Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!

A link to where to download the new FOIA2011.zip file is posted below the fold – This will be a top post for a few days -NEW STORIES APPEAR BELOW THIS ONE -I’ve also reversed the order of the updates to be newest at top for better visibility – Anthony

UPDATE50: 1:15 PM PST 11/30 The genesis of RealClimate.org seems to have been found. Surprisingly, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin seems to have been involved in the genesis meeting.

UPDATE49: 10:00 AM PST 11/30 While not email related, just as Climategate breaks David Suzuki commits an egregious propaganda error second only to the 10:10 video where kids are blown up for not going along with carbon reduction schemes at school. He’s targeting kids and Santa Claus at Christmas – Santa’s home is melting.

UPDATE48: 9:20 AM PST 11/30 Dr. Phil Jones on the  “lack of warming” -he may need a backup plan.

UPDATE47: 9AM PST 11/30 Fudge factor collection in the emails, or is climate modeling a social issue?

UPDATE46: A look at UEA/CRU’s email infrastructure and email systems in general suggests that the “deleted” emails to/from Phil Jones and others at CRU probably still exist and can be subject to FOIA.

UPDATE45: 1:30PM PST 11/29 If there was award for clueless timing, this would win it no contest: Penn State to lecture on “climate ethics”

UPDATE44: 9AM PST 11/29 Mike Mann reprises the role of Captain Queeg in The Cain Mutiny when seeing de Freitas being vindicated by the publisher of Climate Research (see the update in the article).

UPDATE43: 8AM PST 11/29 An Excel Spreadsheet with Climategate 1 and 2 emails ordered chronologically should be helpful in determining that supposedly missing”context”

UPDATE42:  7AM PST 11/29 The CRU crew says:  “what we really meant was…”

UPDATE41: 4AM PST 11/29 James Padget schools Steve Zwick – Guide to Defending the Indefensible. Some people just can’t handle Climategate.

UPDATE40: 12AM PST 11/29 Penn State has the same “look the other way” problem with Climategate as they did with the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

UPDATE39: It seems “vexatious” is Dr. Phil Jones favorite new feeling word after summer 2009.

UPDATE38: Severinghaus says Mike Mann didn’t give a straight answer regarding why trees don’t work as thermometers after 1950

UPDATE37: Climate sensitivity can’t be quantified with the current data according to NCAR’s Wigley, with paleo data – even less so.

UPDATE36: Dr. Chris de Freitas responds to the ugly attempt by The Team at getting him fired.

UPDATE 35: “Stroppy” Dr Roger Pielke Sr. shows just how much a “old boys network” the peer review process is.

UPDATE34: More internal dissent of the hockey stick. Mann tries to beat down the concern over “hide the decline” while not letting the dissenting scientist know there was a decline.

UPDATE33: Gobsmacking! Rob Wilson proves McIntyre and McKittrick correct in an email to colleagues at CRU, showing that when random noise time series are fed into Mike Mann’s procedure, it makes “hockey sticks”. The confirmation that M&M is right never leaves the walls of CRU.

UPDATE32: 9:30PM PST  11/27 BREAKINGCanada to pull out of Kyoto protocol. Another Climategate fallout ?

UPDATE31: 4:30PM PST 11/27 BOMBSHELL An absolutely disgusting string of communications that shows the tribal attempt at getting an editor of a journal fired on made up issues – all because he allowed a publication that didn’t agree with “the Team”. This is ugly, disturbing, and wrong on every level.

UPDATE30: 9:45 AM PST 11/27 Newsbytes. Major crack in the warming wall at the UK prime minister’s office. BBC in collusion with Climategate scientists.

UPDATE29: 9AM PST 11/27 The saga of the missing station data at CRU and the “pants on fire” defense of it as told by Willis Eschenbach. Dr. Phil Jones is between a rock and a hard place, quite.

UPDATE 28: 1:30PM PST 11/26 An email shows the UNFCCC considers activists an essential tool saying “…organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process…”

UPDATE27: 7AM PST 11/26 Climategate 2 features prominently in WUWT’s newest feature “Hits and Misses

UPDATE26: 2:50 PM 11/25 Two separate examples show obstruction and collusion by members of “The Team” to prevent any dissenting science from being properly considered by the NRC in 2007.

UPDATE25: 2PM 11/25 Keith Briffa asks another colleague to delete email to avoid FOIA

UPDATE24: 1:30PM 11/25 New Climategate 1/2 combined search engine here

UPDATE23: 9AM PST 11/25 via bishop-hill, strange infighting:

#4101 – Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is “serious enemy” and “vindictive”. Mike Mann had criticized his work.

Apparently Mann went “a little crazy” over a paper showing the MWP exists.

Details here

UPDATE22: 11AM PST 11/24 Am unsurprising admission from a BBC environmental reporter to Dr. Phil Jones that they really have no impartiality at all (ho ho) when it comes to climate issues.

UPDATE21: 9:50AM PST 11/24 “FOIA2011″ and Climategate – A Chinese-POTUS connection?

UPDATE20: 9:30AM PST 11/24 World renowned climatologist Phil Jones can’t even plot a temperature trend line in Excel. I’ve offered a solution that WUWT readers can help with.

UPDATE19: 9AM PST 11/24 Gail Combs finds some disturbing connections between the Team and The World Bank

UPDATE18: 1:45PM Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia” wins the award for the silliest climategate rebuttal, ever. It’s like stupid on steroids.

UPDATE17: 12:55PM PST 11/23 Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has an excellent piece on “Gatekeeping” related to Trenberth and the Pielke-Landsea hurricane paper and the IPCC. You may recall Landsea resigned from the IPCC over this. Pielke says: “The gatekeeping of the IPCC process is abundantly clear, and the shadowy suggestion that they can find out who the reviewers are from another colleague is a bit unsettling as well.” Trenberth looks particularly bad here.

UPDATE16: 11:30AM PST 11/23 Insider scientist at CRU says our “reaction to Mike Mann’s errors was not particularly honest” – story here

UPDATE15: 7:50AM 11/23 Ric Werme found an email from the late John L. Daly to Mike Mann and the team – it is well worth a read here

UPDATE14: 2:45 AM PST 11/23 Willis Eschenbach offers a guest post here explaining how his FOIA requests went astray. Mr. David Palmer was the Freedom of Information Officer for the CRU at the time. In the newly released emails, he expresses his frustration with the whole procedure.

UPDATE13: 12:05AM 11/23 Craig Stone writes:

I have published a searchable database of the emails at http://foia2011.org

All email addresses and phone numbers are automatically redacted. It’s extremely rudimentary right now, but I’ll be refining the functionality and improving the search capabilities and navigation over the course of the next week.

UPDATE 12: 9:30 PM PST We’ve known for some time that Al Gore made up a bunch of claims in his AIT movie that simply weren’t true. Now this revelation in the new email batch shows that in the case of Kilimanjaro’s disappearing snows, even Phil Jones and Dr. Lonnie Thompson don’t believe global warming is the cause, even though Thompson put out a press release nearly a year ago saying just that. Told ya so. Pants on fire and all that. Anything for “the cause” right?

UPDATE11: 4:45PM PST Kevin Trenberth gets all misty eyed and sing-songy at Christmas here

UPDATE10: 4:30PM PST Some thoughts on cracking the big remaining all.7z file here

UPDATE9: 2:25PM PST Josh weighs in with the first satirical cartoon here

UPDATE8: 140PM PST Mike Mann shows his true colors:

email 1680.txt

date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”..
subject: Re: Something not to pass on
to: Phil Jones
Phil,

I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should
consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.

I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….

UPDATE7: 1:20 PM PST Phil Jones and Tom Wigley calls another scientist (The former state climatologist of California) a “jerk” for publishing his UHI results.

UPDATE6: 12:08PM PST Here’s an email that collaborates a radio interview I did in Seattle with Thomas Peterson in summer 2007, yes these are 100% real emails, no doubt whatsoever now. More here: Climategate 2.0 – NCDC: “Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position”

UPDATE 5: 11:00AM PST In a statement, UEA doesn’t deny these emails, but posts about the whitewash investigations of the past, like they matter now.

UPDATE4: 9:45 AM PST I’ve changed the headline from Climategate 2.0 to Climategate 2.0  emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!  with a hat tip to Jerry Seinfeld. The relevance of that headline is particularly interesting in the context of where Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has his office in NYC.

UPDATE3: 9:25 AM PST – Having read a number of emails, and seeing this quote from Mike Mann in the Guardian:

When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”

I’m going to conclude they are the real deal. I’ve posted a BitTorrent link to the file below. One big difference between Climategate 1 and 2 is that in 1, it took days for the MSM to catch on, now they are on top of it.

UPDATE2: 8:45AM PST The Guardian has a story up by Leo Hickman, and this excerpt suggests they may be the real deal:

Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages.

UPDATE1: 8:20 AM PST These emails have not been verified yet, and this story was posted by one of my moderating staff while I was asleep. Until such time they are verified, tread lightly because without knowing what is behind the rest of the zip file, for all we know it’s a bunch of recipes and collection of  lorem ipsum text files. I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts

===============================================================

Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.

The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there.

Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:

<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.

<3115> Mann:  By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

<3940> Mann:  They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.

<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause

<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process

<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.

JeffId has some initial reaction

From the ReadMe file:

/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
as…

==============================================================

Here’s one about UHI that is convincing:

cc: liqx@cma.xxx
date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:16:37 +0800
from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= <limmy@xxx>
subject: Re:Re: thank you
to: p.jones@xxx

Dear Phil,

Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you.

From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your
list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt
discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only
been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation
during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations.

I  partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat
island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren’s. But I think
different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most
important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some
conclusion in this topic.  I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale
and in China.

Best

Qingxiang

—– Original Message —–
From: “Phil Jones” < p.jones@xxxx >
To: “Rean Guoyoo” < guoyoo@xxxx >
Cc: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4″ < limmy@xxx>, < liqx@cma.xxx >
Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800
Subject: Re: thank you
Dear Guoyu,
I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week,
but here this week.
I do think that understanding urban influences are important.  I will
wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am
quite busy the next few weeks.
Best Regards
Phil
At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote:

The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via
this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang.
Regards,

Guoyu

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry
for the delayed response.
I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of
climate change.
In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air
temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we
analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there
might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses
are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990
period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations
used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be
more representative for the baseline change.
We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent
our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air
temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are
going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome.
As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his
group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the
past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his
center. The datasets we used are also from his center.
I’d be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a
co-author because my contribution would be rather minor.

Best regards,

Guoyu

NCC, Beijing

Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today!

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich                          Email    p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-

=======================263ÌìÏÂÓÊ£ÐÅÀµÓÊ×Ôרҵ=======================
Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\Detecting and Adjusting Temporal Inhomogeneity in
Chinese Mean Surface Air Temperature Data.pdf” Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\To
Jones.rar”
====================================================================

Here’s a bit torrent link to the FOIA2011.zip file

You’ll need a bit torrent client

BETTER LINK:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/inappropriate-interaction-between-an-ams-bams-editor-and-phil-jones/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1,264 Responses to Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!

  1. Lance says:

    Interesting times we live in….

  2. Rick Bradford says:

    The e-mails are hilarious — the sequel is better than the original.

    It shows that Jones et al don’t and didn’t have a clue what they were doing, and desperately didn’t want anyone to find out about it, to protect their funding stream.

    In any sane world, that would be the ballgame.

  3. John Marshall says:

    Even more!

    It has also come to light that Mr Harrabin, science and environmental correspondent for the BBC received £15000 from the UEA for services rendered. Harrabin established the BBC as media of choice for climate alarmism. I am having problems at the moment getting a blog about this accepted on Paul Hudson’s page.

    So wheels within wheels and money flowing to maintain the lies.

    Wonderful revelations just before Durban.

  4. Steeptown says:

    Here we go again. Just in time for Durban we learn of more climate science corruption, fraudulent science, FOI illegal activities and cover-ups. Pass the popcorn.

  5. Frank K. says:

    I read the e-mails early this morning at Jeff Id’s blog and to be honest there’s nothing unexpected (for me) in the content. It simply confirms what we’ve known all along about the politicization of climate science by the climate elites in search of fame, publicity, and (of course) loads of climate ca$h…

    (By the way, Anthony, in the words of Mike Mann in several of the e-mails, you’re NOT helping “the cause” – LOL!).

  6. Ray says:

    We see that the insider is still active…

  7. Patrik says:

    Wow… Will be interresting to see what they conclude that the scientists haven’t done wrong this time. :)

    Funny quotes. :)

  8. Bloke down the pub says:

    It’s beginning to feel a lot like Christmas…..

  9. P. Berkin says:

    Admit it, WUWT, you’re funded by Big Popcorn!

  10. Patrik says:

    Rick Bradford>> I agree. Better than 1.0 – if they are genuine! :)

  11. PaulH says:

    The gift that keeps on giving.

  12. Shevva says:

    The read me file in MY opinion shows that Mr FOIA is not an environmentalist, conservationist, kill-all-humans(excepttheonesIlike)ist.

    But a humanitarian, very rare these days.

  13. ferd berple says:

    0021.txt

    date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:51:44 +0200
    from: Manola Brunet
    subject: Re: Omar’s email
    to: P.Jones@xxx.xx.xx

    Hola Phil,
    …snip…
    P.Jones@xxx.xx.xx escribió:
    > Hola Manola,
    > I’ve saved emails at CRU and then deleted them from the server. Now
    > I’m at home I just have some hard copies. I also don’t

  14. Steeptown says:

    And he has retained 220,000 emails for future release/insurance. Sleep well climatologers.

  15. Josh says:

    Climategate 2.0 – see if the MSM can get it right this time.

  16. Bloke down the pub says:

    Wasn’t climategate 1.0 released just before a UN climate shindig?

  17. JJ says:

    Ray says:

    We see that the insider is still active…

    Is he? Are any of the new emails of more recent vintage than the release of the first batch?

  18. paul says:

    Anyone cracked the PW on the 7zip file yet?

  19. Frank K. says:

    Bloke down the pub says:
    November 22, 2011 at 6:49 am

    It’s beginning to feel a lot like Christmas…..

    Yes it is! In fact, here comes Santa “Cause”!!

    // The Cause ///

    Mann:

    By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
    reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
    reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

    Mann:

    They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
    example, referring to the J. Climate paper (which should be finally accepted
    upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
    bit.

    Mann:

    I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
    doing, but its not helping the cause.

  20. FerdinandAkin says:

    Note there are 220000 more emails ‘hidden’ behind a password. This implies that the password will be used at a later time to reveal them.
    I am willing to speculate that the holder of the password is waiting to see if the advocates of CAGW will take some preemptive action to protect their position, and make their situation orders of magnitude worse.
    It will be interesting to watch the core members of the hockey team in the coming weeks to see which one breaks for the tall grass first.

  21. Wucash says:

    Hah, this is going to be entertaining.

    I wonder how many more whitewash inquiries this will produce this time around?

  22. UK Sceptic says:

    More explosive revelations of climate fraud [SNIP: a word too far. -REP]? Bring it on!

  23. Kaboom says:

    If the ZIP is all text it should be quite vulnerable to brute force cracking by using known information (i.e. email addresses, keywords/phrases) in it.

  24. Steeptown says:

    What a coincidence. Oxburgh of inquiry fame just happens to be mentioned in the emails about which his inquiry dealt. No conflict of interest there then.

  25. D. Patterson says:

    As Crowley says the “truth” must take a back seat to their presonal relationships, including their religious beliefs and self-appointed duty to arbitrate the end results of climate research. They find the ends justify the means, like so many Utopians before them. Their beliefs and Utopian ideals take precedence over all of tthose other people who may have other Utopian ideals and disagree with them.

  26. Theo Goodwin says:

    Donna was prescient when she choose the book title “The Delinquent Teenager…” All of them are delinquent teenagers.

  27. Anonymous says:

    I think this is IT caught!
    http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-ii-more-skeletons-in-the-closet-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
    look at the programs

    [REPLY: Those code snippets are from the original FOIA two years ago. There is no computer code in the current download. -REP]

  28. Ray says:

    It would seem that we have the reason why Mann doesn’t want those emails released.

  29. mrsean2k says:

    I may even be running rarcrack now…

    (not optimistic given the possibilities, but it’s bopping away on a separate thread)

  30. Andrew says:

    Penn would do well to fire Mann immediately (re new emails) considering their extremely fragile position at this time.

  31. Tucci78 says:

    I’m still in “wait” mode for the .ru server to respond to my download request.

    This archive file really ought to be mirrored in multiple locations elsewhere.

  32. Jeff says:

    Can anyone re-host the files? I think the original server getting slammed

  33. Tom says:

    If there is an encrypted zipped version called ‘all.7z’ and a selection of unencrypted files, then it seems rather likely that we have several cleartext and encrypted pairs. Shouldn’t take some clever people very long to break that…

  34. stanj says:

    Buy popcorn and whitewash futures!

    Have to say I’m enormously impressed with the patience of FOIA – to sit on that treasure trove for 2 years waiting for the right moment to strike again.

    The mention of the password is surely a threat – we’ve already seen the BBC’s Richard Black’s dismissive reaction. I wonder if further attempts at whitewashing will see the nuclear strike of releasing the password.

  35. Sean Peake says:

    Moderators, I guess you’ll need to call in reinforcements to handle the coming tsunami of comments. To quote Flounder in the epic Animal House,”Oh boy, is this great!”

  36. JonasM says:

    I’m also hoping for someone to extract the MIME-encoded attachments. I’m swamped at work today with a big deplloyment or I’d give it a shot.

  37. TheBigYinJames says:

    You won’t break AES-256 (the encryption used by 7-zip) in a zillion years, but no matter, have fun trying :)

    I do love the way that we all now have all of the emails, but we can’t read them until the key is released – this makes further revelations very easy to do without any more uploading of files to dodgy servers. Just the key posted on a blog and the whole lot is out.

    Clever.

  38. Grant says:

    “…there are reports circulating of unprecedented demand on the world’s whitewash reserves…”

  39. Golly this is gonna be fun.

  40. Michael R says:

    As with the last time, I have re-uploaded to another download location in case the first one stops working.

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37

  41. diogenes says:

    there’s a torrent url

    http://tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7

  42. Tobias Ostien says:

    Kick the leaves and the cockroaches shuffle….hear that sound?

  43. dave ward says:

    As huge amounts of computer processing power are now readily available (via the “Cloud” for example), I imagine attempts are already being made to brute force the password…

    The US Air Force linked up 1760 Sony PS3’s and got themselves a cheap but extremely capable super computer: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/31784/US_Air_Force_Creates_Powerful_Supercomputer_Out_Of_PS3s.php

  44. wfrumkin says:

    I wish this would finally bring an end to the global warming/ climate disruption movement. Unfortunately, I suspect the climate disruption zombies will keep going no matter how clearly their lies are exposed. I think this site should run a contest to predct the exact date when the truth finally triumphs and global warming dies. I bet everyone playing would donate towards a prize. I bet the contest would get media coverage too.

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

    He should be suspended immediately.

  46. Tucci78 says:

    At 7:03 AM on 22 November, Andrew had written:

    Penn would do well to fire Mann immediately (re new emails) considering their extremely fragile position at this time.

    Be advised that in the Keystone State and thitherabouts, the use of “Penn” denotes the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school in Philadelphia, whereas Dr. Mann is employed (for the nonce) by Pennsylvania State University, established in Centre County as the Commonwealth’s agricultural school.

    When referring to this latter (now exquisitely tarnished) institution, it’s common to differentiate it as “Penn State,” not “Penn.”

  47. mrsean2k says:

    @TheBigYinJames

    And if it’s structured correctly, each archive could contain another encrypted archive to allow the mail to be released in tranches. A bit like an electronic onion, but perhaps with more crying.

  48. ChE says:

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

    Silly man. :lol: :lol:

  49. Oso Politico says:

    If it talks like a conspiracy, and walks like a conspiracy, it just might be a – conspiracy…

  50. PhilJourdan says:

    The most fascinating part of this is to watch it spread around the blogosphere (with of course the MSM being quiet as a tit mouse). I caught it early at tAV, but even Oz got it within an hour!

  51. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Paul Homewood says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:21 am

    He should have been sacked two years ago! The manipulative little twonk. I had some sympathy for him originally, thinking he may just be a misguided scapegoat – but he is clearly in the thick of it. Worse still, as I have said for all of the miscreant self protecting sycophantic members of the ‘Team’ – the day one of them has the guts and decency to become a scientist again, admit mistakes and retract their pre-fabricated BS – is the day that science can hold its head up high again. But I’m not holding my breath.

    In respect of the this new release, I can only hope the politicos realise that they are the also ones who have been duped and immediately decide to cut ALL AGW related funding dead in its tracks, at least until the truth is out.

  52. I don’t think we should get too excited about the 220,000 emails behind the password. My guess is these are non relevant and personal emails that would only strengthen the argument that “scientists’ personal emails should not be released” if they were put online.

  53. Gary says:

    November – the month of miracles.

    FOIA – who are those guys?

  54. dearieme says:

    I wonder how the chump who released the “BEST” results feels now? Proud of the club he’s joined? Keen on The Cause?

    Anyway, back to scepticism: how do we know they’re genuine?

  55. Forrest says:

    Yet this will once again be swept under the rug. It is interesting to see how the media has already chosen sides in this.

  56. ChE says:

    If I had to guess, the encrypted files were included as insurance against a complete server wipe. This way, they can run their servers through the fires of hell, and FOIA forever retains the option of releasing them.

  57. Ecotretas says:

    Probably the same guy that did Climategate 1.0.

    No new emails from 2010 & 2011

    Ecotretas

  58. Don Monfort says:

    OK, I will say it. It’s worse than we thought.

  59. HenryP says:

    Well, we all knew they were fooling us.

    Despite COP 17 being held here, I am finding the knowledge on the subject at the universities here in South Africa so appalling that it reminds me of the situation 35 years ago when we had these scores of white people and (white) universities who actually believed that black people were animals.

    There are no papers and there has not been any research here on the subject of man induced global warming. So the whole world is relying on these fraudsters like Mann.

    In the meantime I have done my own research.
    An important finding that I made is that a correlation can be picked up if you compare the results in my tables with that of the leaf area index, shown in the world chart below:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/

    In the red areas, which shows the areas on earth where life is blooming and where it is getting greener, you will note from the results in my tables that the increase in maxima is picked up and trapped by the increasing vegetation as exhibited by higher means and minima. In the blue ares, where substantial de-forestation has been going on, you will find mean temperatures staying largely unchanged or even declining, even though maxima are rising.

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

  60. Voila, “noble cause corruption” again. The end justifies the means.

  61. DaveS says:

    If genuine, then Acton and Davies at the UEA are going to look pretty stupid too, given the lengths they have gone to to defend dear little Phil.

  62. 1DandyTroll says:

    ” Mann:

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

    Real Climate or the climate of PR not the science of climate but the science of how to make the other side win … And a splendid job you did little Mann. :p

  63. mikef2 says:

    ..yippee…I’m the first toi say “its worse than we thought”………

  64. MikeEE says:

    “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
    greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

    The US is $15 trillion in debt. How much debt does Europe have. So who is going to pay? The Chinese? I think their vastly overrated holdings won’t even dent that number.

    MikeEE

  65. J Brunemeier says:

    Penn State’s Michael Mann should be convicted of molesting young temperature data!!

  66. Shevva says:

    It’s already up at the BBC, check Bishop Hills blog about the play that won the award for a link (Credit where credits due) ->

  67. Alan the Brit says:

    I wonder who this guy is, he is certainly very clever & patient! Was the November 09 release just a warning shot across the Clique’s bow to try & get a reaction to come a little bit clean on the realities? Is this the second warning shot now a lot closer to that bow? Is the final release the “all right matey youv’e asked for it” shot straight amidships to blow the Clique ship clean out of the water? Whatever it is, it’s going to get jolly uncomfortable & rather smelly as the steaming brown stuff flies around the interweb, for some people in East Anglia & Penn State (or is it State Penn?)! Lovely jubbly, can’t wait! :-)

  68. A physicist says:

    If we mask-out from this Watts Up With That? post those claims that amount to:
       (1) slogan-shouting,
       (2) cherry-picking, and
       (3) witch-hunting,
    is there is anything left of Watts Up With That? but hollowed-out blank pages?

    That hollowing-out is the common-sense reason why the perception of a “Conservative War on Science” is becoming the consensus view of America’s mathematicians, scientists, and engineers … and even more seriously for all who hope that American conservatism has any future, is becoming the consensus view too of America’s serious-minded CEOs.

    Fortunately, those hollowed-out brands of conservatism that are grounded in slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting are unlikely to survive the coming decade — and will not deserve to survive. Whereas the robust brand of conservatism espoused (for example) by J. Wayne Leonard, Chairman and CEO of the Entergy Corporation, in his letter “Entergy and the Environment” (Google it!) has excellent changes to provide solid foundations for 21st century American conservatism.

    Everyone understands that slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting is going to continue unceasingly here on Watts Up With That and other ideology-first sites (both far-left and far-right) … and everyone understands too that this slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting has become utterly irrelevant to the serious concerns of America’s mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and CEOs.

  69. Ecotretas says:

    Gosh,

    I’m just surprised how many passwords are conveyed through email… I hadn’t done that search in Climategate 1.0 :-(

  70. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Here is an example of the science presented at the
    Santa Fe conference (November 2011)
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SantaFe2011.htm
    Was this taken seriously ?
    I hope not !
    Pal Brekke , H. Abdussamatov, Lockwood any comments ?

  71. David says:

    This one wis classic, Pery like, ecept Perry at least at one time new the answer.

