CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS

UPDATED: related FOIA documents are now posted at the end of this story.

Posted on the American Spectator:

“Climate Gate” Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA

By on 11.24.09 @ 9:46AM

Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.

All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, “cap-and-trade” legislation and the EPA’s threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.

CEI sought the following documents, among others, NASA’s failure to provide which within thirty days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

- internal discussions about NASA’s quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact or wisdom or potential (or real) fallout therefrom or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007);

- internal discussions relating to the emails sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007);

- those relating to the content, importance or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or “blog” RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked “Hockey Stick” that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used “in any way you think would be helpful” to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt’s active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by “skeptics” attempting to comment on claims made on the website.

This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents.

RELATED DOCUMENTS (PDF)

Hansen GISS Correction FOI Request

GISS Blogging FOI Request

Hansen McIntyre FOI Request


Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 640-822 questions and 642-642 test demos for practice and pass your 640-863 exam on first attempt.


About these ads

247 thoughts on “CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS

  1. sue them

    Gavin Schmidt works there and he is busy blogging these days. (Real climate) No time to get the reports out.

    We need to start an avalanche. Tipping point. They both mess with the data and the computor models. No wonder they hide the information. I am sure they are deleting rapidly as they were told to by the CRU e-mails.

    Didn’t Anthony Watts tell us Real Climate is down the hall and in the same building as James hansen and Nasa? Real climate is Michael Mann’s moon light job also?

  2. Go for it. Its about time they obeyed the law and provided the requested information instead of conspiring to avoid their obligations.

  3. It appears they have several foxes all chasing the rabbit now :)

    I am so tired of reading comments by Phil Jones trying to claim innocence in all of this…focusing on the “trick” email.

    Phil…NEWS FLASH…YOU SENT EMAILS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO DELETE EMAILS. THAT’S WRONG. YOU’VE BEEN SHOWN TO THE WORLD AS A WHINING, CONIVING, ARROGANT PERSON WHO’S NOT PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN SCIENCE.

    Unbelievable on so many fronts.

    Let it burn…

    Snip away…sorry mods.
    JimB

  4. There is a long discussion of the new transparency in Washington after Obama took office on the Dept of Justice web site:

    http://www.justice.gov/oip/foiapost/2009foiapost8.htm

    This threat to sue will put this new policy to the test. Here is the first paragraph from the the above link:

    On his first full day in office, January 21, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of all departments and agencies on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The President directed that FOIA “should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.” Moreover, the President instructed agencies that information should not be withheld merely because “public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”

  5. I actually agree with something our president has said…

    “The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. ”

    “The presumption of disclosure also means that agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.”

    B.O.

  6. This is good news.

    The scientists had better lawyer up.

    Now, we just need a state AG to start a criminal investigation.

  7. This is only the tip of the litigation iceberg. Scientists (and others) who have lost their jobs or their right to publish as a result of advocacy and interference have a right to compensation for loss of income and damage to reputation, plus huge emotional injury. There may be numerous John Does named as co-defendants in these cases prior to discovery. Note also that there is no statute of limitations for fraud. This will make Watergate look like a childish prank in comparison.

  8. Last year I filed a FOIA for information relating to software assurance classification, and specifically asked that Reudy be polled for that information.

    The FOIA came back “No responsive documents”

    I’ll send a copy of my notes and the response to CEI.

  9. Sorry, the documents you have requested were accidently on that rocket we crashed into the moon earlier…we dont know how they got there. Oh well…move along now.

  10. The left’s whole APGW is kind of like the statue with the golden head and feet of clay. The data was molded like clay and the gold would have been their reward.

    What is scary is they almost pulled it off before someone swiped the feet from under it.

  11. I certainly hope this goes somewhere . At least CEI has the resources to see this through . On the other hand , I’m watching a joint news conference with the PM of India and Obama . The Indian PM stated earlier that he would commit to green technology , in an effort to mitigate climate change . Just yesterday , I heard O say something about the current climate “crisis” . CEI needs to get on it in a hurry , and loudly – as do we all . Despite climate change coming up in the PM ‘ s opening statement , no one asked any questions regarding the CRU brouha .

  12. I told you someone has been erasing/modifying the historical end of the USA temperature series. If the original data pre-1900 is restored, it will turn Mann’s Hockey Stick into a soup bowl instantly.
    Well, I am inclined to want to join in on the suit.
    I want my weather back, and I want it back in the worst way.
    Do YOU want your weather back?

  13. GO! GO! GO!
    Do not slack on this at all.
    There is no way that there is not much more interesting data and much more revealing communications on this side.
    We have heard nothing from Hansen on this.
    Push, push, push.
    They have distorted and cuorrupted this process for far too long.

  14. Very appropriate question about Gavin’s workday posts and activities related to RealClimate blogging, commenting and administration, versus his day-to-day work on the federal dime. Clearly he is eligible for breaks in work, as are all employees under federal laws, and what he does during those breaks is his own business as long as it is not illegal pr prohibited by the employer, but I’ll bet he was/is routinely logged in all day or essentially all day, making posts and doing whatever RC “work” was required to be a good little activist at all hours. It would be instructive if someone were able to obtain his computer logs (his work machine as well as the RC administrative login materials as far back as they may be available) to see how much time during Gavin’s regular workday was spent logged in to RC, monitoring messages, postings and making comments.

  15. Yes. An overwhelming request for information right now will break the log jam. Go! Go! Go!

    To be sure, I am not advocating any one scientific finding. Indeed, it is our responsibility to uncover every rock related to the null hypothesis of this inquiry. It is our burden to state the intention thusly: There is no evidence of impropriety.

  16. I don’t like this political crap. I acknowledge that this is the proper political move to play. I acknowledge that the alarmists would do the same if the roles were reversed.

    I still think its crap. If somebody appointed me king of the skeptics, and I were foolish enough to accept the post, I would choose to take the high road and not do this.

  17. What is there to prove with Gavin. Just a quick look at the time stamp of his blog entries shows that he edits realclimate on the tax payer dime.

  18. It’s also time to sue the Nobel prize committee for giving a peace prize to Algore. By doing that, they were in effect helping to promote the fraud.

  19. May I wish you the best of luck in your endeavour, freedom of information should be just that, however it appears that some info’ is less free than some other data.
    Our politicians constantly espouse our free and democratic society ad nauseum.
    Britain is not the land of the free, whereas I always considered the USA to be the ultimate land of the free.
    Time to put it to the test.
    And who better than an attorney to prosecute this action?

  20. Good luck. From what I’m observing in this society lately, the rule of law means absolutely nothing to and for the far-leftists in power. What Constitution?

  21. The Climate Gate story continues to grow legs, but so far only conservative media outlets, talk shows, bloggers, and FOX News have given it attention. The big three television news outlets are ignoring it for now. I don’t think they’ll be able to do that for much longer. In the meantime, Senator James Inhofe has called for a full investigation of the UN’s IPCC “to determine whether and in what manner that body has been complicit in scientific fraud.”

    Ladies and gentlemen, the ice is beginning to thaw (pun entirely intended)!

  22. I hope that revealed questionable accounting practices are also investigated, e.g., adding funds back into accounts to avoid the suspicion of NOAA, having deposits sent to personal accounts in daily amounts less than $10,000 to “avoid big taxes.”

  23. I thought this scandal would become litigation driven, but not this fast. I am not a lawyer but if I were at the University of East Anglia I would be asking for their advice.

    Surely as a precaution they should suspend the implicated staff and announce that they are investigate the papers that have been put out with their names on. How can they honestly say nothing and watch decisions being made at Copenhagen when they are aware that so much of the data from the university’s CRU department, on which the international decisions are being made, are unreliable?

  24. What about the Chamber of Commerce suing them too?
    The Navajo nation for the shutdown of the power stations in the desert.
    Sue the EPA for their ridiculous definition of co2 as a poisonous toxin.
    Maybe the lawyers would trade off some medical malpractice caps for a go at the entire AGW industry.

  25. Gene L. (09:41:09)

    It is not legal to use a government computer for outside activities. If Gavin used his NASA computer for RealClimate business, he should be subject to sanctions.

  26. Rush Limbaugh is covering this in the first hour of his show for the second day in a row.

    I am writing to my congress woman, Michael Bachmann, asking for an investigation into the funding organizations and journals that have been complaisant in failing to insist on the release of data and methods where their own policies require such a release. I would like to see Sarbanes-Oxley extended to the heads of all publicly funded research organizations to force them to sign a legally binding document that all published research has complied with all policies requiring the release of data and methods. I hope compliance with such a law becomes as time consuming and ghastly as it sounds.

  27. Yes and get GISS to pay for it too.

    These tax exempt organizations are receiving billions of federal tax dollars in attorney fees and costs, for winning or settling environmental cases against the federal government.

    The actual amount awarded in these settlements is often confidential, even though money comes from tax dollars and should be a matter of public record.

    There are two major sources of these federal tax dollars.

    The first is the Judgment Fund that is a line item expense in the Congressional budget. The fund was created to pay attorney fees and costs for prevailing plaintiffs in cases involving the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and several other public laws that also allow the prevailing plaintiff to recover costs and attorney fees.

    According to the Budd-Falen Law Offices, in just the time between January 2003 and July of 2007, the Judgment Fund paid nearly 42,000 claims totaling more than $4.7 billion taxpayer-dollars to reimburse prevailing radical environmental organizations for their legal costs and attorney fees. The average reimbursement to the prevailing non-government environmental organization was $112,000. The total amount paid per settlement may never be known because neither the federal government nor its agencies appear to track the payments from the Judgment Fund.

    The second major source of prevailing plaintiff payments is the Equal Access to Justice Act. In this scheme, funds are taken from the losing federal agency’s budget to pay the attorney fees and costs claimed by the winning environmental organization.

    Between 2003 and 2005, the United States Forest Service alone paid about $1.7 million to 44 prevailing environmental organizations. Once again, it appears that neither the federal government nor its agencies are tracking the cumulative costs of the Equal Access to Justice Act. In fact, the amount of the individual settlement payment made by the agencies to the environmental organizations is often kept confidential.

