If you tried earlier and could not purchase this great book, it is online now at Amazon and ready for purchase.
UPDATE : Kindle version now available for purchase online at Amazon.com click here
Climategate: The CRUtape Letters (Volume 1) (Paperback)
~ Steven Mosher (Author), Thomas W. Fuller (Author)
Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1)
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #72,392 #1,041 in Books – let’s see if we can make that go up. Already, just out of the gate it’s beating Joe Romm’s “Hell and High Water” book which is at Amazon.com Sales Rank: #235,474 in Books (as of 1/18/09)
See my review and excerpts below.
Electronic publishing has revolutionized the art of writing, now less than two months since it happened, we have the very first book about Climategate. My first story on Climategate appeared on November 19th, 2009: Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released
I’ve read the book, and it appears to be an accurate and detailed portrayal of the history not only of the Climategate events and the players, but also of the events leading up to it. I’m flattered that this book mentions me and my surfacestations project several times. I was interviewed for the book, and this website is featured prominently–and they borrowed liberally from both the posts and the comments.
For those of you that want to follow a detective story, this one has as the twists and turns of Mickey Spillane with a Hardy Boys approach to a matter of fact story line. I highly recommend it.
This book is being published in electronic downloadable form, and is available for purchase online. You’ll recognize the authors as regulars here and at Climate Audit. Please consider purchasing this book, as it will provide funds to get Mosh out of the flat in San Francisco he shares with Charles The Moderator, who are becoming the climatic odd couple of our time.
Here are excerpts of the book:
In October of 2004 McIntyre and his criticism was on the radar of climate scientists. Tom Wigley writes Phil Jones about McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s work ( MM03) which is making its way around the internet. Wigley is not as dismissive of McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s work as is Michael Mann. In fact, Wigley calls Mann’s paper a very sloppy piece of work…
At 20:46 21/10/2004, [Tom Wigley]
Phil,
I have just read the M&M stuff critcizing MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work — an opinion I have held for some time. Presumably what you have done with Keith is better? — or is it? I get asked about this a lot. Can you give me a brief heads up? Mike is too deep into this to be helpful.
Tom.
As Wigley notes M & M (McIntyre and McKitrick) have some valid points in their criticism of MBH ( Mann and his co authors 1998 paper). What Mann viewed as a stunt others found merit in. Wigley asks Jones about his reconstruction work with colleague Keith Briffa. Briffa, as the Climategate mails show and as his studies show was less certain about reconstructions of the MWP than Mann was. Jones, of course, is stuck between supporting Briffa or Mann, both co-authors. Most importantly Wigley recognizes that Mann is too deep in this to be helpful. Mann has too much at stake to be objective. Jones replies, by this time taking on some of Mann’s attitudes toward McIntyre and McKitrick:
From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxxxxx
To: Tom Wigley wigley@xxxxxx
Tom,
The attached is a complete distortion of the facts. M&M are completely wrong in virtually everything they say or do. I have sent them countless data series that were used in the Jones/Mann Reviews of Geophysics papers. I got scant thanks from them for doing this – only an email saying I had some of the data series wrong, associated with the wrong year/decade. I wasted a few hours checking what I’d done and got no thanks for pointing their mistake out to them. If you think M&M are correct and believable then go to this web site
Point I’m trying to make is you cannot trust anything that M&M write. ….
Bottom line – there is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and varaibility.
Cheers
Phil
Jones’ “gut feeling” is at stake and he is clearly agitated by his encounters with McIntyre, a marked difference from their exchange in 2002. In 2002, McIntyre was merely a researcher asking for data, but by 2003 McIntyre was a published author leveling criticisms at Jones’ co author Michael Mann. Jones also refers Wigley to a web site that discussed M&M. The fight over MM03 was largely taking place on the web as McIntyre had started to write about his findings on a blog called www.climate2003.com. For independent researchers like McIntyre, posting articles on the internet was far more expedient than publishing in page limited journals. And just as citizen-journalists had transformed print journalism with the advent of blogs, climate science looked ripe to be transformed by the internet. McIntyre and McKitrick also adopted a publication model used by econometricians: they posted their data and their code so that anyone could check their work, find errors and suggest improvements. This gave them the moral high ground of transparency as opposed to Mann’s and Bradley’s shadowy world of “independent scientists,” although Mann and Bradley would certainly argue with some legitimacy that they were only following a century-old practice.”
…
Steve McIntyre struggle for years to get accurate data out of the hands of an elite team of scientists in England and the U.S., only to be stymied by continued refusals and runarounds. At the beginning the data concerned work highlighted by your host, Anthony Watts, about the fidelity of the temperature records here in the United States. Later, it revolved around the data used in construction of proxy temperature records, such as the Hockey Stick Chart, now infamous for shoddy analysis and poor sample selection. Climategate, written by Steve Mosher and Tom Fuller, is an account of the events leading up to the leaking of over 1,000 emails and assorted files that exposes the unethical and perhaps illegal practices used by the Hockey Stick Team to protect their turf as well as their information. These rock star scientists dined with the elite and feasted on government grants, but it was all predicated on ‘hiding the decline:’ Making sure no-one saw how shaky their data, analysis and conclusions actually were. Hide the decline didn’t refer to temperatures–it was worse. It was a decline in the quality of their data they were trying to hide. This book puts it all into context–and in context it is worse. Mosher actually played a small part in bringing the details to light (although your zany moderator Charles the First was more instrumental), and Fuller covered the story for examiner.com from day one of the scandal. Here’s an excerpt: “In Chapter 6 we introduce the Army of Davids that will start the laborious process of documenting all the surface stations in the US. McIntyre starts dissecting the Jones 1990 paper and his intense focus on individual cases finds a sympathetic ear in Anthony Watts, who launches an even more detailed look at individual cases in the US. Discussions about UHI and data and code turn from a focus on Jones 1990 to a focus on NASA and their GISSTEMP code, which is eventually released.
At the start of May, McIntyre links to a blogger named Anthony Watts, a former TV meteorologist who was convinced that temperature monitoring stations in the United States were in dire shape and could not be trusted to create a temperature record, especially one that the world would use as a reference point for dealing with climate change. During the summer, Watts would launch a nationwide volunteer effort to document the weather collection stations used by NOAA, NASA, CRU and Jones. The effort that Trenberth thought too large for any one individual would be handled under Watts’ generalship by a true army of Davids across the nation, using the tools of the internet. The goal very simply was to document the status of the temperature collection stations. Many hands made light work of the job scientists thought too large to attempt.
Tom Karl of NOAA takes notice of Watts but is not sure how it will turn out.
From: “Thomas.R.Karl” <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxx>
Subject: Re: FW: retraction request
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:21:57 -0400
Thanks Phil, We R now responding to a former TV weather forecaster who has got press, He has a web site of 40 of the USHCN stations showing less than ideal exposure. He claims he can show urban biases and exposure biases. We are writing a response for our Public Affairs. Not sure how it will play out. Regards, Tom
That effort, ridiculed at first by bloggers in the warmist faction, would in the end garner Watts a visit to NCDC to discuss his work. Moreover, in the end NOAA would engage in an effort to bring the climate network up to better quality standards. As of July 2009 the volunteer effort, hosted at www.surfacestations.org. had surveyed 1,003 of the 1,221 stations used by NOAA and corrected mistakes in the official metadata.:
Readers from this site can finish that part of the story.