    3456> Overpeck:
    I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
    “Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
    an increase in knowledge – more evidence. WHAT IS IT?

  72. Katabasis says:

    OK folks be prepared for these defences:
    i) “I won’t touch stolen emails”
    ii) “these are out of context”

    Then check to see what these people are on the record as saying with regards to Wikileaks….

  73. tallbloke says:

    ‘foia’ left a comment on the talkshop at 9.28GMT. We’ve been looking through some of the mails and found some juicy bits.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/

    There’s a torrent link there now too.

  74. Ecotretas says:

    Best email till now, from Phil:

    Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days,
    these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from
    looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original
    unadjusted data (which we don’t have) and then move onto the software used
    to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release).
    CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t
    have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past
    is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve
    discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are
    happy about not releasing the original station data.

    (…)
    Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office
    to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I’ve ascertained it most
    likely came from there, as I’m the only one who knows where the files are here.

  75. David says:

    Briffa here is quite clear on his internal repression of a true scientific view

    2009> Briffa:

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

    I wonder where here was.

  76. G. Karst says:

    This is beginning to have the elements of an extortion play. Mann you must do this and that or the password gets released. I hope someone cracks the zip and any criminal intent thwarted.

    I wonder if Mann, Jones, and the others have already picked out nice condo(s) in China. I heard Maurice Strong has been feeling lonely lately. I worked under Maurice, for a time, and I know how he loved having an entourage around himself. Most dangerous men do! GK

  77. maz2 says:

    Leftist Red-Green Grauniad on the offensive.

    Grauniad is hacking & spitting …

    …-

    “Hacked climate science emails leaked”

    “Last updated less than one minute ago”

    “File containing 5,000 emails made available in an apparent attempt to repeat impact of 2009 release”

    “In the new release a 173MB zip file called “FOIA2011″ containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called Sinwt.ru today. An anonymous entity calling themselves “FOIA” then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. The same tactic was used in 2009 when the first 160MB batch of emails were released after being obtained – possibly illegally – from servers based at the University of East Anglia, where a number of the climate scientists involved were based.

    One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed “background and context” which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

  78. David says:

    Did Jones really say, “we’re choosing the periods to show warming” Does anybody have some blink charts available?

    2775> Jones:
    I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
    certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming

  79. Ryan says:

    “This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
    remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase.”

    I would guess from this that FOIA used a keyword search within the 220,000 emails to quickly find the juiciest ones and present those. I am guessing that with these juicy emails removed, the remaining 220,000 are not so interesting, apart from a handful of exceptions.

    I guess FOIA did things this way because Team AGW used the fact that a lot of the previous released emails were just “blah” and therefore they were able to imply that all of the emails were uninteresting to discourage their acolytes from delving further. FOIA probably need to read and process some of the emails to ensure that simply posting them all isn’t putting anybody at risk (especially if FOIA is an insider that could be named in the emails – maybe he/she got fired in 2009/2010?).

  80. Tom Davidson says:

    I’m willing to bet that some clever investigator will be able to eventually puzzle out what the passphrase is since these climate scientologists aren’t so bright that none of them would ever leave the passphrase lying around on some server in an unencrypted form – buried in an email or some such…

  81. Jonas N says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am

    ____________________________

    Your comment sounds a lot like:

    ‘It started by them hitting back … ‘

  82. Latitude says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
    ====================================
    The preceding public service announcement was brought to you by Pfizer pharmaceuticals, the makers of Aricept…….

  83. Greg Holmes says:

    “Getting people we know and trust into the IPCC will help” gawd I just love Jonesey. UEA will have a wriggle a lot to win the Ministers aroung=d this time, the MP’s in house, well the ones who are awake, will catch up on this , in about a week or so. Harrabin is a DMW.

  84. Harriet Harridan says:

    Torrent link:
    tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7
    [Supplied via Tallbloke's Blog]
    It’s slow at the moment, but as more people join it’ll get exponentially faster. Please keep seeding

  85. Tucci78 says:

    Pennsylvania State University – the employer (for the nonce) of our hockey-sticking “suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” Dr. Mann – is currently getting scandal-to-the-jaybirds treatment in the (old, moribund, bankrupt, and increasingly irrelevant) “mainstream” media over the eyeball-grabbing salacity of events more than nine years ago in the shower facilities of the school’s Division I football program (the only real reason why the Commonwealth’s former agricultural high school in Centre County has any national prominence at all).

    With this antique but gonads-groping story occupying every third minute of the news cycle throughout the nation (all these nominally orthosexual men and women so lickerishly fixated upon allegations of a grown man in unnatural coitus with little boys…), and in light of the fact that the MSM “journalista” types desire desperately to shove the preposterous anthropogenic global warming fraud figuratively up the public tochus for their own left-”Liberal” political purposes, this FOIA2011.zip archive is going to get studiedly ignored to death.

    Looks as if we’re going to have to hammer this one home ourselves, just as we had to do with FOIA2009.zip.

    Gives continued significance to the phrase “an army of Davids.”

  86. Ken Hall says:

    ” Crowley:

    Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
    the open.”

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! I <3 FOIA!

  87. ChE says:

    Time for a memory check. I seem to recall Deep Climate (cryptically) saying at the time of the original drop that there was more. Can that be confirmed? This may very well have been sitting around for two years.

  88. motsatt says:

    P. Berkin says:
    November 22, 2011 at 6:50 am

    Admit it, WUWT, you’re funded by Big Popcorn!

    Spot on. This should be fun :)

  89. TRM says:

    Don’t worry I’m sure Penn State and CRU will do another thorough investigation (HA!). The BBC article on this ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562 ) mentions the previous investigations and clearance of those involved constantly. Me thinks they do protest too much :)

    Ah my Christmas present came early this year. Happy reading all.

  90. ujagoff says:

    It’s better than we thought…. Indeed.

  91. Jean Parisot says:

    I burned a few to DVDs to drop off on CapHill – just in case their firewall block some of those dodgy file sites. Whoever does have the password, an “in confidence” letter to Issa’s office would be appropriate – at a minimum to establish your whistleblower status.

  92. David says:

    A clear will to repress results, even from models tuned for desired results, if they do not match your CAGW senario.
    0310> Warren:

    The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases [...] As it stands
    we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.”

    Be warned, the feel their life is threatened by posts like Bob Tisdales, showing ocean caused multidecadal trends. (Mosher, stop supporting these guys)
    Wils:

    [2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
    fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]

    No Wils, but prison is posssible.

  93. Andrew Harding says:

    “Climategate” I feel was the turning point for AGW. Most people don’t believe AGW because it goes against common sense, Climategate actually provided the evidence to say that it is a big hoax. Like all things of this nature, Climategate was a seven day wonder and AGW proponents are at it again with their ridiculous statements. Now we have “Climategate 2″ which should reaffirm the original Climategate. The person who has these e-mails is being very clever, he/she knows that if they were released all at the same time then the effect on public opinion would not be as great than if they were released twice or preferably on several more occasions.
    We have had “The Cause” I am now looking forward to the effect!

  94. Martin Clauss says:

    Dang, I missed this when it first came out, and I should have loaded up on stocks in POPCORN companies . . . maybe I still have chance . . .?

    Just fascinating the whole thing. I might guess that the recent spate of papers and articles trying to push CAGW hard again, just before Durban, this was a ‘response’ to that.

    Enormous thanks to the person(s) who allowed access to the e-mails ! And thanks to you, Anthony, and to Jeff ID, and Tallbloke, and Steve M. . . and ALL other I have missed!

  95. JJ says:

    A physicist says:

    That hollowing-out is the common-sense reason why the perception of a “Conservative War on Science” is becoming the consensus view of America’s mathematicians, scientists, and engineers …

    Gads, another fabricated “consensus”.

    Speaking as an American scientist, I view the “Conservative War on Science” meme to be little more than the Liberal Pot’s preferred method of chasing the Conservative Kettle around the political cooktop. The damage that Liberal religiosity is doing to science right now is unprecidented.

    … and even more seriously for all who hope that American conservatism has any future, is becoming the consensus view too of America’s serious-minded CEOs.

    LOL. Serious minded CEO? You mean the ones that see the ‘wisdom’ in making sure the tracks for the gravy train run through their station? Yes, they can be quite serious about such things. Downright earnest, if they think they can garner a subsidy or a mandate …

  96. Nick Shaw says:

    I absolutely LOVE this one
    Cook:

    A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
    during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
    “Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
    in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
    seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
    MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.
    LMFAO! Take it Mikey! Take it deep!

  97. Tucci78 says:

    At 8:06 AM on 22 November, Tom Davidson had commented:

    I’m willing to bet that some clever investigator will be able to eventually puzzle out what the passphrase is since these climate scientologists aren’t so bright that none of them would ever leave the passphrase lying around on some server in an unencrypted form – buried in an email or some such…

    The password encryption scheme imposed on the FOIA2011.zip archive had not been the work of “these climate scientologists,” but rather that of the FOIA.org folk who had organized the file and released it to the ‘Net.

    Doubtless there are “cracker” types out in the virtual universe who have the ability and the inclination to break the embargo, and we’ll see it accomplished soon enough. Such folk respond to these kinds of challenges with gusto.

    But “these climate scientologists” are merely peculators and fraudsters, clumsy in their arrogance and positions of government-funded privilege, with all the real security consciousness of the average seven-year-old sneaking cookies out of the kitchen.

    Don’t attribute to them even the kind of conscientiousness required to learn the use of TrueCrypt.

  98. David says:

    Jones just never stops, yuck.

    1788> Jones:

    There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent
    extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.

  99. wobble says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am

    is there is anything left of Watts Up With That? but hollowed-out blank pages?

    Ironically, it is your comment which is quite hollowed out.

    Watts Up With That is chocked full of science and scientific discussions. Your claims to the contrary are strange.

  100. Ken Hall says:

    “A physicist says: ….”

    What you posted was such a classical example of projection that psychology students could use it as a case study.

    Most of the people here at WUWT are interested in truth. The alarmists are the ones who indulge in cherry picking and slogan shouting and avoiding the real science and attacking the messenger. Just as you are doing, hiding behind the name “A physicist”….

  101. David says:

    A climatologist, and his view of the scientific method…

    4693> Crowley:

    I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
    cost of damaged personal relationships

  102. wobble says:

    Andrew says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:03 am
    Penn [State] would do well to fire Mann immediately (re new emails) considering their extremely fragile position at this time.

    Concur. The president that protected Mann is gone after a “cover-up” scandal of sorts was exposed. It’s quite possible that the university will now steer clear of new cover-up out of fear of being branded by cover-ups.

    It’s time to hit Penn State about Michael Mann again and hit them hard.

    Any PA State senators reading?

  103. David says:

    Just wow,

    2095> Steig:

    He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
    thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
    supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.”

    I wonder who “he} is, but thes clowns do not wish their “dirty laundry”, code for scientific doubts, to be in the open…
    2733> Crowley:

    Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
    the open.

  104. Ryan says:

    @A physicist: Nice straw man you’ve created there! I guess Entergy is hoping to get a slice of that $37trillion that would need to be spent on “renewables” to meet Team AGW targets. Where do physicists get a job these days? Wouldn’t be in carbon-free electricity generation in your case would it?

  105. David says:

    Well Gates, do you still wish to join hands with this man and claim the cooling 1940 to 1970 was manmade.

    0953> Jones:

    This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
    sulphates won’t be quite as necessary

  106. Steve Oregon says:

    I want to read “cause for prosecution”

  107. HenryP says:

    a physicist says:
    Everyone understands that slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting is going to continue unceasingly here on Watts Up With That and other ideology-first sites (both far-left and far-right)

    Henry says
    We have to get rid of this idea that we “have” to vote for people (who vote for us on issues)
    We have to vote in the idea that people have the right to vote for issues

    especially in the modern world where people can vote with a click.
    ( I bank on-line, so why cannot we all vote on-line?, for issues I mean)

    Now if we were all to ask our parliaments that we want to be able to vote like they do,
    why would we still need parliamentarians?
    The money saved can be used for elderly coming to schools to be able to vote on issues, rather than vote for people

    Anyway, for those interested in my earlier comment, see here
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#comment-804548

  108. Ken Hall says:

    Mann Should be toast after this, as should Jones, Briffa et all, and all the other usual suspects involved in perverting peer review and locking real science out of the IPCC.

    We need a bunch of real scientists to replace them at the IPCC and then the next IPCC report might actually be honest, for once.

  109. john says:

    I hope that the good folks at http://cryptome.org/ take a good hard look at this new development.

  110. ferd berple says:

    Wow, it didn’t take long for the link to disappear! Both these look good.

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37
    torrent url
    http://tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7

  111. TheOnlyPomi says:

    “UPDATE: 8:20 AM PST These emails have not been verified yet, [...] Until such time they are verified, tread lightly because without knowing what is behind the rest of the zip file, for all we know it’s a bunch of recipes and collection of ipsem lorem text files. I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts”

    That is why I love this blog. Because you guys always strive to stick with the truth. There is enough ugly in the truth without having to revert to any bogus publication. I am waiting too see how all this goes and I am certain that also this time Antony and his team will confirm their trustworthiness.

  112. Steeptown says:

    “A physicist” is clearly not a physicist. It takes one to know one.

  113. Kaboom says:

    Briffa (2967) “To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
    real?”

    A fabulous insight into AGW-think. Urgency of an issue trumps its reality.

  114. F. Ross says:

    Does this mean that all the investigations that “cleared” the various actors in this whole travesty were NOT really cleared? /sarc.

    “Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is.”

    Now if we just had some model DDT to spray on all the model cockroaches …

  115. David says:

    More support for Tidale, Mosher, stop helping these people.

    5131> Shukla/IGES:

    ["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
    willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
    projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
    simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.

  116. David Falkner says:

    The celebrations are a bit premature, I think. Are they actual emails? How will we know for sure? If they are, I am personally beginning to wonder if the leaks aren’t coming from a foreign governmental entity. China and Russia have been doing quite a bit of hacking recently.

  117. Latitude says:

    Wondering how long until the media tries to frame it……

    Stolen, criminals, thieves, crime……..etc

  118. G. Karst says:

    Now we know why climatologists are picking up musical instruments and forming bands. It may soon be their only way to finally earn a living. GK

  119. Jean Parisot says:

    “the cause” will make a nice synonym for “conspiracy to commit …”

  120. stephan says:

    AW I dont think this stuff could be made up ie there genuine

  121. Ecotretas says:

    The encrypted file has very big files inside (several MBs).
    That was not observed in ClimateGate 1.0

  122. Gary says:

    From the UK Guardian, this quote:

    Prof Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, who is quoted in the batch of released emails described the release as “truly pathetic”.

    When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”

    He said, the people behind the release were “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial.”

    Sticking to his story…

  123. Tucci78 says:

    At 8:23 AM on 22 November, wobble writes:

    The president that protected Mann is gone after a “cover-up” scandal of sorts was exposed. It’s quite possible that the university will now steer clear of new cover-up out of fear of being branded by cover-ups.

    It’s time to hit Penn State about Michael Mann again and hit them hard.

    Any PA State senators reading?

    Gawd. You’ve never been either to State College or to Harrisburg, have you, wobble?

    As in most state governments, there is in the Commonwealth a culture of corruption and thoroughly “bipartisan” concealment of corruption that dates back to Colonial times, thoroughly understood by those of us who have perforce had to waste our time and effort in dealings with these meatgrinders of political chicanery but utterly unappreciated by the average citizen, whose interface with “the Malevolent Jobholder” doesn’t rise beyond the quiet desperation of the bewildered passive victim.

    The recent appointment of Louis Freeh (former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation) to figurehead “the university board of trustees’ internal investigation into the abuse allegations that ultimately led to the ouster of longtime football coach Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier” (i.e., yet another whitewash, this time with a putative paragon of probity to make it menthol) is nothing more than gaudy stonewalling perpetrated at honkin’ humongous cost to the pitiful sweating Pennsylvania taxpayer.

    And I guaran-goddam-tee you that all the “PA State senators reading” about this are breathing sighs of relief at the fact that they can now respond to their angry constituents’ inquiries with: “Hey, we’ve got the former boss of the FBI handling this!”

    Confident, of course, that absolutely nothing of real substance (or hazardous to things-as-they-are) will ever see the light of day.

  124. David Falkner says:

    Oh, whoops! Now I see the update by Anthony. Should have known you’d be on that.

  125. kim2ooo says:

    “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

    “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

    “One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

    “Poverty is a death sentence.”

    “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
    greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

    Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
    hiding the decline.

    AND THE REAL PEACE PRIZE GOES TO…Those who seek truth!

  126. Viv Evans says:

    Picked from the stuff at AirVent:

    Jones:

    Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
    level clouds.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Well well well – all models are wrong, Professor Phil Jones?

    But we still must pay trillions to alleviate something based on wrong models …

    How dare they!

  127. John says:

    I concur with TheOnlyPomi,

    I trust you will be cautious, Anthony. Based on your excellent track record. I’m certain there are plenty of those who would deceive you.

    Good look!

  128. kwik says:

    Mann:

    I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
    doing, but its not helping the cause

  129. TomB says:

    I’m not a scientist, and certainly not a climate scientist. What I know is mostly self taught and many of the discussions on this blog, frankly, go a bit over my head.

    However, one thing I know a tremendous amount about is electronic discovery. Any suggestion that only these 5,000 emails have anything worth reading is ~WAY~ off base. While keyword searching is a great way to find what you’re thinking about – at the moment – it is limited by the scope and imagination of the one crafting the search terms. One of many limitations, but probably the most important.

    There’s a treasure trove of information somewhere in those other 220k emails. Much could well be exculpatory. There is no longer any advantage to the team to continue to resist FOIA and not just go ahead and make all documentation public. That password is going to be released one day anyway. Pulling the bandaid slowly won’t really make it hurt less.

    I also find myself thinking that the Michael Mann whitewash should be part of the investigation going on at Penn State. The CYA climate fostered at that institution now has some true victims of crime. The odor of cover-up from the Board of Trustees on down is fetid. It points to a knee-jerk response that has become their automatic modus operandi. One that is not in the long term best interests of an institution they purport to love.

  130. TheGoodLocust says:

    When the first Climategate emails came out they really ringed true to me. Something seems off about this – like they are too incriminating? Could they really be this stupid and fanatical?

    I don’t know.

    I need to read through them more; I’m going to reserve judgement.

    If these do turn out to be true then the defense will be, “It is only a small segment of climate scientists. 97% of 1000’s of scientists agree on man-made climate change.”

  131. Mark says:

    Does anyone have the zip file? Either the link is bad or (I suspect) so many people have tried to download it that it crashed the server.

    Please send to mark@ispyonsalem if you do.

  132. danj says:

    The BBC uses the release to continue its defense of Jones, Mann, et al.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562

  133. Dreadnought says:

    Happy days are here again! I’ve been saying since Spring that Climategate 2.0 would break this Autumn, and it’s nice to be right. I’m very much looking forward to reading all the naughty snippets that are gleaned from this latest batch, and earnestly hoping that they get considerably more MSM coverage this time.

    Whilst we are urged to tread lightly for now (with good reason), if these emails are indeed verified as bona fide then I hope that not only the main culprits are finally brought to book, but that all the whitewash ‘inquiries ‘after Climategate 1.0 will be shown to be such and leave those involved with serious egg on their face.

    BTW, if you’re reading this ‘FOIA 2011′, good on yer for putting these out there just at the right time once again! They should give a lot of people pause for thought, not least the droves of teat-suckers who are packing their suitcases ready for the latest taxpayer-funded knees-up in Durban next week.

  134. Jean Parisot says:

    Right before a long weekend, so we all have time to pick thru this — nice timing foia.

  135. Spector says:

    Of course references here to ‘the cause’ are perfect examples of the ‘Noble Cause Corruption’ of Science, when an assumed noble ideal is allowed to force the interpretation of scientific experiments and data. In the modern world this is compounded by computer models that can be developed creating artificial realities to support this cause without recourse to ground truths.

  136. mikef2 says:

    grrrr..I see Don Montfort beat me to it after all…I did not see your comment earlier Don I promise, maybe it was while we were in moderation I think, damn.
    Can we call it a draw?
    Ohhhh….idea…lets go see if anyone has said it yet on Bish’s site.
    I know…little things, but it is a rather happy day wot!

    More seriously…lets get it all guaranteed its genuine first, then send it to everyone who doubted the orig climagate meme. I cannot see how anyone of the original ‘nothing to see here’ brigade can get away with it this time.
    If its all true of course.

  137. pat says:

    If real, this explains what Mann et al. are hiding from the various FOIA requests. This and the Climategate 3.0 which will discuss the placement of individuals on panels, the EPAs complicity in funding this nonsense, etc.

  138. Josualdo says:

    If it’s a zip, and the password is done with the zip system, it might be amenable to cryptanalysis. Anyone? It almost seems an invitation.

  139. danj says:

    It is interesting to get a glimpse into the motivation of FOIA 2011. He/she obviously is concerned about the impact overbearing government regulations on carbon emissions will have on those who are least able to endure higher energy costs–the poor. As Dr. Christy has so aptly stated: “Life without energy is short and brutal.” FOIA 2011 obviously shares that belief and is attempting to act accordingly.

  140. jeff says:

    Interesting claim in the BBC article by Richard Black,
    “A hacker entered a backup server at the university and downloaded a file containing administrative passwords, which were subsequently used to access a vast number of files and emails dating back to 1997.”

  141. jeff 5778 says:

    How many people does it take to create the atmosphere that a complete change in how money is transacted should take place world wide?

  142. Alberta Slim says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
    ====================================
    Time for you to get back to looking for the Higgs Boson.
    WUWT is the best site on the planet.

  143. Mauibrad says:

    BBC: New batch of emails, apparently from University of East Anglia unit involved in #Climategate affair, released online http://bbc.in/uJxd12

  144. Dagobert says:

    My gut feeling is that this is a fake. Let’s take it with a (large) grain of salt. I wouldn’t put stuff like this beyond people like that but… it doesn’t sound genuine, somehow.

  145. Amy Ridenour says:

    Interesting that Mann (in the Guardian story at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails ) asserts that the emails were released by “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry” when no one but those involved in the release knows the indentity of the leaker/whistleblower/hacker/sharer and the emails have not even yet been verified as genuine, even though he seems to suspect they are.

    Even if we knew nothing of Michael Mann before, we would have to wonder about the reliability of a man who will confidently announce to a major newspaper the motives of a person or person whose identity is (presumably) unknown to him.

  146. stephan says:

    From the Guardian
    “The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday”

    There genuine enough…..

  147. Ron Manley says:

    From a quick analysis the following words appear with the following frequency:
    f**k – 22
    c**p – 66
    idiot – 21
    fool – 39
    dishonest – 51
    Some are, or course, duplicates and others appear in a compound form, e.g. dishonestly.

  148. Hiding the decline,
    Hiding the decline,
    We will go together,
    Hiding the decline.

    I’ve been recovering from a nasty bout of Pleurisy, and still feel bloody rough. I can’t tell you how much this has cheered me up. Have just sent richard.black@bbc.co.uk the following subject only email

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

  149. A physicist says:

    So far, there have been 113 comments on this particular Watts Up With That? post. If we mask-out those comments that amount to mere slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting, have there been any Watts Up With That? comments (so far) that contain content of interest to serious-minded mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and CEOs?

    Out of 113 comments, has there been even one that is substantively skeptical?

    If we assume that the present exclusive focus of Watts Up With That? upon slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting is sustained, then the brand of skepticism that is practiced here will never be disproved — how could it be? … because shouted slogans, cherry-picked data, and witch-hunts are none of them susceptible to disproof — yet it is true too that Watts Up With That?‘s peculiar brand of skepticism will exert no lasting influence upon America, upon conservatism, or upon the world.

  150. Rich says:

    Email 0071 From M. Mann I believe.

    I pointed out to him that we certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do (this is the question he asked everyone). There is very little information at all in the Southern Hemisphere on which to base any conclusion.
    So I told him that of course the answer to that question is *no* and it would be surprising if anyone answered otherwise. But, as I proceeded to point out, that’s the wrong question. I pointed out that a far more sensible question is, “do we know the relative temperature anomaly for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE to within that accuracy, and that we almost certainly do know that.

    So is it global warming or hemispheric? Doesn’t he belittle the MWA down to it not being global?

  151. Here is a personal favorite:

    Tolleris:

    The point is not that the scientists disagree among themselves but that they publicly proclaim from the rooftops that the science is settled and anyone who questions them is a bone-headed denier oil-lobby funded hooligan.

  152. davidmhoffer says:

    [FOI, temperature data]
    Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
    get – and has to be well hidden.>>>

    Haven’t read them all, but of the ones I have, that one is just priceless. It was my number one but has now dropped into a three way tie with :

    I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
    could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
    [...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
    precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.>>>

    and this gem:

    [IPCC AR5 models]
    So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
    suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
    correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.>>>

    They’ve declared their own guilt repeatedly! I’m a fraction of the way through and there’s enough in here to drop kick these guys into jail!

  153. PhilJourdan says:

    @Gary says:
    November 22, 2011 at 8:40 am

    My mind works in mysterious ways. I wonder if the remaining emails are really damning, and the leaker just wants the principals to verify the pap stuff before lowering the boom.

  154. EternalOptimist says:

    FOIA2011, next time you’re up in Manchester, give us a shout, I’ll get you a beer in

  155. Leon Brozyna says:

    Psst … Dr, Mann … not a good idea to be using the old “out of context” pitch. Sets alarm bells to ringing, don’t you know.

  156. Enneagram says:

    “The Cause” and its “illuminati” will not fail: http://www.earthsummit2012.org/

  157. mac says:

    If this genuine then it is explosive.