    The federal law allows the court to require the government to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs when the plaintiff prevails in court. The law specifically prohibits the prevailing defendant government agency from recovering their costs and attorney fees. When a case is settled out of court the law allows for the plaintiff to recover their costs and attorney fees if the settlement substantially favors the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff is unlikely to settle out of court unless the defendant government agency agrees that the settlement “substantially” favors the plaintiff insuring that the environmental organization gets paid.

    http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/whitsett/newsletter/2009/102109financingenvirolawsuits.htm

  28. Gene L – I’d be most interested in understand the extent to which Gavin’s bosses were / are involved in Gavin’s “extracurricular” activities. It may go far beyond tolerance and knowledge of them. It may include management and planning of them. If that can be shown, the house of cards may well fall.

  29. Rush Limbaugh discussing the whistleblown CRU emails right now, including, in very general terms, its tentacles into other climate groups and organizations around the world including the mainstream media.

  30. A couple typos – my user name (which I had to manually re key in due to a recent browser crash and subsequent cache wipe out) and “understand” which should have been “understanding.”

  31. George (09:43:52) :

    “What is there to prove with Gavin. Just a quick look at the time stamp of his blog entries shows that he edits realclimate on the tax payer dime.”

    If this is true, this can be quite serious. The government is very particular about logging time appropriately. I know from my own experience in the aerospace industry that the government requires contractors (and I would imagine all civil servants) to record their hours on a daily basis, and to have appropriate charge codes.

  32. In all of the ClimateGate discussions, the catastrophists/alarmists keep going back to the same tautology – that this information has to do with “real science” and that only “real scientists” need to have access to it and that people who have not peen consistently published in “peer reviewed journals” aren’t real scientists but are, instead, oil industry hacks up to no good. So the cause is too moral and too important to release data and methods to anyone who is will “twist the data” and “misrepresent the science.”

    I am a luke warmer who absolutely sick and tired of this tautological charade.

    There is NOTHING to fear from full disclosure and fully disclosed and transparent research.

    Anyone who claims otherwise should defend the proposition that s/he is pro-science.

    If the data/methods are misrepresented then “the real scientists” can easily demonstrate the flaws that make up the misrepresentations.

    If there is an issue of intellectual property, then where do these moralists get off in saying that we MUST use every resource to combat AGW except some insider’s intellectual property? Where is the higher moral purpose in that?

    Defending corruption on the basis that the accusers are more corrupt (or that the corruption serves a higher purpose) isn’t science. It is politics. And crappy politics at that.

  33. Seriously though, Senator Inhofe needs to push this issue forcefully to pressure GISS to release the files and data. I’m not sure how successfully one can sue a government agency. This may require a back channel process or threats of further funding cuts for NASA. Don’t know how much influence he has in the current Congress. It’s interesting how Hansen has seemed stay under the radar in this scandal despite being a major player in AGW.

  34. FWIW, having Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh bloviate over all of this is no help.

    It doesn’t add to the weight of the arguments for science.

    Both these fools are young earth creationists. So when they argue a scientific matter it allows those under attack to fire back with some effective ad-hominems.

  35. Richard Heg (09:32:52) :

    If the information was acquired in an illegal manner such as hacking can it be used in court?

    Speaking from a non-legal view, I’m betting no. But, Phil Jones, et al have admitted the e-mails are legit, so a subpeona would probably be issued to legally get the information. Then you can have a “chain of custody” for the evidence to be used in court.

  36. DD More,
    That is amazing.
    I am sure it may have started in good faith, but it has become a secretive unregulated pipeline to feed enviro extremists.

  37. is Obama’s arrogant speech at MIT, talking about ‘marginalizing’ skeptics starting to look a bit like a sweet irony, or what?

  38. astateofdenmark (09:33:44) :

    “I can hear the shredders.

    Or, report on evening news, “substantial sustained unexplained surge in electric power usage in the Hadley area”

  39. You need to cancel your Google Ads. They run counter to what I always thought this site stood for. They are alarmism at its worst.

  40. Apparently here in the UK illegally withholding an FOI request and/or destroying the evidence is only punishable with a fine. However I thought that conspiring with others to commit a crime is itself a jailing offence. Any lawyers out there who know the answer?

  41. Many academic journals now require the data used in papers be posted online in a data repository so that others can analyze the data independently. For one example, see:

    http://www.econ.queensu.ca/jae/

    The need for an independent analysis of climate data is especially acute since the CRU data dump has shown that the standards of software engineering, data processing, and data analysis at CRU are highly questionable, at best. See:

    http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-harry_read_me-file/

    That both CRU and GISS are refusing to release data even after Freedom of Information requests are filed shows what kind of “scientists” and people we are dealing with.

  42. I do not understand how we can call it “science” if it is not verifiable. If all data, code, methodology, and so forth is not available to the public domain in real time — how can any of this expensive work be trusted for anything? They should be sued to force open and transparent sharing of all public data.

  43. Rush is into this topic his second hour. Rush is in the I told you so mode. He really is not vindictive like Michael Mann and others that are stonewalling data to people they despise.
    He mentioned GE and its begging for money for it’s green energy endeavors.

    “Liberals have to lie” to get what they have for an agenda he says.

    He also mentioned why Algore keeps the press out of his lectures. They can record things that may be fact checked or backfire.

    He also quoted Obama’s promise to restore dignity to science. (I don’t think this is what Obama had in mind)

  44. This is great! It has always been my opinion that these people need to be sued into oblivion. Gore, Schmidt, Mann, Hansen, etc. all need to be pummelled with massive lawsuits. If their actions resulted in more headache than triumph we could get this whole AGW joke-ship to come to a grinding halt. And if some of these “faux-scientists” knew their studies would be scutinized by attorneys for damages, they would not be so likely to gin their fibs. This could be the first of many such attacks. WE are many and our attack could be fierce. BTW, thanks WUWT for years of stimulating education!

  45. Sorry to mention this again, but has anyone read this particular e-mail?
    I was searchin at anelegantchaos.org and found this:

    Thursday, 27 March 2003 15:05:07 : Filename: 1048799107.txt

    Does anyone know what this Earth Government is? And why were they reading their newsletter?

  46. This situation reminds me a bit of the Bre-X scandal. I for one will be getting out not only the popcorn but the cheesies as well.

    Perhaps the climate “industry” needs something akin to the JORC Code for the reporting of research?

  47. These headers are from Drudge Report:

    Which one jumps out?

    Climategate: ‘Greatest scandal in modern science’…
    Call for Congressional investigation…
    Paper: Junk science exposed among climate-change believers…
    Obama: ‘Step closer’ to climate deal…

    Do you also hear the sound of ratings heading south?

  48. I just had a thought – I have them from time to time – has anyone heard from John Coleman regarding the AGW movement’s meltdown?

  49. Rush Limbaugh is going nuclear on Climategate.

    According to Limbaugh: There are two worlds: The far-left world of lies and the other world where people try and find the truth.

    There are four corners: Science, academia, media, and government.

    All are in the lying world.

    How many listeners does Limbaugh have?

    And this isn’t a passing segment: Limbaugh is hammering it.

    Put it this way, if mainstream media continues to ignore the story, their credibility maybe irreparably harmed.

    Because it just isn’t Limbaugh, all talk-radio is abuzz, expect O’ Reilly to do a TV segment and the pressure on the mainstream media will only intensify.

    Call your senator today and demand an investigation.

  50. Hey, when the science is “settled,” you don’t want someone coming along and “unsettling” it.

    I’m sure the NASA data servers are heating up right about now.

  51. I agree that relying on Fox, Limbaugh etc. is not going to help – all a bit shrill and easily knocked down. No – we need lawmakers on both sides of the pond to start kicking up a fuss. Lawson in the UK has started the ball rolling (ok – he’s an ex-lawmaker, but you get the idea)

    Where are the conservative congressmen and senators? – a few calls for committee enquiry might force the MSM to wake up – no?

  52. @ Richard Henry Lee (09:18:55) :

    Hi Richard,

    Unfortunately I don’t recall details, but I’ve run across several articles discussing how, since Obama took office and issued that memorandum, various Obama Admin depts/branches have already behaved in exactly the opposite fashion — including, I believe, the White House itself. The WH rhetoric is downright Orwellian and seems to typically be diametrically opposed to what is actually done.

    Transparency in this Admin is an utter joke. Its either stonewall, stonewall, stonewall (with tons of verbal rationalizations and excuses), or release bogus information like on recovery.gov where 6.4 Billion dollars of ‘stimulus’ money has gone to a ton of non-existent congressional districts around the nation. Including D.C. which has NO congressional districts. Not to mention all of the reported fraudulent “jobs created or saved” that have been and are being discovered.

  53. The GE connection is interesting because it largely explains its subsidiary NBC’s coverage of Green issues and their over the top report (hit job) on Pat Michaels and other skeptics reported by Ann Thompson about 1-2 years ago. Don’t know if Comcast will reign them in now that they are owners.

  54. I suppose it’s asking too much for a chance to edit one’s own submissions once the mistakes are noticed? Handy to add items too, like urls etc.

    OK, so I will just have to check more thoroughly in future.

    Thanks for all the views, data etc – the future looks very interesting doesn’t it?

    Some USA presenter called East Anglia, “East Angela” – that cracked me up this morning!

  55. Pharmer writes:

    “And if some of these “faux-scientists” knew their studies would be scrutinized by attorneys for damages, they would not be so likely to gin their fibs.”

    Absolutely right! Keep in mind that a comparable bit of hysteria and lunacy, the Salem witchcraft trials, ended when a husband of one of the accused threatened to file a libel suit against the accusers.

  56. Climate Change you can believe in: Rats in high places scurrying about, squealing as the dominoes of bad boys fall on them.

  57. I dislike getting political on a climate blog but the statement about openness on the FOIA by President Obama is made by an individual who has his own college record, etc. locked up tighter than tight. Somehow I think he is more than willing to say one thing and do quite the other. I seem to remember 5 days of posting of bills on the internet for comments before signing and other promises of openness that have evaporated. It would not surprise me in the least if these did also.

  58. Bryan Clark (10:10:37) : Google Ads

    No. and No. Bad idea you have. We all know about the ads. The idea is to click on one each time a new ad is posted. Think of it as a well known gesture used in the US to show contempt. And some are actually interesting, entertaining, and so on. Occasionally looking at them might even be useful for WUWT. I say, bring them on.

  59. Why Phil jones had not yet resigned is utterly astonishing.

    With links up to extremely high political circles (John Holdren – Obama’s Science Czar) – the sooner the people with the strings sacrifice the CRU group the better.

    Believe me, Phil Jones, Briffa, Gavin, Mann et al are mere “pawns” in a powerful chess game – the people really behind all this will very soon find themselves needing to distance themselves from it all.