Buy the book here:
Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1)
Glenn Beck just bashed the Danny Glover comment about global warming causing the earthquake in Haiti.
Hmmm, Volume one? Is Mosher not telling us something…….?
Nice to see someone making money off that which was stolen from others.
Look for my book on the out-of-context emails of Steve Mosher, coming soon!
REPLY: Actually, the CRU documents and emails are considered by many to be public property and subject to FOIA requests in the UK – Anthony
Volume 1! Does that mean there is more to come?
Not yet on Amazon UK we only have – on a Climategate search
The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by A W Montford (Paperback – 15 Jan 2010)
Climategate: A Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam by Brian Sussman (Hardcover – April 2010)
Just ordered copy through CreateSpace instead of Amazon. Authors get a larger %.
Is there an electronic edition anywhere?
Nice. All that’s missing now is the same on Barnes & Noble so I can use my PayPal account…. 🙂
I guess this book is required in my shelf.
OT, but just saw this from KJL at The Corner at National Review. The State of the World Forum has postponed their planned climate summit in Washington D.C.
http://www.worldforum.org/2009WashingtonDC.htm
Dear Friends,
I want to inform you that we have decided to postpone indefinitely the Washington conference Feb. 28 – Mar. 3. I apologize for any inconvenience this might cause you. There is simply not a critical mass of receptivity at this time for the kind of “Climate Summit” we have designed, which has emphasized an integral approach to climate change and the need for an “urgency coalition” to come together to take immediate and decisive action to resolve the climate crisis
As disappointed as we are that the conference will not take place, the considered opinion of all our conference partners has been that this is simply not the right time to convene a major conference of this kind in the nation’s capitol. It would have virtually no impact on either the thinking or the agenda with which the U.S. Congress and the president are now engaged, such is the paralysis to which Washington has succumbed with regard to any action on global warming. In due course, this situation will no doubt change, probably induced by a sufficiently strong climate related catastrophe, but this is the stark reality we face at the moment. As a result, raising funds and registering sufficient numbers have been extremely challenging.
They see the lack of ” a critical mass of receptivity” for an “urgency coalition” in D.C. Perhaps there is hope available after all.
Hmmmm… Can I get a signed copy?
Reply: I’ll see what I can do for our all time comments in a day winner. ~ ctm
If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.
Our Gav has got his nutty mate to come and see us. Whats occurring I says, Hansen tells me us why its all so hot when we all feel so could. I said to our Gav look see he must be on something? Maybe an ego trip?
http://www.realclimate.org/
So I tries to help me mates at UnReal Climate
What a dreadful article from someone who not only fiddles the temperature data but also fiddles the scales on his graphs.
The weather conditions we are experiencing presently and in the last thousands of years area what is expected in a Holocene climate optimum. Even a dullard would know that.
Gav, Hansen and the other self named Climate Scientists have been shown to be at best incompetent and at worst out and out fraudsters.
Trick or Cheat
My wage comes in in a few days; I might get that…
I asked kindly before.
Now I am pleading (DON’T MAKE ME BEG)!
How do I get this autographed by CTM and Steve Mosher?
I have purchased this through Createspace and would happily pay shipping both ways!!
Re: Hans Moleman (14:49:47) :
And with a single comment you condemn a whole genre of literature – True crime.
Love the title.
C. S. Lewis’ “The Screwtape Letters” was a set of letters written by a senior demon to a junior demon, giving advice on how to lure humans to perdition.
@hans trollman (15:07:56)
I would have like to have seen the original CRU data in context before it was eaten by the dog. But I can’t.
FOI requests were made for the data and the e-mails and nothing was released. Some public spirited individual cut out the middle man and released these anyway.
It is lucky these e-mails are in the public domain before the cat buried them or something.
Why do you not want these e-mails out in the public domain? Have you read them all? Or have you just read the spin put on them by your chums at fakeclimate?
The reviews on Amazon have started: like…
“1.0 out of 5 stars Comically Recycled Delusions, January 18, 2010
By Ben Lawson “Ben” (Toronto, Canada) – See all my reviews
Someone stole some climatologist’s e-mails. Someone else carefully selected some phrases out of context and tried to claim that this proved the climatologists were engaged in skullduggery. (The B.S. quotes are all right there on the cover!) Indignant fingers were pointed.
The secrets and “tricks” and conspiracies were found to perfectly match the public record.
And now it’s all nicely packaged, “spun” and self-published by the accusers themselves.
This looks like a perfect book for someone who KNOWS that scientists are lying to them and needs some mental crutches to support their paranoia.”
I have already marked it as unhelpful, but others may wish to add their reviews after they have read the book.
Old Jim:
The Hockey Stick Illusion;Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by A W Montford (Paperback – 15 Jan 2010)
See the BishopHill blog at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/ … Montford’s book is well worth getting, tho he has not been able to get it published in the US yet. He is asking for some help on this.
For those interested in the politicization of climate science, it is sure to be a must add addition to your library.
Hmm..an hour later and it’s jumped to 20,128th
Hans Moleman (15:07:56) :
Oh yeah, that’ll work well. Check the book, I’m sure there are plenty of references to UEA and CRU dismissing several FOIA requests. Very possibly one for which the .ZIP archive was created for.
While there has been too much discussion at WUWT about thing taken out of context, I never found them hard to spot. Anyone who has been around here for a while and followed the interaction between the major players knows a lot of the context.
For example, the “Nature Trick” was not something to trick the journal Nature with, but something that may have covered up some effects of increased plant growth due to rising CO2. (Note – that’s speculation on my part!) Jones et al jumped on defending the “trick” but studiously ignored the “hiding the decline.” The assumption that the decline was temperature was wrong and out of context – really referred to wood density, but that’s related to temperature. In the end, context is available and I’m sure is a signifcant part of the book. We shall see.
Why are you assuming that the book perpetuates the out-of-context discussion? Perhaps it would make sense to read the book before criticizing it.
——
Bummer – does this mean the book downloaders will get their copy before me? And I bought two. I was thinking of giving my brother one for last Christmas, but he bought a copy already.
I think that this book and the misrepresentation of the content of the e-mails will be the legacy of the anti-scientist crowd.
Wow… Wanted to let you know I wouldn’t mind paying extra for a signed first edition!! Thanks… Mike
Hans Moleman (15:07:56) :
“If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.”
—————————
You do realise that you are being absurd.
Given the readiness of CRU and friends to render prompt co-operation with FOI requests that should mean that we will be waiting until sometime in the next century.
Given the sheer volume of material leaked there can rarely have been any correspondence ever made public which has more context.
I hope that SMosh can sell enough copies to get his own place before Gavin brings out his prize-winning “RealClimate, the best years of my life or so I thought”
CTM, I truly hope that Mr S delays the release of his memoirs to date until you can get your space back!
Dave Wendt (15:02:43) :
OT, but just saw this from KJL at The Corner at National Review. The State of the World Forum has postponed their planned climate summit in Washington D.C.
http://www.worldforum.org/2009WashingtonDC.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s all on the backs of Californians now.
“For those in the United States, it seems time to work, as Governor Schwarzenegger urges, at the sub national level as he has done so effectively in California. The fact that Washington seems incapable of action is actually an opportunity for traction locally in specific cities, states and regions. This is where the 2020 Campaign in the U.S. will focus its energy – supporting local initiatives and strategies. There is very significant work being done which inexorably will turn the tide.”
