Climategate 2.0?

Donna Laframboise

3 shortish posts today, all questions.

It is 15 months since since the devastating release of emails focused on the habits and standards of the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia and their colleagues.  That year has seen the empire strike back in a range of ways.  These have included a series of 'official' enquiries (characterised by friendly and superficial scrutiny by sympathetic, fellow travellers) and the Horizon programme last week by the Sir Paul Nurse of the Royal Society (characterised by its bias and preconceived position).

This will have shored up those who are strong supporters of the 'establishment' narrative and may have retained many of those supporters who, for a variety of reasons have accepted the argument from authority.  Support has, nonetheless, hemorrhaged at a steady drip.  The field seems to have polarised further.

In October 2010 the Interacademy Council's Review of the processes and procedures of the IPCC reported.  In December, the Council published the evidence the report had received from 232 insiders to the IPCC process.  Redacted to maintain anonymity, one investigator now considers that efforts to put the comments in context will result in this document amounting to Climategate 2.0.

Look first at what Donna Laframboise says in this post:

The bottom line? Nearly every dark deed I’ve suspected the IPCC of is confirmed by this remarkable PDF.

Then look at the series of posts which open up the document.  They are here with a few more still to come.

Climategate 2.0?