    Time to let the heads roll.

    Sorry boys – you were useful and did a nice job pushing the AGW scam – but boys you got silly and you caught – now you are all about to find out that you are expendable.

  60. A personal note to Anthony Watts. You are a hero for all the hours in physically having all the hundreds of weather stations visited. Little did we know they will adjust the temps upward to do what they want the charts to show.

    They will add the degrees back 2 to 3 at a time.

  61. Adam Sullivan wrote:
    “Both these fools are young earth creationists. So when they argue a scientific matter it allows those under attack to fire back with some effective ad-hominems.”

    Beck and Limbaugh shouldn’t be on anyone’s list of credible climate science information sources. They’re popular conservative commentators and should be taken for exactly that – no more.

    As a man of faith I find your comment above to be no more helpful than the two you criticize. There are plenty of people of faith who are also ardent seekers of scientific truth as well as credible scientists – Dr. Roy Spencer, for one. Faith and science are not mutually exclusive.

  62. JP (10:18:32) : “Does anyone know what this Earth Government is?”

    Try the following and then do some searching on the names and ideas therein:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EDBLICKRANT.pdf

    First few lines are:

    “ United Nations politicians, while admitting their lack of evidence, gave birth and nurtured the fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming (APG). Their Malthusian purpose is to frighten people into accepting the UN as the “centerpiece of democratic global governance” and let the UN, ration our fossil fuel.”

  63. Adam Sullivan,
    What are talking about?
    Rush has 20 million listeners, many of whom are going to take a look at this for the very first time, get pretty damn upset about it, and then call a Representative, Senator or other official and put the heat on for them to start an investigation.
    This is what you call the start of a Tsunami.

  64. Julian in Wales (09:50:38) : I am not a lawyer but if I were at the University of East Anglia I would be asking for their advice. Surely as a precaution they should suspend the implicated staff and announce that they are investigate the papers that have been put out with their names on.

    Someone pointed out that UEA is not the richest of universities and may have been sitting pretty on a lot of dosh via CRU. Every day of denial probably equates to money. Sad.

    Bryan Clark (10:10:37) : You need to cancel your Google Ads. They run counter to what I always thought this site stood for. They are alarmism at its worst

    Bryan, we had a good blogwide discussion about all this, pro’s and con’s, and eventually more or less agreed that the detraction was not too much for most folk here, and enabled Anthony to simply continue this essential work. Sometimes it is even funny and back-to-front relevant.

  65. “Katrina victims use science to sue US government”

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17087-katrina-victims-use-science-to-sue-us-government.html

    What science would that be?????

    “Inuit sue US over climate policy”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4511556.stm

    I wonder who will be giving evidence for the Inuit????

    “States may sue utilities over climate, court says”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32959386

    There are more cases it will be interesting to see the affect the CRU e-mails will have on such court proceedings

  66. Cromagnum,
    If it’s true that Holdren is deeply involved and everything Ball states is true, then this is gonna go off like aluminium-perchlorate! Dude, you don’t want to be near it.

  67. What started as a trickle is now becoming significant cracks in the AGW dam. The dam will crumble and wash away all downstream soon.

  68. Ahhhhhh.

    The “goto” statement.

    http://di2.nu/foia/cru-code/f77/mnew/merge_1a.for

    Used within different loops.

    The height of software engineering prowess – not.

    From the wiki on “goto”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goto#Criticism_of_goto_usage

    Fortran introduced structured programming constructs in 1978 and in successive revisions the relatively loose semantic rules governing the allowable use of goto were tightened; the “extended range” in which a programmer could use a GOTO to enter and leave a still-executing DO loop was removed from the language in 1978,[9] and by 1995 several of forms of Fortran GOTO, including the Computed GOTO and the Assigned GOTO, had been deleted from the language.[10]

    See that? gotos used in that way were deleted in 1979. That is 30 tree rings ago for paleoclimatologists.

    Notice that the code is stored under a “f77″ directory.

    This is laughable.

    CRU has what kind of budget? They need what kinds of computers for their work?

  69. I hope EPA is next on the list to be asked to ‘fess and come clean re data etc.

    Few mentions here, but I have serious doubts about the ice-core CO2 measurements which are crucial to the whole AGW thesis. When spliced onto the current MLO CO2 records, they show – an Ice Hockey Stick – which IMO needs investigating too, focussing on the metadata, the multiple opportunities for getting false CO2 levels in this highly unnatural extraction, transport, storage, and testing process.

  70. Pharmer,
    Think of the implications:
    1. Many governments have made climate protection a centrepiece of their policies.
    2. Europe has mandated lifetsyle changes (light bulbs, small cars, etc.)
    3. Many industries are subsidised, to combat “climate change” (Solar, wind, etc.)
    4. Many entrepreneurs invested in green technology.
    5. Many have started businesses that sell green tech and services.
    What shall we tall all these people? Sorry, but we made a mistake! Ha ha.
    This could get damn messy. Frankly, many of these people were warned. But what did they do? They looked at us like we were nutjob deniers.
    He who laughs last, laughs…
    Frankly, I can hardly contain my glee.

  71. Both these fools are young earth creationists. So when they argue a scientific matter it allows those under attack to fire back with some effective ad-hominems.

    You mean like that one you just threw?

    I guess we should ignore Hooke and Boyle and Newton, then. That last one wasn’t just a creationist, he was an alchemist as well! The fraud!!

  72. I have been thinking that regardless of the specific nature of the documents, I want to know from the “warmist” media, who are trying to play the ordeal down, WHAT is it about the data that makes them want to avoid the FOI in the first place?

  73. ShrNfr (10:51:52) : “ I dislike getting political on a climate blog ”

    Anthony is probably busy so I’ll mention this –

    Under the title of the blog at the top of every page is this:

    “Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts”

    … and if Obama isn’t one of the “puzzling things in life”, what is?

  74. 1257874826.txt

    From: Phil Jones
    To: Gil Compo
    Subject: Re: Twentieth Century Reanalysis preliminary version 2 data – One other thing!
    Date: Tue Nov 10 12:40:26 2009

    The agreement between CRU and GISS is amazing good, as already know.

    Whe know that. :)

  75. Pam Gray,
    “Hell, I got chips, dips, beer, and chilli on the cookstove”
    GREAT LET’S ALL GO TO YOU PLACE!

  76. Next up: Subpoena all documents whatsoever, dating back to 1988, from Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame, no doubt cowering under his taxpayer-funded desk in Pennsylvania as we speak. Of course Hansen, Mann and their confreres –not to mention Briffia, Jones et al.– will have spent the weekend madly deleting files, shredding printouts, even stuffing dumpsters like ACORN has in California. But alas: Their phony papers are on record, citing if not revealing base data, statistical techniques, evaluative assumptions all in bulk. “Inadvertent loss” cannot be an excuse, and will therefore subject willful destroyers to penalties not limited to mere FOIA wrist-slaps. Can’t happen soon enough.

  77. Adam Sullivan (11:14:10) : “Ahhhhhh. The “goto” statement.”

    For those of us that started with FORTRAN II in the 1960s – 1978 was way too late. Bummer.

  78. I don’t want to get in an argument about faith and science and the ill founded and unsupportable view that you can’t reject young earth creationism and be a man of faith. Take it up with the Pope and the Catholic church which represents a fair amount of self described faithful people yet supports the big bang theory and evolution. A good scientist can be a man/woman of faith. A good scientist can be an atheist. A good scientist can’t say the planet and universe are 5,000 years old without the sort of compelling evidence that we demand of CRU and GISS.

    Point is that Limbaugh and Beck are speaking to people who are already predisposed to distrusting CRU and just about any other scientific orgnization commenting on AGW.

    Look at the “Rules of the Game” pdf in the hacked files – you’re up against some tough minded ideologues who have no problem (and continually do) herding all critics into a single group and then pointing to assertions made by the likes of Beck as being irrational. That plays well to those who might otherwise ask critical questions of the alarmists.

  79. @ Cromagnum (09:41:45) : -SNIP- Is Obama’s Climate Czar Holdren involved? Is he in the emails CC?

    ——-

    Hi Cromagnum,

    Good question on your part! I’d say Obama Czar Holdren is certainly involved at least peripherally. No idea if he’s complicit, but he apparently is on quite friendly terms with the CRU ‘team’ and others associated with them here in the USA.

    I searched the released emails for Holdren and got 6 returns. In the first, he’s emailing Michael Mann and Tom Wigley, passing them a copy, “for your entertainment” info where he’s apparently smeared a couple of his colleagues at Harvard and paper they published disputing Mann’s historical temperature reconstructions while championing Mann to the entire University (copied below).

    I haven’t read all of the others thoroughly, but on first blush the CRU team appears to be cc’ing him on their efforts to rationalize the lack of warming in the past decade. In those emails it appears that they’re scrambling to fit the model assumptions used to their desired preconceived outcome, rather than trying to actually conduct any objective science.

    You can search the released emails (and data? not sure) at:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php

    From these emails it seems fair to say that the CRU team and those associated here in the US trust Holdren to be ‘on their side’ and one of the boys so to speak.

    ——-

    Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:53:08 -0400
    To: “Michael Mann” , “Tom Wigley”
    From: “John P. Holdren”
    Subject: Correspondence on Harvard Crimson coverage of Soon / Baliunas
    views on climate
    Michael and Tom —
    I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in
    the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my
    “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows
    concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty
    and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science
    and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or
    less self-explanatory.
    Best regards,
    John

  80. John K. Sutherland (10:37:38) :

    It seems that there is a God, after all.

    With a rather twisted sense of humor, it appears.

  81. I am suspicious of Pamela’s chili. Some CO2 is too much CO2.
    And the beer?

    I posted on Real climate that beer is NOT carbon neutral. I am sure Schmidt deleted the post. Beer takes a lot of heat to roast the grain and heat to bring brewing temps. Schmidt had just posted that beer was C neutral.
    Alcohol takes even more heat in the distilling process.

  82. So then, since Thomas Paine was a (I think, sort of) deist, and was a main proponent of the American Revolution, we should just cancel the American Revolution and accept British rule again. It is either a fool who would refuse helpful allies such as Beck and Limbaugh, or more likely, a “warm monger” who, caught red handed, is attempting to undermine the effort to expose this great fraud on the American people.

    My guess is the it is a “warm monger” fool.