    1680.txt

    date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
    from: “Michael E. Mann”
    subject: Re: Something not to pass on
    to: Phil Jones

    Phil,

    I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of
    context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly
    publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you
    provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there
    is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should
    consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.

    I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an
    investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
    thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the
    same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

    I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and
    discrediting them.

    Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect
    the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional
    advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to
    such matters,

    mike

  158. Josualdo says:

    mrsean2k says: November 22, 2011 at 7:26 am
    @TheBigYinJames

    And if it’s structured correctly, each archive could contain another encrypted archive to allow the mail to be released in tranches.

    Right. Wikipedia on AES-256 says there are now approaches for it, but it’s all ahem cryptic to me.

  159. kim2ooo says:

    Amy Ridenour says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Interesting that Mann (in the Guardian story at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails ) asserts that the emails were released by “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry” when no one but those …………………………….

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    WELL SAID!

  160. Wil says:

    To this point in time I see nothing those guys (Mann el al) can’t and won’t be able to explain away. There is no there THERE yet – so I urge you all to be skeptical – we only have POSSIBLE emails from these guys with no password. I ask why would anyone release this junk with no password to back up anything of value? This seems rather suspicious to me. You either have the goods or someone’s playing big time with us with INTERNET promises and we all know internet promises are worth squat until and unless the goods are delivered in full we have NOTHING! As the movie said – SHOW ME THE MONEY!

  161. Harriet Harridan says:

    Mark, says:
    “Does anyone have the zip file? Either the link is bad or (I suspect) so many people have tried to download it that it crashed the server.”

    Try the torrent: tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7

  162. Enneagram says:

    …Times of a “revelation from above” (Apo-kalypse)

  163. DGH says:

    0755
    “FYI, the radio interview seemed to go well. I must say in fairness
    that, considering the photographs of how not to observe temperature on
    Anthony Watts’ blog, http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
    , Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position. For example, when asked if
    the stations with poor siting were removed from the analysis would it
    show less warming, Mr. Watts said we won’t know until the analysis is
    complete.”

  164. ferd berple says:

    UPDATE2: 8:45AM PST The Guardian has a story up be Leo Hickman, and this excerpt suggests they may be the real deal:

    The Guardian article selectively edits README.txt to create a misleading impression about the motives of foia.org. The Guardian edits the text to remove any suggestion that $37 trillion might possibly be a death sentence for 2.5 billion of the world’s poor. Or for the elderly in the UK living in fuel poverty..

    Here is the full version:

    README.txt
    /// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///
    “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
    “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
    “One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
    “Poverty is a death sentence.”
    “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
    Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.

  165. the_Butcher says:

    When will these charlatans get behind bars?

  166. kim2ooo says:

    Wigley:

    I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
    skeptics have extreme religious views.
    Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    IMO helps explain the Pontifical Academy of Science Paper

  167. commieBob says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am

    If we mask-out from this Watts Up With That? post those claims that amount to:
    (1) slogan-shouting,
    (2) cherry-picking, and
    (3) witch-hunting,
    is there is anything left of Watts Up With That? but hollowed-out blank pages?

    Here is the list of recent stories: * Climategate 2.0
    * Hurricane Kenneth forms southwest of Baja
    * Oyster crisis: Yale 360 eco-activist author Elizabeth Grossman wrong again about ocean acidification
    * GMU on climate scientists: we are the 97%
    * NOAA’s Susan Solomon, still pushing that 2 degrees in spite of limited options
    * Carbon, on the uptake
    * Don’t mock the Monck
    * Duking It Out With Foreign Investors
    * Shades of Foster Grant
    * Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup
    * The Odd Omission in IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers for SREX on Extreme Weather and Climatic Events
    * Santer’s “17 years needed for a sign of climate change” compared against the IPCC models
    * The dehydration and bottled water debacle
    * On the anniversary of Climategate, RealClimate’s Ray Pierrehumbert sings the CO2 blues, Chicago style
    * Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income

    What I find there is mostly substantial. You may be right about the readers’ comments*. AFAICT, Watts mostly isn’t trying to present new science. His contribution there is the station siting stuff. That, in itself, is an important contribution to our understanding about the reliability of climate data.

    What Watts purports to do on his mast head is: “Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology and recent news.” He does that. In fact, he does it well. If he is going to criticize science, he criticizes the science by presenting well supported logical arguments and data. That is not what I would characterize as ‘hollowing out’.

    Your post is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. If you were a real scientist, you would supply examples and statistics to back up your argument. Look at all the stories and see how many are ‘hollowed out’. Tell us why they are ‘hollowed out’. Use whatever criteria you choose but tell us what those criteria are so we can have a reasoned discussion. Your criteria seem to be:
    (1) slogan-shouting,
    (2) cherry-picking, and
    (3) witch-hunting,
    We aren’t going to let you get away with those unless you can tell us the difference between a substantial piece of news and ‘slogan-shouting’ for instance. You have to tell us what it is about a story that makes it ‘slogan-shouting’. The mere fact that you assert something does not make it so.

    If you can’t supply the rudiments of a reasoned argument, we’ll think you are just another troll.

    p.s. Perhaps you will deduce from my sig that I am not precisely the model of the rednecked neanderthal Republican you seem to think frequents these pages.

    *That may not matter because blog comments are what they are. In fact, the comments on Wattsupwiththat seem to me to be somewhat more informed and reasoned on most blogs. YMMV.

  168. I remain … sceptical.

    It’ll take a while to analyse. Not having the resources of No Such Agency at one’s beck an call can be a major inconvenience.

    Still worrisome that the MSM such as the Guardian consider emails sent between professionals in the conduct of their work to be “private”. They might be commercially-sensitive if they worked in private industry (but still not private – they belong to the corporation) but as the emails are ostensibly being produced by the use of public funds, the public has a right to see them; except for the bits that are private.

  169. Richard deSousa says:

    The pro AGW scientists and their useful idiotic bureaucrats should continue to host big climate meetings…. this way we can have more emails leaked to embarrass them.

  170. Andrew says:

    Maybe Mann released them.. he’s become a masochist hahahaha.

  171. Kaboom says:

    Saving more billions from being wasted on data manipulation via this release may indeed save lives – by reducing the inevitable cutbacks in budgets worldwide that will hit the poorest of the poor either domestic or abroad. I have an idea who to give that Peace Nobel Prize to after Gore and the IPCC will have to return theirs …

  172. Chuck says:

    The entire file needs to be released to put an end to the “taking out of context” charges by The Team.

  173. Jean Parisot says:

    dagobert – are you talking about the files or the AGW hypothesis?

  174. sceptical says:

    It will be interesting to see how partial quotes taken out of context will be spun this time. Last time, those who did the spinning were left with egg on their face after numerous investigations.

  175. Scott says:

    “Prof Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University,” — You are a grubby little man who will get his comeuppance.
    I find it quite offensive that a ‘scientist’ takes such a political / activist approach. Using terms like ‘denier’ and his phraseology used to describe anyone who disagrees with him makes his agenda clear.

  176. Jason says:

    “My gut feeling is that this is a fake.”.

    The reality is of course that its NOT fake. If it was why would Mann be on twitter right now saying how good it is the UEA CRA has already published a piece condemning the theft.

    Mann has flicked through them already, that is obvious. If they were fake he would have said so.

  177. Will Gray says:

    Im wanting to write a cSi story/
    Profile the person “FoIR”
    Humanitarian does state urgency in energy poverty and the blaming of greenhouse gasses,
    Next.
    As just in time for durban/Copenhargen this time with a password- and scrit code that as yet is unchallengable.
    He shows unique stealth and patience.
    Q. guess his age-
    Q. sexual orientation-
    Q. who manifest a cause for a competative minority meaning has the person a reason to have a cultural dissconect from work?
    Q. Push towards fair play-exceptionally consciencious neat orderly.
    Etc.

  178. DirkH says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:08 am
    “So far, there have been 113 comments on this particular Watts Up With That? post. If we mask-out those comments that amount to mere slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, ”

    Ah, so pointing to an e-mail in which the climate “scientists” call for deletion of e-mails is cherry-picking because in the other 99% of e-mails they talk about something different. That’s a stupid argument, physicist. You’re stupid.

  179. Taphonomic says:

    The cause…

    Yes, much has been done “For the Good of the Cause”. Solzhenitsyn lives.

  180. A PHYSICIST… and everyone understands too that this slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting has become utterly irrelevant to the serious concerns of America’s mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and CEOs.

    What is irrelevant about trillions of dollars we will have to absorb? Get a brain. WUWT is the messenger, not the crooks of Mann et al.

  181. coldlynx says:

    I guess this is “the original unadjusted data ” about the AGW fraud.

  182. mgparrish says:

    Minns/Tyndall Centre:

    In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
    relations problem with the media

    Kjellen:

    I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
    warming

    Pierrehumbert:

    What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
    like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

  183. Jason says:

    “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an
    investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
    thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the
    same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

    I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and
    discrediting them.”

    So Michael Mann is part of a Mafia then.

  184. RockyRoad says:

    I shall, in honor of a great mind and a terrific entrepreneur, quote the last words of Steve Jobs:

    “Oh, wow! Oh, wow!”

  185. Michael Larkin says:

    Check out 0452.txt. It contains this bit:

    > At 02:45 14/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
    >> Dear folks,
    >>
    >> You may be interesting in this snippet of information about
    >> Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to
    >> open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels,
    >> PhD needs re-assessing?
    >>
    >> Michaels’ PhD was, I believe, supervised by Reid Bryson. It dealt
    >> with statistical (regression-based) modeling of crop-climate
    >> relationships. In his thesis, Michaels claims that his statistical
    >> model showed that weather/climate variations could explain 95%
    >> of the inter-annual variability in crop yields. Had this been
    >> correct, it would have been a remarkable results. Certainly, it
    >> was at odds with all previous studies of crop-climate relationships,
    >> which generally showed that weather/climate could only explain about
    >> 50% of inter-annual yield variability.
    >>
    >> How did result come about? The answer is simple. In Michaels’
    >> regressions he included a trend term. This was at the time a common
    >> way to account for the effects of changing technology on yield. It
    >> turns out that the trend term accounts for 90% of the variability,
    >> so that, in Michaels’ regressions, weather/climate explains just 5
    >> of the remaining 10%. In other words, Michaels’ claim that
    >> weather/climate explains 95% of the variability is completely
    >> bogus.
    >>
    >> Apparently, none of Michaels’ thesis examiners noticed this. We
    >> are left with wondering whether this was deliberate misrepresentation
    >> by Michaels, or whether it was simply ignorance.

  186. Jeff D says:

    I want a large Popcorn with Extra Butter please!

    Me thinks the backroom discussion topic at Durban is not going to be what was on the agenda.

  187. elmer says:

    What is the catch phrase for my next video? Is their anything as quotable as “Hide the Decline”?

  188. Joe Horner says:

    Seems like all copies of these are being torn down fast – none of the links I can find are still active and my ISP doesn’t like torrents :(

  189. Elftone says:

    I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.

    Mann, you will note in his statement in The Grauniad, manages to make it all about him again. He appears to have an ego the size of Belgium. And what, exactly, is “the cause”? Sounds reminiscent of the Crusades…

  190. _Jim says:

    “A physicist” says November 22, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Sorry fella, but at this point you’re being just plain booring

    .

  191. A physicist says:

    I thought “commieBob’s” post (above) was one of the most sensible on this whole thread … not a trace of slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting in it.

    Life being too short to waste on slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting, I’ve taken to reading more-and-more from climate-change analyses written by CEOs and/or military strategists and/or folks who work in nature (farmers, fishers, and hunters) … because these folks too have no time for slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting.

    So that’s my answer to commieBob’s question “Use whatever criteria you choose but tell us what those criteria are so we can have a reasoned discussion.”

    It seems to me that conservative groups like Republicans for Environmental Protection (and other groups like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership) called it right way back in the early 1990s, and since then the accelerating trend among CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers and hunters has been to embrace the REP’s foresighted science-driven point-of-view.

    Skepticism of course is valuable: when that skepticism is driven by solid physical theory and high-quality data analysis — and not driven by cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting. Here on Watt’s Up With That, especially in recent months, there’s getting to be far too little of the former, and far too much of the latter.

    That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That.

  192. wmsc says:

    The file on the Russian site is 404’d.

  193. HenryP says:

    Henry@a physicist
    Why don’t you actually talke the time to read the comments?

    Henry@Rich
    I can confirm that my average increase in the mean temps on the SH is exactly 0.000 degrees C /annum over the past 4 decades. In the NH it is different as more heat is trapped there by the blooming earth, spurting more green (due to the increase in max. temps and carbon dioxide)

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

  194. the_Butcher says:

    @elmer,

    yes, “the cause”

  195. More Soylent Green! says:

    So, will Mann stop his legal action to halt the release of his emails now?

  196. James Sexton says:

    I haven’t seen this one posted yet, so ……..

    Bradley:
    I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
    never have been published.
    I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
    “reconstruction”.
    Osborn:
    Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
    middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
    MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
    ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

    Esper:
    Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
    is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
    missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
    dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
    don’t you want to let the result into science?
    Cook:
    I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
    defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
    science move ahead.

  197. Jeff says:

    2203

    from: “Keiller, Donald”
    subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology
    to: <K BRIFFA

    As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate
    starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).
    As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole
    scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;
    1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
    2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
    3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the
    "Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate
    4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature
    in a linear manner.

    Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use
    inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find
    difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.

    As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do
    not agree with the accepted science.

  198. motionview says:

    Best headline ever!

  199. jaypan says:

    This all is so telling. A small group, impressed by their own importance, acts in the interest of a “cause”. Hiding, tricking, deceiving, pushing … everything included, going from science to crime, but almost nobody of them really cares.
    Politicians, as they have to save other things than climate now, should realize finally how they are being played like puppets on a string. Ridiculous, but not funny at all. As the intro text rightfully reminds everybody: Starving children are murdered this way by a green mafia.

  200. Robert of Ottawa says:

    I like Phil Jones admitting he deleted his e-mails and keeps printed copies at home. Where’s the Norwich plod when you need them!

  201. More Soylent Green! says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
    If we mask-out from this Watts Up With That? post those claims that amount to:
    (1) slogan-shouting,
    (2) cherry-picking, and
    (3) witch-hunting,
    is there is anything left of Watts Up With That? but hollowed-out blank pages?

    That hollowing-out is the common-sense reason why the perception of a “Conservative War on Science” is becoming the consensus view of America’s mathematicians, scientists, and engineers … and even more seriously for all who hope that American conservatism has any future, is becoming the consensus view too of America’s serious-minded CEOs.

    Fortunately, those hollowed-out brands of conservatism that are grounded in slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting are unlikely to survive the coming decade — and will not deserve to survive. Whereas the robust brand of conservatism espoused (for example) by J. Wayne Leonard, Chairman and CEO of the Entergy Corporation, in his letter “Entergy and the Environment” (Google it!) has excellent changes to provide solid foundations for 21st century American conservatism.

    Everyone understands that slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting is going to continue unceasingly here on Watts Up With That and other ideology-first sites (both far-left and far-right) … and everyone understands too that this slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting has become utterly irrelevant to the serious concerns of America’s mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and CEOs.

    Personally, I’m waging a war for science. I support the scientific method and seek open, fair and honest debate. That’s why I’m a skeptic.

    I know science is not performed by consensus or proclamation. I know the truth of any scientific question can never be determined when one side attempts to block honest and fair inquiry. I know computer models do not output facts nor do computer models output data.

    I know the difference between science and activism. That is why I’m a skeptic.

  202. UK dissenter says:

    I am Michael Mann, as pure as the driven snow. A disinterested, objective scientist only concerned to discover the truth. So it must be a different Michael Mann who wrote:

    “3115 It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction …”
    and
    “0810 I don’t know what she (Judith Curry) think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause”
    and, on 29th August 2007 to Phil Jones (CRU, East Anglia University, England),

    “I (Mann) have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests”

    And the response of the second Michael Mann, to the Guardian today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails) is textbook paranoia. He describes the person/people who released the latest batch of CRU emails as:
    “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial.”
    I think the purely scientific Michael Mann needs to contact his paranoid doppelganger, and ask him to calm down, and get some treatment. He’s clearly not well.

  203. Jeremy says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:08 am

    If we assume that the present exclusive focus of Watts Up With That? upon slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting is sustained, then the brand of skepticism that is practiced here will never be disproved…

    You know how I know you’re not a physicist? You display no curiosity at all.
    A physicist is a generally a person who demonstrates curiosity and does not cringe at learning something new, regardless of subject matter. I know this, I am one and I’ve spent lots of time around them. Go find a physicist and talk to them about sports, they’ll be interested. Go talk to them about art, they’ll be interested. Go talk to them about anything, they’ll generally find something of interest in it. They are true generalists that could find something interesting or something worthy of skeptical inquiry from anything in existence.

    As far as “brand of skepticism”… “never be disproved”… what on earth are you talking about? Skepticism is defined as a state of mind, how can you disprove a state of mind?

    You are displaying yourself as little more than a blogosphere troll. It is you who is repeating yourself accusing others of things they have not done. This thread is not a scientific thread, it is a thread about a leak of e-mails from scientists who have been abusing their positions. Coming onto this thread and trying to demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor is like jumping into a congressional debate and demanding people start kissing and hugging.

  204. Dave N says:

    From the snippets in this post, I don’t see anything “damning”. Arrogance, yes, however that’s hardly damning; just unbecoming of those purporting to be engaged in science.

  205. Bill Thomson says:

    Does this show the foibles of some climate scientists?

  206. Jeff says:

    2211 has a long discussion by Mann on M&M’s critique of his reconstruction

  207. Rod Everson says:

    In my opinion, first prize so far should go to this one:

    ” Haimberger:

    It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
    in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
    remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.”

    Hmmm…I wonder how many of the plots that are supportive of his position get a similar level of scrutiny? Conclusion (belief) first, evidence (adjusted data) to be manufactured later?

  208. TheGoodLocust says:

    “Chuck says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:23 am

    The entire file needs to be released to put an end to the “taking out of context” charges by The Team.”

    No, they’ll always say it was “out of context.” This is a very typical tactic since their defenders will believe them because they want to believe them.

    For example, Obama’s pastor preached that white people invented HIV to kill blacks. The response? It was out of context.

    And that worked until the pastor opened his nutty mouth again – then he just disowned him.

    That’s why I think the ultimate defense of this, assuming these turn out to be unaltered/true, is that they’ll simply disown Mann and Friends, while still claiming the “vast majority of climate scientists” agree with AGW.

  209. Latitude says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
    That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That.
    ===========================
    You are a hoot!

    …the whole time you are claiming that you are jumping to a conclusion that “move along, there’s nothing to see here”

    Take a good dose of your own hypocritical advise…..and wait and see
    =====
    Overpeck:
    I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
    “Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
    an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
    ======
    Jones:
    I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
    certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
    =======
    …and just to lighten the mood

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

  210. Jeff says:

    2212, Phil Jones: “Don’t put too much faith in the models”

    though not clear to me which models he is discussing, perhaps someone more familiar with this stuff can help

  211. Jeff says:

    2213

    “I happen to agree with him and I actually think our statement is too
    strong. It almost seems that we are suggesting physical models should be
    thought of as empirical ones, which, despite the tuning, I think is an
    overstatement. ”

    Empirical models, you know, as opposed to made up projections

  212. Spector says:

    RE: the_Butcher: (November 22, 2011 at 9:17 am)
    “When will these charlatans get behind bars?”

    That may prove difficult for self-elected ‘heroes’ of the green revolution who honestly believed they were acting for the good of all mankind. Only those who can be proved to have knowingly corrupted science for personal gain run that risk. Note that all juries are likely to include people sympathetic to the ideals of the green revolution.

  213. More Soylent Green! says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am

    … Whereas the robust brand of conservatism espoused (for example) by J. Wayne Leonard, Chairman and CEO of the Entergy Corporation, in his letter “Entergy and the Environment”

    Since you didn’t, I’ll provide the link: http://www.entergy.com/our_community/environment/ceo_letter.aspx

    There is nothing in the letter you reference that has anything to do with conservatism. Do you mistaken believe that because Mr. Leonard is CEO of a corporation, that he’s a conservative?

    Having read the letter in question and some other pages on the site, I found nothing there that is not a rehashing of the IPCC “consensus view” of climate change, including the call for various federal programs. There is no science there at all.

    Either you’re a poor excuse for a physicist or just another troll. You’re not even clever enough to direct people to a website that supports your contentions.

  214. LamontT says:

    It’s sad “a physicist”, really apparently nothing more than a propagandist, doesn’t offer any actual arguments for her position but instead does nothing but spout empty psychobabble rhetoric that means nothing as if if were somehow a profound criticism.

    Really Miz “a propagandist” needs to present coherent logical arguments not just the empty disenfranchised language that they have used for this is the practical reason why CEO’s, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters not to mention most mathematicians, scientist, and engineers are rejecting the peculiar brand of religion that states that man is causing catastrophic climate damage and instead embracing the skepticism that is seen in much of the world.

  215. A Lovell says:

    I can remember reading an interview with Phil Jones. It was when he came out of hiding after the first climategate. In it, he said he was just ‘waiting for the other shoe to drop’.

    I have often wondered since then exactly what he meant. I guess this is it!

    PS ‘A physicist’……….do put a sock in it. You sound inebriated.

  216. Poptech says:

    I think he [Chris Landsea] has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting hurricanes.” – Kevin Trenberth

  217. More Soylent Green! says:

    Was the file created with 7zip? Just Google 7 zip password cracker and go from there. Be sure to carefully check all downloads for malware@

  218. Duncan says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
    I thought “commieBob’s” post (above) was one of the most sensible on this whole thread … not a trace of slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting in it. blah, blah, blah..

    Wordy troll is troll.

  219. Stephen Richards says:

    My guess is that this person is very patient and totally dedicated to his cause. Listen up Warming loonies. I suspect that he has sorted these mails into good, very good and EXPLOSIVE!! Bang. You stop lying or the next load is going to go boom. he he he !!!

  220. James Sexton says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am

    That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That.
    ==============================================================
    Interesting….. I live in a decidedly conservative part of the country, where farmers, fishers, and hunters appear in this location. I’m not sure which of those you think are rejecting this “brand of skepticism”, but I think your a bit off. While its been a while since I personally spoke to any military strategists, and CEO’s but the dynamics are completely different. But, all of that aside, what do you say about this?

    Blockquote>Bradley:
    I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
    never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
    “reconstruction”.
    Osborn:
    Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
    middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
    MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
    ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
    Esper:
    Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
    is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
    missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
    dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
    don’t you want to let the result into science?
    Cook:
    I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
    defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
    science move ahead.

  221. elmer says:

    @the_Butcher says:
    yes, “the cause”

    I like it.. I like it a lot

  222. Some European says:

    Wow! That’s spectacular!
    I will stop believing in the religion of Al Gore now.
    Such amazing revelations!

    Give me a break! Give the world a break! Get a life!

    REPLY: get a clue Arne

  223. LamontT says:

    Actually A Lovell the psychobabble from “a physicist” sounds very much like the random posts you can get from one of the various rant generators online. This particular one is odd and seems designed to generate fake psychobabble nonsense for the troll that sounds profound but doesn’t actually mean anything. Probably set it a few keywords and away it goes generating the text that is then posted. Note the uniformity and emptiness of all of the posts there is no soul in any of them which tends to lend credence to the thought that they are just random computer generated babble.

  224. Smokey says:

    A physicist:

    The onus is not on scientific skeptics to prove a negative. The onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd to show convincingly, per the scientific method, that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate disruption.

    They have failed spectacularly. The planet itself is falsifying their wild-eyed predictions of doom. You’re just getting folks stirred up here by blaming skeptics for being skeptical of the repeatedly failed CAGW predictions. We have nothing to prove; it is the alarmist crowd that must defend their demonization of “carbon”, and so far they have completely failed.

  225. Sean Peake says:

    I wonder if the protected emails are the ones that Phil Jones et al “never” deleted?

  226. Steve In S.C. says:

    Stock tip of the day:
    ConAgra Foods, Inc. Common Stoc(NYSE: CAG )
    providers of ActII and Orville Redenbacher brands of popcorn.

  227. Jeff says:

    2226, Phil Jones suggests going “over the top” to encourage acceptance at Nature:

    Dave,
    Rather than go through the doc file, I’ll make a few points directly by email.
    1. I’ll reckon you’ll have to go over the top to get Nature to send this out for
    review.
    One way of doing this would be to add in some quick analyses of the
    residual global mean series. for recent years. Only a few sentences.
    Basically to show that years like 2005 and others in the period 2002-2007 are
    after extraction warmer than 1998. Maybe also over 1997/8 to 2007 show
    the trend. I know this is somewhat silly, but there is a lot of rubbish on
    web sites about global warming stopping. Maybe just rank the top ten
    years in the residual series. This might give it more appeal, but not detract
    from the main 1945 message.

  228. A Lovell says:

    LamontT says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Thanks for that information. It was the odd, meaningless babble that led me to think he was under the influence of something. Even drunks have a soul!!

  229. henrythethird says:

    So, Dr mann, if the emails seem to be “taken out of context”, then maybe you’d be willing to provide the entire email so we can see the full statements.

    That is, if you haven’t deleted them already…

  230. SunderlandSteve says:

    And so there we have it, science, from the teams’ point of veiw is not about finding the truth, its all about “THE CAUSE”.
    How unremittingly pathetic!

