New dump of Climategate emails leaves skeptics gasping

Nearly quarter of a million new Climategate emails have been released on the internet in the third major info-dump of climate scientists’ documents.

The latest release of 220,000 emails is being dubbed “Climategate 3.0”, and will take days for skeptic websites to pore through.

Among the revelations are emails revealing climate scientist Tom Wigley thought the work of outspoken climate activist and author Naomi Oreskes was “useless”, and that climate scientists secretly knew the hockey-stick graph used by Al Gore for An Inconvenient Truth, and the UN IPCC reports, was “crap”.

The first Climategate dump came in 2009 on the eve of the Copenhagen climate conference, and caused a worldwide scandal in climate science.



  1. What is it with leftist’s brains, that they haven’t seen through the AGW scam yet?

  2. To a degree it has nothing to with brains.

    Instead it’s about holding onto power and academic prestige to backdown. The Leftards have dug a big hole for themselves over the whole deceitful over exaggerated fraud scam of AGW/CC. They have to keep the spin going even if their inner circle realise it’s crap.

    The old story. Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the new truth. The New truth straight out of the school of Goebbels Propaganda Ministry.

  3. gubulgaria, you are such a womble. The desmogblog post you link to has two problems. One, Desmogblog is the product of a PR agency tied to the green-industrial complex, ie, it has a financial interest in pushing belief in AGW.

    Two, to continue to get funding, many scientists tailored conclusions for their peer-reviewed research that reflected belief in AGW. However, those same papers often included facts that supported skeptical scientific conclusions. I published more than a hundred of these in my book Air Con.

    Ergo, basing an appeal to consensus (always a dodgy concept in science) on statements of opinion expressed in peer reviewed papers by scientists who rely on funding, as opposed to the data they actually contained, is bad science but probably effective PR from Desmogblog’s POV.

Comments are closed.