  83. P Walker: “CEI needs to get on it in a hurry , and loudly – as do we all . Despite climate change coming up in the PM ‘ s opening statement , no one asked any questions regarding the CRU brouha”

    I wrote my two US Senators yesterday that in the light of these latest revelations a Congressional resolution be sent to the White House before the Copenhagen summit to prohibit any committment by the U.S. delegation. Both of my Senators are democrats (well Arlen Speter is only half a democrat) but I urge all others to get on the e-mails to your Senators – the house is a hopeless bunch of wafflers.

  84. This is the best way to stop these criminals. Well done Chris.

    The potential damages claims must be in the $10s of billions by now.

    How about filing a TRO to stop GISS employees presenting anything at Copenhagen before it is independently audited and its connection to the CRU cluster**** of data fully analyzed ?? You might not get it, but it would be heard pretty soon, I think.

  85. The Guardian is reporting that the University of East Anglia plans to investigate.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea

    I don’t know about British law, but here in the US, that’s a conflict of interest. The University has incentive to show their CRU to be innocent. An independent entity needs to hold that investigation.

    I had exactly this happen to me several years ago. I awarded a small research contract to a university. The professor’s reports showed clear evidence of plagiarism. When I called them on it, the school closed ranks to protect their own and demanded: “What part of your Statement of Work was not performed?” I dropped the issue and never gave them another contract.

  86. @ Jason (09:42:25)

    Jason, its not political and its crucial that this is followed thru. Exposing political advocacy and bogus science masquerading as actual science is crucial, particularly when its this massive, pervasive, and has such worldwide consequences. These guys have perverted science. Literally trillions of dollars, human lives, standards of living, and wellbeing are affected by much of their ‘work’ and how it has been propagated throughout the entire body of scientific work on climate change and IPCC reports and results.

    With the release of this information, literally every scientific paper these people released, every paper they were peer reviewers of, every chapter or part of IPCC documents and reports they were significantly involved in preparing (a number of them are lead authors no less) are ALL worse than worthless and meaningless in scientific terms. The only way any of that body of work has any scientific meaning is if other totally independent scientists eventually are able to verify and validate the data and methods of each and every piece.

    Scientifically speaking, and for the whole AGW camp, Its a house of cards and much of the foundation was just yanked completely out. Unfortunately (a gross understatement) the billions of dollars governments and companies have invested in this house of cards will likely manage to prop it up and continue the fraud on the people of the world. THAT,S the political aspect of this, not the released emails and resulting legal action that will ensue.

    The only way to get to the bottom of this is through legal avenues. Even with legal action its going to be difficult to fully expose what occurred as these people make it quite clear in their emails to each other that they are willing to destroy data and any incriminating emails or correspondence.

    Many kudo’s to CEI and I hope they (and others!) drastically expand the scope and/or number of suits they file against the various individuals and organizations based on the information released last week.

  87. Schmidt and Hansen have been relatively unscathed by ClimateGate up to now. CEI’s suit should put them into the dung heap along with the rest of the scoundrals.

  88. Reporter David Robinson is very worried about CRU’s lack of comment on Steve McIntyre’s Yamal findings just prior to the Copenhagen meetings:

    Oct 19th, 2009 email:

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1059&filename=1256214796.txt

    Upset at the Spectator’s coverage of the Yamal-Briffa affair they are suggesting that the Specator’s reporting suggests CRU fraud and ask that the Spectator be “vigorously” pursued. They emphasized – again and again – that only peerreviewerliterature should be considered in evaluating the Yamal affair.

    [At the moment, I doubt that case would go very far.]

  89. Adam Sullivan (10:06:17)
    D Caldwell (11:03:27)
    Archonix (11:18:35)
    __________________________
    I feel fortunate to live in a society where most try respect the beliefs of others. From the perspective of all that is, has been and will be, there is not much difference between an earth described in Genesis or one described in a modern text of geology.
    I have difficulty, however, with those who try to impose beliefs on others, such as Warmistas.

  90. Adam Sullivan (10:06:17) :

    FWIW, having Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh bloviate over all of this is no help.

    It doesn’t add to the weight of the arguments for science.

    Both these fools are young earth creationists. So when they argue a scientific matter it allows those under attack to fire back with some effective ad-hominems.

    ————————

    I don’t know about Beck. But I’m rather sure Limbaugh has NEVER addressed “Young Earth Creationism”.

    I’m not an advocate of that myself. But having worked in Nuclear Power for 20 years, and knowing the Cosmic ray density is about 0.5 Rotegen per year…
    and that after 100,000 R you have NO ORGANIC MATTER LEFT, I’d just pose this little question to Mr. Sullivan – The T Rex bones with “Soft Tissue”, what could their MAXIMUM AGE BE?

    (Hint: It’s a simple division problem, and it comes up with a FACTOR of 1000
    different from the “geological age”…)

  91. On the Channel 4 news tonight there was an item on the CRU emails. To my amazement, all the main players denied any wrongdoing whatsoever, declared that global warming is “an undeniable fact”, and that quotations from the emails were taken out of context, and accused the “deniers” of confusing the public, and said the public “wouldn’t understand” the science supporting global warming which is why they released information in the way they did in the first place.

    Prof. Jones at the CRU also issued a statement that he has no intention of resigning, and the UEA declared in a separate statement that they still support him.

  92. Adam Sullivan (10:06:17) : “FWIW, having Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh…doesn’t add to the weight of the arguments for science.”

    Oh, golly, Adam, I surely do hate to be the one to break this news to you, but AGW NEVER WAS ABOUT SCIENCE. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT LEFTIST POLITICS.

  93. @ Adam Sullivan (10:06:17) :

    Ad-hominems or not, I have to disagree Adam. Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh discussing these issues on their programs spreads the word to literally tens of thousands of people, all taxpayers, all affected by the supposed AGW ‘science.’ That’s valuable in helping to bring pressure to bear to open this wide open.

  94. I can’t see HadCRUT surviving as a credible global temperature record after the revelations in the released documents – the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file is extremely damaging. If Hansen’s GISS temperature record gets exposed as unreliable as well then we’re in new territory as we’re left with just the satellite record which is a mere 30 years old.

    There would need to be a global project to build a new temperature record – hopefully built on transparency. An open source project.

  95. “Lucy Skywalker (10:02:53) :

    It’s difficult to believe that, having shot themselves in one foot, they are now, it seems, shooting themselves in both feet.”

    Ummmmmm….Lucy?…them ain’t feet.

    JimB

  96. Adam Sullivan (10:06:17) :

    FWIW, having Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh bloviate over all of this is no help.

    It doesn’t add to the weight of the arguments for science.

    Both these fools are young earth creationists. So when they argue a scientific matter it allows those under attack to fire back with some effective ad-hominems.

    The ad hom tactics of the AGW faithful may have been effective before, to those either gullible enough to be taken in by them, or those already committed to AGW ideology, but not so much now. The curtain has been pulled away, and screaming “pay no attention to that man” is just not going to have much effect any more.
    So, I don’t agree that Limbaugh and Beck’s “bloviating” can hurt, and will, in fact help turn the tide politically against the AGW movement.
    And, those who are so inclined, and I imagine there will be even more now, can always check into the science for themselves, and will see that AGW consists primarily of smoke and mirrors.

  97. For the young entrepreneurs, how about inventing a foot peddle powered shredder. We can’t waste electricity generated by “dirty coal”

    The benefits
    1 Building up the thighs so they can jemp to conclusions more swiftly
    2 It is sustainable if they compost the shredded cellulose or send it to the cellulose driven ethanol plants
    3 No aerosols produced
    4 No contribution to garbage dump methane.

  98. Parts of the German media here are going ballistic with this latest “Worse-than-ever-imagined” report.
    The last gasp.

  99. Hannity just announced to a caller that he’s going to hit the whole issue in the ‘next hour.’ Unclear if that’s this first hour, or the second, but sounds like he may also hit it hard today.

  100. Mark Hugoson (12:05:10)
    __________________________
    We’re on a tangent here, but the process of fossilization which replaces organic material with stable minerals, and burial, which shields whatever might be there from cosmic radiation, would allow the lithologic and radiometric dating of the fossils to be reasonable.

  101. Jeremy (10:57:52) :
    “Why Phil Jones had not yet resigned is utterly astonishing.”

    Leading man of this drama Phil Jones, even if he wonted to, will not be allowed to do so by the powers that be.
    Wouldn’t that make a laughing stock of many?
    The other minor support actors can resign or be dismissed and probably will in due course, someone has to take the rap.

  102. @ James F. Evans (10:26:59) :

    James, I’m not certain, but I think Rush Limbaugh has something like 22 million daily listeners.

    HUGE.

  103. Henry chance (12:17:18) :

    For the young entrepreneurs, how about inventing a foot peddle powered shredder. We can’t waste electricity generated by “dirty coal”

    The benefits
    1 Building up the thighs so they can jemp to conclusions more swiftly
    2 It is sustainable if they compost the shredded cellulose or send it to the cellulose driven ethanol plants
    3 No aerosols produced
    4 No contribution to garbage dump methane.

    5. Leaves no detectable (or traceable) data residue.

  104. Wierd. I just watched the BBC interview with the UEA spokesperon on YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCywd57BmsY He is still coming up with the answer to his experiment before seeing the data. I am somewhat paraphrasing, but he says, “we will have a full internal audit to show that no data was manipulated or hidden….” How does he know before an audit is done? Some lessons about how to do sceince, such as finding the answer before the experiment begins (where you should do the opposite), are hard to learn.

  105. So, I don’t agree that Limbaugh and Beck’s “bloviating” can hurt, and will, in fact help turn the tide politically against the AGW movement.
    And, those who are so inclined, and I imagine there will be even more now, can always check into the science for themselves, and will see that AGW consists primarily of smoke and mirrors.

    Something of a cultural opinion here: in the UK for example, we don’t really have `bloviators’, whereas they have been part of US radio and television culture for a very long time. That’s why when I see people like Beck I cringe a little. I’m not used to anchors editorialising.

  106. I have compared the recently uncovered secret email database from the CRU (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php) with the 50 most referenced “climatologists” (http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html). Clearly what we have seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg; the names listed below who have not publicly come out supporting the IPCC have endorsed “AGW” by their silence.

    Part A:
    Covert members of the global conspiracy to commit scientific fraud, whose names are absent or only mentioned in passing, as in a reference to their published work or copied on a sent email.