In other words, the high priests of AGW realize they cannot convince the voting public of the US to support their unaffordable religion, so the entire senseless burden of eliminating CO2 emissions is now on the backs of the citizens of the bankrupt state of California. Our governator has already committed us to this insane cause.
Ckn Litl (15:23:56) : “How do I get this autographed by CTM and Steve Mosher?”
Perhaps you could send them a stamped, self-addressed envelope and they can send back a signed post-it you can affix to the book? (Sending the actual book for signing would generate more CO2 dont-ya-know) 🙂
Anthony wrote:
This book is being published in electronic downloadable form, and is available for purchase online.
I believe the book is only being offered in paperback form from Amazon and CreateSpace – not in an electronic downloadable format.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.
Kevin Stamey
Reply: Kindle format to come soon. eBook is under evaluation. ~ ctm
Amazon US: one rubbish review. Always the rubbish reviewers have only ever done one review; always the good reviewers have done a fair handful at least. Amazon UK: nothing. Bishop Hill on Amazon US: claimed to be out of print. Bishop Hill on Amazon UK: claimed to have only one book copy.
This is not the first time I’ve seen Amazon backward re skeptics climate material.
Hard talk on bbc2 just now has yet another compliant BBC stooge, SS, talking to a GreenPeace activist about CarbonHage failure.
The Science is, apparently, settled whereas the Fraud is unrecognised!
SS does sound a tad more adversial than hitherto but as it’s the BBC I struggle to expect that we will find out that us evil first worldwers are, once again, the kitten stroking child killers.
BTW, the more I listen, the more I’m starting to believe that Aunties kids are turning into Screptics!
This is strange. Watching Hard Talk on BBC2 just now this is my impression. The Beeb is now Sceptical!
Darn it Auntie, I thought you were lost to logic, now even Steven Sachur may be an Honest man’
Cheers SS!
Hans Moleman (15:07:56) :
“If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.”
If ‘The Team’ or its dwindling band of sycophants really believes that they would be helped by providing more context around the Climategate information than that already in the public domain, why don’t they provide it? Go ahead – make our day. I think that you are all bluff and bluster.
Climategate: The CRUtape Letters (Volume 1)
Volume 1, more volumes to come. I like it!
Fill my library boys!
The carbon credit trading pushers fully intend to implement their plans despite the Climategate and the man-made global warming fraud. More news stories need to be published on this subject.
Global carbon emissions market could reach $1.4 trillion in 2020, Report Says
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/76637-global-carbon-market-could-reach-14-trillion-in-2010-report
The emails were leaked and maybe I have an alter ego
There was an article by Dr Tim Ball speculating about who might have leaked the emails. In the comments section I posted my reasons for suspecting Mike Hulme. The next day someone else posted a comment beginning “Good call on Brifa”. Later the name of the author of that comment was changed to Thomas but I definately didn’t write that second comment. I’m not sure what to make of it. Maybe the moderator made a mistake or maybe I’m going mad. Anyway here’s my comment followed by the link.
How about former CRU and IPCC man and climate Professor Mike Hulme who teaches at the University of East Anglia. Originally he was very pro post normal science. His objectives were: To trade truth for influence. To make climate science post-normal (source: small dead animals website, article: post normal science) 2007.
Then he seemed to change his mind and maybe could see something coming:
“Hulme believes that this dependence of politics on science expects too much of science’s ability to explain and to predict, and that this is a burden that science cannot carry. Science is exposing its vulnerabilities, he says. And in overselling itself, the risks are very substantial.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme_interview/
and “To hide behind the dubious precision of scientific numbers, and not actually expose one’s own ideologies or beliefs or values and judgments is undermining both politics and science” “time to ditch climate consensus” Hulme May 2009.
Then came climategate: Headline: the IPCC is over says UEA climate scientist. That was Hulme too.
Posted by Thomas on 12/23 at 11:01 PM | #
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/comments/climategate-whistleblower/P6/
Maybe Hans Moleman, JohnP and whoever else who agrees with them could then be so kind as to “contextualize” the e-mails? I’ve seen the phrase “out of context” being repeated like a mantra, as if it explained everything (or anything). Well then, what *is* the context? And If you don’t know, how do you know that they’re out of context? That position makes no sense whatsoever.
mmmm. well, I’ve just bought a copy to help Mosh out of his flat (heh!) and begin a climate sceptic section in my library. Amazon bloody stupid reviewer clearly hasn’t even read it, so I rated it unhelpful (current rating “0 out of 27 people found this review unhelpful”). Love the C S Lewis allusion in the title! Will reserve judgment till I’ve read it. Which is as it should be.
John Christy interview on ieee spectrum:
Really interesting point, which Anthony Watts pointed out somewhere also.
A highlight from the interview:
“Without energy, life is brutal and short.”
The so-called scientists within “the team” are perfectly positioned to be turned into scapegoats and “thrown under the bus” by nervous politicians seeking to jump on the growing trend of public scepticism of MMGW.
Politicians being lagging indicators of public popularity will be amongst the last to make the shift.
I want an autographed copy too. I hope the authors don’t take this personally, but I would rather have my copy autographed by Phil Jones.
First review from realclimate
That first review on amazon entitled ‘Comically Recycled Delusions’ is from Ben Lawson who posts his propaganda on realclimate, desmogblog and any other place where climategate is mentioned including on this site. Not a surprise really.
Hans Moleman (14:49:47) :
I didn’t know it was proven the CRU file was stolen. Would you tell me where I can read about this?
JohnP (15:56:57) :
I think that this book and the misrepresentation of the content of the e-mails will be the legacy of the anti-scientist crowd.
“anti-scientist”?
I am pro science and I don’t accept the current politicised advocacy parading itself as climate science to actually be science.
Last time I looked, real science involved an open, transparent, and serious dialogue between theory and empirical evidence that could be independently replicated by others. None of those descriptors can be applied to the activities occuring at the Hadley CRU, NOAA, GISS, et al…
MMGW is little more than a trumped up superstitious belief in the power of man to control climate that appeals to insecure personalities that can’t cope with the actual irrelevance and insignificance of humanity in the face of the awesome power of the natural world.
The lasting legacy of the MMGW movement will be as a sharp and distinct lesson in the madness of crowds, the gullibility of the ill-educated and the duplicity of the conmen who have sought to dupe the world in the quest for Wealth, Fame and Power.
photon without a Higgs (17:37:46) :
Hans Moleman (14:49:47) :
I didn’t know it was proven the CRU file was stolen. Would you tell me where I can read about this?
An excellent point Photon. – So Hans, you are able to rule out the options of (1) Internal whistleblower/leaker, and (2) Accidental placement of the file on the FTP server where it was thence downloaded by a third party.
Both options do not involve theft. I would be interested to know how you have ruled these possibilities out…
I await to marvel at your response.
Hans Moleman (15:07:56) :
If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.
It’s a good idea.
Please contact CRU and all the people involved in ClimateGate and ask for a complete record. Do you think they will be open to that? Many people would like to have it.
Not trying to start a stampeded but other people can put their reviews in there along with that deluded nut, who posted the “unhelpful” review. The title was “Comically Recycled Delusions”. What would that apply to, to you guys? LOL
Last I checked it was #5,139 in sales. Go Steve Go!