  231. Stephen Richards says:

    Dagobert says:

    November 22, 2011 at 9:05 am
    My gut feeling is that this is a fake. Let’s take it with a (large) grain of salt. I wouldn’t put stuff like this beyond people like that but… it doesn’t sound genuine, somehow.

    DAGOBERT is a cartoon character in france. Need I say more!!

  232. Poptech says:

    As with last time, here is a free program to format and make the emails easier to read,

    GetDiz

  233. A physicist says:

    James Sexton asks:

    That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That.

    Interesting….. I live in a decidedly conservative part of the country, where farmers, fishers, and hunters appear in this location. I’m not sure which of those you think are rejecting this “brand of skepticism.”

    That would be the alliance of fishers and hunters at “Seasons End” whose members include:

    • Ducks Unlimited
    • Trout Unlimited
    • BASS/ESPN Outdoors
    • Izaak Walton League of America
    • Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
    • Coastal Conservation Association
    • American Sportfishing Association
    • Pheasants Forever
    • Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
    • Wildlife Management Institute
    • Delta Waterfowl
    • Boone and Crockett Club

    Prominent non-skeptic farming organizations include 4H and FFA (if you’re from a farm-family, you won’t have to ask what those are).

    The plain fact is, almost every serious professional organization nowadays is rejecting those brands of climate-change skepticism that express themselves mainly in cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting.

    Good. :)

  234. John says:

    YAWNNNN.

  235. Frank K. says:

    It is very interesting to see truckloads of trolls showing up here to defend “the cause” [LOL!].

    (I must give the trolls their due, however. They recognize these new climategate e-mails as yet another torpedo ripping into the hull of the sinking S.S. GlobalWarming…)

  236. AdderW says:

    Jones:
    Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
    level clouds.

    Hilarious

  237. AdderW says:

    Jones:
    GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
    correct.

    Hah, even better !

  238. cui bono says:

    In other news today:

    “180 pensioners died every day as a result of cold conditions during the 2010-11 winter months in England and Wales. The annual ‘Excess winter mortality’ report found that an estimated 21,800 people over the age of 65 died as a result of adverse conditions, on top of the average mortality rate for the same period of time (4 months from December 2010 to March 2011). Over-65s accounted for 84% of the overall 25,700 ‘excess’ deaths during the winter months.”

    These liars think they’re saints. My 97 year old mother has dementia and I care for her in my house. That means keeping her warm, and not dreading bills going through the roof because we’ve been stuck with useless ugly windmills and stupid solar panels.

    They aren’t saints and perhaps a new special circle of hell could be constructed for them. One where it’s very, very COLD.

    Meanwhile, for grim humour, check out Trenberth’s ‘song’ on the IPCCs winning the Nobel prize with Al Gore. Yeesh!

  239. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:42 am

    Well, we all knew they were fooling us.

    Despite COP 17 being held here, I am finding the knowledge on the subject at the universities here in South Africa so appalling ……..

    There are no papers and there has not been any research here on the subject of man induced global warming. So the whole world is relying on these fraudsters like Mann.

    In the meantime I have done my own research………
    ___________________
    HenerP, I know you have a blog but how about either writing an article for WUWT or cross posting some of your articles here I read the one you used to answer R Gates with and I had not seen that point of view before.

  240. Ray says:

    It looks like the Climategate email poster is using the old 1-2-3-YOU’RRRRRE OUT!

  241. Can you post the IP address or full web server logs? I’d like to see if the hacker was using proxies like last time:
    http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-hack-used-open-proxies.html

  242. strawbale says:

    date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:40:47 +0000
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Dave – in confidence
    to: k.briffa@xxxx

    Keith,
    Chris was pretty positive with Dave. Dave is going to make a business
    case for the MSc with additional modules. Try and have a look
    through it later this week. Chris has given Dave a few ideas
    for the plan. There is likely to be a demand for more people
    to get Climate Change training in the future. If Chris is successful it
    might be
    possible to get Dave a Senior Lecturer post. He won’t get a Reader
    though as he’s not got the publications for the RAE.
    Any post would have to be advertised and it may not all be able to
    be done in time for the end of March.
    You could raise the issue at the next Strategy Comm. which
    Chris says you’ll have next week.

    Cheers
    Phil

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@xxx
    NR4 7TJ
    UK

  243. strawbale says:

    emails in document 0333 are worth a read for entertainment. Too long to post here but gives an insight into behind the scenes at Realclimate.

  244. Looks like the FOIA.org link is broken?

  245. strawbale says:

    Sorry, correction, that should be document 0330, not 0333.

  246. G. Karst says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am

    CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters

    I (and others) have performed these roles (and more) through more years than I want to contemplate, as well as the duties of a physicist. Your world is not THE world. GK

  247. _Jim says:

    LamontT says November 22, 2011 at 10:14 am

    It’s sad “a physicist”, really apparently nothing more than a propagandist, doesn’t offer any actual arguments for her position but instead does nothing but spout empty psychobabble rhetoric that means nothing …

    Perhaps an exemplification of the Peter Principle? Or maybe the final product of ‘state schooling’ from K through to BS, MS or PhD?

    I would like to see, purely from an entertainment perspective, a good line of argumentation put forwards, but, alas, not forthcoming from this ‘specimen’ …

    .

  248. strawbale says:

    Jeez what have I been smoking tonight! Correction again, the correct document IS 0333!
    Apologies

  249. Mike says:

    As a fisher, hunter, farmer, and CEO, I must be one of those who was overlooked by a “Physicist” (heh) during his less than extensive survey. The house of cards is collapsing, and I am sure you and yours are in a panic. My doubts harken back to my early training in the method where an old prof inculcated the most basic principles of scientific inquiry- skepticism itself. The moment those associated with the AGW enterprise (and it is an enterprise) began to viciously attack those who presented any data or theory counter to the narrative, I knew. These emails, part 1 and 2 prove one thing for certain. These people committed to “the cause”, regardless of their credentials, are not scientists.

  250. Pete in Cumbria UK says:

    am I alone in thinking that our ‘physicist’ friend is being just a bit naive.
    He talks about reading what CEOs, militarists etc etc (incl. farmers (that’s me)) are saying about catastrophic climate change and apparently how they all believe it to be true.
    No.
    What is true is that our elected leaders believe it to be true and it is their actions that all these people are talking about- especially that huge and very dangerous thing that will impact on everyone – Carbon Tax. That is the catastrophe, not the climate.
    And if, 37 trillion is going to be spent, who in their right mind would not be hankering after a share of that – not at all of course thinking of anybody/thing called Solyndra for example.
    Is it yet another sad reflection of our education systems that modern physicists can be so ‘green’ in every sense of the word?

  251. Kay says:

    @ “sceptical says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:25 am

    [quote]It will be interesting to see how partial quotes taken out of context will be spun this time. Last time, those who did the spinning were left with egg on their face after numerous investigations.[/quote]

    Oh, you mean like how Penn State handled its knowledge of a child predator in their midst? If they managed to whitewash that for 33 years, whitewashing a little climate investigation would be a piece of cake.

  252. Venkman says:

    2368

    Dave,
    Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond?

    With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
    numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have
    virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.
    There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time
    going through these.

    Cheers
    Phil

  253. Spector says:

    RE: Smokey: (November 22, 2011 at 10:24 am)
    “The onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd to show convincingly, per the scientific method, that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate disruption.”

    That is exactly the condition that Fear-Forced (Post-Normal) Science is meant to lay aside, as the presumed consequences of inaction are supposed to be so dire that there is no time to debate the issue.

  254. Jackal says:

    Thanks, Prof. Mann for screwing more people from Penn State than Jerry Sandusky.

  255. HenryP says:

    Henry@Gail Combs

    I assume you are referring to the fact that I said that
    “a correlation can be picked up if you compare the results in my tables with that of the leaf area index, shown in the world chart below:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
    In the red areas, which shows the area on earth where life is blooming and where it is getting greener, you will note from the results in my tables that the increase in maxima is picked up and trapped by the increasing vegetation as exhibited by higher means and minima.. In the blue ares, where substantial de-forestation has been going on, you will find mean temperatures staying largely unchanged or even declining, even though maxima are rising”.

    However, I am still working on that,
    I think I do need to do more statistical analyses of weather stations before I can make an historical claim.

    This is just a “hobby” and I don’t have a lot of time for it.

    I sure wish I had the universities here working with me (especially the stats classes) instead of being so completely naive and pathetic.

  256. Flask says:

    “farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers”

    “fishers”
    That tells me that A physicist is more likely “A journOlist”, probably in the employ of the CBC. But who knows, maybe they use that stupid emasculated name for fishermen in certain hyperpolitica parts of the USA, too.
    LOL

  257. Bernie says:

    My guess is that “a physicist” is that well known heavyweight, Scott Mandia. Who else would name himself in such a pretentious manner.

  258. Martin Brumby says:

    @A physicist says: November 22, 2011 at 10:38 am

    “The plain fact is, almost every serious professional organization nowadays is rejecting those brands of climate-change skepticism that express themselves mainly in cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting.”

    I wouldn’t expect a cowardly, anonymous troll to even recognise a “serious professional organization” if one was to bite his ass. And your boring and tendentious posts prove the point.

    Whilst you clearly excite yourself with your endlessly repeated “cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting.” chant, most rational people are more concerned about the dogma, incompetence, greed & malice which has been the hallmark of the Thermogeddonists for years and which is abundently here on display in the latest Climategate 2 emails. This concern is greatly amplified by being mindful of the Trillion Dollar expenditure on non-solutions to the CO2 non-problem.

    The outcome?
    Just read
    @cui bono says: November 22, 2011 at 10:41 am.

    And contemplate for once in your selfish, miserable little life, the effects of the cAGW scam on the poor and dispossessed in countries far poorer than the UK. The education, clean water & medicine that a tiny fraction of “decarbonisation” would pay for. The destruction of hope. And (with obvious implications for future peace and stability) the claim that their misfortune is down to the First World’s unpaid “Carbon Debt”.

  259. Nik says:

    Exceptions to the hearsay rule include “informal admissions” and evidence that tends to show a state of mind. This is what these emails do.

    The timing is intriguing. Just as the first block was released a few days before the Copenhagen shindig, these predate the Durban upcoming fiasco.

    There is another important factor. We are in the midst of a growing global financial crisis. The crisis will affect both the appetite for funding and policies which might affect the exit from financial stagnation. There are not many economists around who in these circumstances would support “green economies” as a serious means of getting back on the right economic track.

    Because of the above this second batch of emails will have a much harder impact than the first. Which shows that the person(s) doing the leaking have a strategic mind.

    Nik

  260. AdderW says:

    Any Josh cartoons on the horizon ? :-)

  261. SteveSadlov says:

    Let us raise our fists and red flags … for THE CAUSE!!!!!

  262. strawbale says:

    0339- Discusses Mann and his bristle cones + McIntyre

  263. Barbara Munsey says:

    In some quarters I have seen it offered that the reason the President of Penn State was sacked in the pedophilia scandal is because the non-investigation into something that could have jeopardized a revenue stream is a pattern there (at the university under his watch)—because of the non-investigation into Mann, and other more minor issues.

    If so, while it may not gain massive “media” attention, it may gain some university attention.

    Write to the board of governors; they have the sacking power, and with fewer places to hide, Mann will be easier to corner, won’t he?

  264. Jean Parisot says:

    2333 — “This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please !” Ooops

  265. Stephen Wilde says:

    Scientists welcome sceptical viewpoints because such viewpoints give them an opportunity to show why their hypothesis is to be preferred.

    It didn’t happen quite like that did it?

  266. John-X says:

    Is the “perpetrator” (as described by the crack [smoking?] Norfolk police) really saying we need to find USD37,000,000,ooo,000 to spend on bird choppers, solar panels, lunar panels, perpetual motion machines, and other “sustainable” energy, so we can “stabilize” (American spelling) our emmissions at “sustainable levels” (whatever that means) ???

    Great. No problem.

    Someone please call China and tell them we need to borrow enough for 74,000 more Solyndras.

    We’ll pay them back with, um, stabilised, …sustainable, …um, levels. Of something.

  267. Jeff says:

    From Raymond Bradley to Keith Briffa (2560)

    re Mike’s last missive, I have responded to Julie directly. Forget about
    it…too much acrimony on all of this. One day, (perhaps) Mike will grow
    up…
    Ray

  268. Alan says:

    One of my favorites (and note, put it in context with Mann’s angry reaction reported today in the media):
    Cook:
    I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
    defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
    science move ahead

  269. More Soylent Green! says:

    @A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:38 am

    You’re obvious new to this trolling thing, aren’t you?

    Consensus does not determine science, nor does appeal to authority. I find the progressive mind, like that of children, to be very susceptible to peer-pressure. That’s why progressives have such uniformity of opinion and so little original thought. Conformity is very important to progressives and they inhabit a shame sub-culture.

    Me, I’m from Missouri (which a often pronounce as Mizzura, just to annoy my spouse) and you have to show me. Give me some real facts.

  270. Jeff says:

    2563, from Barrie Pitock

    “>(b) Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the
    >offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to
    >refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not
    >matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the
    >journals, but that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation.
    >To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and
    >proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might
    >work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.
    >(c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and
    >embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of being
    >embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for Science or Nature.
    >Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue editors”, in line with current
    >international practice? Or is that defamatory?”

  271. Stephen Wilde says:

    In light of all this it is clearly time to rapidly extract as much fossil fuel as we need in order to educate and empower the world so that every nation reaches the stage where its population voluntarily limits its fertility as happens and has happened in every nation that has achieved sufficient wealth, education and freedom.

    Then the world will all the sooner reach peak population and begin a population decline towards long term sustainability with the wealth derived from fossil fuels (or any genuinely economic alternative) providing a buffer against the economic effects of a global population contraction.

    That is the way forward. Not a Luddite type regression to the politics and economics of the Middle Ages when life for all was nasty brutish and short.

    Not only do wealthy, free and educated nations limit their fertility, they also care for the environment.

    The so called ’cause’ is evil incarnate.

  272. TomRude says:

    Funny how the ramping up number of Op-ed and alarmist news articles by Seth Borenstein, immediately peddled around the globe by the MSM is journalism, information … LOL

  273. Gail Combs says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am

    ….. is there is anything left of Watts Up With That? but hollowed-out blank pages?

    That hollowing-out is the common-sense reason why the perception of a “Conservative War on Science” is becoming the consensus view of America’s mathematicians, scientists, and engineers…..
    __________________________

    Give it a break. The days when a scientist could take on the mantel of a “priest” are now long gone. At this point after all the fecal material that has hit the news lately I would not even want to admit I was a chemist!

    Especially after “The FDA has found “widespread falsification” and “manipulation of equilibration samples” at Cetero research from 2005 to 2010.” (Cetero is based only a couple towns over. ) Followed by Diederik Stapel: “A well known Dutch psychologist falsified data in dozens of studies in one of the biggest cases of scientific fraud on record, an investigative committee has found.”

    If Scientists do not get their act together and clean house SOON they are going to find the reputation of science very badly tarnished. That is the true tragedy of this whole mess.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42849261/fda-finds-falsification-of-drug-trial-results-affecting-dozens-of-companies/

    http://www.clinicalresearchsociety.org/2011/07/28/fda-says-cro-cetero-faked-trial-data-pharmas-may-need-to-redo-tests/

    http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7201

  274. Mike says:

    Wow, you guys proved it again! Emails!111!11 That’s what is important! No, really, look over here, I have comments, taken out of context! They prove…uhh…it! That’s right, they prove it, can’t you see? Atmospheric chemistry, time series analysis, isotopes, all crap!!! Here…look at these emails!!!
    Sells on Faux News, so whatever.
    Jeezus on a cracker, help us.

  275. Paul Benkovitz says:

    Does anyone have a link to the actual torrent? The first link I clicked wanted to download a Microsoft windows executable. I guess that was suppose to be a torrent client. The other links are for magnet links. I drop torrents to a headless server. unfortunately it doesn’t do magnet links.

  276. What RealClimate has to say:

    “The blogosphere is abuzz with the appearance of a second tranche of the emails stolen from CRU just before thanksgiving in 2009. Our original commentary is still available of course (CRU Hack, CRU Hack: Context, etc.), and very little appears to be new in this batch. Indeed, even the out-of-context quotes aren’t that exciting, and are even less so in-context.”

    “A couple of differences in this go around are worth noting: the hacker was much more careful to cover their tracks in the zip file they produced – all the file dates are artificially set to Jan 1 2011 for instance, and they didn’t bother to hack into the RealClimate server this time either. Hopefully they have left some trails that the police can trace a little more successfully than they’ve been able to thus far from the previous release.”

    “But the timing of this release is strange. Presumably it is related to the upcoming Durban talks, but it really doesn’t look like there is anything worth derailing there at all. Indeed, this might even increase interest! A second release would have been far more effective a few weeks after the first – before the inquiries and while people still had genuine questions. Now, it just seems a little forced, and perhaps a symptom of the hacker’s frustration that nothing much has come of it all and that the media and conversation has moved on.”

    “If anyone has any questions about anything they see that seems interesting, let us know in the comments and we’ll see if we can provide some context. We anticipate normal service will be resumed shortly.”
    ————————————
    “…this might even increase interest! [for Durban]”
    Hah! Looks like they know that Durban is going to be a snorefest. Glad this will liven it up!

    “We anticipate normal service will be resumed shortly.”
    SurrealClimate got hacked :)

  277. Al Gored says:

    Possibly has been noted before, and it is a bit like pointing out a spelling error in Attila, but here’s a typo:

    “Guardian has a story up be Leo Hickman”

    by

    Now, on to reading the gory details.

  278. strawbale says:

    From 0344, FOI requests and Climate Audit

    Jones:
    “When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn’t know the number we’re dealing with. We are in double figures. One issue is that these requests aren’t that widely known within the School. So I don’t know who else at UEA may be getting them. CRU is moving up the ladder of requests at UEA though – we’re way behind computing though.
    The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian, saying that the email maligned his scientificcredibility with his peers! If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn’t yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI – it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating !”

  279. Al Gored says:

    And really love the timing. Climategate 1.0 skuttled Copenhagen in the nick of time. Now this just before the Durban Watermelon Festival. Purrrfect!

  280. Steve Jones says:

    I posted this on Bishop Hill:
    Can I suggest that links to the various blogs discussing these e-mails are posted, wherever possible, on the BBC comments boards. Rather than ‘wherever possible’ I was originally going to say ‘wherever appropriate’. This is not possible at the moment as the most appropriate location would have been in the BBC’s Science and Environment section where, strangely, comments do not appear to be welcome right now.
    No surprise to see Richard Black instantly launch into a damage limitation exercise. If I was Inspector Knacker I would certainly be wanting to clarify his unambiguous statements about how the e-mails were accessed.
    Interesting times for decent folk, worrying times for conspirators.

  281. p gosselin says:

    I hear that Lord Oxbourgh phone is already ringing off the hook.

  282. Al Gored says:

    Anthony writes: “UPDATE4: 9:45 AM PST I’ve changed the headline from Climategate 2.0 to Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular! with a hat tip to Jerry Seinfeld.”

    Looks like the next Seinfled reference could be about ‘shrinkage.’

  283. Skeptik says:

    Tucci78 @ November 22, 2011 at 7:22 am
    Funny (=strange) you should use the word ‘nonce’ in relation to an employee of Penn State. In British gaols (and possibly also in the State Pen :)) this has a specific meaning – those deserving of that sobriquet usually meeting unpleasantness involving razor blades fused into toothbrush handles or boiling saturated sugar solutions.

  284. DirkH says:

    elmer says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:11 am
    “What do you guys think?
    http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/assets_c/2011/11/Hide-the-Decline-2-The-Cause-755.html

    Marvelous! Add some “Starring: Phil Jones as The Eraser and Mike Mann as himself” or so and it’s perfect.

  285. Snotrocket says:

    Anthony, with the comment count at 276 and counting, not to mention the 80-odd on BH, etc,etc, I figured it’s about time FOIA had a name. Much like ‘Deepthroat’ became the legend of Watergate.

    It’s not immediately obvious, but I have come up with the name: Inspector Gosling, and the reason in this.

    FOIA posted the first link to your blog in the Kenneth comments. He/She/They did it between comments from a P Gosselin and Spector. As it was posted ‘in’ between the two I figured they should have the honour of the name: So, ‘Inspector Gosling’, the one who really goosed the Team.

    Too weak??

  286. A physicist says:

    More Soylent Green! posts:

    Me, I’m from Missouri (which a often pronounce as Mizzura, just to annoy my spouse) and you have to show me. Give me some real facts.

    Missouri! That’s the country we bottom-tier-county Iowa farmkids always called “lower Iowa.” We also called it “lapland” `cuz it’s where Iowa laps down into Missouri. :).

    The serious way to gather facts is to begin 180 years ago, on the American Institute of Physics web site “The Discovery of Global Warming: Timeline.”

    The history shows plainly that — much like America’s Founders — America’s scientists have been pretty much right-on-target for eighteen decades in a row … which oughtta be enough to convince even the folks in Missouri that the scientists most likely have got it right in the present decade too.

  287. IAmDigitap says:

    [snip]

  288. View from the Solent says:

    More Soylent Green! says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Was the file created with 7zip? Just Google 7 zip password cracker and go from there. Be sure to carefully check all downloads for malware@
    =======================================================
    You’ll only find password brute-forcers. Cracking a pass-phrase is *hard*. http://xkcd.com/936/ gives you some idea of the difference.

  289. Bob Parker says:

    Well Penn State / UEA
    No pressure hey

  290. G. Karst says:

    One big difference between Climategate 1 and 2 is that in 1, it took days for the MSM to catch on, now they are on top of it.

    Anthony:

    It will be extremely interesting to see what difference that actually makes. Anthropologists (ethnologists?) start your recorders. GK

  291. Jean Parisot says:

    5315 — from ’04 — glacier doubt:

    … about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some local temperatures – that we don’t have access to, and there was little warming in them. The same situation applies for Quelccaya in Peru and also some of his Tibet sites. Lonnie thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation, but he can’t pin anything down. …

    Note the date 04

  292. DirkH says:

    I think “A physicist” is in fact an astrophysicist…

  293. gallier2 says:

    Also available on emule/edonkey P2P net

    ed2k://|file|FOIA2011.zip|181781854|0D57BD8900034A3497275D18E2BF2458|h=EK5NQCJH7VFYQGJZ2WX2GN63DRVUQ62Q|/

  294. Drave Robber says:

    collection of ipsem lorem text files

    It’s “lorem ipsum“, which in turn is “dolorem ipsum” (“pain/grief itself”) broken in the middle of the word.

  295. Stonyground says:

    Maybe my memory is playing tricks. In the OP it says that the MSM took days to begin reporting on the original Climategate story, as I recall there was a deafening silence for weeks. The blogs were buzzing about the subject and as time went on it was impossible to believe that the MSM were not fully aware of the story but hoping that if they kept quiet for long enough it would go away.

    @A Physicist
    It is a bit difficult to see how we could do an in depth analysis of climate data when those involved fight tooth and nail to prevent their data entering the public domain. Pop science books by Dawkins, Sagan, Goldacre etc, assure me that scientists welcome intense scrutiny of their work because only then can they be sure that they have the truth. If they are in the right even the best efforts of the sceptics will fail to prove otherwise. If you are indeed a physicist, why are you defending people who hide their data and resort to name calling to deflect attention from that?

  296. Stephen Wilde says:

    “The history shows plainly that — much like America’s Founders — America’s scientists have been pretty much right-on-target for eighteen decades in a row …”

    America’s founders thought that the Constitution had long term sustainability.

    A chap called de Tocqueville foresaw that the system would only be sustainable until the politicians realised that they could buy votes with taxpayer money.

    We are now on the cusp of determining which was correct.

    I pray that de Tocqueville was wrong but the numbers say otherwise.

  297. Dave Wendt says:

    sceptical says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:25 am
    It will be interesting to see how partial quotes taken out of context will be spun this time. Last time, those who did the spinning were left with egg on their face after numerous investigations.

    There is a neologism that has gained quite a bit of currency lately. The word is “beclowning”. You would do well to look it up.

  298. Gail Combs says:

    David Falkner says:
    November 22, 2011 at 8:34 am

    The celebrations are a bit premature, I think. Are they actual emails? How will we know for sure? If they are, I am personally beginning to wonder if the leaks aren’t coming from a foreign governmental entity. China and Russia have been doing quite a bit of hacking recently.
    _______________________________
    In that case politely thank them.

  299. CodeTech says:

    November 22… another day that will live in history… oh wait, it already does: 1963.

    Just randomly spot-checking through the emails I’ve seen enough incriminating text to, at the very least, fire many of these people, and possibly have them in front of a court.

    Really? Have your FOI person call my FOI person? They probably already know each other? The outright discussion of how to avoid legal requirements SHOULD be answerable in a court of law.

    We (here, at WUWT) already had pretty low respect for the Team, and their Cause, but this takes it to a whole new lower level. Frankly, I wouldn’t want any of them so much as serving me at McDonalds. Hey… Briff… TWO COATS of wax you idiot…

  300. Brian Macker says:

    “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. ”

    I guess he was expecting the emails to be damning. Not a very good admission to make.

  301. Joe says:

    I’d like to see the log of rejected comments at RealClimate right now. Somehow they have only had 12 comments today on this story….

    This one is funny:
    ===========================================
    Could you put these in context, please?:

    [John] Cook: “I am afraid that Mike [Mann] is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”

    [Response: Not "John", Ed, and this was in 2002, related to the Briffa/Osborn perspective in Science 2002. Those were early days in the paleo-reconstruction business and different groups had different opinions about how to proceed and interpret the results. Normal science.... - gavin]

    Bradley: “I’m sure you agree–the [Mike] Mann/ [Phil] Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year ‘reconstruction’.”

