weather events, as the world is not heating anymore and sea levels are dropping.

Citation needed.

Stumbled onto this by chance this morning -- possible 'anti-climategate'?

Herbie

@W3bbo: Just google it mate, I'm not going into another mudsling festival.

As the western world plunges into a deep recession (caused by funding this rediculous expensive hobby of CO2 reduction. Business fled east, jobs and money with it, and now our goverments are lending money to fund this nonsense) their priorities are being reevaluated. And AGW, ACC, etc. etc. are soon going to disappear from that list.

@Maddus Mattus:Good idea. I am sick and tired of this "debate". Future temperatures are going to decide the climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing, and I'll sit and wait.

I am proud to have been only the 4th person in the world to have stumbled onto the new cache of emails on the Russian server

@Proton2: I don't think we have the luxury to just sit it out. We are spending trillions of dollars on this non-issue. Even if it was an issue, that money is not going to make a bit of difference even by their own assessments.

I just think it could have been better spent, better to have not spent it at all as we are in a crisis.

Don't get me wrong, I am pro environment and pro nature, yada yada, just not anti-human and anti capitalist. I think if you are a true environmentalist, you should have a firm belief in the capitalist system. Only thing that can clean up the environment is wealth.

@Maddus Mattus: I don't think we have to wait very long. This month, the satellites have recorded some of the coldest temperatures in the entire history of the satellite era, breaking records several times.

More proof comes in every day that climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is closer to the lab experiments of 1.2 c degrees per doubling than the UN IPCC range of 4 to 10 c degrees.

I agree with you on the wasted trillions of dollars and leave with this quote from the liberator of the emails:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day."

"Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes."

"One dollar can save a life" — the opposite must also be true.

"Poverty is a death sentence."

"Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize

greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."

Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on

hiding the decline.

"

@W3bbo:http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

2 days ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Proton2: I don't think we have the luxury to just sit it out. We are spending trillions of dollars on this non-issue. Even if it was an issue, that money is not going to make a bit of difference even by their own assessments.

I just think it could have been better spent, better to have not spent it at all as we are in a crisis.

What difference does it make if trillions are being spent to solve environmental problems as opposed to anything else? The goal is to make the quality of life better for the inhabitants of this planet. You make it sound like "spending money" causes wealth to vanish into thin air. That's not the case at all. When money is spent, it gets moved around, which is actually a good thing. As far as I'm concerned there's no such thing as wasteful spending. What is wasteful is unnecessary consumption of natural resources. If the goal of spending all this money is to reduce or eliminate consumption of natural resources, I say "waste" all the money that you can to achieve this goal. Money never disappears, but natural resources do.

I think if you are a true environmentalist, you should have a firm belief in the capitalist system. Only thing that can clean up the environment is wealth.

The (current) process of creating wealth destroys the environment.