Looks like another massive number of emails have been dumped on the internet with some truly amazing snapshots of alarmists plotting their science spin to garner access to trillions of dollars. Amazing to see the greed and egos spewing from some of the comments.

Reader Archtop provided me this link to Air Vent with a number of snippets culled from the emails. Here is the download site (in Russia of course). Plug the number prior to the security code box in to download.

My favorites:

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]

<2009> Briffa:

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

4716> Adams:

Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

<1485> Mann:

the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.

<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.

<5039> Rahmstorf:

You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing

<2440> Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process

<2094> Briffa:

UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.

I wonder who will be called to white wash investigate this release? Looks like the alarmists are going to have a real bad time of it this winter.

Update: Much more happening at WUWT. I loved this email exchange [Sept 2003] from Ed Cook of Columbia in response to Keith Briffa of CRU (where Keith suggests leaving Mann and Jones out of the new work):

>to say  would prefer no involvement of Mann and Phil –
>and can you tell me what reconstruction Bradley did ever ? unless
>you mean the Bradley and Jones early decadal series?

I agree that Phil and Mike are best left out of this. Bradley? Yeah,  he has done fuck-all except for the Bradley/Jones decadal series, which he maintains has withstood the test of time. Typical posturing on his part.

Cheers,

Ed

Apparently there is no love between Briffa and Jones/Mann (something I actually detected a while back).

Update: More on Climategate 2011 here. And here at Hot Air