Must agree Teresa. More emails released overnight:
Kjellen:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.
So much for that "popular myth".
<1682> Wils:
[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]
<2267> Wilson:
Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models, surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from the sun alone.
Better not increase the weighting of solar forcing then. It would diminish the impact of CO2 on the pro-AGWer's argument and we can't have that.
<4241> Wilson:
I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
Ooops, slight embarrassment.
<5066> Hegerl:
[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
<4443> Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.
<4085> Jones:
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be correct.
Models wrong? Never!
On Freedom of Information:
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
<1577> Jones:
[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.
No data hidden? Well, not much anyway.
More
here.