Hans Moleman (14:49:47) :
Nice to see someone making money off that which was stolen from others.
Almost all news media, TV, radio, and internet, in the US, and all around the world, have reported on ClimateGate. You could make a case that all of these have, in some way, made money from those reports.
Crazy California CO2 Law:
“On August 31 [2006], the California legislature passed a bill establishing the most extensive carbon dioxide (CO2) emission controls yet in the United States. The law requires a 25 percent reduction in state CO2 emissions by 2020, with the first major controls taking effect in 2012. The California Air Resources Board, the agency that enforces the state’s air pollution controls, will be the main authority in establishing emission targets and noncompliance penalties for the law, which also allows for business incentives to reach the goals.”
“Several northeastern U.S. states signed a regional agreement to reduce CO2 emissions in December of 2005 but their target would reduce emissions by only some 24 million tons. The California mandate, which aims to cut emissions to their 1990 level, will result in cuts of some 174 million tons.”
“Opponents worry the new law will hurt California businesses and actually contribute to global warming by raising compliance costs to prohibitive levels. “If our manufacturers leave, whether for North Carolina or China, and they take their greenhouse gases with them, we might not have solved the problem but exacerbated it instead, warns Allan Zaremberg of the California Chamber of Commerce.”
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/004895.html
Just bought it, added my “unhelpful” to Lawson’s infantile review and posted the following:
“The secrets and “tricks” and conspiracies were found to perfectly match the public record.”
…. and that’s a good thing ??
I reported Ben lawson’s review as inappropriate. I wasn’t given the option of explaining why but given that the reviewer hadn’t read the book and given the number of review critics and ‘unhelpful’ votes who knows Amazon might remove it.
photon without a Higgs (17:47:44) :
“Please contact CRU and all the people involved in ClimateGate and ask for a complete record. Do you think they will be open to that? Many people would like to have it.”
If it truly is public property, then it matters little whether they are open to it or not. If it truly is public property then they can delay the release but not prevent it. And though this delay may be frustrating, waiting for the complete information is better than running off to sell half-assed analysis based on incomplete data to the gullible public.
artwest (16:04:01) :
“Given the sheer volume of material leaked there can rarely have been any correspondence ever made public which has more context.”
Really? What information are you basing this assumption on? I don’t know anyone who has provided accurate information as to what percentage of the total emails during that time period were actually released.
Graeme From Melbourne (17:45:34) :
“So Hans, you are able to rule out the options of (1) Internal whistleblower/leaker, and (2) Accidental placement of the file on the FTP server where it was thence downloaded by a third party.
Both options do not involve theft. I would be interested to know how you have ruled these possibilities out…”
I’m not ruling out any options, though I don’t see how any of the ones you listed aren’t theft. They all involve private messages released to the public by someone other than the author. Seems the consensus on this blog is that the messages were public anyway so the ends justify the means. So be it. We can leave that issue to rest. Still doesn’t change the fact that whoever released the messages provided no means to confirm whether or not they were altered or whether or not they were cherry-picked from a larger pool of correspondence. Seems odd that people crying about not having access to all the information in one situation would be so happy to forge ahead with limited information in another (and to charge for it no less)…
REPLY: Just a note, it has not been definitively established yet that the CRU/Climategate incident was a theft. That is only speculation, and investigations have not been completed. There is also supporting evidence (mainly the contents of the FOI2009.ZIP file itself and it’s organization that would require hacking multiple accounts and computers) that strongly suggests it could be a leak. – A
Good for the bottom line it $eems.
Hans Moleman (18:22:51) :
If it truly is public property, then it matters little whether they are open to it or not. If it truly is public property then they can delay the release but not prevent it.
Please tell me where you learned of the procedures of FOI.
How is leaking private email messages not theft?
REPLY: Consider whistleblower laws designed to protect such actions. Right now we don’t know which it is, hack/theft or a leak by a whistleblower. When the investigation is completed by police, we’ll have a label, right now we don’t -A
Just bought my copy. Looking forward to reading it. I just finished “The Resilient Earth” by Doug Hoffman & Allen Simmons. Enjoyed it and recommend it.
Hans Moleman (18:22:51) :
They all involve private messages
The messages are not private. They were made on publicly owned computers by people employed by the public. They were not privately owned computers for personal use.
trolls are making a lot of commotion about this book. they are afraid.
Just bought my copy. As of 8:46 PM (-6:00 GMT) it is 5139 in sales rank.
I’ve no doubt this will serve as important a place in my science information collection as my copy of the Walter Kronkite narrated recording of “Man on the Moon”.
This book and the record are examples of the scientific and political hurdles good people willingly faced to endure in the end.
I gave the book a Kindle plug on Amazon.
I was at Barnes and Noble today looking for a book on Chaos Theory. I was not able to find a book on this subject . (Any suggestions) On the adjacent aisle are the Environmental Sciences shelves. Not only was I disappointed at not finding a book but when I looked at their environmental collection I was appalled. Most of the books they had were devoted to saving the planet from climate disasters and those filled three shelves. I found two books which questioned the claims for global warming. I am glad this book, Climategate, The Scrutape Letters, has come out and I hope it will be such a popular seller that the demand at Barnes and Noble will exceed their library of pulp fiction. Or perhaps the shelf should be renamed , the New World Religion. Of course the publishers and book sellers will only back authors to write what the publishers and sellers think they can sell. Or is it what they want to sell? It is interesting to look at shelves in libraries and bookstores. It would appear to me that books from the liberal authors outnumber the books from conservative authors 10 to one. I feel like there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth about global warming! You can bet that this books will dissected by the reviewers without their achieving any understanding of the content. Some have already begun to criticize the book on the lame excuse that the e-mails were stolen. I plan to read it and pass it on.
Now on Amazon ….. 1 of 62 people found the Lawson’s review helpful…. LOL.
Mod: There’s a typo at the start of one of the long paragraphs in the article by Anthony (and in the book?): Change to “struggled” in:
“Steve McIntyre struggle for years to get accurate data …”
I suggest that the authors (Charles and Mosh), or someone, put together (edit) a collection of 10-20 enlightening essays on Climategate, such as this one: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_the_truth_hurts_wh.html
I’m sure the essay-authors wouldn’t ask for anything, provided the royalty were donated to WUWT or some similar entity.
North Americans can buy books not yet published in the US by setting up accounts (with their current credit cards) at http://www.amazon.co.uk It’s easy.
#1362 with 2 reviews, the 2nd by “not a carbon cow”.
Hans Moleman (15:07:56) : it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.
Can this reasoning be applied to the missing thermometer records as well?
Just asking… 😉
BTW, it would be nice to make http://www.surfacestations.org in the article a clickable link.
I suspect the reason it is “volume 1” is because the trials ( and tribulations?) are not yet over for the CRU crew. There is a lot more yet to be written, but only after the history has actually happened…
The current rating is “1 out of 66 people found this review helpful” (no “un” prefix).
PS: There are 22 comments on that reviewer’s review, 80% of them pretty spicy, I bet.
Ckn Litl (15:23:56) : Now I am pleading (DON’T MAKE ME BEG)!
How do I get this autographed by CTM and Steve Mosher?