    [Response: Again, people are free to make their own judgements on papers. This was in 2003 (discussing Mann and Jones (2003)). - gavin]

    Crowley: “Phil [Jones], thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.”

    [Response: The discussion is related to SST anomalies, but I don't really understand crowley's characterisation. The difficulties in the SST record have been well discussed in the literature - most recently in Kennedy et al. - gavin]

    [Phil] Jones: “There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA [University of East Anglia] with different views (from “recent extreme weather is due to global warming”) – at least not a climatologist.”

    [Response: Jones is pushing back against the idea that there are always 'two sides' on science discussions for a media event, where the organisers wanted someone else from UEA to argue with Jones. - gavin]

    ==============================================

    So they have simply accepted that these are the real deal over at RC and have started the PR work.

  302. Alec, aka Daffy Duck says:

    from another blog:

    From: Phil Jones
    To: mann@virginia.edu
    Subject: CLIMATIC CHANGE needs your advice – YOUR EYES ONLY !!!!!
    Date: Fri Jan 16 13:25:59 2004

    Mike,
    This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please ! I’m trying to redress the
    balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
    kettle
    black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
    message
    so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
    more
    advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
    PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm

    Cheers
    Phil
    http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1074277559.txt

  303. Frank K. says:

    The story is now on Drudge. (Link is to The Guardian story at this time). Floodgates = Open.

  304. Bernal says:

    I sense a disturbance in Teh Force. I really do. There is a shift in the narrative from argument from authority to argument from Bass Pro-Shops. Wonder what that is in Latin. “Everybody is on the Catastrophic Wet/Dry Warm/Cold bandwagon even these murderous hunting organizations or Up With Ducks” or whatever that was.

    Where are the trolls of yesteryear. I miss our old trolls and wish we had them back. These new trolls are inferior trolls. Someone without a life should compile a climate troll registry so we would never forget.

    One thing great about all this is that we are witnessing the destruction of the Green brand. When Solyndra is gone, the electric cars are gone, the Polar bears are still here, the windmills we will have with us always, when the rent seekers are in jail, that green e is going to look like kim chee gone bad. Actually kim chee is born bad. Any way expect the search for a new symbol soon.

  305. Geoff C says:

    All I can sayis..

    “This is cheering news”!

  306. Skeptik says:

    vide my earlier post:
    For the uninitiated, ‘nonce’, for British prisoners at least, is a convicted sex-offender.
    Apologies for having posted on a later thread..

  307. RockyRoad says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am


    That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That.

    Let’s see… I’ve been a CEO, (but not a military strategist although I do have two sons in the military), have been a farmer, and a fisherman, a hunter, have minor degrees in math and physics and an MS & BS in geology and an ME and BS in mining engineering, work as a computer systems engineer…. and I find the “peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watts Up With That” you speak of is:

    a) Exactly what it should be–both practical and to the point,

    b) Particularly devastating to The Cause (and proportional to the attraction it has on trolls like you so it must be doing great!).

    c) A black hole for trolls that try to downplay or refute the damage ClimateGate 2 is doing to their pet watermelon project and the UN’s IPCC.

    d) Just opposite of the hysterical, unfounded (untruthful), unscientific pronouncements from the likes of Gore, Mann, and others in The Team and elsewhere in cushy positions feeding from the public trough.

    Nice try, “physicist”, but yours is a case of Epic Fail. (I also seriously doubt you’re a “physicist” or anything else, but what really matters is that some of our great establishments of academia have been suckered on this whole topic, so you may be excused.)

  308. Another Gareth says:

    John-X says: “Is the “perpetrator” (as described by the crack [smoking?] Norfolk police) really saying we need to find USD37,000,000,ooo,000 to spend on bird choppers, solar panels, lunar panels, perpetual motion machines, and other “sustainable” energy, so we can “stabilize” (American spelling) our emmissions at “sustainable levels” (whatever that means) ???”

    I believe they are not.

    The reference to $37trillion is a figure the International Energy Agency produced two years ago. Contrast that with the preceding points on poverty and the following remark on how “Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.” and I take their message to be one of incredulity that politicians and environmental advocates are seriously intending to commit *massive* amounts of resources and redirect *enormous* proportions of our productivity into chasing something so vague (and possibly even beneficial!) in comparison to real crushing abject poverty that affects a huge number of people day in day out, all year round, whether the world is warming or cooling.

    They are making a statement about priorities and honesty.

  309. John says:

    Ok, still waiting for something interesting…

  310. A Lovell says:

    Dave Wendt says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    I like your new word,’beclowning’. I heard another the other day. ‘Testiculating’. It means waving your arms about whilst talking bo***cks.

  311. Peter Miller says:

    “A physicist” obviously works for a government organisation and is therefore a grant addict, and/or someone who is required to preach the party line of giving politicians the rationale for taxing the wrong things in order to support welfare dependence schemes etc.

  312. Larry Fields says:

    This latest chapter in the Climategate saga may prove to be more fun than a bucketful of doorknobs!

  313. RockyRoad says:

    John says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Ok, still waiting for something interesting…

    May I suggest you wash your glasses with soap and water and start, oh, several years ago…. Then return and report.

  314. Gail Combs says:

    elmer says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:47 am

    What is the catch phrase for my next video? Is their anything as quotable as “Hide the Decline”?
    _______________________
    Thank you for the “Hide the Decline” video, I loved it.

    Also thank you for the posting the information about the abandoned windmills blotting the landscape. I had been wondering about that recently. Looks like the “Green ” Corporations take the grants and subsidies and leave their messes behind for the little people to clean up as usual.

    …The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clean up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms….

    http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/

  315. Jimmy Haigh says:

    John says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    John’s in denial! John’s in denial!….

  316. DirkH says:

    Dana Loesch @ Breitbart mentions ClimateGate 2.0; will discuss details tomorrow.

  317. wsbriggs says:

    @a physicist
    Listing groups whose administrators may have joined in the cacophony of bogus AGW claims, is not the same as listing individuals. This is starkly visible in the refusal of AGU to put the question to their membership. APS is the same. Scratch a Geophysicist and you find a strong sceptic with nearly 100% certainty (note I said nearly, I know some folks whose politics get in the way of reason just like some folks religions do).

    Do note that unlike the Warmists, we don’t use the 3 Billy Goats Gruff to keep you at bay. You’re free to live beneath you bridge all you want.

  318. Rhoda Ramirez says:

    I wouldn’t be altogether surprised if the underground support for Mann, Jones, et.al. disappears as the movers and shakers move their emphasis to their backup strategy, ‘ocean acidification’, now that the ‘global warming’ crowd is getting freighted with more and more questionable practices and outright scandals

  319. Jean Parisot says:

    Someone should take away M Mann’s twitter key before he hurts himself

  320. wsbriggs says:

    Correction: your bridge

  321. Stephen Brown says:

    This is 5341.txt from the newly released information. Bolding is mine.

    date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 16:09:24 +0000 (GMT)
    from: Robert Nicholls
    subject: Re: IMPORTANT:NATURE COMMENTARY
    to: m.hulme@xxx.xx.uk, nwa1@xxxxx.xx.uk, arnell61@xxx.xx PARRYML@xxx.xx

    All numbers are correct and I find the new text fine. The two
    additional paragraphs make an excellent case for adaptation.

    However, an implicit message of Table 2 is that adaptation could
    handle climate change alone (the -15% option), so why are we worrying
    about mitigation? I think that this will be noted by many readers and
    it would be best if the piece had an explicit view on this, or delete
    the -15% option.
    We could note the long-term benefits of mitigation
    earlier in the piece (like GEC), or alternatively the cummulative
    threats of an unmitigated pathway.

    The only other change I would suggest is to table 1. Remove sea-level
    rise and replace with “coastal flooding (per year)”.

    Robert
    ______________________________________________________________________
    Note New Fax Number Below

    Robert J. Nicholls
    Middlesex University
    Queensway
    Enfield EN3 4SF
    United Kingdom

    44-181-362-5569 (Tel and answer phone)
    44-181-362-6957 (Fax)

    R.nicholls@xxx.xx

  322. PhilJourdan says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:52 am

    Missouri! That’s the country we bottom-tier-county Iowa farmkids always called “lower Iowa.” We also called it “lapland” `cuz it’s where Iowa laps down into Missouri. :).

    Love these interstate jibes! Another for my collection!!

  323. commieBob says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:52 am

    The history shows plainly that — much like America’s Founders — America’s scientists have been pretty much right-on-target for eighteen decades in a row … which oughtta be enough to convince even the folks in Missouri that the scientists most likely have got it right in the present decade too.

    This is not scientists vs. ‘the great unwashed masses’. There are two groups of scientists in this debate. One side believes that man made CO2 in the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming. The other side does not. There are more on one side than the other but that does not make them right. In fact, the ‘skeptic’ side has some quite senior and distinguished scientists whose expert judgment should not be easily discounted.

  324. Karl Maki says:

    UPDATE6: 12:08PM PST Here’s an email that collaborates a radio interview…

    Are you sure that shouldn’t read that the email is corroborated by the radio interview?

  325. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    @A physicist

    You do not sound like a physicist.

    “Prominent non-skeptic farming organizations include 4H and FFA (if you’re from a farm-family, you won’t have to ask what those are).”

    I attended a FFA meeting in Iowa and realised for the first time there is a BrownShirts movement in rural America. Why on earth would they support CAGW?? All Canadian farmers have the good sense to know that the climate is cooling (outside town) and they are getting some extra growth from the extra CO2 to compensate for it. The rest is noise

    4H?? Like 4H is full of graduate engineers. The last guy I know who was a member sold his cow and bought a motorcycle.

    I agree that “A physicist” is a bot. A dumb one at that. There is a clown at RC boasting about dupes not realising they are talking to a computer generated load of generic AGW tripe. “A Physicist” is using the same boilerplate without the links to shoddy papers and hollow rebuttals.

    From now on we will be able to say, “You sound more like “A Physicist” than a physicist” when they mean, “You are talking crap.”

  326. Jason says:

    I just left this on RC:

    Straight question to Gavin.

    Mike Mann said in one email:

    “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an
    investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
    thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the
    same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

    I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and
    discrediting them.

    Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect
    the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional
    advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to
    such matters….”

    Putting climate science to one side, and ignoring the obvious question “did he pass this on to you”, do you think it is acceptable for a climate scientist to consider what Mann suggested doing?

    ————————-
    Lets see if their open anwsering if questions continues.

  327. codehead says:

    “UPDATE6: 12:08PM PST Here’s an email that collaborates a radio interview I did…”

    I know that you meant to type “corroborates”…

  328. Matt says:

    UPDATE4: 9:45 AM PST I’ve changed the headline from Climategate 2.0 to Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular! with a hat tip to Jerry Seinfeld.

    Shouldn’t the hat tip be to Teri Hatcher?

  329. A physicist says:

    Stonyground says:

    It is a bit difficult to see how we could do an in depth analysis of climate data when those involved fight tooth and nail to prevent their data entering the public domain.

    Stonyground, there’s tons of climate data available and has been for many years (and more data coming on-line every month).

    Equally importantly, mathematicians and scientists around the world are working overtime to give folks all the mathematical tools they need to analyze that climate data.

    A terrific example is the article in the November Notices of the American Mathematical Society, by Chen, Laane, Wheeler, and Zhang, titled “Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective.”

    This article is available “free-as-in-freedom,” and even for folks who don’t care to work through the details, this article provides a very thorough overview of the real mathematical foundations of climate change science.

    Now, it is natural to hope that both climate science, and skepticism of that science, do not require any grounding in mathematics — needless to say, that hope isn’t realistic.

    It’s fair to say, however, that the folks who understand the mathematics of climate change science are overwhelmingly more likely to be convinced by the data than folks who lack that grounding; that’s why rational climate-change skepticism absolutely requires a solid grounding in mathematics.

    As for the non-rational brand of climate-change skepticism that is mainly grounded in politics-first slogans, cherry-picked data, and witch-hunting … well … that kind of skepticism is becoming (unfortunately) the most common kind.

  330. Alex the skeptic says:

    Climategate Season 2 Episode 1. Darn, cannot find one single bag of pop corn from any corner shop anywhere round the neighbouring ten blocks. I’ll stick to finger nails.

  331. Ray says:

    Out of context?

    I think the context is well established… and lots of emails give enough context to see The Game The Team Plays.

  332. Dave Springer says:

    @Anthony

    “They’re real and they’re spectacular”

    LOL – I recognized it without the attribution.

    Mann Hands might be experiencing some shrinkage right about now. And those other two face characters as well. But we celebrate here. For the rest of us, Festivus!

  333. Richard M says:

    As others have indicated this release appears to be more of a threat to the team. Come clean NOW guys or you will regret it.

    This makes be believe our whistleblower actually knows one or more of the team and is trying to get them to finally admit the truth. He doesn’t want to make it SO OBVIOUS that a caveman could figure it out. But he WILL do it if they continue to hide the truth.

    It makes me believe there is some obvious evidence of illegal activities.

    PS. Elmer … liked it, hopefully a new song is in our future.

  334. Skeptik says:

    It took 1h:15m for the first troll to respond, and 2h:32m for the same troll (from her/his handle, claiming to be ‘A physicist’, but using only non-Physics arguments). The ‘Rapid Response Unit’ is broken – or its ghast is flabbered by the release!
    Use proper scientists to respond under scientific handles. If it’s just ‘believers’ – who cares? There’s one born every minute.

  335. Bulldust says:

    Seems I am a little late to the party this time… though I approve of the name ClimateGate 2.0 :D

  336. Gail Combs says:

    Jeff says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:11 am

    2212, Phil Jones: “Don’t put too much faith in the models”

    though not clear to me which models he is discussing, perhaps someone more familiar with this stuff can help
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Try WUWT: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/11/20/tamino-misses-the-point-and-attempts-to-distract-his-readers/

  337. Latitude says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:52 am
    The serious way to gather facts is to begin 180 years ago, on the American Institute of Physics web site “The Discovery of Global Warming: Timeline.”

    The history shows plainly that — much like America’s Founders — America’s scientists have been pretty much right-on-target for eighteen decades in a row … which oughtta be enough to convince even the folks in Missouri that the scientists most likely have got it right in the present decade too.
    ==========================
    At least they are not still lying and worshiping weather Gods … throwing virgins in volcanoes and requiring other sacrifices and payments from the general public…..

    of course I’m kidding……everyone knows they are still doing that

    This racket has been going on since the first shyster put on a feather hat

  338. Tom says:

    physicist,

    What is “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting” but a slogan. You repeat it and other variants over and over.

  339. Matt G says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am

    17 years of warming is cherry picking and the only period that the scare has been based on. (blue graph)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1934/to:1980/trend

    Based on whats happened before and after, the planet Earth demonstrates natural cycles dominate.

  340. David L says:

    X-mas comes early!!!! What a nice present. I remember a month or two ago someone around here was speculating (more like wishful thinking) of more email leaks sometime this fall. Well, they’re here! I can’t wait for the thorough dissection and commentaries!!!

  341. Gail Combs says:

    Steve In S.C. says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:26 am

    Stock tip of the day:
    ConAgra Foods, Inc. Common Stoc(NYSE: CAG )
    providers of ActII and Orville Redenbacher brands of popcorn.
    ________________________________

    I would not touch ConAgra for all the money in the world. (Or eat their food)

    The Conagra-gate scandal:

    “Shielding the Giant: USDA’s ‘Don’t Look, Don’t Know’ Policy for Beef Inspection.”
    http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/Shielding_the_Giant_Final_PDF.pdf

  342. David Ball says:

    My gran used to say ” Your sins will find you out”.
    She also used to say ” It’s going to end in tears” when we were rough-housing.
    Looks like both are applicable here.

  343. Alix James says:

    “Skeptik says:
    November 22, 2011 at 1:00 pm

    It took 1h:15m for the first troll to respond, and 2h:32m for the same troll (from her/his handle, claiming to be ‘A physicist’, but using only non-Physics arguments). The ‘Rapid Response Unit’ is broken – or its ghast is flabbered by the release!
    Use proper scientists to respond under scientific handles. If it’s just ‘believers’ – who cares? There’s one born every minute.”

    Heh. I think this might be an example of “red shirt syndrome”, i.e., the ensign with the red shirt on the away mission on “Star Trek” is laser fodder. Why waste front line troops clearing the land mines? Send in the donkeys first.

    Although, they are progressing through the “7 stages of grief” fairly quickly this time.

    Stage 1: they aren’t real emails
    Stage 2: they are real emails but they aren’t in context
    Stage 3: they are in context, but that’s how scientists work
    Stage 4: ok, this isn’t really science, but you guys stole the emails!
    Stage 5: this is old stuff
    Stage 6: this is nothing
    Stage 7: look everyone! Winter storm! See, we have proof of our theories now.

    Repeat as needed

  344. Dave Springer says:

    Kaboom says:
    November 22, 2011 at 6:58 am

    If the ZIP is all text it should be quite vulnerable to brute force cracking by using known information (i.e. email addresses, keywords/phrases) in it.

    ————————————————————

    the same thought occurred to me

  345. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    A Physicist,

    Notwithstaning all of the poor data, bull crap topping does little for the pie.

    The old ones had a better long range outlook than your guys via rocks with drawings in Chaco Canyon in New Mexico.

    History knows you, history will long remember your support of poor lie pie.

    AN APACHEWHOKNOWS

  346. Milo says:

    Phil Plait Professional “skeptic” is already doing is best to dismiss these emails. Its really sad but high predictable from him http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/22/climategate-2-more-ado-about-nothing-again/

  347. David Ball says:

    CodeTech says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:13 pm
    Nice “Back to the Future” reference. Absolutely hilarious.

  348. J Martin says:

    So the password encrypted emails are part of the download ?

    If that’s so then perhaps there’s a chance that someone can crack the key and the public can have access to ALL the emails.

    After all, it is our money that pays these so called scientists and our economy they are trying to get our goldfish brained politicians to destroy.

  349. Ken Hall says:

    “2213

    “I happen to agree with him and I actually think our statement is too
    strong. It almost seems that we are suggesting physical models should be
    thought of as empirical ones, which, despite the tuning, I think is an
    overstatement. ””

    So there is an empirical model of the climate? Wait… Are they saying that there is another full-sized identical earth on the opposite side of the sun from us acting as a model? or as a “control? against which we can test the hypothesis?

    If not, then they must be referring to computer models which are anything but empirical.

  350. Latitude says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm
    It’s fair to say, however, that the folks who understand the mathematics of climate change science are overwhelmingly more likely to be convinced by the data than folks who lack that grounding; that’s why rational climate-change skepticism absolutely requires a solid grounding in mathematics.

    As for the non-rational brand of climate-change skepticism that is mainly grounded in politics-first slogans, cherry-picked data, and witch-hunting … well … that kind of skepticism is becoming (unfortunately) the most common kind.
    ======================================================================
    ….obviously

    Jones:
    I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
    certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.

  351. Adrian says:

    Ah!
    Today is my b-day. Thank you for the nice present.

  352. Barbara Munsey says:

    elmer says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:47 am
    What is the catch phrase for my next video? Is their anything as quotable as “Hide the Decline”?

    ——————————–

    I’m sure you’ll think of something, as you are BRILLIANT!

    It IS beginning to look a lot like Christmas, and I have every faith in you.

  353. Jason says:

    What is fascinating this time is that the whistleblower has put the WHOLE lot out there, but used aes-256 encryption in 7zip to keep it secure.

    It seems to be a deliberate spreading of the information that will require just the leaking of a password to allow thousands of copies to be accessed without downloading anything else.

    It seems to be part of a strategy, but what is that strategy?

  354. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    From Real climate
    “Explain this!
    Dec 31 23:49 1999
    From: Phil Jones
    Subject: One world government
    To: IPCC-group
    Comrades,
    Soon our once-great nation will rise from the ashes of the greatest war the world has ever known. Russia has changed. But our lives will not be wasted. The master plan is proceeding apace. Adolf Hitler once said “The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” Indeed, the best kept secrets are the ones that everyone knows. Double agent Anthony Watts has a remarkable summary of the global warming charade. Stupidly is his sword and Folly his shield. By placing the truth where everyone can see it — nobody can! Today we have recruited over 2,000 scientists to The Team. To you I say we have only completed a beginning. There remains much that is undone. There are great tricks undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth’s protective layers. Onward.
    Phil.”

    ? !

    REPLY: This is a fabricated email, Gavin apparently does not know any better – Anthony

  355. dave ward says:

    It seems that there are some untrustworthy individuals in Norfolk Police:
    http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/staff_sacked_after_security_breaches_at_police_and_councils_in_norfolk_1_1133024

    And other local news:
    http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich_mp_to_meet_with_climate_change_group_ahead_of_un_talks_1_1133957
    Believe it or not “Norfolk is home to many experts on climate issues”

  356. DirkH says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm
    “This article is available “free-as-in-freedom,” and even for folks who don’t care to work through the details, this article provides a very thorough overview of the real mathematical foundations of climate change science.”

    Dropping the insults and starting to lecture people about their lack of mathematics skills? You’re on the wrong thread and on the wrong blog. Go find yourself a climate model, SHOW that it has predictive skill and don’t come back before you have done so; take the rest of the warmist cult with you.

  357. More Soylent Green! says:

    Iowa, just like Nebraska but without all the glitz and glitter.

  358. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Anthony you may be interested in this one:
    Double agent Anthony Watts has a remarkable summary of the global warming charade.
    Real climate comment #19
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/two-year-old-turkey/

    REPLY: That’s a completely fictional made up email in a comment, Gavin apparently doesn’t know better – Anthony

  359. Gail Combs says:

    Pete in Cumbria UK says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:02 am

    …What is true is that our elected leaders believe it to be true and it is their actions that all these people are talking about- especially that huge and very dangerous thing that will impact on everyone – Carbon Tax…..
    _________________________

    What is really dangerous is things prepared by “Professional Researchers” Such as Shutdown of the Federal Government: Causes, Processes, and Effect by Clinton T. Brass, Analyst in Government Organization and Management. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34680.pdf

    I saw one, released by WikiLeaks, about the Animal ID system that ONLY carried the opinions of the 5000 Corporate farms and did not include the opinions of the 2.1 million small farmers. That was several years ago and we are still battling the blasted ID here in the USA. I am expecting it to get rather nasty and lethal if they insist on pushing it through despite the resounding HECK NO!

    This climategate /Obama buddies getting all the stimulus/ DOE loans is not going to help convince people that politicians/bureaucrats have the right to rule.

  360. Mr.D.Imwit says:

    You need to amalgamate these Email’s with with the first batch.

  361. Urederra says:

    elmer says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:21 am

    @the_Butcher says:
    yes, “the cause”

    I like it.. I like it a lot

    I cannot wait for “the effect”

  362. JimOfCP says:

    Apologies if this already posted, but this news has hit SlashDot and the usual climate fraud deniers are running full tilt!

  363. Latitude says:

    getting funnier………

    “We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the breadth of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.”

    “[...] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
    This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.

    [...] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.”

    “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably.”

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

    “It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.”

  364. Christopher Hanley says:

    As they come to the home stretch it’s “slogan-shouting” in the lead (26), closely followed by “cherry-picking” (25), with “witch-hunting” struggling in third (23).

  365. JimOfCP says:

    Apologies if this is already posted, but the Climategate 2.0 news just hit Slashdot. The usual suspects are blaming it on the Koch brothers again.

  366. Gaz says:

    Maybe this will distract everyone from that pesky Berkely Earth Surface Temperature study. You know, the one that confirmed the results of the CRU, NASA, and all the other intrumental temperature records. Good luck with that.

  367. JimOfCP says:

    Gaz says:
    November 22, 2011 at 1:48 pm
    *****
    Oh, you mean that study that included only land records? That one?

  368. TheGoodLocust says:

    Here is my comment that I just “submitted for peer review” at Realclimate:

    “So in 1680.txt, why does Michael Mann say that you (Gavin), “usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to such matters,” when discussing finding a journalist to investigate “fossil fuel connections” and any other dirt they could find in order to discredit McIntyre and Keenan?

    Do you have a lot of experience in discrediting people whose work exposes your own?

    Don’t worry, I’ll take your silence in this matter as an admission of guilt. “

  369. Dave Wendt says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    “A terrific example is the article in the November Notices of the American Mathematical Society, by Chen, Laane, Wheeler, and Zhang, titled “Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective.””

    Just found your cite. In the first paragraph came upon this

    .”The molecules of these gases trap heat in the form of infrared
    radiation, causing the atmospheric temperature to rise. But which molecules are the greenhouse
    gases, and just how do they trap heat?”

    Not a hopeful start.

  370. Theo Goodwin says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    “It’s fair to say, however, that the folks who understand the mathematics of climate change science are overwhelmingly more likely to be convinced by the data than folks who lack that grounding; that’s why rational climate-change skepticism absolutely requires a solid grounding in mathematics.”

    What kind of math are you referring to? Statistics? Sorry, but Climategaters should have learned by now that recorded data and statistics do not a science make. You need something more. You need reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses. You do not have any.

    Climate science has created no reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses that go beyond Arrhenius’ work in the 19th century. Worse, climate science has failed to rigorously formulate Arrhenius’ hypotheses for use outside the laboratory and in application to climate phenomena in the real world.

    Let’s take an example. Climate scientists are constantly referring to “forcings” and “feedbacks.” If climate science were a genuine science, use of such hand-waving terminology would have been replaced by reference to reasonably well confirmed physical hypotheses that can be used to explain and predict some important climate phenomena such as the behavior of clouds. You know that there are no such hypotheses. Admit it. You cannot produce one.