    Sir Robert M May
    Sir John Sulston
    David Tilman
    F Stewart Chapin
    Stuart Pimm
    Sir John T Houghton
    Robert Costanza
    William H Schlesinger
    Sir Nicholas J Shackleton
    David S Jenkinson
    Gerard Bond
    Paul Falkowski
    Chris Field
    Robert W Howarth
    Minze Stuiver
    Peter H Raven
    J Michael Wallace
    Joseph A Berry
    James W Hurrell
    Jane Lubchenco [the fox in charge of the henhouse - one can assume that the government "research grants" will be flowing in copious amounts as long as she's in charge]
    Dennis V Kent
    William J Parton
    Charles David Keeling [passed on before the fruition of their plan, but a loyal crony and key collaborator]
    Peter Liss
    Kelly Chance
    Stephen Pacala
    Peter J Webster
    Sydney Levitus
    Richard W Reynolds
    Georges Bonani
    Steven C Wofsy
    John F Nye
    Gene E Likens
    Wally S Broecker
    Tomomi Yamada
    Brent Holben
    David W Schindler
    Inez Fung
    William D Nordhaus
    Peter B Reich

    ******************************************************************
    Part B:
    “Scientists” who have been revealed as part of the global conspiracy by the release of their secret emails. Numbers are the times their name appears in the secret list of e-mails. These are the equivalent of the Secret Service guys around the President who have earphones, dark glasses[probably infrared vision systems to detect firearms/explosives], and black suits – stalking horses to draw your attention away from the other hidden SS agents who you don’t notice.

    Philip D Jones – 390
    Tom ML Wigley – 161
    Michael Hulme – 106
    Kevin E Trenberth-102
    James E Hansen – 43
    David Rind – 27
    Jean Jouzel – 24
    John FB Mitchell – 28
    Gerald A Meehl – 20 [who hides behind the pseudonym Jerry Meehl]
    David Schimel – 5

    ******************************************************************
    Part C:
    These names do not appear in the most cited “climatologists” list, but were revealed as being activists by my searching for the names above. I’m sure that they are in the thick of things, but it’s going to take a lot of digging to ferret them out and determine their roles.
    Michael Schlesinger – 20
    Jonathan M Gregory – 4
    Klaus Hasselmann – 12
    David W Pearce – 1
    Pier Vellinga – 6
    Wolfgang Seiler – 1

    Fred Pearce – 4
    Jan Goudriaan – 1
    Hartmut Grassl – 4
    Nathan Poe [name only shows up in indirect reference, not actually part of the e-mail tree; since he's so well hidden, he must be a key player and dangerous foe]
    Jill Jäger
    Hans Opschoor
    Tim O’Riordan
    Martin Parry
    Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
    Tim Mitchell

  107. CEI’s timing suggests a very transparent case of vexatious litigation. Will CEI release the emails in which the timeline and timing of their ‘case’ is formulated and discussed?

    Communications between ‘climate realists’ on strategy are germane,too. Let’s have it all in the open.

  108. John Lish – an entirely do-able effort, in terms of the (relatively modest) amount of data involved and the tools needed to manage it.

    The key is buy-in from those working with the numbers.

    Done properly, it takes the Phil Jones/Ben Santer “it’s too much work to handle this FOIA nonsense” pretty much out of the equation. It’s just all there.

    If Mr Santer doesn’t want to defend the accuracy of his work then perhaps he should be involved in a branch of research that doesn’t have policy implications. As far as I’m concerned he’s more than welcome to follow through on his threat to pursue other employment.

  109. Pamela Gray (10:44:50) :

    Hell, I got chips, dips, beer, and chilli on the cookstove!

    Great! Us “howling wolves” gets hungry now and then. Sure there’s no rubber in that chili?

  110. When I first used to come on WUWT I would read comments referring to AGW scientists and Pro AGW politicians as “liars”, “power grabbers” etc. I used to think such comments were over the top and most probably not true as I wrongly thought these people weren’t evil, just wrong.

    Now I think differently. My advice is for those with the resources is strike while the iron is hot.

    Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. These scientists were like kids in a sweetshop.

  111. Meh. I’m one of “them FORTRAN dinosaurs” too. Just in case you ever wondered why “scientific types” use FORTRAN in all of its disguises: There was no other high level language when we started way-back-when in the sixties. You had toy languages such as ALGOL which didn’t even have an I/O module (you had to code your own). BASIC was still al gleam in the eyes of Kemeny and Kurtz, and Pascal and C didn’t exist.

    Thus FORTRAN became the language of choice of scientists. What other language should we have used? COBOL? Adding to the fray was the existence of the NAG (National Algorithms Group) library of mathematical and statistical functions (written exclusively in FORTRAN) and the question is: Why not?

    The deeper problem is not that we used FORTRAN, but that we could not code a [selfsnip]. So you end up with a routine spanning 12 pages of dense code, and just one comment in the header “this is the OPO49 skew filter”. As they say: “clear as mud, but it covered the ground.”

    You can obfuscate in any language, even those who are designed to prevent this such as MODULA2. I’ve seen such atrocities as premature loop ending by setting the loop counter to its max value inside the loop.

    I’m old enough to have started coding before Edsger W Dykstra’s “Goto considered harmful” paper saw the light of day, and believe me, it was even worse than you can imagine.

    This specific case that using FORTRAN for textprocessing may be stupid, well, maybe. FII didn’t have text variables at all, F66 did not have text processing (yes, you had the capability to store characters in numeric variables and print them using the A format descriptor), but F77 *had* build-in text capabilities way ahead of C (which, in my opinion is a glorified assembly language with data typing) and F90 added to that.
    So yes, maybe they should have used awk, but alas, there *was* no awk in those days. So we did it in FORTRAN, it being the only tool available. An we kept coding in FORTRAN using the motto: “stick to the devil you know”.

    Remember: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”: Do not hammer the language, concentrate on the bad coding and not using a CMS.

    Pjotr

  112. So the summary is:

    + We reject the ad hominems used by Mann, Jones et al against people like Pielke and McIntyre. That said, we will use those same attacks against anyone floating any theory even remotely in support of AGW.

    + All Warmers are name callers and should be called Warmers as a result.

    Here is the thing folks – it is about both science and politics. The ground looks like this – people identified as scientists are telling politicians that there is an existential threat. Politicians at first ignore it but when the media amplifies the assertion of the threat the public gets nervous. The politicians then respond and now refer to the scientists with a great deal of defference, as does the media.

    You now have a situation where the assertion of the existential threat is called into question because of the ethics of some of those leading scientists. Perhaps you think that the existential threat is overblown or you think it doesn’t exist in the first place. Your options are: (1) freak out and endorse any and all assertions made in any and all places that attacks any and all of the scientists; or (2) insist that the scientists play by the rules of the game called “science” instead of the game called “”public relations.” Insist on audits of climate records and insist that all publishing journals in the field of climatology insist on absolute public transparency and availability of both source and intermediate data.

    If you do option (1) then you will allow the PR playing scientists to continue playing PR and they will beat you. If you do option (2) and AGW is indeed a fraud (arguable in my opinion, but so what?) then that fraud will most certainly be exposed.

    FWIW, I think option (2) is the better one.

  113. 22 million listeners,
    many of whom are going to look at this for the first time, get angry, and call their pol. rep.
    That’s good!

  114. Henry chance (11:36:34) – Don’t know about the co2 in Pamela’s chili , but you might want to watch out for the methane . No offence intended , Pamela . The highest quality chili should produce any number of eruptions . IMHO .

  115. @JP (10:18:32) re: Filename: 1048799107.txt & Earth Government & And why were they reading their newsletter?

    ——

    Hi JP,

    I’ve no idea about the specific group that sent the newsletter to CRU ‘team,’ but would have to say that its likely meaningless. Anyone can send email to organizations and individuals if they can find the appropriate email addresses. Just receiving such a newsletter doesn’t necessarily indicate that those receiving it have any interest or association with those who sent it.

    As to what the whole ‘earth governement’ thing is…. for decades (perhaps even longer?) there have been various groups that push very hard for a ‘one world government’ and/or a ‘new world order.’ There are all sorts of phrases along those lines associated with this push. I’m sure there are any number of variations on the agenda and ideas for how something along these lines ‘ought’ to be implemented.

    This isn’t just some insignificant utterly fringe push, unfortunately, as there are some extremely wealthy and powerful individuals and groups behind such ideas and related activities. Even issues such as the push for international courts (which supersede national sovereignty) are thought by many to be attempts to force the world into some sort of one world government scheme. Supposedly Hilary Clinton and a number of other notables ascribe to the idea of a global governing body being somehow better for humanity.

    I’m sure you can see the ramifications and problems with such an idea – its difficult enough to govern a nation such as the USA and have representative government let alone try to reconcile the various radically different beliefs of what constitutes an acceptable governing framework that exists throughout the world. We can’t even resolve the Israel/Palestine issue, let alone the ideas of radical Islam and things like shia (sp?) law vs. ideas of western nations.

    If you google it, you can find very recent youtube and transcripts of Lord Monckton on how Obama is set to cede our national soverignity to the new proposed Kyoto treaty – which calls for ‘climate justice’ and a worldwide carbon tax. All of which is a huge wealth redistribution scheme to take from the more developed and wealthy nations and give to the less developed and poorer nations. From just a quick google grabbing the first couple of results without double checking content:

    Anthony has done one or more posts here about it:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/

    or one on youtube:

    or Canada Free Press about the issue:

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15816

    or if you look into recent calls for a new reserve currency for the world rather than the dollar….

    The whole ‘one world government’ thing is something that initially sounds like some ridiculous conspiracy theory or utopian dream that sounds good on first blush but on deeper examination would be an utter disaster (at least to our idea of freedom, human rights, standards of living, etc.). Its also something that many far left liberals/progressives in the USA support.

    Anyhow, when you start looking into it, you find that the ‘one world government’ idea is far more pervasive, long standing, and supported by many with tremendous power and resources — and then the whole thing becomes much more worrisome.

    That newsletter, however, sounds to me like some relatively fringe group pushing their idea of how it should work, and thinking or hoping that they’ll find a sympathetic ear at the CRU (and probably any other group that iare hard core AGW believers). Its the sort of newsletter that may very well get sent out fairly widely to anyone who could possibly be sympathetic as almost virtual spam.

    Hope this helps answer your question.

  116. pjotrk – agreed. We cannot get hung up on little ‘gotchas’ – every coder has thrown his share of exasperated comments around from time to time – the real answers will come from walking through the code and figuring out (a) what it’s supposed to be doing (b) whether it in fact does that.