Steve, I think I see a “value added” product in your future… Get a crate of ‘authors copies’ and sign them. Offer on WUWT for Price + shipping and “handling” 😉
photon without a Higgs (18:28:41) :
“Please tell me where you learned of the procedures of FOI.”
The internet: http://bit.ly/6tBhsA
“The messages are not private. They were made on publicly owned computers by people employed by the public. They were not privately owned computers for personal use.”
Right, as I said in my last post: Seems the consensus on this blog is that the messages were public anyway so the ends justify the means. So be it. We can leave that issue to rest.
Doesn’t change what I said about making assumptions from incomplete data.
JohnP (15:56:57) : I think that this book and the misrepresentation of the content of the e-mails will be the legacy of the anti-scientist crowd.
Strange view. Typically the “whistleblowers” and the folks who write up their stories and discoveries are lauded. And it’s the folks found doing things like, oh, collusion to suborn the peer review process, and collusion to thwart the foia laws, and suppression of dissent and… that have a ‘legacy’ to worry about.
I’d also assert that your biases are showing. Generally the “anti-AGW” folks are pushing for more strict adhearance to the rules of science and the preservation of standards. The “anti-scientist crowd” would be the folks suborning the peer review process…
Oh, wait, I think I missunderstood you. You are saying that the CRU crew are the ones who are “anti-scientist” with their attempts to misrepresent the “hide the decline” and “Nature trick”; and that their legacy is what is at risk! Oh, yes, now I see…
@Gerry
So, why not commit the governator to a recall election. Seems to me the last one on LaLa Land went rather well.
Hans Moleman (20:07:01) :
You had said this:
Hans Moleman (18:29:39) :
How is leaking private email messages not theft?
I was responding to that. They are not private emails. Also the ClimateGate computer code is not private.
Hans Moleman (20:07:01) :
Doesn’t change what I said about making assumptions from incomplete data.
Emails are not data.
Hans Moleman (20:07:01) :
Seems the consensus on this blog is that the messages were public anyway so the ends justify the means.
I don’t know what the consensus in this blog is. But I do know you mis-characterize my view.
Again, you assume something immoral and/or illegal took place in releasing the CRU file to the public. We don’t know yet how it was done. So for you assume it was done wrongfully isn’t right. If it turns out that something illegal was done then you will be correct.
Hans Moleman (20:07:01) :
As one commenter above has said you are assuming the context of the emails is wrong in the book. How do you know the context is wrong?
Hans Moleman (20:07:01) :
One more thing:
are you having issues of conscience with FOI requests of CRU that were not complied with as you are with your assumed issue of conscience over how the CRU file was made public? Those were a real case of immoral, unscientific, and illegal activity. Is that bothering you?
Gerry (16:23:19) :
It’s all on the backs of Californians now.
“For those in the United States, it seems time to work, as Governor Schwarzenegger urges, at the sub national level as he has done so effectively in California. ”
In other words, […]now on the backs of the citizens of the bankrupt state of California. Our governator has already committed us to this insane cause.
In other news, this just in: The local school boards around the state are conducting meetings with teachers to discuss their preferences. Being offered is a choice of:
Quitting.
Dramatic pay cuts.
Complete loss of medical coverage payments.
Reversal of the move to smaller class sizes. Standard size of classes to increase by about 30% – 50%. (to 30+)
Pick more than one of the above…
Please note: These are NOT hypothetical choices. These are what was “offered” this past week to teachers in a school district near me. By law, 1/2 the State budget must go to education, but there is no limit on what percentage of that can go to junkets to Copenhagen for professors and to administrators counting bananas and “little raincoats” vs. k-12 teachers…
Bonus Round: In other news, reports are that the latest “balance the deficit” meetings in California center around a proposal to raid the pension funds of the state. Nobody here will be able to retire anyway, so who needs one?
Way to go Gov. Ahnold, glad you can be so effective as to not only cripple the economy but gut a struggling school system in the process! If you can be this effective for just a few more months, the State can declare bankruptcy and just start over. Just like our cities have started doing:
http://www.vallejobankruptcyupdate.com/
http://calpensions.com/2009/05/21/vallejo-bankruptcy-trend-or-lost-cause/
So to everyone else in the rest of The Real World: California is leading the charge on Cap and Trade and AGW “effectiveness”. We are well down the road at this point.
Want to know what the future holds for you? Just look at “us”…
Oh, and just in case it was not clear from the above: Do NOT buy any muni bonds from California. Even if the particular city or property is “sound”, as the bankruptcy filings add up, the interest rates on the whole category will rise, and that will drive the price of existing bonds down. The time to buy will be when the crisis is passing and rates are set to fall. Give it a couple of years…
If for some reason you MUST have California Munis, keep the maturity under 2 years, preferably under 1 year, and have a broadly diversified fund with a smart fund manager…
I’d like to suggest a small thought experiment. As a PURE HYPOTHETICAL let us imagine that after a clearly illegal hack a collection of emails and files, from the private computers of Monckton, Lindzen,Singer, Spencer, Watts, and other prominent climate skeptics which contained the barest hints of the kind of nefarious collusion so blatantly revealed in the CRU emails, was made available on the internet. Does anyone, even for a minute, believe that we would be hearing the same supposedly principled conscientious objections to privacy violation from the same voices raising them now, in defense of the skeptic’s privacy rights?
He has to step down this year, so not worth the effort. What an opportunity the guy missed. A leader with the personality and ego to blow up the fraud, and it flew right over his head. He should feel mightily duped.
BTW, Sacramento is not a suburb of LA.
Hans Moleman (18:22:51) : And though this delay may be frustrating, waiting for the complete information is better than running off to sell half-assed analysis based on incomplete data to the gullible public.
I agree completely with this statement, as long as you apply it to HadCRUT, GIStemp anonomaly maps and other “data products”, and NCDC “adjusted” data and their data sets that have had roughly 90% of thermometers none-reporting since 1990 (i.e. “cooking the books” by thermometer deletions).
Please, oh please, get them to stop selling “half-assed analysis based on incomplete data to the gullible public”. Especially the CRU crew who, thanks to the LEAKED emails, we know have no real vetted data to work from.
Hans Moleman (18:29:39) : How is leaking private email messages not theft?
Simple example: If I, as a web site administrator, set the permissions wrong on a file and you, as a public person, pick it up on a public server, you have not committed theft as there is a failure on my part to exercise due diligence to protect my stuff. Just as if I lay a $10 bill on the sidewalk and it is gone an hour later, it is not theft. It is failure of “due diligence” on my part.
Further, if I leave a sever open to entry, it is not tresspass. Just as if I have a non-posted property with no fences up, a person walking across the lawn is not committing tresspass.
Further, even if a person gained access to that server via deception, thanks to recent UK case law, the commission of such a vandalism in the service of a greater good is now an innocent act. Please call James Hansen to the stand…
So the leaker (or otherwise) may simply claim that it was clear that the astounding level of harm about to be done to the planet in the name of AGW was a great harm (it being founded on a web of subornation of the peer review process, intimidation of editors, insider self dealing, suppression of evidence of it being entirely wrong, etc. in the emails) and that the “lesser harm” was to set the FOIA file free. And they would be entirely correct and protected under UK law as it now stands (as I understand this backward law). So, not “theft” just as a “break in” to the computer under those terms would be “not trespass”.