  371. Much faster MSM response this round:

    Fox news: Climategate 2.0? More Emails Leaked From Climate Researchers Published November 22, 2011

    Andy Revkin: Another Treaty Negotiation, Another Batch of Climate Science E-Mail November 22, 2011, 4:23 pm

  372. Jon P says:

    Gaz,

    As the PR Firm RealClimate has taught us, the BEST study is not peer reviewed and thus should not be taken seriously, at all.

    Thanks for playing!

  373. David Ball says:

    Howdy Elmer! If I may be so bold, I have a notion for your next video. Perhaps mods would be so kind as to provide my info? Regards, …….. D

  374. Tucci78 says:

    At 8:20 AM on 22 November, Ken Hall had responded to “A physicist with:

    What you posted was such a classical example of projection that psychology students could use it as a case study.

    Most of the people here at WUWT are interested in truth. The alarmists are the ones who indulge in cherry picking and slogan shouting and avoiding the real science and attacking the messenger. Just as you are doing, hiding behind the name “A physicist”….

    The use of a pseudonym isn’t necessarily to be decried, though the wonderful arrogance of this critter’s choice – “A physicist” – manifests in this sort of forum a grandiosity so typical of narcissistic personality disorder (ICD 9 301.81) as to be effectively pathognomonic.

    Couple that with this specimen’s absolute lack of any scientific argument whatsoever (if only to establish a defense of the discussions into which the C.R.U. correspondents had entered in their professional e-mail exchanges exposed in the FOIA2011.zip archive) and it lends credence to the supposition that “A physicist” is anything but a practicing professional in that discipline.

    Indeed, in his opening post, “A physicist” made it explicit that his motivations are entirely political, stating that the tone of the comments in this forum gave visitors to the thread some kind of a

    …common-sense reason why the perception of a “Conservative War on Science” is becoming the consensus view of America’s mathematicians, scientists, and engineers … and even more seriously for all who hope that American conservatism has any future, is becoming the consensus view too of America’s serious-minded CEOs.

    In other words, the gripe of this “A physicistSchnorrer is not that those of us pressing the case against the anthropogenic global warming fraud are skeptical on the basis of adherence to sound scientific principles and practices but that so many of us are politically conservative – or, at least, hostile to the politically “Liberal” statists who are struggling to put the AGW fraud across in massive schemes of government-enforced pillage and economic dislocation.

    I am myself neither a political conservative (see F.A. Hayek for why I should not be considered such) nor am I all that much “ interested in truth.”

    I am instead a libertarian, interested politically in the protection of the individual human beings rights to his life, his liberty, and his property, and when it comes to the issue of the AGW fraud, I am far less “interested in truth” than I am focused upon exposing lies in order to ensure that such mendacity is not exploited to violate peoples’ rights to their lives, their liberties, and their property.

    I would suggest that “A physicist” has proven to be someone with not only delusions of grandeur but also obvious political intention to violate the individual human rights of his neighbors.

    Those of us skeptical of the AGW fraud and its perpetrators have effectively scotched one of the ways in which “A physicist” had been hoping – fervently – to engage the machinery of civil government in the plunder and suppression of his fellow human beings, predicating extraordinary schemes of taxation and normative intervention on those whom “A physicist” obviously hates and envies, and upon whose wealth and freedoms “A physicist” has arguably criminous intentions.

    In that sense – in that the modern American “Liberal” is in fact a predator practicing policies designed to turn our Western polities into quasisocialistic kleptocracies – those of us who engage here on Watts Up With That? as advocates of scientific skepticism do, indeed, give substantial aid and comfort to the political conservatives who make up greatest part of the opposition to “Liberal” mamzers like “A physicist.”

    And that really does seem to knot the hell out of “A physicist‘s” underwear, doesn’t it?

  375. Theo Goodwin says:

    Ken Hall says:
    November 22, 2011 at 1:29 pm
    “2213
    “It almost seems that we are suggesting physical models should be thought of as empirical ones…”

    Even among the Climategaters there were scientists who understood the limitations of computer models, especially the fact that they are not empirical. Yet none have come forward with an explanation of this fundamental objection to the IPCC’s use of computer models as evidence.

  376. A physicist says:

    A physicist says:

    “This article is available “free-as-in-freedom,” and even for folks who don’t care to work through the details, this article provides a very thorough overview of the real mathematical foundations of climate change science.”

    DirkH responds: Dropping the insults and starting to lecture people about their lack of mathematics skills? You’re on the wrong thread and on the wrong blog. Go find yourself a climate model, SHOW that it has predictive skill and don’t come back before you have done so; take the rest of the warmist cult with you.

    I respectfully suggest again that DirkH, and all who are interested in climate change science, visit the November issue of Notices of the American Mathematical Society and retrieve the free-as-in-freedom article Chen, Laane, Wheeler, and Zhang, titled “Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective.”

    This article offers a vivid time-line, clear physical explanations, powerful mathematical tools, and yes, it offers too precisely what DirkH is looking for: links to seminal observations and experiments that extent back in time to the dawn era of climate change science.

    Whether one is skeptical of modern climate change science or not, rational skepticism is just plain impossible without a solid appreciation of these scientific foundations.

  377. Nestor says:

    Sorry Gaz. the not BEST group was at sloppy and used the same poor data records as mann et. al. with some interesting errors.

    http://climate.n0gw.net/BEST_Data_Quality_Problems.pdf

    as we in the Comp biz say… GIGO.

  378. Gail Combs says:

    elmer says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:11 am

    What do you guys think?
    http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/assets_c/2011/11/Hide-the-Decline-2-The-Cause-755.html
    ____________________
    Nice

    Just remember that Mann has FREE lawyers…… Talk about a travesty of justice.

  379. TheGoodLocust says:

    Oh fun, I goaded Gavin into a response. It looks like webcite isn’t working or Realclimate has blocked webcite (gee, why would they do that?).

    [Response: My ignoring you would simply be a sign that your out-of-context smear is too stupid to address. But I think it worthwhile to point out that the first line of this email has "They will misrepresent you and take out of context anything you give them". How prescient! For everyone else, this is an email discussing the appalling (and officially investigated and rejected) allegation of fraud that Keenan made about a scientist at SUNY Albany. Jones was asking for advice on whether and how to respond to a request from Peiser (acting editor of Energy and Environment) for comments on a paper Keenan had submitted claiming a 'fraud'. If you are looking for people who have experience discrediting people, I would start with Keenan. - gavin]

    Of course, he doesn’t actually respond to the question. Just claims “out of context” and attacks to distract from why Mann thinks Gavin is good at discrediting people.

  380. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    Jason,

    To make the guilty sweat, to pull them into lies real time. Then get them on the stand and pejury.

    Sort of a Al Capone deal.

  381. A physicist says…

    What was that after “slogan shouting” again? I must have missed it in your earlier posts?

  382. James Sexton says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Prominent non-skeptic farming organizations include 4H and FFA (if you’re from a farm-family, you won’t have to ask what those are).
    ==================================================================

    Give me a break. You listed a bunch of groups that have political wannabees at the top. I am a member of some of those groups and no of none that believe the tripe of Catastrophic CC. And every 4H and FFA person I know….(literally hundreds if not thousands) are as skeptical about climate change as I am.

    Please, RHINOs do a great disservice to the conservative perspective. Please quit acting as if these views are anywhere close to mainstream conservative views.

  383. Joe Public says:

    It’s at a time like this, that that someone with Glenn Mulcaire’s phone-hacking skills could be taping some pretty interesting transatlantic telephone conversations.

  384. LamontT says:

    Gaz you may want to do some research before stepping in it like that. Yes everyone here knows and agrees that for the 100 years or a bit more we have been warming. We have been coming out of the little ice age after all. We don’t agree on that for the last 10 years. And more importantly there is considerable doubt about how much of a role man has had in the warming or if it was bad. Particularly there is doubt that it will result in catastrophic disaster.

    Perhaps it would help if you studied and learned what exactly the skeptics are skeptical about.

  385. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    Moderator/Anthony etal,

    Make sure Congressman Ralph Hall gets a heads up on this.
    He has people who know of your site and who work on his Science sub-committee.

    http://www.ralphhall.house.gov/

  386. Jon Orendorff says:

    It is simply amazing and pathetic how “science” mags like Discover and New Scientist just attempt to say nothing to see here, Dr. Mann is so unfairly attacked, he was exonerated etc. etc.

  387. J Martin says:

    The use of the annoying ‘full stop’ (‘point’ in the US ?) instead of a ‘comma’ is a curious mismatch with as far as I can tell, near perfect English. And I am very fussy about the use and abuse of the English language.

    The inclusion of the read.me file is a huge mistake. Even if PC plod spends most of his time filling in (out) overtime forms, not all of them are stupid. They will no doubt be asking themselves who had the time, contacts, money (?) and especially the motivation to be behind this.

    It would be a loss to society if the people behind the email releases were stopped from continuing to benefit the tax payer in this manner. I would ask those who are behind the email releases to refrain from adding read.me files to any possible further releases of emails. Also, “remarks” I can handle, I do not approve of “redactions”, let us have the whole truth.

    In addition, I appeal to the “FOIA.org” to give us ALL the emails. It is clear from your read.me that you do not have the resources to sift through all the emails. The World at large and the sceptic community and the people, and genuine scientists DO have the resources to sift through all 220,000 emails. Please release all the emails to us and the World.

  388. Theo Goodwin says:

    Joe says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    I’d like to see the log of rejected comments at RealClimate right now. Somehow they have only had 12 comments today on this story….

    ‘Bradley: “I’m sure you agree–the [Mike] Mann/ [Phil] Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year ‘reconstruction’.”’ [From the newly released emails.]

    [Response: Again, people are free to make their own judgements on papers. This was in 2003 (discussing Mann and Jones (2003)). - gavin]

    Gavin, you are making a childish attempt to deflect questions. We are Americans and know that we are free to judge papers. Your statement is a classic Red Herring Fallacy.

    However, what is your comment on the truth of the statement by Bradley. That is what we want to know. I doubt that you will say that Bradley’s statement is true. Will you say that it should be taken seriously? If you say that it is false or irresponsible then please explain why you say that?

  389. Gareth Phillips says:

    Oh dear !…… ooh err !……. bless my soul ! We appear to have got ourselves in another fine mess…. Phil, can you come up with some new excuses?

  390. DirkH says:

    Gaz says:
    November 22, 2011 at 1:48 pm
    “Maybe this will distract everyone from that pesky Berkely Earth Surface Temperature study. You know, the one that confirmed the results of the CRU, NASA, and all the other intrumental temperature records. Good luck with that.”

    Gaz, none of the temperature products including BEST tell us why all the climate models failed to model the static temperatures of the last 10 years. The models are junk; THAT is your problem. With the models stands and falls CAGW.

  391. Streetcred says:

    MikeEE says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:46 am
    “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
    greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

    The US is $15 trillion in debt. How much debt does Europe have. So who is going to pay? The Chinese? I think their vastly overrated holdings won’t even dent that number.
    =============================================================

    Don’t worry, our ‘esteemed’ prime minister here in Australia will pick up the invoice … she’s already started us down the road of sovereign bankruptcy.

  392. More Soylent Green! says:

    I’d like the “physicist” to explain

    1) How the ice core data supports the “consensus” by showing that first it gets warm, then CO2 goes up — with an average of 800 years warming before the CO2 increases?

    2) Where are the missing hot spots in the troposphere?

    3) Where is the “missing” heat from the models? There is no data to show that the heat is in the ocean.

  393. Bernie says:

    Physicist:
    You said, “A terrific example is the article in the November Notices of the American Mathematical Society, by Chen, Laane, Wheeler, and Zhang, titled “Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective.”
    I read it. It certainly does not live up to your description. There is, for example, no assessment of the actual additional energy absorbed by increased CO2. In addition Figure 12 is to say the least gratuitous and fingernail on chalkboard discordant.

  394. Atomic Hairdryer says:

    Re: Kaboom says: November 22, 2011 at 6:58 am

    If the ZIP is all text it should be quite vulnerable to brute force cracking by using known information (i.e. email addresses, keywords/phrases) in it.

    Unlikely. The files are encrypted with AES which is resistant to brute forcing and chosen plaintext attacks. Dictionary attack against the password/phrase might have more luck if that’s weak and some of the plaintext is known.

    I’ve seen a few comments noting the use of “tranche” by some of the rapid rebuttal media. Given the Climategate v1 release hinted at more to come, the usual suspects may have planned ahead and prepared some rebuttals in advance. They would have had the full CRU archive to work from to identify the most potentially damaging/incriminating emails and prepare responses.

  395. DocMartyn says:

    With regard to the ‘passphrase’, you don’t think that one of the phrases used in the preamble is the answer do you?

    i.e. “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day”

    I can never remember passwords and use things I can readily access.

  396. How is referring to one’s belief’s about AGW as “the cause” either sinister or funny?

  397. NikFromNYC says:

    Instapundit linked to it over the afternoon hour. That’s how the original Climategate likely got the eventual attention of Limbaugh and Beck, in that order. I read all of the original ones and all the code too. Happy hunting gentlemen, I’ve been back to work for months now but it’s nice to see some news that will help deflate “the cause” that climatology represents as a threat to science itself.

  398. NJmom77 says:

    Is it time to hire a rowboat to rescue Santa? I’ll help pass the hat.

    As a gardener, I see evidence of warming when I walk into my backyard. How much it is exacerbated by human activity is beyond my scope to say. I don’t want climate scientists of dubious agenda throwing out mandates before human impact is measured, but I would like some practical suggestions on how individuals might lessen their eco-footprints just in case it would make a positive difference. It’s a shame science has to be so political. Money talks more loudly than the truth.

  399. tarpon says:

    [waaaaayyyy off topic - save it for another thread please - Anthony]

  400. J Martin says:

    Atomic Hairdyer said;
    “I’ve seen a few comments noting the use of “tranche” by some of the rapid rebuttal media. Given the Climategate v1 release hinted at more to come, the usual suspects may have planned ahead and prepared some rebuttals in advance. They would have had the full CRU archive to work from to identify the most potentially damaging/incriminating emails and prepare responses.”
    ——————-
    Very good point. All the more reason for the rest of the emails to be made public as soon as possible.

  401. Gail Combs says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:52 am
    …..The history shows plainly that — much like America’s Founders — America’s scientists have been pretty much right-on-target for eighteen decades in a row … which oughtta be enough to convince even the folks in Missouri that the scientists most likely have got it right in the present decade too.
    _______________________
    What crap.

    My husband is a physicist. Practically all of the lab equipment at his University was in non-working order. Some had been assembled incorrectly from the get go and other equipment had wires disconnected however YEARS of lab students “Did the experiments” and got results. This was confirmed by an older physicist (now teaching) from the same school married to a friend.

    Dishonesty is just as prevalent among scientist as anyone else.

    The Shadow Scholar: The man who writes your students’ papers tells his story

    In the past year, I’ve written roughly 5,000 pages of scholarly literature, most on very tight deadlines. But you won’t find my name on a single paper.

    I’ve written toward a master’s degree in cognitive psychology, a Ph.D. in sociology, and a handful of postgraduate credits in international diplomacy. I’ve worked on bachelor’s degrees in hospitality, business administration, and accounting. I’ve written for courses in history, cinema, labor relations, pharmacology, theology, sports management, maritime security, airline services, sustainability, municipal budgeting, marketing, philosophy, ethics, Eastern religion, postmodern architecture, anthropology, literature, and public administration. I’ve attended three dozen online universities. I’ve completed 12 graduate theses of 50 pages or more. All for someone else….. http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/125329

    My husband rewrites physics papers into decent English and has to turn down 1/2 for lack of references or out right plagiarism.

  402. Jason says:

    With regard to the ‘passphrase’, you don’t think that one of the phrases used in the preamble is the answer do you?

    Im sure there are lots of people who have reached the same conclusion and are already trying to crack the password. Tell the hacker community, they love a challenge….

  403. Michael Reed says:

    I find it telling that Michael Mann’s first published comments today re Climategate 2.0 are about defending the cause, not about defending the science. Go back and look at his comments after Climategate 1.0 — they proved to me that he is first and foremost an activist, not a scientist.

  404. Jon P says:

    “How is referring to one’s belief’s about AGW as “the cause” either sinister or funny?”

    Or scientific?

  405. DirkH says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 2:04 pm
    “This article offers a vivid time-line, clear physical explanations, powerful mathematical tools, and yes, it offers too precisely what DirkH is looking for: links to seminal observations and experiments that extent back in time to the dawn era of climate change science.”

    Do you think condescension buys you anything here, loudmouth?

  406. JimOfCP says:

    It has hit the Drudge Report … rip on, yon emails!

  407. Barbara Munsey says:

    elmer says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:11 am

    What do you guys think?
    ——————————–
    “The Cause: Just when you thought it was safe to hide the decline”—hmm, “cause” rhymes with “Jaws”, which had as a tagline on one of its versions “just when you thought it was safe to go back in the ocean”…

    I think this has great possibilities!

  408. Stephen Brown says:

    This might be a good time to watch once again “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, a film made in 2010. All the greats are there; it really is worth just a snippet of your time.

  409. cui bono says:

    The problem is that the guys at the University of East Anglia haven’t heard of ethics.

    Which is odd as it’s only a few miles to the South of them.

    (File under extremely poor British jokes).

  410. Jason says:

    Email 4241:

    Maybe Tom Melvin has it right: “Controversy about which bull caused
    mess not relevent. The possibility that the results in all cases were heap of dung has been
    missed by commentators.”

  411. Here we go again, round the merry-go-round. All the people who think it’s a giant conspiracy will yet again mindlessly regurgitate the cherry-picked quotes without a thought for where they came from or the context.

    Just as last time “hide the decline” and “Mike’s nature trick” were touted as proof of scientific fraud when they referred to valid statistical methods (as vindicated by multiple independent inquiries), this will be the same. Watts, Delingpole (http://goo.gl/i3Sp9), Booker (http://goo.gl/Y5ioc), cranks like Alex Jones and the Fox News Network (who mislead about the most basic science: http://goo.gl/JYQOy and http://goo.gl/wB9w4), will go again into overdrive, mindlessly repeating quotes they can’t be bothered to check the proper meaning of.

    This is tactics and politics. It’s not science. See here for a Climategate 1 debunking: http://goo.gl/bNFgC, http://goo.gl/bNFgC and http://goo.gl/0a54a as well as here: http://goo.gl/GJcd6

    But it’s pointless even to put this comment up here; this site is a Church to those who repeat canards like that warming stopped in 1998 and that CO2 molecules are “perfectly spherical”. Past experience shows that scientific literacy amongst those who take these emails seriously is virtually non existent. (See Delingpole/Booker links above for a start.)

  412. A Virtual Computer Sciencist. says:

    Climate Change Science???? Global Warming Science???? More like Chicken Little Science.

    I have had the benefit of reading through much of the original ‘dumps’ and some of these emails through the colored lenses of both degrees in CSC and Physics (including graduate degrees emphasizing computer modeling and numerical methods and analysis). I can say with a fair degree of certainty that if the quality of my graduate work had dropped to the level of this bunch my committee would have thrown me out of the program. Making up data, suppressing data, etc… The graduate school would have probably had me expelled from the university.

    Maybe a few degree granting institutions should take a look at revoking a few credentials and degrees. It has been done for less. De-fang these people before they can do more damage.

  413. Steve Jones says:

    Quick, get over to the BBC’s environment section, Richard Black is running a story about this that you are allowed to comment on.

  414. elmer says:

    @ Barbara Munsey

    Good point! must have been my subconscious at work.

  415. Gareth Phillips says:

    Just being reported on the BBCs flagship news programme ‘Newsnight’ with analysis.

  416. Al Gored says:

    Here’s Richard Black’s spin blog on this, wishfully titled ‘Storm or Yawn”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15846886#dna-comments

    The few comments so far indicate that his fog has failed to have its desired effect. Unless the BBC wants its credibility to be reduced to zero, they really ought to ship Black off to Greenpeace where he belongs.

  417. Robuk says:

    BBC newsnight airs climategate 2.

  418. John Whitman says:

    The climategate release 2.0 has following significant impacts from my perspective:

    1. For the now well identified clique of climate scientists detailed further in climategate release 2.0 who have deliberately gamed the IPCC system, they have been effectively neutralized now. Their words are the reference for what the future of climate science must leave behind. They are known now to the broader scientific community to be beyond the pale of basic ethics of professional behavior and beyond the pale of simple scientific virtues. Now release 2.0 shows that there is nothing they can hide from the general public; the public is now even more vigilant of their activities.

    2. In contrast to those IPCC gaming climate scientists, for other climate scientists that are now bringing balance to climate science this climategate 2.0 release makes their acceptance much easier. There is a lot of balancing needed given the past 20+ years of myopic IPCC centric alarming/concernist AGW by CO2 from fossil fuels.

    3. For the historically unbalanced investigative journalists who adovated alarming/concernist AGW by CO2 from fossil fuels, the climategate release 2.0 gives an opportunity to start some digging. Carpe diem.

    John

  419. Manfred says:

    Michael Mann

    “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

    I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….”

    —————

    So is this what he has in mind when talking about improving communications with the public ?

  420. Latitude says:

    luke whined: “This is tactics and politics. It’s not science”

    ..study at the feet of the master

  421. brc says:

    By the look of the readme.txt, the use of the . in the 20.000 instead of 20,000 would indicate a European person behind the release. That said, they use 2.5 billion, so that could be a red herring.

    As a side note, everyone here should pause and note that, was the SOPA law currently active, it would be possible for a determined government to shut down WattsUpWithThat for hosting and/or spreading what could be considered copyrighted material. The proposed law is broad enough that a determined government could activate it in a situation like this. Activating it would mean revoking the DNS entries for this site, in a guilt-first, establish innocence later action.

    Anyone in the US needs to pause and think about that, then get onto their local representative and ask that they not back the SOPA law. If you don’t know what that is, google SOPA now.

  422. David M. Brooks says:

    My recollection is that after the original Climategage emails were released, the CRU said that they were taken “out of context” and were going to do a full release of their own so everything would be in context.

  423. Streetcred says:

    Ecotretas says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:39 am

    … No new emails from 2010 & 2011
    ==========================

    and the reason is :

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

  424. RockyRoad says:

    Gaz says:
    November 22, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Maybe this will distract everyone from that pesky Berkely Earth Surface Temperature study. You know, the one that confirmed the results of the CRU, NASA, and all the other intrumental temperature records. Good luck with that.

    I think today is one of the luckiest days of my life, and I also hope the earth continues to warm up out of the Little Ice Age. That people like Mann and Jones are using that natural warming to spoof people and ride on the coattails of dubious interpretation (i.e., man is the cause) for money and fame shows just how dishonest they are.

    Now, do you have irrefutable proof that people are the cause of the warming, or is this another deceptive piece of drivel you’ve written?

  425. Three of the 5000+ emails are by me. (I of course forgot to write down the numbers.) These three are genuine.

  426. “Or scientific?”

    Huh? The emails are tangential to their science. How is that a surprise? cause for alarm?

    The email reveal the scientists debating the issues among themselves. Damning their enemies. Gossiping. Oh, no! Human beings! Alert the media!

  427. Jeremy says:

    Luke Scientiae all you hot air sounded great but you would have been better served if you had not made boldface lies

    Luke Scientiae states, “Just as last time “hide the decline” and “Mike’s nature trick” were touted as proof of scientific fraud when they referred to valid statistical methods’

    These methods are ABSOLUTELY NOT “valid statistical methods”, furthermore the emails implicate the “hockey team” because they openly admit that they are hiding something by using a trick. Therefore we know that these INVALID statistical methods were used DELIBERATELY and NOT due to incompetence.

  428. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Nathony gets a mention in 0600.txt:

    P.S. We are getting blogged all over for a cover-up of poor global station and US stations
    we use. They claim NCDC is in a scandal by not providing observer’s addresses. In any
    case Anthony Watts has photographed about 350 stations and finds using our criteria that
    about 15% are acceptable. I am trying to get some our folks to develop a method to switch
    over to using the CRN sites, at least in the USA.
    Phil Jones said the following on 9/11/2007 9:51 AM

  429. Myrrh says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:41 pm
    elmer says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:47 am

    What is the catch phrase for my next video? Is their anything as quotable as “Hide the Decline”?
    _______________________
    Thank you for the “Hide the Decline” video, I loved it.

    …………………………….

    ditto, for the video.

    Early days for the next catch phrase as the emails are gone through, ‘the Cause’ gave me pause for a laugh re Judith Curry not playing.

    Here: Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
    doing, but its not helping the cause

    But – in going back to fetch that….

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

    How about, ‘delete all the emails’? :)

  430. davidmhoffer says:

    Luke Scientiae says:
    But it’s pointless even to put this comment up here; this site is a Church to those who repeat canards like that warming stopped in 1998 and that CO2 molecules are “perfectly spherical”. >>>

    1. If it is pointless, why did you bother?
    2. If this is a “church” then it is a church chalk full of heretics. Even the science that disputes the AGW thoery gets shredded on this site if there is the tiniest of flaws in it. Try that at RealClimate. you know the one, the one referred to in the ClimateGate 2.0 emails as a PR site?
    3. Warming didn’t stop in the mid 90’s? so you are saying that HadCrut, GISS, RSS and UAH are all wrong? Because that is what THEY show.
    4. I challenge you top provide a link to any thread on this site where the suggestion that CO2 molecules are perfectly spherical was made and allowed to stand.

    My hat is off to you though. that’s a lot of disinformation in just two lines.