  117. It’s all about realclimate.org, they only debate the easy targets on their website. They ask for proof from “denialists” as they like to put it, and they censor your comment for providing factual information lol. Just a bunch of word acrobatics over there.

  118. Pjotr — Exactly. Fortran runs thousands of factories and chemical plants and refineries today – because there is no economic incentive to re-code millions of lines of perfectly good code into a more “modern” language. Nothing at all wrong with Fortran, provided it is used properly (design, test, document, comments, flowsheets, etc). A bad programmer can screw up any programming language.

  119. Henry chance (12:17:18) :

    For the young entrepreneurs, how about inventing a foot peddle powered shredder. We can’t waste electricity generated by “dirty coal”

    The benefits
    1 Building up the thighs so they can jemp to conclusions more swiftly
    2 It is sustainable if they compost the shredded cellulose or send it to the cellulose driven ethanol plants
    3 No aerosols produced
    4 No contribution to garbage dump methane.

    Since paper comes from trees, is burning it considered “biomass” energy?

    In fact coal comes from plants. Is that biomass as well? Heck, plants use sunlight for photosynthesis, so isn’t coal just stored sunlight? Isn’t coal really a form of solar power?

    Also, if your shredder is human-powered, is running it considered a green job? Many of the green jobs in the future may be just manual labor. Talk about shovel-ready!

  120. Frank K. (12:22:00)

    Thanks for the link but I was referring to internal documentation being revealed which shows the same level of internal knowledge of the problematic coding/data/methodology as the HARRY_READ_ME.txt does.

    JEM – I agree its doable as a project, its the willingness to have a transparent process which I doubt.

  121. @ Adam Sullivan (11:14:10) : -SNIP- This is laughable. CRU has what kind of budget? -SNIP-

    Adam, I’m going from recollection of other folks posts, but apparently one or more of the released documents covers, at least to some extent, the amount of grant funding Phil Jones has gotten over the years for his climate research. Believe the figure quoted was 25 MILLION (pounds? dollars?).

    The funding and how its been used is another bomb in the release – there are emails by some talking about sending grant funding $$ to private accounts to avoid taxes ‘so more is available for research’ and various questionable things along those lines.

    Funding to each of the individuals in these emails and their organizatons and its appropriate or inappropriate (or illegal) use is just one more area that needs a thorough airing and legal examination.

  122. “you’re up against some tough minded ideologues who have no problem (and continually do) herding all critics into a single group and then pointing to assertions made by the likes of Beck as being irrational. That plays well to those who might otherwise ask critical questions of the alarmists.”

    It’s often the case that the more extreme opinionators are the trailblazers in making a fuss about a potential scandal. It’s a natural sequence, in both left and right. In some recent past scandals that have gone against the left, Limbaugh & co. were the first to jump in. (Or the pajama types of the blogosphere.) Once the mainstream follows, their pioneering no longer taints the case. The mainstream is drawn into paying attention because it doesn’t want to lose credibility by seeming to ignore the matter. So it’s necessary that far-out types make a fuss first.

    PS: I’d be surprised if Limbaugh were any sort of creationist–he doesn’t seem the type. Beck is one only (I think) because he’s a Mormon and it’s part of the package. (I don’t follow his shows–or Limbaugh’s.)

  123. @ Lucy Skywalker (11:15:50) :

    Lucy, there has been some push back regarding the legitimacy of temperature reconstructions using ice core data. You may be interested in this piece by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski.

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

    Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
    Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2

    March 19, 2004

    Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
    Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
    Warsaw, Poland

    I am a Professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (CLOR) in Warsaw, Poland, a governmental institution, involved in environmental studies. CLOR has a “Special Liaison” relationship with the US National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements (NCRP). In the past, for about ten years, CLOR closely cooperated with the US Environmental Protection Agency, in research on the influence of industry and nuclear explosions on pollution of the global environment and population. I published about 280 scientific papers, among them about 20 on climatic problems. I am the representative of Poland in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and in 1980 – 1982 I was the chairman of this Committee.

    For the past 40 years I was involved in glacier studies, using snow and ice as a matrix for reconstruction of history of man-made pollution of the global atmosphere. A part of these studies was related to the climatic issues. Ice core records of CO2 have been widely used as a proof that, due to man’s activity the current atmospheric level of CO2 is about 25% higher than in the pre-industrial period. These records became the basic input parameters in the models of the global carbon cycle and a cornerstone of the man-made climatic warming hypothesis. These records do not represent the atmospheric reality, as I will try to demonstrate in my statement. [emphasis added]

    -SNIP- (continued at link provided above)

  124. From Bishop Hill post on HADCRUT code.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/23/the-code.html

    He asked for help in scouring the files for interesting bits.
    Informative comments from posters:

    Mark in the comments notices a file called resid-fudge.dat, which he says contains, believe it or not, fudged residuals figures!
    Mark in the comments notes a program comment: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! followed by the words `fudge factor’ ” See briffa_sep98_d.pro.
    From the programming file combined_wavelet.pro, another comment, presumably referring to the famous Briffa truncation: “Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)”.
    From the file pl_decline.pro”: “Now apply a completely artificial adjustment for the decline only where coefficient is positive!)”
    From the file data4alps.pro: “IMPORTANT NOTE: The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density’ records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set this “decline” has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring density variations, but have been modified to look more like the observed temperatures.”

    If these are true and accurate…..!

  125. Does anyone know what’s going on at the CRU? No, seriously. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt All the year’s data apart from January & February has disappeared! We were on course for about 0.42 globally THEN all the data disappeared, THEN this appeared on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377128.stm I mean, you couldn’t make this up – but it appears they are! Does anyone have any explanations, apart from the obvious?

  126. This is illustrative in a lot of ways of the left. It will also open millions of eyes to their MSM allies covering up the story of the decade.

    As these people try to spin their way out of being caught in a systematic pattern of willful deceit dating back over a decade, they are exposing just how far outside of the boundaries of ethics they are willing to go for their cause, and that they are absolutely shameless about it.

    This should be punished and punished hard because the ramifications run into the trillions of dollars and billions of lives negatively affected. There also needs to be a message sent that intentional fraud will lead to unimaginably severe consequences.

    No intention of resigning? Pshaw. Nixon did less wrong that you guys. You and your pals should be run out of the scientific community so far that he closest that you get to science is perfecting the french fry at your new job at Burger King while you are out on Huber(work release from jail).

    If we let fraud become a way of life in the scientific community, getting a socialist one world government would be the least of our worries.

    The CEI starting lawsuits against NASA is a good thing. I’d like to see class action suits brought by everyone that was damaged by the global warming scam. Hit em hard, hit em wide, and hit em deep. Every power company and power company customer should be in the class. Every factory closed and all of the workers displaced should be in the class. Nail NASA, the CRU, IPCC, Sierra Club, WWF et al and anyone else defrauding the public.

  127. Great to see these guys (and yes, its mainly guys, here at least) making complete tits of themselves – keep up the good work WUWT!

  128. “Your options are: (1) freak out and endorse any and all assertions made in any and all places that attacks any and all of the scientists; or (2) insist that the scientists play by the rules of the game called “science” instead of the game called “”public relations.” Insist on audits of climate records and insist that all publishing journals in the field of climatology insist on absolute public transparency and availability of both source and intermediate data.

    “If you do option (1) then you will allow the PR playing scientists to continue playing PR and they will beat you. If you do option (2) and AGW is indeed a fraud (arguable in my opinion, but so what?) then that fraud will most certainly be exposed.”

    Absolutely. Restraint is essential. A call for going over this affair, and over the case for AGW in general, with a fine-tooth comb by panels of scientists (preferably retired) is something few now can object to. We’ve got a year or so to do it in before making any trillion-dollar commitment. Politicians would like this route now, because it allows them to back down gracefully in case AGW turns out to have been overblown. So there’s lots of potential support for this.

    Making incautiously worded accusations that imply “case closed” or anything like it will be (in the public’s eye) easily refuted, discrediting our side. Instead, just call for “more light” and “a double-check on the science,” and then let time do its work.
    ======

    PS: Regarding creationism, astrology, etc.: Pascal said, “Man is so necessarily mad that not to be mad is but another form of madness.” I.e., it’s probably better to have your craziness “out front” ala Beck, than under the covers, like The Climate CRUsaders.

  129. Adam Sullivan (12:52:27) :
    “Perhaps you think that the existential threat is overblown or you think it doesn’t exist in the first place.”

    …Actually, it’s the threat to bleed us white with so-called “carbon taxes” that exists for us, that and the threat to destroy our liberties.

  130. pjotrk (12:51:21) :
    This specific case that using FORTRAN for textprocessing may be stupid, well, maybe. FII didn’t have text variables at all, F66 did not have text processing (yes, you had the capability to store characters in numeric variables and print them using the A format descriptor), but F77 *had* build-in text capabilities way ahead of C [...]

    Remember: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”: Do not hammer the language, concentrate on the bad coding and not using a CMS.

    Heh, it wasn’t ‘A’ in F66, it was ‘H’ for Hollerith. ‘A’ was F77. I remember the past…

  131. For those criticizing Rush Limbaugh here please consider that he expressed disbelief in global warming long before many of us (including myself) did. I can remember listening to his program several years ago and wincing when he trashed global warming. I was thinking “Give me a break, Rush, everyone knows global warming makes sense and all the scientists affirm it is happening.” He was ahead of his time on this issue. Certainly no scientist, but maybe he has the intuition to smell a hoax better than most.

    He tries his best to get the science right. He communicates it to the layman better than many of us could.

    Maybe some scientist should volunteer to teach him more about this subject. He would learn more than Al Gore could.

  132. Pamela Gray (10:44:50) :

    Hell, I got chips, dips, beer, and chilli on the cookstove!

    My recipe for chili includes a liberal dose of crushed red pepper. After tasting that, you’ll need some hard-boiled eggs to chew on to dampen the fire in your mouth. Washed down with some beer and you’ll get all the global warming you can handle.

  133. Jean Bosseler (13:35:43) :

    of course they have the data. They haven’t massaged it yet for release early next year

  134. Really fubared that HREF Link! Good lord, anyone would think I’ve never written a webpage before! Must hide the decline…!

    Jean Bosseler (14:11:21)

    Yes, thats the link.

    REPLY: You are making this too hard. Simply type in the link in the comment and WP will auto link it.