REPLY: Consider whistleblower laws designed to protect such actions. Right now we don’t know which it is, hack/theft or a leak by a whistleblower. When the investigation is completed by police, we’ll have a label, right now we don’t -A
But as you will remember from a comment I made when this news first came out: The pattern of data in the files and the date stamps indicate that this was NOT a “hack and grab”. It is just impossible. The FOIA file was clearly being complied for an FOIA request, and the release just as the FOIA was denied (based on misrepresentations, as seen in the emails) the file was released.
There are only 2 things that fit this pattern:
Bad admin on the server, file left exposed. (lack of due diligence, not theft).
Release by an inside party with access. (Authorized person, not trespass, not theft. Best you can get is ‘lack of performance of fiduciary duty’ or something similar. You could try for “vandalism”, but, see above…)
The only caveat to this is that the UK might have some bizarre “computer law” with specific definitions that would over ride the general ones.
FWIW, I’m not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion. But I have been involved in a few cases of policing computer hacks, breakins, and “walking folks off the site” when I caught them. And I’ve done a fair amount of computer security and forensics work as a professional at it. So I’m “in the field”. And the assesment that it was NOT a “hack and grab” is exactly what I would offer as my professional opinion (though an inspection of logs and records would be useful. There is a remote possiblity the FOIA file was being compiled and that a VERY VERY lucky hack found it and grabbed Just The Right Thing… But I’d sooner bet on a lottery ticket than that. And I never buy lottery tickets, it is just a tax on stupidity.)
My best guess is simple: They had it on a server with bad security and “Joe Public” could just take a copy. There is a history of bad security on their public server. It fits ALL the known facts. And a “Joe Public” downloading a file from a public FTP / Web server is NOT committing theft.
“Hans Moleman (15:07:56) :
If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.”
Hans, there are very specific and ridgid laws surrounding information held by public authorities in the UK.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1
The Hadley CRU is a UK based, publically funded organisation. There are no excuses, Dr Phill Jones tried to deny access to the information for many years.
If the CRU emails are truly public property then it would make sense to request the rest before conducting any analysis so the messages can be put in their proper context.
That is not necessary. They can release them without any one asking.
philincalifornia (20:47:32) :
DonS (20:14:11) :
@Gerry
So, why not commit the governator to a recall election. Seems to me the last one on LaLa Land went rather well.
He has to step down this year, so not worth the effort. What an opportunity the guy missed. A leader with the personality and ego to blow up the fraud, and it flew right over his head. He should feel mightily duped.
BTW, Sacramento is not a suburb of LA.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t understand why some of Schwarzenegger’s knowledgeable conservative friends didn’t clue him in on the AGW scam years ago. He could have vetoed the CO2 bill with a stroke of his pen. Instead he enthusiastically supported it. I guess his liberal relatives succeeded in making him feel guilty for driving a Hummer.
Sacramento is not a suburb of LA, but Schwarzenegger has a home in Southern California.
“Climategate: The CRUtape Letters” still not available on amazon UK :-<
A W Montford "The Hockey Stick Illusion; Global warming and the corruption of science (Independent Minds)"
Estimated arrival date: February 15 2010 – February 23 2010
Ordered before Xmas! :-<<
Christopher Booker "The Real Global Warming Disaster" received, read and recommended as a good account of the history of the AGW scam. Well written and amusing (as you would expect).
#957!
I have already marked it as unhelpful, but others may wish to add their reviews after they have read the book.
Why wait? I already marked it so.
I cannot understand the ethics, logic or morality of Hans Moelman and those posters aligned with him, who attempt to defend the indefensable. Each day, as more evidence is made public that CAGW is, without doubt, a fraud so blatant and so large that it almost defies the imagination, individuals still defend the actions of those ‘scientists’ who literally stole public funds from us, their taxpaying employers. If the scam had succeeded, it would not only destroy the economies of developed nations but would have denied developing nations any chance of a decent life for their citizens.
Come payday, I will order a copy of ‘The Crutape Letters’. I enjoyed ‘The Screwtape Letters’ and am sure the moral contained will be similar.
E.M.Smith (21:20:11) :
I completely agree, further, if it were a real breakin I think CRU and authorities would be quite forthcoming with that information, like press conferences and pity parties.
My suspicion (pure speculation) is that if it was compiled for the FOIA request, the whistleblower could be anyone. If he compiled it himself, it would likely be someone with superuser access and friends with the Russian students at CRU (or were they just at UEA? I forget.) In the latter case it would be a lot easier to identify the whistleblower and that could have made the news.
I used to say that, but a friend with a math degree called it a tax on people who didn’t learn math. I have a fantasy of being a substitute math teacher in a high school class (they still teach probability in high school, right?) and bring in a few lottery tickets and work through the “expected value” of each. And then not be invited back. Here in New Hampshire lottery income goes to schools.
Also, our Megabucks ticket has an expected value close to break-in so I’ve been buying one when convenient before the next drawing. The chance of winning is infinitesimal, of course, but at least it’s way better than Power Ball!
Besides, I think of it as a non-deductible donation to a state without a sales tax (except for that 9% rooms & meals tax aimed at visitors) and no income tax (except for that payroll tax paid by employers of for-profit businesses which might otherwise go to me (gov’t employees aren’t subject to that tax). And the LLC tax, and stump tax, and communications tax, and all the vice taxes (set lower than surrounding states)….
photon without a Higgs (20:23:47) :
“Hans Moleman (18:29:39) :
“How is leaking private email messages not theft?”
I was responding to that. They are not private emails. Also the ClimateGate computer code is not private.”
There are legal channels for requesting and receiving that information. Assuming investigations don’t find evidence a whistle blower was involved, then these emails were stolen.
“Emails are not data.”
Use whatever word you want. The fact remains you have no way of knowing whether any of these emails have been altered or what percentage of the total emails produced was actually released. Thus, you have no way of knowing whether the emails you are reading have been placed in proper context.
“Hans Moleman (20:07:01) :
“Seems the consensus on this blog is that the messages were public anyway so the ends justify the means.”
I don’t know what the consensus in this blog is. But I do know you mis-characterize my view.”
Apologies. Please clarify your view for me then. If you don’t believe the ends justify the means then what will your position be if the emails turn out to have been stolen?
“As one commenter above has said you are assuming the context of the emails is wrong in the book. How do you know the context is wrong?”
Because no one knows how many other emails produced during that time period have not been released and what the may have added to the discussion. Context is important, especially when discussing personal communications.
“are you having issues of conscience with FOI requests of CRU that were not complied with as you are with your assumed issue of conscience over how the CRU file was made public? Those were a real case of immoral, unscientific, and illegal activity. Is that bothering you?”
Yes. I think all data should be made freely available to the public.
E.M.Smith (21:20:11) :
“I agree completely with this statement, as long as you apply it to HadCRUT, GIStemp anonomaly maps and other “data products”, and NCDC “adjusted” data and their data sets that have had roughly 90% of thermometers none-reporting since 1990 (i.e. “cooking the books” by thermometer deletions).
Please, oh please, get them to stop selling “half-assed analysis based on incomplete data to the gullible public”. Especially the CRU crew who, thanks to the LEAKED emails, we know have no real vetted data to work from.”
I’m not clear what you’re saying here with regards to the CRU leak. You do think it’s valid to make an analysis without having all the data or you don’t?