  431. Verity Jones says:

    The time lines seem to be:

    WUWT November 22, 2011 at 1:02 am (California = 9:02 GMT)

    Climate Audit Nov 22, 2011 at 4:09 AM | Permalink (Canada, Eastern = 09:09 GMT)

    Tallbloke’s November 22, 2011 at 9:28 am (GMT)

    DITC November 22, 2011 at 9:44 am (GMT)

    The Air Vent November 22, 2011 at 5:08 am (Michigan = 10:08 GMT)

    JoNova November 22, 2011 at 7:08 pm (Perth = 11:08 Aust EST = 09:08 GMT)

    Anyone know of any other blogs on which the link was posted?

  432. Robert of Ottawa says:

    #1577 from Phil jones

    Any work we have done in the past
    is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve
    discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are
    happy about not releasing the original station data.

    So why must your funding source be well hidden? Perhaps the US Congress might like to ask you that questio, Phil..

  433. Shevva says:

    One thing I take from these e-mails at this early stage is that Global Warming, Cliamte Change, Climate Disruption can now be known as it is called by the scientists at the heart of it – ‘The Cause’.

    If it’s an enviromental or political cause I guess is in the belief of the believer in ‘The Cause’.

  434. RockyRoad says:

    Luke Scientiae says:
    November 22, 2011 at 2:57 pm


    But it’s pointless even to put this comment up here; this site is a Church to those who repeat canards like that warming stopped in 1998 and that CO2 molecules are “perfectly spherical”. Past experience shows that scientific literacy amongst those who take these emails seriously is virtually non existent. (See Delingpole/Booker links above for a start.)

    So are you here to do more damage control, Luke? If this latest revelation were a non-starter, you wouldn’t even bother to stop by. And what you have said is cause for even more damage control.

    For you say the “scientific literacy amongst those who take these emails serious is virtually non existent” and I’d have to agree with your wholeheartedly.

    You do realize these emails were meant for Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Ken Briffa, and all the other “scientists” on “The Team” You’re absolutely correct when you say “Past experience shows that scientific literacy amongst those who take these email seriously is virtually non existent.”

    Yes, you are absolutely correct, Luke. (I love to push people’s noses into their own words.)

    (Even Mann has said of his email correspondence while at the UVa that he was the only one who could understand it. And that’s a big, big concern to everybody that wants to know how he comes to the conclusions that he does. And the same can be said for “Can’t Find My Data or Methodology” Phil Jones. Of course, even if he could find it, he’d be damned before he’d share it like any real scientist would.)

  435. petermue says:

    TheGoodLocust says:
    November 22, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Oh fun, I goaded Gavin into a response.

    Of course, he doesn’t actually respond to the question. Just claims “out of context” and attacks to distract from why Mann thinks Gavin is good at discrediting people.

    Yeah, I read it.
    Why don’t you insist inviting him to put it *into* context?
    I’m very anxious about his reply, because my post has been censored.

  436. David Hewison says:

    Oops.. that was GMT+11

  437. You Guys are unreal says:

    “The Cause” = the cause of getting the world to sit up and take notice of the warming, future warming and detrimental effects thereof. Nothing sinister.

    Instead of picking emails to bits, surely all the ‘skeptic’ side have to do is come up with evidence disproving the warming…

  438. Red Jeff says:

    Red Jeff @ 3:06 Password is a hoax…. sorry for the misinformation, learned my lesson!

  439. petermue says:

    Michael Mann

    “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

    I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….”

    Obviously this is how modern “real climate science” works….

    /sarc

  440. fp says:

    That password did not work for me, Red Jeff.

  441. banjo says:

    The bbc were frantically `on message` straight away.
    Mentioned skeptics, didn`t talk to any, but unsuprisingly found time to talk to mr mann.
    Anyone suprised?

  442. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Rocky Road, in a matter such as this, you cannot have irrefutable proof that people are the cause of the warming.

    You must first demonstrate that there is warming and then that the warming is not natural (how you ever could do that is beyond me – it’s called the NULL hypothesis); further you must positively show that this warming is caused by man … rathern, than, say, the phases of the moon or Jinns.

  443. Gail Combs says:

    Jeffrey Davis says:
    November 22, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    How is referring to one’s belief’s about AGW as “the cause” either sinister or funny?
    ___________________________

    “Beliefs” and “Causes” belong to religion and politics they have absolutely no place in science because it leads to “Confirmation Bias”

    In quality control we had a word for it called “flinching” If you plot the Analytical results for a year’s worth of production you sometimes find a bell curve with a spike at the Accept/Reject limits just within the “good to go” value and few or no data just outside the “Good” limit. That is a special case of confirmation bias.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

    Unfortunately ASQ doesn’t have a simple on line definition http://asq.org/qic/display-item/?item=4850

    http://books.google.com/books?id=Ryv1EGIkAaYC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=%22flinching%22+%22Quality+control%22&source=bl&ots=CpVamjwNQb&sig=7yHwYznBJsOB5IELnZHKrCSmWj8&hl=en&ei=2zPMTuPFD9HAtgfh3dyfAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

  444. OK, as with CG1, I’ve put the unzipped CG2 files at

    http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA

    You can browse through (e.g.) the ‘mail/’ directory, link to individual emails (e.g. http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA/mail/0477.txt — example chosen at random).

    Not sure yet whether a repeat analysis is called for — we now know what to expect from these jokers.

    john

  445. Power Grab says:

    IMHO, and as the parent of a teenager who makes impressive scores on the practice ACT and has been college-bound since learning how to read, the reason the Penn State president was sacked over the Sandusky scandal is that the regents knew their constituency would be thinking, “No way I’m sending MY KID (or my money!) to that hotbed of immorality! At least, not when there’s the possibility of misbehavior being broadcast for all to see!” On the other hand, with the Mann whitewashing, they may well have thought, “Maybe I should send my kid to Penn State because their a$$-covering machine is fully operational. It’s obviously Who You Know that matters there!”

  446. Mac the Knife says:

    elmer says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:11 am
    “What do you guys think?
    http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/assets_c/2011/11/Hide-the-Decline-2-The-Cause-755.html

    Love It !!!!

  447. Clive says:

    Totally trite comment in these interesting times …

    “the emails from my CMA mail boxes ”

    Wow, these climate guys have a “Cover My A$$” email folder. How telling! ☺

  448. Power Grab says:

    Re A Physicist’s use of the term “fishers” –

    Meh…that’s wordsmith talk if I ever heard it. None of them good ol’ boys down at the bait shop talk thataway!

  449. John from CA says:

    Huff Post mention:
    Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails?CMP=twt_gu

    “In the new release a 173MB zip file called “FOIA2011″ containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called Sinwt.ru today. An anonymous entity calling themselves “FOIA” then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. The same tactic was used in 2009 when the first 160MB batch of emails were released after being obtained – possibly illegally – from servers based at the University of East Anglia, where a number of the climate scientists involved were based.”

    Note: Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent are links.

  450. Ron says:

    This new email trove could not possibly have been a surprise to those who wrote them? SOME emails they wrote were publicized two years ago. At the time, did they foolishly think, ‘whew, they didn’t get them all’? Either that or this is the day they’ve all suspected and dreaded would come eventually.

  451. hotrod (Larry L) says:

    I have been watching this develop all day, (as much time as I can spare from work) what a wonderful Thanks Giving this will be!

    Personally, I suspect that the strategy is to put that content out there with a password and let 10,000 geeks bang on the password. I strongly suspect the encryption will not survive such a brute force assault for long. Like the The RSA Laboratories Secret-Key Challenges, someone will crack it sooner or later, and once the password is leaked to the web it will all be out there. It will be interesting to see if the password is an obvious easy to crack password or something that makes the geeks sweat a little. ;)

    Gentlemen (used loosely) your time clock is ticking, I would start edging toward the door if I were in your shoes.

    Larry

  452. tania820 says:

    date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:57:34 -0400
    from: Michael Mann
    subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
    to: Phil Jones

    HI Phil,

    re Grant, great–I agree he’ll need to reduce the number of figures and focus on the key
    points. Jim has already drafted something on ENSO/temp relationships and I made a few
    comments, once we have a revised version of that can send on to you for further
    comment/addition/revision etc.

    thanks for the update re CA–caught a hint of this latest fuss in a comment that came in at
    RC (which we deleted from the queue). Sounds like they’re moving from person to person,
    first harassed Ben earlier this year, now you, who knows who is next. I’ve been trying to
    no avail to get some journalist to look into their funding, industry connections, etc. they
    need to be exposed–badly!

    by the way, are you going to the paleo meeting being hosted by Gabi and crew in Edinburgh
    next summer (July 12-13 I believe)? If not, perhaps I can schedule a short visit at CRU to
    see you, Keith, and the gang either before or after, once I know schedule…

    mike

    Does Mann spend his days cooking data and trying to expose his critics? Can Penn State continue to afford this nonsense?

  453. Gail Combs says:

    My hubby, who knows a bit about the Chinese language, noted that in the top Climategate 2 e-mail quoted here on WUWT, from someone named Qingxiang, there is a reference to “Prof. Ren.” He says it is possible that “Prof. Ren” is a mistranslation of Prof. Mann’s name into Chinese (where the character 人 means man and is pronounced ren) and then back into English.

    It’s not easy to understand things out of context, but it is possible.

  454. Ron says:

    I mean, Mann’s response to the Guardian was rather full of prepared invective, I thought.

  455. charles nelson says:

    A ’cause’ by its very nature requires ‘Martyrs’…I wonder if they truly, truly believe in it?
    Looking forward to see someone getting burnt at the stake (figuratively).

  456. Boudu says:

    I don’t know. I’m away for one day and all hell breaks loose in the Climasphere! Now I’m going to be up all night reading blogs and emails. At least my sleepless night will be through choice. Not worry. :)

  457. A physicist says: November 22, 2011 at 11:52 am
    …The history shows plainly that … America’s scientists have been pretty much right-on-target for eighteen decades in a row… which oughtta be enough to convince even the folks in Missouri that the scientists most likely have got it right in the present decade too.

    well that’s a shockingly non-scientific statement. Have you never understood the motto of the Royal Society “Nullius In Verba”? It means that whether you like it or not, you have to do your own research, your own spot checks, think for yourself, use commonsense, look for mistakes, and don’t let up. Ever.

    Also, it’s unscientific to take this thread out of context. Click my name to read the story that is the real context, not just mine but also that of a lot of us here. Of course we are whooping on this thread. There is time for celebration and time for the science.

    A physicist says: November 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm
    It’s fair to say, however, that the folks who understand the mathematics of climate change science are overwhelmingly more likely to be convinced by the data than folks who lack that grounding; that’s why rational climate-change skepticism absolutely requires a solid grounding in mathematics.

    Indeed. That person has full answers to all challenges to his mathematics, as I have checked. His challengers will not tell you this, but a thorough search will. Nullius In Verba. Do thou likewise.

  458. Lance of BC says:

    physicis(bo)t,

    “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting” beep wer beep beep!

    “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting” beep beep wiz beep!

    “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting” Oh my!

    Lions and tigers and bears! Oh my!

    Just when i thought it couldn’t get any stranger?!

    …. and could it be the over use of popcorn causing AGW?!

    Where’s my grant? Hehehe!

  459. AdderW says:

    “Help the cause”, would be great to spoof!

  460. I find it interesting when Mann decides he wants to discredit McIntyre he injects the name of his friend Gavin as one who would know how to to do such a deed. That can only mean he thinks Gavin is capable of this type of criminal behavoir. I hope McIntyre has the guts to sue and then maybe we can really find out what these characters were up to.

  461. Julian Williams in Wales says:

    Maybe the passphrase is so complex to be uncrackable; is that possible? Surely after having sat on this material for two years FOIA would have made a decision how he is going to play this, and it just makes no sense to put most of the material behind a crackable passphrase.

    But supposing he then sent the passphrase to Phil Jones and M Mann with a threat; Resign now, get the hell out, otherwise this passphrase goes online to the general public. That is a strategy that might push FOIA’s enemies out without completely disgracing the “scientific community”

    Just another way of looking at what might motivate FOIA.

  462. Gail Combs says:

    Christopher Hanley says:
    November 22, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    As they come to the home stretch it’s “slogan-shouting” in the lead (26), closely followed by “cherry-picking” (25), with “witch-hunting” struggling in third (23).
    ____________________
    HMMMmmm, good Idea for name for my lambs this coming spring. I can use Jones, Mann, Briffia et al for the ram lambs I am planning to put in the freezer.

  463. Christopher Hanley says:

    You Guys are unreal says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:39 pm
    “The Cause” = the cause of getting the world to sit up and take notice of the warming, future warming and detrimental effects thereof. Nothing sinister.
    Instead of picking emails to bits, surely all the ‘skeptic’ side have to do is come up with evidence disproving the warming…
    ================================
    Who’s trying to disprove warming?
    How do you take notice of “future warming”?
    Begging the question is a logical fallacy, look it up:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Related_fallacies

  464. John says:

    I don’t understand how you guys can justify posting links to someone’s information, which was obtained illegally. This is blatant support for illegal hacking, you know, like posting cop’s social security numbers, or putting porn on Facebook, or any of the other things that I’m sure at least one of you have (rightly) condemned. Just because your cause might be bolstered doesn’t make it all right to do this.

  465. Paul-H says:

    Oh bore me some more would you?!
    Go read some emails that tell you what? Gossip, that is ALL I’ll bet.
    Like last time, or do some of you STILL believe some great secret was uncovered then too?
    I suppose this is pointless but I really will feel better for at least having told you lot how Dumb you are heh.
    So now you can attack me and jump on the bandwagon to attack Luke too, he is the only one person bothered enough to set out a great list of links for you … silly man, trying to convert the religious!
    Have fun reading those emails folks ;)

  466. Anon says:

    Junk Scientist Michael Mann says, “truly pathetic,” at http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/22/climategate-20-more-emails-leaked-from-climate-researchers/

    Mike, CORRECT!!!

  467. pat says:

    very bad timing for Romm:

    22 Nov: Economist: Carbon control
    This house believes that climate-control policies cannot rely on carbon capture and storage
    Join this Live Debate
    Defending the motion: Joseph Romm
    Opening Remarks: Joseph Romm
    Any debate over climate policies must begin with the scope of the problem and solution…
    Needless to say, anything close to 6°C warming this century would probably mean suffering beyond imagination for billions:
    • devastating heat waves, floods and other extreme events;
    • myriad direct health impacts;
    • dust-bowl conditions over much of the arable and heavily populated regions around the globe;
    • sea-level rise of around 1 foot by 2050, then 4-6 feet (or more) by 2100, rising some 6-12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter;
    • massive species loss on land and sea—perhaps 50% or more of all biodiversity;
    • food insecurity—the increasingly difficulty task of feeding 7 billion, then 8 billion, then 9 billion people in a world with an ever-worsening climate.
    Most of these will be happening simultaneously and getting worse decade after decade. Equally tragic, a 2009 study found that the worst impacts would be ““largely irreversible for 1,000 years.”..
    http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/781

  468. Latitude says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 22, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    My hubby, who knows a bit about the Chinese language, noted that in the top Climategate 2 e-mail quoted here on WUWT, from someone named Qingxiang, there is a reference to “Prof. Ren.” He says it is possible that “Prof. Ren” is a mistranslation of Prof. Mann’s name into Chinese (where the character 人 means man and is pronounced ren) and then back into English.

    It’s not easy to understand things out of context, but it is possible
    ====================================
    Tell him ‘good catch’, Gail…….

  469. G. Karst says:

    What was the phrase used by the original climategate leaker? I think it was something like:

    “A miracle has happened”

    Anybody else remember it exactly? That’s the passphrase, I reckon. I don’t have the zip file so I can’t try it. GK

  470. Bigred (Victoria, Australia) says:

    Nobel Prize for this Leaker.

  471. Konrad says:

    WUWT 5th birthday and a Climategate Christmas 2.0 together!
    In keeping with the seasonal theme, Tallbloke has unwrapped this gem from Kevin “travesty” Trenberth over at the Talkshop –

    date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:58:09 -0700
    from: Kevin Trenberth
    subject: The first Nobel and other Christmas greetings
    to: IPCC-group
    Seasons greetings to you all, my fellow Nobel Laureates (even if we did not get to go to
    Oslo).
    I just want to wish you and your families all the best for the holiday season, and Merry
    Christmas to those of you who celebrate that festival. As part of IPCC we have achieved
    something to be proud of. Thankyou for being a part of it with me.
    At NCAR at the Christmas party a group made up a song that mentions by name all the NCAR
    LAs in AR4. The song is below. You may appreciate it. (or not).
    All the best for 2008.
    Kevin

    Sung to tune of The first Noel
    Our First Nobel
    Our First Nobel, for the IPCC,
    Goes to Beth, Bette, Bill, Jerry, Kathy and Guy.
    Kevin, Linda, Paty, Re-to and so many more,
    And we’re sharing the honor with Mister Al Gore.
    Nobel, Nobel, a story to tell,
    We hope our coworkers’ egos don’t swell.
    The First Working Group said to sound the alarm,
    Rising CO2 levels are causing great harm.
    Temperatures and greenhouse gas are racing up neck and neck,
    Soon the whole Earth will be hotter than heck.
    Nobel, Nobel, the planet’s unwell,
    This is the future the models foretell.
    The Second Working Group said that change is assured,
    >From the melting of glaciers to migration of birds.
    >From loss of land and crops to habitats,
    How can they make it much clearer than that?
    Nobel, Nobel, the oceans swell,
    Polar bears search for new places to dwell.
    We must work to mitigate, tells us Working Group Three,
    Change from fossil consumption to clean energy.
    If we all do our share in reversing the trend,
    Our children might have a clean Earth in the end.
    Nobel, Nobel, sound the warning bell,
    Let’s make a future where all can live well.
    Nobel, Nobel, we are stars for a day,
    Can an Oscar be far away?

    ****************
    Kevin E. Trenberth
    0462

  472. Mooloo says:

    It’s fair to say, however, that the folks who understand the mathematics of climate change science are overwhelmingly more likely to be convinced by the data than folks who lack that grounding; that’s why rational climate-change skepticism absolutely requires a solid grounding in mathematics.

    Could you enlighten us with the Maths background of Mann, Jones, Briffa etc? How many of “the Team” are statisticians?

    Statistics is one of their weakest points, leading to bogus hockey sticks, whole Antarctic warming from one peninsular etc. Sceptics with real Maths continue to catch them out.

    The Team have no particular training nor skill in Maths. In fact I would suggest they have the Dunning-Kruger effect in operation very strongly.

  473. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Paul-H says:
    November 22, 2011 at 4:19

    you flatter yourself greatly.
    you’re not worth the effort!

  474. Jay Curtis says:

    This new round of emails, damning as it is, reveals nothing more about the writers than what most people of good conscience hadn’t already realized from the first round. Unfortunately, Not only has the pursuit of truth been abandoned by some in the scientific community but by many more in the journalism community. The edifice is crumbling, but it will still take awhile to bring it all the way to the ground.

  475. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Do I notice a concerted counter-attack by damge controlls?

    I bet Gavin & Co. are not going to get any sleep tonight.

  476. Gail Combs says:

    NJmom77 says:
    November 22, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    Is it time to hire a rowboat to rescue Santa? I’ll help pass the hat.

    As a gardener, I see evidence of warming when I walk into my backyard. How much it is exacerbated by human activity is beyond my scope to say. I don’t want climate scientists of dubious agenda throwing out mandates before human impact is measured, but I would like some practical suggestions on how individuals might lessen their eco-footprints just in case it would make a positive difference. It’s a shame science has to be so political. Money talks more loudly than the truth.
    ___________________________
    Try looking into Thorium Nuclear. It is completely different that Uranium. China and India are working on commercial applications. So is the USA and Japan. The USA originally looked at it decades ago for a nuclear powered Aircraft, so it has promise for ships, possibly trains and small reactors for remote locations.

    My collection of info (some are older and the engineering is rapidly changing)
    http://news.change.org/stories/thorium-nuclear-energys-clean-little-secret

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=448&terms=thorium
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

    http://pubs.acs.org/cen/email/html/8746sci2.html

    http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2006/05/chronology-of-nuclear-history-with.html

    http://www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=187:thorium-as-a-secure-nuclear-fuel-alternative&catid=94:0409content&Itemid=342

    Overview of world Nuclear: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html

  477. Barbara Munsey says:

    elmer says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    @ Barbara Munsey

    Good point! must have been my subconscious at work.

    ——————–

    I bet some of them (Mann, Jones, etc) must feel like this is currently the soundtrack to their lives:

    If they don’t, they SHOULD.

  478. Steve C says:

    Harumph! Middle of the night, quick last look at WUWT and I come across this! I shall have to “redact” what I feel about losing sleep waiting for the d/l to finish. The story continues, evidently … Good! Can’t wait.

  479. timg56 says:

    RockyRoad,

    I’ll refrain from casting aspersions at A Physicist, but I’ll back up your point regarding the inaccuracy of his statements regarding …
    … That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That. …

    I have three degrees, two of which are graduate science degrees and have worked mostly in technical and engineering fields. The majority of people I know with engineering or science degrees hold sceptical opinions of at least some aspects of the “climate change” debate. Like you, my personal experience is directly at odds with what he is claiming. And while that doesn’t mean he is wrong, it does cause me to believe he most likely is.

  480. Gail Combs says:

    cui bono says:
    November 22, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    The problem is that the guys at the University of East Anglia haven’t heard of ethics.

    Which is odd as it’s only a few miles to the South of them.

    (File under extremely poor British jokes).
    _________________
    That is OK, Mass, where I used to live has wonderful town names. Governor Endicott Peabody had several towns named after him like Endicott, Peabody, Athol, Marblehead and of course Grafton. (File under extremely poor Taxachusetts jokes).

  481. wayne says:

    At least we have an idea how the UHI was wiped. Dishonesty.

  482. Pamela Gray says:

    Out of the mouths of naive scientists comes the new title for climate change: “Climate Change CAUSE”! Skeptics can not compete with these guys for pregnant vocabulary. Which seems fair that climate scientists get to win at something.

    On a related note, you don’t suppose that Judith will become the sleeping giant now aroused from her make-peace-not-war slumber by the slurs hurled her way?

  483. A physicist says:

    Dave Wendt says:

    A physicist says: “A terrific example is the article in the November Notices of the American Mathematical Society, by Chen, Laane, Wheeler, and Zhang, titled ‘Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective.’”

    Just found your cite. In the first paragraph came upon this” ”The molecules of these gases trap heat in the form of infrared radiation, causing the atmospheric temperature to rise. But which molecules are the greenhouse gases, and just how do they trap heat?”

    Not a hopeful start.Take courage & read further, Dave … the plot thickens! :)

    Seriously, a very complete, free-as-in-freedom, follow-on compendium is Spencer Weart’s on-line “Discovery of Global Warming — A History”, which is hosted by the American Institute of Physics (AIP).

    If more folks appreciated that rational skepticism of climate change begins with an appreciation of the mathematical foundations, then the level of pointless slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting here on Watts Up With That (and many other skeptical sites) would sensibly diminish.

    Rational skepticism accepts too that sometimes the math tells us what we don’t want to hear. As the navigator (James Earl Jones?) famously says in Kubrik’s Dr. Strangelove:

    “I’m sorry sir; those are the numbers.”

  484. tallbloke says:

    Red Jeff says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:06 pm
    Someone is claiming to have cracked the password protected emails….. this is the (supposed) password.

    4x00y312dym!231@4

    Nope…. try again.

  485. AndyG55 says:

    I wonder what’s in those other emails, behind the password.

    A very interesting ploy !

    Is it a bluff ?

    It is devastating to the AGW bretheren?

    I really hope the bretheren are EXTREMELY worried about the password being released.

  486. Jimmy Haigh says:

    No. 4194. “£27 million…”

    date: Fri Feb 2 22:22:25 2001
    from: Mike Hulme
    subject: C Trust
    to: berkhout

    Frans,

    We had a very constructive meeting today with the C Trust team from DETR. The Trust is very keen to work with Tyndall in a number of areas. In effect there is £27m to be allocated by the Trust during 2001/02 on projects/initiatives that take forward the de-carbonisation mission and they are clearly looking for good ideas to support.”

  487. eyesonu says:

    WUWT certain to hit 100,000,000 (one hundred million) views this calendar year and now maybe before Dec 7. Would have been nice for the fifth anniversary. It’s rock and roll time again. Another fifth for the anniversary?

  488. Robert of Ottawa says:

    AndyG55, maybe you should view this to provide some answers

  489. R. de Haan says:

    Department of Energy involved in hiding temperature data (and financing the fraudsters)
    http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-department-of-energy-involved-in-hiding-temperature-data/

  490. Gail Combs says:

    Robert of Ottawa says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:35 pm

    #1577 from Phil jones

    “Any work we have done in the past
    is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve
    discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are
    happy about not releasing the original station data”

    So why must your funding source be well hidden? Perhaps the US Congress might like to ask you that questio, Phil..
    ___________

    THAT climate e-mail is certainly one to send to all our Congress Critters asking what the heck is going on and WHAT is DOE trying to hide. ESPECIALLY after the Obama/DOE grant bomb that was dropped a short time ago.

    Time to make the politicians squirm.

  491. G. Karst says: November 22, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    What was the phrase used by the original climategate leaker?…

    A miracle just happened at CA

    At tAV,

    We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.

    We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
    Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

  492. davidmhoffer says:

    Ooooh this FOIA guy is a sly one. I think I just figured out his game.

    Question: Who is sweating bullets right now trying to figure out what else is in those encrypted files and how bad it might be?
    Answer: The Team
    Question: How do you systematically break an encryption key?
    Answer: A brute force attack which requires…supercomputers.
    Question: Who has lotsa supercomputers at their disposal?
    Answer: The Team

    I’m betting the WE are going to be up all night reading the dirty slimeballs’ emails and mocking the feeble attempts of trolls to defend them. THEY are going to be up all night trying to break that encryption key.

