Someone called John P. Costella has picked out the "key" CRU emails and analyzed them:
John, your analysis of the emails is appalling. Yet I believe you have created a work of art. It's like a painting of what's going on inside "skeptic" minds when they imagine Climategate.
I will take one of the emails you analyzed and show how you are trying too hard. You take a perfectly innocent email and extract the most amazing conclusion out of it.
No wonder skeptics have made it clear they plan to refuse any investigation result they don't like as a "whitewash". It's because perhaps you guys know your entire case is an illusion bourne of wishful misinterpretation of bog standard emails.
First here is my interpretation of the email.
This is an email exchange between Phil Jone's and a US colleague. Phil Jones discusses a scientific issue and then sticks a big P.S at the end in which he goes into non-work related aside. It's a kind of "hey in other news you know you have those skeptics? We've got one too.". He ends with a joke. I think this kind of email is run of the mill communication between US and UK colleagues. Work stuff, followed by some trivia of "whats happening in the UK right now".
Now lets look at your interpretation...
"Note that Jones is immediately reporting the existence of this first British skeptic to climate scientists on the other side of the Atlantic, taking special note of the “air time” (exposure on television or radio) that the skeptic is apparently receiving.
This is nothing but a cheap spy story woven around a perfectly run of the mill email. You shouldn't be adding such a story to the email as part of an analysis. The email does not warrant your total lack of regard for my far more ordinary and believable interpretation. Occam's Razor my friend.
"Already, we can start to appreciate that the politics and “spin doctoring” in this field outweighs the scientific issues. Continuing from Jones’s email:"
We can't appreciate something that is only there if you presume it. Unless of course by "appreciate" you mean "justify our preconceived conclusions". How else could you have come to such a quick broad conclusion about an entire field based on what is consistent with a run of the mill email?
And just a minor point: Phil Jones started off the email with a scientific issue. That's the main content of the email. In fact many of the emails concern scientific issues, but those tend to be the emails that skeptics don't cite. Slagging off Piers Corbyn is an aside - marked under P.S.
You continue to weave a cheap story around the email:
Jones’s report is as efficient as that of an intelligence agent: the skeptic is dangerous because he is the British equivalent of a college professor—in the “hard sciences” of physics and astronomy, no less.
Now we have talk of "intelligence agents" and "dangerous" skeptics...do you see yourself as the next Dan Brown?
And you continue:
However, he softens his attitude to the skeptic slightly: "He’s not all bad as he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety."
We here see clearly that Jones’s assessment of a scientist’s worth is influenced strongly by his assessment of their ideology—in scientific terms, nuclear power safety is completely unrelated to the science of climate change.
Your interpretation leaves a lot to be desired. You also missed the key context in Jone's next sentence:
"He's not all bad as he doesn't have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says that at the begining of his interviews to show he's not all bad!"
Sounds like a joke to me, and the first part now sounds like sarcasm. Ie Phil Jones hasn't softened his attitude at all, but is jibing at Corbyn for raising his nuclear-power safety view at the start of his interviews as if it showed he wasn't all bad.
"This dangerous prejudice will prove to be one of the most persistent threads throughout the Climategate scandal."
Which speaks volumes of "Climategate" that you can reach such conclusions based on such an unnoteworthy email. Dare I say it's almost as if the "climate gate" scandal is perhaps the conclusion you want and your rubbish analysis is simply a means to achieve it?
I believe that at least 90% of Climategate is just the bullshit imagination of skeptics who exaggerate it for politics. Yes ironically they go mental when the IPCC report is wrong and has exaggerated something, but they are happy to exagerate most of the stuff in the CRU emails. In fact they demand the media report it.
Just in case none of this was clear I will resort to an analogy. I am not comparing Corbyn with a creationist. It's sad that I have to make that clear, but I do. I am just showing that the analysis technique is clearly Fail.
From: UK Biologist
To: US Biologist
Some science stuff here.
PS. Britain seems to have found it's Kent Hovind (US Creationist). Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is Bob Creationist. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he's an utter prat but he's getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his day job he teaches medicine at a University and he predicts flu outbreaks from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all there is to know about the evolution issue. He's not all bad as he doesn't have much confidence in biblical literalism. Always says that at the begining of his interviews to show he's not all bad !
Now if I applied your analysis technique to this email - what would I find?
Already, we can start to appreciate that the politics and “spin doctoring” in this field outweighs the scientific issues.
Well there goes the entire field of biology.
I'll continue using your own analysis on the biology email to show how shoddy it is.
Note that this UK biologist is immediately reporting the existence of this first British evolution skeptic to biologists on the other side of the Atlantic, taking special note of the “air time” (exposure on television or radio) that the skeptic is apparently receiving.
The UK Biologist report is as efficient as that of an intelligence agent: the skeptic is dangerous because he is the British equivalent of a college professor—in the science of medicine, no less.
However, he softens his attitude to the skeptic slightly:
"He’s not all bad as he doesn’t have much confidence in biblical literalism."
We here see clearly that the UK Biologist's assessment of a scientist’s worth is influenced strongly by his assessment of their ideology — in scientific terms, biblical literalism is completely unrelated to the science of evolution. This dangerous prejudice will prove to be one of the most persistent threads throughout the Evolutiongate scandal."
Yeah it's Evolutiongate. Throw in a few more emails with such analysis, parrot it over the INTERNET, and you generate a false rumor. Then the idiots who fall for it will go all over news sites going "why aren't you reporting on the emails??? OMFG email 0837094033 shows us that "spin doctoring" is rampant in biological sciences.