“But as you will remember from a comment I made when this news first came out: The pattern of data in the files and the date stamps indicate that this was NOT a “hack and grab”. It is just impossible. The FOIA file was clearly being complied for an FOIA request, and the release just as the FOIA was denied (based on misrepresentations, as seen in the emails) the file was released.”
What information are you using to make the assumption that other theories are impossible? I hope it’s not just that the name of the file had ‘FOIA’ in it…
I wish the authors every success.
It was claimed by many that the CRU temperature data was still reliable because US providers had matching results. Now we know why. They were massaging the station results in the same way as the Russian data had been corrupted.
What amazes me is that the MSM doesn’t want to touch these revelations, yet I sense that the public is quite clear about AGW. I’m sure MSM journalists read WUWT; how about explaining to us why all this is not screaming from every headline?
Hans Moleman
2010/01/19 at 5:48am:
“There are legal channels for requesting and receiving that information. Assuming investigations don’t find evidence a whistle blower was involved, then these emails were stolen.”
Mr.Moleman, you evidently have not been paying attention. The data was leaked because CRU corruptly refused to comply with British FOIA laws on fraudulent grounds, for many years. Thus, this leaking is legitimate and legal whistle blowing, protected by law.
Dave, you would be referring to our conversations here (why go to the trouble of emailing when you can quickly post at WUWT)? If you struggle to figure out how to hack into our posts here and then conjure up our collective distressed harrumph over your success, no wonder your belief in a trace gas being more powerful than a pressure front.
In fact, if you want, I will give you any and all emails about weather and climate I have sent. That would number maybe three. The rest are posted in various blogs around the internet. I will try to contain my harrumphery.
I ordered this as soon it became available from “Createspace” and just received my copy from the USPS. Didn’t expect it until February 4. Good job guys.
Hans Moleman (05:48:40) :
“Emails are not data.”
Use whatever word you want.
It was you that used the word data.
Our exchange isn’t making progress—nothing to see here. So I’ll move along now.
Ref – Hans Moleman (18:29:39) :
“How is leaking private email messages not theft?”
_________________
Well…. as some would say, “It all depends on what you mean by ‘leaking’.” Isn’t English the best language in the world? So inprecise, so flexable, so everything. Then again, we could also hire a few Philadelphia lawyers to ask the same of, “private”, “email”, “messages”, “not”, and “theft”, AND “How”, AND that absolutely beautiful lawyer word “IS”.
Give it time, life is not black or white, but a million shades of gray.
Alexander (03:29:04) :
I cannot understand the ethics, logic or morality of Hans Moelman and those posters aligned with him, who attempt to defend the indefensable.
After three years of dealing with trolls I have come to an understanding of them. I have found the more they talk the more they reveal what they really are all about. That’s why I exchanged comments with him here—so he would talk more and others could learn what they are all about.
I think Hans didn’t know that was what I was doing. 🙂
FYI. Amazon have co mingled, in their database, “our” Steven Mosher with Steven W. Mosher who I believe is an older person than “our” Steven and who writes quite different subject matter than this. Could be an issue vis a vis intellectual property, royalties, etc.
mikelorrey (06:11:52) :
“Mr.Moleman, you evidently have not been paying attention. The data was leaked because CRU corruptly refused to comply with British FOIA laws on fraudulent grounds, for many years. Thus, this leaking is legitimate and legal whistle blowing, protected by law.”
I’m sure investigators would love to know how you contacted the people involved with releasing these emails and discovered their reasons for doing so. I’d also like to know, in fact. Please fill us all in.
Also, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly above, even if this email release turns out to be perfectly legal it doesn’t solve the problem of not knowing whether all email messages from that time span have been released and whether or not messages are being interpreted in the proper context. In fact, how do you know that some of the messages haven’t been altered in any way?
photon without a Higgs (07:36:27) :
“After three years of dealing with trolls I have come to an understanding of them. I have found the more they talk the more they reveal what they really are all about. That’s why I exchanged comments with him here—so he would talk more and others could learn what they are all about.
I think Hans didn’t know that was what I was doing. :-)”
Anyone reading our exchange will see that you repeatedly ignore my main point, namely that there is currently no way to verify the accuracy of all the released emails and no way to determine whether they are being interpreted in the proper context.
Anyone reading our exchange will also see how you repeatedly misunderstand (either willfully or due to your own ignorance. in either case you look bad) the use of the term ‘data’ to refer to these emails.
Just ordered it, but it will take a couple of weeks or so before it arrives here.
Its gotta swim across the Big Pond – hope the book is waterproof …
🙂
I have more than enough books in the queue that have yet to be read, and Amazon overseas shipping is expensive, but in support of this book and in hopes that it will provide a good overview of the sordid behaviour of scientists who became advocates, known now as Climategate, I ordered the book. I’m also hoping it will be a nice handy reference to stick in the hands of some of the true believers I often encounter.
If you make a review of the book on Amazon, make sure you add tags to it, just as Ben Lawsen did (anti-science, Climate Change, Denialism).
Hi all. I’d like to reiterate our thanks for your support and the generous publicity offered by Anthony. We’re off to a flying start–as Anthony mentioned, we moved ahead of Joe Romm’s book after a couple of hours on Amazon.
Hans, you persist in characterizing whatever happened as theft, which puzzles me. They all still have their emails and are free to take advantage of the information in them. The emails were copied–not deleted.
There may be a crime involved–I believe that’s the central focus of the Norwich PD investigation. But I’m curious as to how it could be termed theft.
Right now it’s rank is #907 in books. That is ahead of Al Gore’s book and all the others in it’s category (Environmental Science). Unfortunately, it looks like the best seller list isn’t really updated hourly as advertised, because Climategate isn’t even on the first page of the list for its category.
From 72,000 to 907 at amazon!
Tom Fuller (08:55:22) :
“Hans, you persist in characterizing whatever happened as theft, which puzzles me. They all still have their emails and are free to take advantage of the information in them. The emails were copied–not deleted.
There may be a crime involved–I believe that’s the central focus of the Norwich PD investigation. But I’m curious as to how it could be termed theft.”
Yikes. Are you really trying to suggest that I use the term ‘theft’ to mean the emails were deleted? That’s even more willfully ignorant than Photon’s complaints regarding my use of the word ‘data’. I note you also avoid discussing my central point as well. Disappointing since, as one of the authors of this book, you’re obviously confident enough with your analysis of this incomplete information to charge people money to read it.
This line to me says a lot about Jones’s attitude:
“I got scant thanks from them for doing this – only an email saying I had some of the data series wrong, associated with the wrong year/decade.”
This is somone who expects everybody to kiss his behind.
To Antony and the Moderator
And the Authors.
I am writing to you in the name of a Polish publisher who would like to publish the book ASAP. I would be translating it.
Could you guys please send be so kind as to facilitate contact between myself (strzeleccy@neostrada.pl) and the authors.
I placed a similar post yesterday, but I see that it is not posted.
What is also not posted anymore are Mr. Fowler comments with thomaswfowler@gmail.com e-mail address.
Could You help in facilitating contact between us. Please. Please. Please.
Best Regards
Jerzy Strzelecki, Warsaw, Poland.
P.S. On December 2 I published a text Klimategate about the CRU leak in the Polish daily Rzeczpospolita. It can be googled, if you want to check, under KLIMATGATE, which is a polonised version of Climategate.