    Example: http://www.google.com http://www.amazon.com

    all I did for these was type in the w w w . whatevever and WP did the rest. Works the same for cut and paste. – Anthony

  135. Chris S (13:46:03) : JP (10:18:32) : “Does anyone know what this Earth Government is?”

    Sorry, I messed up second link above. Here it is corrected.

    It’s also a new religion, complete with covenant (“earth charter”) and “ark of the earth charter”.

    Note the earth charter info is a PDF put out by the UN.

    They are the last people I want in charge of my world.

  136. And Roger Harrabin’s conclusion to this whole thing is:

    “But this affair will surely change things: From now, scientific teams and peer-review groups will be much more cautious about how they word e-mails.”

    We’re screwed if this is the type om MSM storys that will cover this scandal

  137. REPLY: You are making this too hard. Simply type in the link in the comment and WP will auto link it.

    Example: http://www.google.com http://www.amazon.com

    all I did for these was type in the w w w . whatevever and WP did the rest. Works the same for cut and paste. – Anthony
    ————————-

    Yeah, I know. I’m just trying to be clever and failing dismally! :)

  138. “Adam:
    Here is the thing folks – it is about both science and politics. The ground looks like this – people identified as scientists are telling politicians that there is an existential threat. Politicians at first ignore it but when the media amplifies the assertion of the threat the public gets nervous. The politicians then respond and now refer to the scientists with a great deal of defference, as does the media.”

    Sorry…I disagree. This makes it sound like the politicians are somehow reluctant, late adopters. The politicians never ignore anything that allows them to exert control, or that’s a source of revenue. The monies involved in the taxation that’s all built on this house of cards has already been spent funding all manner of things.

    JimB

  139. I have never felt this many emotions at once. Relief that CC is finally proving to be bogus. Anger that so many have had to go without government help because so much of its money, my tax dollars, has gone down this s@it hole, and worry that the responsible persons will get away with this grand lie while managing to force punitive and unnecessary legislation on the masses. Folks this train is well out of the station and can well cause some damage before it is halted. I am writing every member of our government here in Canada. I will also be asking my local MP what my government plans to do with the revelations of the past few days. This is a time for action. We cannot leave this to the experts only. Who is putting pressure on the main stream media to break this story? No one here in Canada as far as I can see. We need to bring the Liberal media to its knees on this and force them to put the truth front and center.

  140. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8377465.stm

    Horrorbin waxes large.

    “Over two decades I’ve spoken to mainstream scientists who are sick of hearing their work attacked and their motives questioned. In this world, climate science extends beyond arguments about trend-smoothing to become a matter of life and death for millions of people, according to the mainstream projections on temperatures.”

    Yes, yes, Roger, but did you speak to non-mainstream scientists who are sick of hearing their work attacked and their motives questioned?

  141. “Why Phil Jones had not yet resigned is utterly astonishing.”

    Give it time. For the dead pool I place the date of his resignation to be announced by Monday. I would have chosen later but i remembered the brits don’t have Thanksgiving

  142. Rational Debate (12:57:26)
    and
    Chris S (13:46:03)

    thank you both. that was great help. glad to see that our side is always ready to help the least informed. now to the general public, en force.

  143. I originally put this comment under another thread, but it is more appropriate here.

    Might I suggest that the CEI add an FOIA request for all work product related to meetings and decisions to “Gut” the Global History Climate Network of any high altitude and cold location thermometers? It is directly related to this, as both Hadley CRUt and GISS GIStemp depend on GHCN for the bulk of their input data (thus the two “agree” so well…) and the GHCN data set is managed by NASA.

    No coincidence at all… The “magic sauce” is GHCN. As is admitted in the emails, the CRUt series depends heavily on GHCN. GIStemp depends heavily on GHCN. NOAA (with a NASA data set “manager”) produces GHCN.

    All the thermometer location “cooking” that was done to GHCN (moving from the mountains to the sea, moving from the poles to the equator) is reflected in both Hadley CRUt and GIStemp. Same Garbage In, Same Garbage Out.

    From:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/


    Comment by Prof. Phil Jones
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/ , Director, Climatic
    Research Unit (CRU), and Professor, School of Environmental Sciences,
    University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK:
    [...]
    Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same
    as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used
    by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center

    And just who owns that NOAA dataset? Who is “The Data Set Manager”? What I could find looks like a guy at NASA. From:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/

    down in the comments:


    e.m.smith
    It took a while to find, but I think I found “who owns GHCN” and “who manages it”.

    From: http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_GA_CLIM_GHCN.html

    We find that:

    GHCN data is produced jointly by the National Climatic
    Data Center, Arizona State University, and the Carbon Dioxide
    Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

    The NCDC is a part of NOAA. So I’m not seeing NASA on this list. But…

    It goes on to say:

    Personnel
    SCOTT A. RITZ
    Role: DIF AUTHOR
    Phone: 301-614-5126
    Fax: 301-614-5268
    Email: Scott.A.Ritz at nasa.gov
    Contact Address:
    NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
    Global Change Master Directory
    City: Greenbelt
    Province or State: Maryland
    Postal Code: 20771
    Country: USA

    So it looks to me like it has NASA staff assigned, part of Goddard (though it isn’t clear to me if G. Space Flight Center and G.I.S.S. are siblings or if one is a parent of the other. I suspect GSFC is an underling to GISS. That would have Scott Ritz reporting to Hansen IFF I have this figure out… (And all that personal data is at the other end of the link anyway so I’m not publishing any private data NASA has not already published.)

    It’s looking to me like GISS has their fingerprints all over the GHCN deletions, with NOAA ether as patsy or passive cooperator.

    And as you so aptly put it:

    Over to you Senator Inhofe ……..

    And I’d also suggest now: Over to you, CEI…

  144. This just in:

    Inhofe Begins Climategate Investigation

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=27fe9184-802a-23ad-45e5-8feb948b7bb3

    “Washington, D.C.-Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today sent letters to several scientists, some of whom allegedly manipulated data to prove the scientific “consensus” of global warming, as well as to the inspectors general of several federal agencies, notifying them to retain documents related to the release of emails from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit.
    “The stakes in this controversy are significant, as it appears that the basis of federal programs, pending EPA rulemakings, and cap-and-trade legislation was contrived and fabricated,” Sen. Inhofe said. “Moreover, it appears that, in an attempt to conceal the manipulation of climate data, information disclosure laws may have been violated.

    “I certainly don’t condone the manner in which these emails were released; however, now that they are in the public domain, lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called ‘consensus’ of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world’s leading climate scientists.”

    The letters are the first step in the investigation of the climate scandal. Last week, emails released by a computer hacker revealed that several leading climate scientists allegedly manipulated climate data and research used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists also appear to have refused outside access to their raw data, obstructed freedom of information requests, and plotted ways to prevent the publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals by scientists who question global warming alarmism.”

    Go to the link to see the full article as well as links to letters that have been sent to a number of parties of interest, including the infamous Dr. Mann as well as to the IG at the EPA. This should be fun.

  145. IMO ethical offenses and likely crimes are being committed every day As Gavin Schmidt distributes more of the fraud and now cover up.

    His methods at RealClimate are such that he is producing, for wide distribution, a heavily distorted misrepresentation of the unfolding CRU hack story and AGW.

    Schmidt is blocking posts while selecting for admission those posts which either support his objectives or have opposing content which he can most easily dispute.

    This effort by Schmidt amounts to the use of public money to perpetrate blatant fraud and deceit.

    This must end and Schmidt must be removed.

    Nothing less.

    Schmidt’s tax funded propaganda is being picked up and repeated.

    Chris Horner of CEI discussed the CRU hack with Howard Gould of the Clean Economy Network.

    Take a look.

    http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27533307/hot-air.htm#q=guest+chris+horner+videos

    Gould is quite deliberate in his parroting Schmidt and contributing to the deceit.

  146. tallbloke (14:15:18) : “Did Michael Mann escape the list by not being a climatologist?”
    Mann’s only 193 on the most referenced list, and didn’t appear in the activist email that had the other researchers not in the top 50. (Part C in my post)
    If you plug “mann” into the search engine at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php, you get a lot of false positive (e.g., HeilMANN) matches; “michael mann” gets 61 hits, which probably underestimates his involvement. I’m not even a “fornesic” computer investigator, so what I can reveal is merely the tip of the iceberg.

  147. We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.

    http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/

    The petition is open to UK citizens and ex-pats.

  148. The Australians have completely lost the plot on this issue. But it really does not matter what they do now. They will probably lose billions to companies moving out. Fortunately the US and most other relevant countries will not buy it. Once G Brown loses the next election the whole thing will collapse in UK and likely CRU will no longer exist.

  149. I can’t read through all of this page, but want to respond to the questions about GOTOs and F77.

    In the late 80’s I was tangentally involved with a commercial project to port code written in FORTRAN-Y (I believe a cross between FORTRAN IV and FORTRAN-66) to FORTRAN-77 as it was the last version able to handle the GOTOs yet had block conditionals.

    IIRC FORTRAN-Y could only execute a single statement following an IF, so the thing to do back then when you needed to execute more than a single line of code was to branch with GOTOs.

    Exiting loops with GOTOs was clearly not recommended as indices for the loops were technically “undefined”, but that didn’t stop anyone as the results were consistent.

    That code handled portfolio accounting representing about 40% of the volume of the NYSE at the time.

  150. There is a2001 statue about making data public without the proper quality checks. it’s called The Data Quality Act …

    The Data Quality Act (DQA) passed through the United States Congress in Section 515 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 (Pub.L. 106-554). Because the Act was a two-sentence rider in a spending bill, it had no name given in the actual legislation. The Government Accountability Office calls it the Information Quality Act, while others call it the Data Quality Act.

  151. If legal, I would be willing to contribute money to fund CEI’s lawsuit against NASA GISS. How do I going about doing so? An internet “donation bucket” would be nice.

  152. Daddy, why are we killing the polar bears with global warming ?

    Oh sweetie, come here and sit down for a minute. You see, certain scientists told the world some lies about this thing called global warming. Then, leaders from around the world supported those lies and told more lies of their own. Even our leaders here in America told us lies to about how this made-up thing would hurt people.

    Look peanut, these people did a really bad thing. Their lies have cost trillions of dollars and wasted people’s time and energy all around the world. But now these bad people have been caught lying so don’t worry, the polar bears will be fine and we will all be ok.

    Now I want you to go out and play and stop thinking about this stuff some people at school and other places have put in your head. Go out and have fun and just remember, don’t tell lies, they might affect the whole world someday.