@Hans Moleman:
Don’t want to gang up on you here Hans, but in the absence of proof everything you say is speculative. First off we don’t know that the FOIA file was stolen, we could speculate that it was or it wasn’t but in the absence of proof we don’t know.
Secondly the issue of context, well we don’t know, but there is prima facie evidence in the emails to suggest a determination to keep data from critics, influence the peer review process, manipulate the published data, and manipulate the data. I suggest to you that if Phil Jones and Michael Mann had contextual emails which stopped this prima facie evidence in its tracks it would have been on realclimate by now.
The Brits have assigned and ex-Sir Humphrey to investigate whether there has been scientific skulduggery at UEA/CRU, his name is Sir Muir Russell, and believe me if he can find a way to exhonerate the so called scientists at UEA/CRU he will. He is between a rock and a hard place, if he does a #Hutton# ( a former high court judge who managed to let himself go down in history as an establishment sycophant par excellence by absolving the government of all blame in the persecution and suicide of a Dr. Kelly a scientist who told the press that the reasons for war in Iraq had been sexed up, who we now know was telling the truth), and exonerates the CRU in the face of all the evidence he will be proved wrong and his reputation will be the same as the hapless Hutton. If, as we all expect he should, he sees these emails as being in context and evidence that there was scientific skulduggery, he will begin the fall of the AGW empire with its many powerful and shadowy adherents. He’s a brave man to take on this job.
Hans Moleman (08:24:30) : “Anyone reading our exchange will see that you repeatedly ignore my main point, namely that there is currently no way to verify the accuracy of all the released emails…”
Did I miss something? Have the people concerned denied writing the E-mails? If they’re fabricated, not copied, then the police were called to investigate a non-existent break-in?
“…and no way to determine whether they are being interpreted in the proper context.”
Again, I seem to have missed the part where UEA has supplied the missing “proper context.” If adding context would settle the question, it would be the natural thing to do, right? e.g. “Well according to this previously unreleased E-mail to his bookie, Phil Jones was actually trying to “hide the decline” of his salary, not his proxies, see?”
Oh, wait, I bet the good folks at UEA are just biding their time, awaiting the proper moment to nip this scandal in the…er…full bloom. Yup, no doubt they’re cackling with glee, anticipating their imminent death-blow to the CAGW skeptic community. I’ll bet Steve and Tom are shaking in their boots right now.
Yeah, that’s it. 🙂
Gary Hladik (10:54:42) :
Did I miss something? Have the people concerned denied writing the E-mails? If they’re fabricated, not copied, then the police were called to investigate a non-existent break-in?
LOL! Good that there wasn’t any milk or such in my mouth! Would have been on the screen and maybe out my nose!
For a second, I mistook the Amazon rank number(s) in the article above to be the price …….I mean, I’m sure it’s good, but …
Actually all the research done at East Anglia, Nasa, Noaa, Penn State etc are performed with Public Funding. The employees are public employees – if not public employees at least using public monies ….. so it would seem that ANY communications would then be public property anyway. in the course of conducting the public’s business?
Hans Moleman,
Your points regarding context and possible contamination are valid. Contamination more so than context. Even out of context, the emails appear damning, provided they were not contaminated.
To ascertain whether they were contaminated, the CRU scientists have only to release the “correct” emails in proper SMTP/MIME format including timestamps. That’s it, just release the emails that are subject to the FOI request.
In my opinion, the FOI requests were misdirected. They should have gone to the network administrator, requesting a release of the publicly funded information, “data”, to include: source code, relevant emails, modeling results, copies of the scientists’ data folders, and copies of deletions of the forementioned “data” (which can be pulled from backup tapes).
Life chez Mosher and ctm?
vigilantfish:
The truth lies somewhere between that and this, and much closer to this:
Hans Moleman (14:49:47) :
Hans, Every argues that the mails are taken out of context. So, I figured I would take that challenge HEAD ON. It was a massive amount of reading.
For example, Jones asks people to delete mails. Put that in context.
its a big job and tedious. I may do a special post just on that Issue. In Context it’s worse.
Anyways, you are welcomed to put your context around the mails. Perhaps you can find a plausible context that makes Jones’ request less problematic.
Consider that a challenge. Bring it.
steven mosher (21:30:27)
Not the least: what is the context of destroying raw data?
steven mosher (21:30:27) :
For example, Jones asks people to delete mails. Put that in context.
its a big job and tedious. I may do a special post just on that Issue. In Context it’s worse.
That would be interesting to see.
Photon.
To understand it you have to understand all the players and their roles.
Let’s start with the endgame.
Jones asks mann to delete his mails and to contact Wahl to delete his.
Amman will also be contacted and briffa has been told to do so.
1. What was the date of this request?
2. What were the mails about?
3. Why delete them?
Another title that has just appeared on Amazon.com in the Climategate books category is “Global Warming False Alarm: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations’ Assertion that Man-Made CO2 Causes Global Warming,” by Ralph B Alexander.
This title appears to be ranked number two sorted by best selling even though it is much farther back in line (#40,853 in books) than Mosher and Fuller’s book (selection five, #2,327 in books). Alexander’s book has a five-star rating from seven reviews. Judging by the date published, July 10, 2009, this is not really a ‘Climategate’ book.
“We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.”
Little CO2 molecules with “Made in Taiwan” stamped on them.
RE: Alan Love “We know carbon dioxide is increasing…”
So, what else is new? Most of this increase has very little effect because it is hidden behind the 100% absorption (blocking) bands caused by all the CO2 that was already in the atmosphere.
At this time I believe it is not clear what proportion of the CO2 has been caused by man and what proportion is due to thermal out-gassing of oceanic CO2.
steven mosher (21:30:27) :
“Hans, Every argues that the mails are taken out of context. So, I figured I would take that challenge HEAD ON. It was a massive amount of reading.
For example, Jones asks people to delete mails. Put that in context.
its a big job and tedious. I may do a special post just on that Issue. In Context it’s worse.
Anyways, you are welcomed to put your context around the mails. Perhaps you can find a plausible context that makes Jones’ request less problematic.
Consider that a challenge. Bring it.”
Ok. Let’s start with the data and emails. There is, of course, no justification for deleting any of this information as it relates to climate research. I think both Jones and Mann should step down for even expressing the desire that this be done, whatever the reason. But having all the information (knowing the context) let’s us understand more about why these request were made: did Jones and Mann believe that AGW is a fraud and these emails and data would expose this fact if released? Were they pissed off at a particular person and simply refusing the information to that individual? Was there some other reason we don’t know about? Were these requests made in the anger of the moment and later recanted? What were the responses of the individuals these requests were made to? Was anything actually withheld or deleted?
The answers to these questions (and there are others I’m sure I’m overlooking) affect what conclusions you can draw from these messages.
The fact that you have to be told this information is one of the reasons I’m skeptical of your book and the conclusions you’ve drawn within.
Another reason I’m skeptical is because the cover of your book is decorated with a bunch of out-of-context quotes clearly meant to imply something sinister has occurred even though many of them have already shown to be innocuous (…mike’s nature trick, …can’t account for the lack of warming)…
Please release a Barnes and Noble Nook version as well so those of us with Nooks instead of Kindles can read the electronic version. Is this in the works?