    End of Story

  153. Eventually, someone needs to start thinking in terms of a RICO suit against the fraudmeisters. Ran across a number earlier in the year (haven’t reverified it yet) that the feds spent around $97 billion on manmade global warming research and mitigation since the mid-1990s.

    Limbaugh’s connection to climate science is Dr. Roy Spencer.

  154. This is another one of those rare occasions when I feel like standing up and cheering; Hooray!! Yeah! Hooray!!

    (My wife is in the next room wondering what the heck is wrong with me!) :-)

    BTW I second the motion by Reed Coray.

    “If legal, I would be willing to contribute money to fund CEI’s lawsuit against NASA GISS. How do I going about doing so? An internet “donation bucket” would be nice.”

  155. Adam Sullivan (10:06:17) wrote :

    “FWIW, having Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh bloviate over all of this is no help.

    It doesn’t add to the weight of the arguments for science.

    Both these fools are young earth creationists. So when they argue a scientific matter it allows those under attack to fire back with some effective ad-hominems.”

    Adam, FWIW–that comment was nonsense on stilts.
    As noted just above, Rush’s conduit to climate information is Dr. Spencer, who he occassionally interviews on his show.

  156. @Richard Henry Lee

    ‘Moreover, the President instructed agencies that information should not be withheld merely because “public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”’

    My opinion is that this is intended to facilitate embarrassing, or worse, the previous administration. As with many lofty progressive ideals, it only applies to the “right” kind of person.

    @pjtork “This specific case that using FORTRAN for textprocessing may be stupid, well, maybe.”

    True story. I once told the old joke “What’s an engineer? An engineer is someone who writes a word processor in FORTRAN” to an engineer. Without so much as a smile he thinks for a moment and says in a thoughtful monotone “You could do that.”

  157. I’m an old country girl who still loves lima beans and mustard along with a nice big chunk of ham hocks. And we are talking mustard that can get up and walk across your plate and spit in your eye! We put mustard on every bean we raised, canned, or cooked, including the beans that landed in venison chili. So I’ll take your chili and up the ante by putting a heaping teaspoon of nuclear mustard on it.

  158. regarding the dispute between
    Bart Nielsen (19:06:27) : and Adam Sullivan (10:06:17) :

    Adam Sullivan wrote “FWIW, having Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh bloviate over all of this is no help.
    It doesn’t add to the weight of the arguments for science. Both these fools are young earth creationists. So when they argue a scientific matter it allows those under attack to fire back with some effective ad-hominems.”

    Bart Nielsen replied “Adam, FWIW–that comment was nonsense on stilts. As noted just above, Rush’s conduit to climate information is Dr. Spencer, who he occassionally interviews on his show.”

    As Dr Spencer himself notes at http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
    “As I investigated religions other than Christianity, I became aware that many of them assume evolution to be true. The Bible was the only ‘holy book’ in which I could find a record of God’s creating the material universe from nothing! Next, the work of many historians revealed to me that the Bible is by far the most accurate and best-substantiated ancient book known to man. It truthfully portrays actual historical events and has been faithfully copied by scribes over the centuries so that what we have today in the Bible is, to a very high degree (within a percentage point or two), known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the same as was originally written down by the authors. Furthermore, nothing in that two percent affects any of the major Bible teachings or events.” No “peer review” needed here!
    The reason Dr. Spencer is right, and the Godless warmists are wrong, is that Dr. Spencer has seen the light, gotten Right with God, and become Divinely inspired in his good works. The warmist, atheistic, secular humanist group has created a new Godless religion. As Blaise Pascal said, “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” It follows as night follows day and as rain follows the plow that any so called religion such as AGW that has a Godless center can be nothing but evil. This battle isn’t about taxes, or scientific consensus, or whether there are a few intemperate scientists at an institution in Britain, or Republican versus Democrat political ideologies, but truly a battle between Good and Evil.

  159. You ought to be getting raw data from satellite sites like the tree ring laboratory at the University of Arizona, and see if they match what the CRU scoundrels have in their computers.

  160. So, I don’t agree that Limbaugh and Beck’s “bloviating” can hurt, and will, in fact help turn the tide politically against the AGW movement.
    And, those who are so inclined, and I imagine there will be even more now, can always check into the science for themselves, and will see that AGW consists primarily of smoke and mirrors.

    It could also turn those away who may have been fencesitters who already don’t like Limbaugh or Beck. It can work both ways.

  161. @Mark Hugoson (12:05:10) :

    -SNIP- But having worked in Nuclear Power for 20 years, and knowing the Cosmic ray density is about 0.5 Rotegen per year…
    and that after 100,000 R you have NO ORGANIC MATTER LEFT, I’d just pose this little question to Mr. Sullivan – The T Rex bones with “Soft Tissue”, what could their MAXIMUM AGE BE?

    (Hint: It’s a simple division problem, and it comes up with a FACTOR of 1000
    different from the “geological age”…)

    —————

    Hi Mark,

    I’m afraid you are a little off base here.

    One of the most highly radioresistant bacteria that’s known, Deinococcus radiodurans can apparently withstand an instantaneous dose of up to about 500,000 R with no loss of viability, and up to 1,500,000 R with 37% viability remaining. So, with these sorts of doses we’re talking some live viable organisms even – a far cry from total destruction of all organic matter. Just search on the organism’s name and you’ll find references.

    There are other microorganisms and protozoa who’s LD 50/30 (50% of the population exposed dies within 30 days) is well over 100,000R and some as high as 300,000R. That’s an acute dose no less. This probably not the best reference, but was one I found with just a quick search: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=11&ved=0CAkQFjAAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unscear.org%2Fdocs%2Freports%2F1958%2C%252013th%2520session%2520(Suppl.%2520No.17)%2F1958final-3_unscear.pdf&ei=5fUMS-6aNofGMePNgOEC&usg=AFQjCNE5MppjlFiOHPQK60Ptbz7rTBBuMw

    It is truly incredible the extremes to which life can and has adapted.

  162. The warmist, atheistic, secular humanist group has created a new Godless religion

    Give it a rest. Some of us are atheist, secular and humanist, and not at all interested in AGW.

    If you want to go fight Atheism, secularism etc, then fight an anti-Atheist forum to do so.

    If you want to fight nonsense Science, then invoking the Deity is exactly the wrong way to do it. No-one involved in a serious discussion of science is going to pay any attention to someone with such obvious ulterior motives. You worry about the AGW crowd playing politics, and you play the religion card back. That makes you as stupid as them.

    Fight their science with real science, nothing else.

  163. Chris – God Bless you and CEI. When viewed in the rear view mirror at some point in the future, this will be a watershed moment in the fight against the political science AGW hypothesis.

    Lysenkoism, eugenics, the Copernican dustup over the Church’s gaia-centric teachings…..all went down in flames. This will be no different.

    Western prosperity – steadily improving living standards, per capita income, life expectancy, etc. – is directly tied to affordable, reliable energy. The left’s attack on fossil fuels is an attack on prosperity, perceived overconsumption, etc. Let us not forget that the hardest green left want to reduce the globe’s population in the worst possible way. Dramatically reducing energy use (via substituting high cost, unreliable “alternative” energy”) is nothing more than an attempt to reduce the planet’s population under the seemingly bulletproof shield of “saving humanity and the planet”. But the shield isn’t looking so bulletproof now, is it?

    For readers not familiar with the concept of the environmental kuznets curve, please research it, so that more of the world is informed about the link between prosperity and improving environmental conditions. This is important, because after AGW has been sequestered in the dustbin of failed science, the hard green left is unquestionably going to cook up a new environmental catastrophe and start this racket all over again.

  164. Quantum (19:22:47) :

    True story. I once told the old joke “What’s an engineer? An engineer is someone who writes a word processor in FORTRAN” to an engineer. Without so much as a smile he thinks for a moment and says in a thoughtful monotone “You could do that.”

    LOL! The response of the engineer is funnier than the original punch line!

  165. Mooloo (02:24:46) :

    Fight their science with real science, nothing else.

    Exactly, but in order to win such a fight, one has to understand the enemy, and in this case the enemy is behaving as if they’ve created a new religion. By recognizing this, it might be easier to get more people involved, maybe even non-scientists.

  166. “You worry about the AGW crowd playing politics, and you play the religion card back. That makes you as stupid as them.
    Fight their science with real science, nothing else.”
    Do people think that Dr. Spencer should take off his Intelligent Design hat, dumb himself down by putting on their “real science” hat, and fight the battle on their terms?
    Do people think Dr. Spencer is that schizophrenic, or should pretend to be for tactical reasons?

  167. Anthony! Thanks for this post. I had never visited CEI, but I had heard of them before. Today I visited tham and made a “helpful” suggestion about funding for their upcoming legal battles, if I get a reply, I’m in.

    These are interesting times. Many kudos to you and yours as well. I posted on RC as well, asking them why no mention of this issue is on their site? I challenged them to post it and accurately depict CEI’s position, not their version of it and give their response in a balanced way. I’ll go back this afternoon and see if it made the cut and got posted, any takers on that bet?

  168. Mark Hugoson (12:05:10) :

    “Adam Sullivan (10:06:17) :

    FWIW, having Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh bloviate over all of this is no help.

    It doesn’t add to the weight of the arguments for science.

    Both these fools are young earth creationists.”

    What does it matter if they are “young earth creationists?” A young earth is no contradiction, since G-d created a functioning world, and even if something didn’t happen, it doesn’t mean that if the world were older it wouldn’t have. The science was built into the world, and so it works the same regardless of the age at which was created.

    Example. the Lubavitcher Rebbe is a “young earther,” yet a book about his ideas on the subject, written by Arnie Gotfryd, has this written on the jacket by one “young earther” you may have heard of.

    “What is science, what are its strengths, its limitations, and its lessons for humanity? This thought-provoking volume will help readers engage such questions through the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, a great and thoughtful teacher. His penetrating insights illumine modern issues with timeless wisdom. – Arno Penzias, Nobel laureate in Physics “

    Ad Hominem attacks are a tool of the Left.

  169. Hey while you’re at it Chris, sue NASA about those volumes of UFO-related documents they’ve been hiding for years. We all know there’s a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY among scientists to cover up the TRUTH! But of course, the secret council of behind-the-scenes liberal world leaders has an agenda: decimate our industrial capability throuh the “global warming hoax,” and then we will be a soft target for the invading alien colonists.

Comments are closed.