    I wonder if it actually is more emails? Or just an obscene taunt?

  493. Marcus says:

    This is hilarious.

    date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:49:18 -0000 (GMT)
    from: “Tim Osborn”
    subject: RE: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01
    to: “Jones Philip Prof”

    Hi Phil!

    re. your email to Dave Palmer [which he copied in his response to you and
    cc'd to me, Keith & Michael McGarvie, and which has hence already been
    multiply copied within the UEA system, and therefore will probably exist
    for a number of months and possibly years, and could be released under FOI
    if a request is made for it during that time!]… I assume that you didn’t
    delete any emails that David Holland has requested (because that would be
    illegal) but that instead his request merely prompted you to do a spring
    clean of various other emails that hadn’t been requested, as part of your
    regular routine of deleting old emails. If that is what you meant, then
    it might be a good idea to clarify your previous email to Dave Palmer, to
    avoid it being misunderstood. :-)

    The way things seem to be going, I think it best if we discuss all FOI,
    EIR, Data Protection requests in person wherever possible, rather than via
    email. It’s such a shame that the skeptics’ vexatious use of this
    legislation may prevent us from using such an efficient modern technology
    as email, but it seems that if we want to have confidential discussions
    then we may need to avoid it.

    I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular
    routine of deleting old emails!

    Cheers

    Tim

  494. pat says:

    will this mean no more solar ads on every youtube u open?
    will this mean no more manipulation of search results to favour CAGW?

    22 Nov: Reuters: Alexei Oreskovic: Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy
    * Says other institutions better placed to carry on effort
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/google-idUSN1E7AL1X520111123

  495. _Jim says:

    davidmhoffer says November 22, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    Question: Who has lotsa supercomputers at their disposal?
    Answer: The Team

    Rich, truly rich …

    .

  496. Pamela Gray says:

    This is way better than Thanksgiving day football. Problem is, I will be in a location that has NO internet access other than what I get on my smartphone. Which I am thinking of putting on an intravenous mobile tree with a very long cord plugged into the outlet.

  497. richard verney says:

    Some suggest that a foreign government such as China or Russia is behind the hacking. If so, what do they stand to gain from the release of this info?

    For example, China has done very nicely from the cAWG meme. Lots of industries/jobs have been outsourced from the developed countries to China so that the developed countries can meet emission/red tape targets and China’s foreign earnings have increased dramatically because of this. China is playing a key role in the manufacture of windmills and to some extent solar panels and is benefitting from trading back these products to the West, again to the benefit of China’s economic development and wealth.

    It cannot be in China’s interest to see the developed countries in the West suddenly pull out of the cAGW meme and thereby allow those developed countriues invest in cheap energy and keep ‘polluting’ industries in the West.

    It seems more likely to me that the source of this info is from someone who is trying to save the developed countries in the West. If so, they are an unsung hero.

  498. Wayne Delbeke says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am and everyone understands too that this slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting has become utterly irrelevant to the serious concerns of America’s mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and CEOs.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    As a professional Engineer registered in multiple provinces, I resent your inclusion of my profession as a whole in your comment. There is considerable on going debate in our professional associations and there is NO CONSENSUS so far as I can tell. If you want to speak on behalf of your fellow Physicists, go ahead. But remember, engineers believe in empirical data and proofs and the topic of Climate Change is in its infancy at the moment so it is way too early to draw conclusions.

  499. John from CA says:

    Gail Combs says:
    November 22, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    My hubby, who knows a bit about the Chinese language, noted that in the top Climategate 2 e-mail quoted here on WUWT, from someone named Qingxiang, there is a reference to “Prof. Ren.” He says it is possible that “Prof. Ren” is a mistranslation of Prof. Mann’s name into Chinese (where the character 人 means man and is pronounced ren) and then back into English.

    It’s not easy to understand things out of context, but it is possible
    ====================================
    “Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

    This statistic appears to come from 2005 World Bank information. The 47% in China is no longer accurate — approximately 15% now. I suspect the Read Me, beyond its meaning, is constructed aa cleaver ploy.

    http://www.prb.org/Journalists/PressReleases/2005/MoreThanHalftheWorldLivesonLessThan2aDayAugust2005.aspx

    “More than one-half of the world’s people live below the internationally defined poverty line of less than U.S. $2 a day—including 97 percent in Uganda, 80 percent in Nicaragua, 66 percent in Pakistan, and 47 percent in China, according to data from the World Bank.”

    “66 percent in Pakistan” <– What's up with that?

  500. Mooloo says:

    I don’t understand how you guys can justify posting links to someone’s information, which was obtained illegally.

    There’s illegal, and there’s immoral. This information should have been available legally, and only needed to be obtained illegally because of the obstructionism.

    So do you write to Mann now and complain of his much more illegal activities concerning deleting OIA material? Or are only sceptics expected to be fully legal?

    Given the Team’s attitude to legality, I think you are pursuing the wrong theme. The other troll’s are doing better with the “look a flying monkey” and “nothing new” themes. They at least don’t implicate those they are trying to defend.

  501. SteveSadlov says:

    @ Mike says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:33 am

    ====================

    Howdy pardner!

  502. sandw15 says:

    This offer is specially prepared for
    A Physicist (or occupant troll)
    You are just the kind of forward-looking person I’m looking for. What you need is an investment strategy for the future. This is your opportunity to be among the first to get a ground-floor stake in the investment opportunity of the century. I’m talking about Sandw15’s South Texas Sea Resort Communities. I can fix you up with real estate which is now nearly worthless ranch land but which will soon be very valuable ocean front property. Imagine having a beach villa on the shores of a brand spanking new shallow sea. You could even afford your own island in the warm waters of the new South Texas Sea.
    Worried about cost, you say? No problem. This is the perfect time to invest in real estate…and because of the current economic conditions; large tracts of land can be bought for a song. Building costs in South Texas are amongst the lowest in the country and we can fix you up with anything from a small vacation cottage to a mansion at an unbelievably low cost…and if you commit to building before January 2013 we’ll throw in a fishing pier, absolutely free. All you have to do is tell us where the shoreline will be and we’ll take care of the rest. Imagine having your own paradise-on-earth waiting for the Gulf of Mexico to roll in. And for the first hundred buyers, we’re offering an all expenses paid trip to the First Annual Sandw15 Death Valley Regatta. (To be scheduled at a later date). Don’t wait. This introductory offer will expire at the end of 2012 or upon the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (whichever comes first).
    I can offer you great deals for properties in the original Bryan/College Station Island Chain and the new Beeville Archipelago. Prices start at only $22,000 per acre.
    Don’t forget to ask for the 10% Troll discount

  503. Spector says:

    RE: A physicist says:
    “… the perception of a “Conservative War on Science” is becoming the consensus view of America’s mathematicians, scientists, and engineers …

    The falsification of Science for the sake of a political or social cause cannot be taken lightly, whether that is done in full knowledge of the truth or under the spell of mutual self-deception.

    The ‘Hockey Stick Hypothesis,’ attempting to show from multiple variable dependent, tree-ring growth data purporting that nothing like the current climate change had ever occurred in the past thousand years is a primary example of this. This appears to have been a blatant attempt to show that the past indications of recent large temperature variations were illusory.

    Another problem appears to be allowing science journalists to gloss over the fact that the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is limited to a narrow band of wavelengths around fifteen microns and the effect of each new cohort of CO2 added to the atmosphere is largely masked by that already present. This principle appears to be well known and a standard program used by the Air Force seems to indicate a raw one degree C ground temperature increase for each complete doubling (280:560:1120:2240 PPM) of the CO2 content in the atmosphere. By hiding this principle from the public, the danger of CO2 in the atmosphere can be exponentially magnified and we have people desperately fighting to hold the line at a mere 350 PPM.

    For the past ten years according to data published by the university that is at the heart of the Climategate issue, there has been no significant global average temperature increase despite ever increasing CO2 levels. Something is rotten in Denmark.

  504. SteveSadlov says:

    @ wayne says:
    November 22, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    At least we have an idea how the UHI was wiped. Dishonesty.

    =====================

    I always sensed this to be a hot button (pardon the pun) based on responses I would get bringing it up at RC and Wascally Wabbit’s blog.

  505. SteveSadlov says:

    Re: It seems more likely to me that the source of this info is from someone who is trying to save the developed countries in the West. If so, they are an unsung hero.

    ==================

    MI5?

  506. wayne says:

    A Physicist, it’s not so much as mathematics though many here and myself (we) never seem to have a problem with the maths. It is the pure logic and terminology within this subject. Why don’t you open you eyes to where this “CO2 heating the surface” came from in the first place.

    One good link to a complete analysis of Fourier (1827), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896) and beyond where the misunderstandings crept in:
    http://tyndall1861.geologist-1011.mobi/

    “Text of Tyndall (1861)
    About this Web Page.

    I have included the full text of Tyndall’s 1861 dissertation on the opacity and radiative emission of gases because it would seem that those citing Tyndall have not bothered to read his work. It is immediately apparent that Tyndall did, at no time during his research, measure any radiative absorption. Tyndall’s “absorption” measurements are revealed, by his method, to actually be measurements of opacity. I refer you to the Frontispiece of the article reproduced here. Nowhere does Tyndall account for the proportion of opacity due to reflection, nor is any attempt made to simultaneously measure both opacity and emission in order to determine what proportion of opacity is due to absorption, in spite of the significant reflection of visible radiation by chlorine gas, which Tyndall actually handled. This is probably a fundamental misunderstanding on Tyndall’s part because he uses the terms “opacity” and “absorbing power” interchangably throughout his work. For more information concerning why I’ve included Tyndall (1861) among the most misquoted and abused papers in the public domain, see http://geologist-1011.mobi/.” …

    You might find it is instead you, not we who misunderstands.

  507. Gail Combs says:

    tania820 says:
    November 22, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:57:34 -0400
    from: Michael Mann
    subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
    to: Phil Jones

    ….. thanks for the update re CA–caught a hint of this latest fuss in a comment that came in at
    RC (which we deleted from the queue). Sounds like they’re moving from person to person,
    first harassed Ben earlier this year, now you, who knows who is next. I’ve been trying to
    no avail to get some journalist to look into their funding, industry connections, etc. they
    need to be exposed–badly!…..
    __________________________

    This is rather interesting. I noticed that the “sticky fingered” individuals I have known were always very quick to accuse someone else of their own behavior. It was a real good way of knowing who the culprit was when things went missing.

    Interesting how CA, WUWT and others are always being accused of being funded by industry or Big Oil. I wonder just how much the “Team” is socking away from “special interests” and I am not talking about research grants. $1.6 million has already been revealed for Hansen.

    Too bad there are so few real investigative reporters left and most of them have to run blogs because the news media is so bias.

  508. A physicist says:
    A physicist says:”Everyone understands too that this slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting has become utterly irrelevant to the serious concerns of America’s mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and CEOs.”

    Wayne Delbeke says: “As a professional Engineer registered in multiple provinces, I resent your inclusion of my profession as a whole in your comment. There is considerable on going debate in our professional associations and there is NO CONSENSUS so far as I can tell. If you want to speak on behalf of your fellow Physicists, go ahead. But remember, engineers believe in empirical data and proofs and the topic of Climate Change is in its infancy at the moment so it is way too early to draw conclusions.”

    Wayne, every professional society has great respect for rational skepticism.

    But no professional society respects “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting.” Isn’t that correct, Wayne? For sure, I cannot think of a single one that does.

    Except maybe, the society of paid political operatives and professional corporate lobbyists. Now those folks purely love skepticism that’s based on “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting” … and do all they can foster it. Ain’t that right?

  509. TheGoodLocust says:

    “petermue says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Yeah, I read it.
    Why don’t you insist inviting him to put it *into* context?
    I’m very anxious about his reply, because my post has been censored.”

    I just posted a comment in response, but I doubt it’ll get posted since it looks like I’m banned for a while after that comment. The Realclimate guys like to “rebut” a comment and then block the offender so it looks like they cowed the initial commenter with their intellectual brilliance. The amusing thing is that their regulars always fall for it and laugh how nobody can formulate a response to their silly defenses.

    In any case, here was my response:

    “[Response: My ignoring you would simply be a sign that your out-of-context smear is too stupid to address. But I think it worthwhile to point out that the first line of this email has "They will misrepresent you and take out of context anything you give them". How prescient! For everyone else, this is an email discussing the appalling (and officially investigated and rejected) allegation of fraud that Keenan made about a scientist at SUNY Albany. Jones was asking for advice on whether and how to respond to a request from Peiser (acting editor of Energy and Environment) for comments on a paper Keenan had submitted claiming a 'fraud'. If you are looking for people who have experience discrediting people, I would start with Keenan. - gavin]

    The only thing that is out-of-context is your response. Michael Mann said,

    “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.”

    So you think this is okay as long as he doesn’t hire the journalist in question? What is the context where it is okay to find a person to discredit someone you don’t like? Is it “when they deserve it” (in your opinion) or “when they are wrong” (your opinion)? I thought you guys were supposed to be sticking to the science, but behind the scenes you are apparently recruiting journalists to smear your opponents.

    Again, why does Mann think you have “insights wiith respect to such matters?” Do you often “nudge” journalists into discrediting (Mann’s word) your ideological opponents like McIntyre?

    FYI, attacking other people and claiming things are out-of-context won’t seem like a valid defense for anyone except the Realclimate regulars. “

  510. Theo Goodwin says:

    Tucci78 says:
    November 22, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Well said. Use more street language next time.

  511. Benjamin P. says:

    Yawn

    [REPLY: This is on a par with all of your other "contributions" to this site. -REP]

  512. Chazz says:

    Jerry Seinfeld was quoting the famous line from Blazing Saddles.

  513. Latitude says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting.”
    ================================================
    Lord, you love that phrase, don’t you……

    Witch hunting has been with us since the beginning of time…..because we’ve had these witches since the beginning of time….claiming they could control, predict the weather/climate.

    At one time it took some white chickens, a few goats, and maybe a virgin or two…
    ….but nothing has really changed

    A magic man, shaman, witch doctor…..doesn’t matter….it’s always been about weather, good crops, floods, droughts….same old same old

    Not enough rain…call a witch doctor
    too much rain…..call a witch doctor
    too cold, crops fail….call a witch doctor
    drought, crops fail….call a witch doctor

    and the same old shysters are still with us….
    …and the same old morons still believe

  514. Gail Collins sez, “Beliefs” and “Causes” belong to religion and politics they have absolutely no place in science because it leads to “Confirmation Bias”

    Well, no.

    Scientists are scientists only when they do science. The rest of the time, they have ordinary lives to lead. Many of them think about the consequences of what their science has revealed. Like the dangers inherent in human-induced climate change. I’m sure they wish everyone agreed with them, but as Freud said they can’t change their way of thinking on account of people who think differently. (GIS: A Philosophy of Life by Sigmund Freud)

  515. MattN says:

    Very humorous to see some in here doing damage control (A Physicist). Too much damage to control, I think…

  516. Gerald Machnee says:

    It is time to ignore the physicist and ask why he/she will not post his/her real name – Troll.

  517. sky says:

    Could the encryption password be “fight for the cause”–in cockney?

  518. Robw says:

    I have to ask Jeffrey Davis

    Since it is well documented the global average temp has not gone up but down in the past decade all-the-while CO2 continues to go up. Please share your wisdom as us mere mortals who live in the real world of real science are having a tough time with it. We await your wisdom.

  519. MattN says:

    What the new “trick”?

    Fox/Environment Agency:

    if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
    regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.

  520. MattN says:

    I see the prurpose of RC is revealed:

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

  521. davidmhoffer says:

    Trenberth is an awful poet. I figure even I can do better:

    We, the kings, of climate are
    Raising the price, of running your car
    Data’s bogus, And we know it
    Follow the money and you’ll know who we are

    Stars alarming, stars of fright
    Stars with gravy funding rights
    Disaster leading, still proceeding
    Guide you to economic blight

    Mann thinks that it is a pain
    To analyse data again and again
    To h*ll with it, a hockey stick
    Easier to draw, and to maintain

    Stars alarming, stars of fright
    Stars with gravy funding rights
    Disaster leading, still proceeding
    Guide you to economic blight

    Answers are easy, we all will die
    Jones says the data don’t lie
    Asked to see it, but he deleted
    Says there is no reason why

    Stars alarming, stars of fright
    Stars with gravy funding rights
    Disaster leading, still proceeding
    Guide you to economic blight

    Trenberth’s whine complains of doom
    Climate is all a gathering gloom
    Heat he missed and he is p*ssed
    Tragedy, sealed you see, in a deep, ocean tomb

    Stars alarming, stars of fright
    Stars with gravy funding rights
    Disaster leading, still proceeding
    Guide you to economic blight

    Glorius, glorius, glorius Gore
    No one believes anymore
    Experiment, faked it, Watts explained it
    Even RGates, supports him no more

    Stars alarming, stars of fright
    Stars with gravy funding rights
    Disaster leading, still proceeding
    Guide you to economic blight

    We the kings of climate are
    Being exposed, for what we are
    Reward our lies, Nobel prize
    We the stars need no cars
    The right to fly instead is ours
    Hotels first class…hey…this room is kinda sparse….and what’s with the bars?

  522. Stephen Prower says:

    <David M. Brooks said:

    <November 22, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    <My recollection is that after the original Climategage emails
    <were released, the CRU said that they were taken “out of
    <context” and were going to do a full release of their own so
    <everything would be in context.

    I tried to confirm the accuracy of Mr Brook's recollection, but
    failed.

    Instead I came up with the fact that in March 2010 the House of
    Commons Science and Technology Committee concluded the report of
    its investigation of the Climategate 1 revelations: 'We consider
    that further suspicion could have been allayed by releasing all
    the e-mails'.

    As we now learn: Quite the opposite!

    Stephen Prower

    Wednesday 23 November 2011

    —-
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

    'House of Commons
    Science and Technology Committee

    The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit
    at the University of East Anglia

    Eighth Report of Session 2009–10
    Report, together with formal minutes

    HC 387-I
    Published on 31 March 2010
    by authority of the House of Commons
    London: The Stationery Office Limited

    Conclusions and recommendations

    Datasets

    1. … Professor Jones told us that the published e-mails
    represented only “one tenth of 1%” of his output, which amounts
    to one million e-mails, and that we were only seeing the end of
    a protracted series of e-mail exchanges. We consider that
    further suspicion could have been allayed by releasing all the
    e-mails. … . (Paragraph 38)'

  523. wayne says:

    Gail Combs says:

    Too bad there are so few real investigative reporters left and most of them have to run blogs because the news media is so bias.
    __________________________

    Exactly! You can’t help but wonder… the stink in climate science is so thick:

    now what would be lurking in those 220,000 encrypted messages… hmmm, let’s guess… the specific criminality? The government connections. Congress? Parliament? The NGO money, the charity laundering, the covert corporate sponsor Nth-party web, …. mustn’t leave out Wall Street, Goldman-Sachs, Soros. Oh yes, and what of Bush’s ethanol. Gee, too many to list here.

    One reason to imagine of those green-stinking-fumes are locked behind a passphrase wall is that district attorney’s have dictated it strictly off-limits to bring those public. Maybe that is why it took this individual so long to filter what is exactly releasable and what is legally not (due to ongoing investigations).

    Let’s hope something like that is in fact the case, but also could be but a day-dream and in reality there is no one who enforces justice anymore.

  524. G. Karst says:

    “A physicist” IS Michael Mann!

    [REPLY: Sorry, no he isn't. -REP]

  525. LamontT says:

    [i]You Guys are unreal says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:39 pm

    “The Cause” = the cause of getting the world to sit up and take notice of the warming, future warming and detrimental effects thereof. Nothing sinister.

    Instead of picking emails to bits, surely all the ‘skeptic’ side have to do is come up with evidence disproving the warming…[/i]
    ————————
    Um why would we try to disprove that the earth has warmed as it came out of The Little Ice Age? That would be nuts. Perhaps you should take time to find out what people actually believe instead of accepting the strawman arguments you appear to have embraced. We who are skeptical don’t disbelieve that the world warms can cools. We don’t even challenge that man can have a local impact on things. Where the doubt comes is just how much man has affected things and that warming is even a bad thing. After all we know that the earth has been much warmer than this at periods in the past. We are still below the average temperature that preceded the last full Ice Age. Last there i doubt that warming will have the supposed catastrophic effect on things that are insisted on by the AGW followers of [b]The Cause[/b].

    One of the major problems has been that when people claiming that it will all end in DOOM are asked to show their work they call you names and try to do anything but show how they came to their conclusions.

  526. Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts.

    The IPCC is above the law, eh? They’re not above the court of public opinion.

  527. farright says:

    Folks, A physicist may be a troll or a bot. In either case it’s clear- A physicist is brainless. Here’s a link to a similar but modified post made on 11/10/11 on PJ Media over the Mens’ Warehouse support of OWS.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/10/youre-gonna-hate-the-way-this-looks-we-guarantee-it/

  528. MattN says:

    Pepsi shot out my nose on this one:

    Haimberger:

    It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
    in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
    remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.

  529. AndyG55 says:

    @ a non-physicist…

    “Except maybe, the society of paid political operatives and professional corporate lobbyists. …. based on “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting” … and do all they can foster it.

    Ain’t that right”

    Aye, it surely is.. and these emails show exactly that case.

  530. farright says:

    A physicist is either a bot or a troll. Google “mainly slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting” and see what comes up.

  531. AdderW says:

    Heartland Institute is all over it

    heartland.org/press-releases/2011/11/22/heartland-institute-reacts-climategate-2-emails

  532. cui bono says:

    To Elmer and the wonderful MinnesotansforGlobalWarming:

    Some years ago we had “Jerry Springer: The Opera”. To recreate the TV show, a choir sang “F*** you” often and in bass to soprano. Funny, if not quite prime-time family entertainment.

    Many of the comments in these mails would do well as arias. And think of the smash hits:-
    “No dirty laundry in the open.”
    “I’m gonna find myself an investigative journalist…”
    “Delete the emails!” ( a wild showstopper with dancers on giant computer keys)
    “I don’t know about Judith Curry” (sad solo)
    “Truly pathetic” (passers-by to antihero in gutter)

    Think big!

  533. Gerald Machnee says:

    **“the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle**
    Well, he could not even spell “losing” correctly.
    If you need a laugh, Gavin and the usual ones are making excuses at RC.

  534. Fernando says:

    I’m wondering what these guys talk on MSN.

  535. davidmhoffer says:

    …and this time the MSM seems to be getting up to speed a lot quicker.

    Terence Corcoran over at Financial Post is on it already. They took weeks to call BS on ClimateGate 1.

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/11/22/terence-corcoran-climategate-2-0-reveals-familiar-cast-of-characters-blundering-glory/

  536. RockyRoad says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 5:57 pm

    A physicist says: ”Everyone understands too that this slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting has become utterly irrelevant to the serious concerns of America’s mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and CEOs.”

    But no professional society respects “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting.”

    You, “physicist” are complaining that people here are“slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting”

    But that’s exactly what you’re doing, “physicist”.

    I see you’re “cherry-picking” your statements.

    I see you have been “slogan-shouting” with the phrase “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting”

    And I see you’ve been “witch-hunting”, too.

    So to sum it all up, it is you that has been “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting”

    Well, enough of your “slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting”!

    What a hypocrite (and a boor). Please try a new approach, and please, please shout a new slogan!

  537. Daphne says:

    Hooray! Another early Christmas present!
    FOIA 1 was the best thing that happened at the end of ’09 – this is gonna be good!

  538. Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

    Don’t know yet? You’ve got to be kidding me. I know people that could have found out the exact computer and time, and found it long since by now.

  539. Steve Garcia says:

    [Rean Guoyu, to Phil Jones] In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.

    Jones was a co-author on that Chinese study, the one that claimed that all the sites were unchanged, but that was untrue. That study came up with a UHI of something like 0.012C/year or so, and was deemed not significant.

    Compare that with this

    Jones:

    [...] every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where
    the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical
    means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and
    GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results.

    That word, “removed” – is that a misstatement, or is the plain language of this passage correct, that they “removed” as in “got rid of” the “urbanization effect” by playing with the numbers.

    “Removed as well as possible” – that sounds nasty, doesn’t it?

    But the underlying thing in this is that NOAA and GISS had essentially the same results – so, are we to wonder, then, if those other two didn’t also “remove” the urbanization effect, in much the same way? No one knows how much overlap there is in methodology between the Big Three, do we? With Gavin and Hansen at NOAA and GISS, respectively, and at least Schmidt being in the middle of all these shenanigans, one has to think there has been some serious overlap.

    I guess that Hansen was NOT in the middle of all of this is a plus on his side…

  540. Amazing that there are still people defending ClimateGte scientists. At long last have all of you no shame!

  541. Steve Garcia says:

    Oops! Those two emails were 0044 and 2939.

  542. http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/22/global-warming-good-for-trees-councillor

    posting here just to be part of history…

    yay for an Anonymous that does something useful..

    now how about those Obama University transcripts… ;-)

  543. John says:

    A sequel? That’s it…

  544. Lilly says:

    Western ethics goes with western research. Get it back.

  545. pwl says:

    Yes it’s possible that the paraphrase is in the preamble. That would be smart. Certainly that will be one line of attempting to crack it.

    I find it rather bizarre that they’d not release all the documents. I don’t agree with them playing games like that, it smacks of dishonesty. They got the docs and they should release the pass-phrase forthwith otherwise they are really no better than those in “the team”, playing games rather than being honest.

  546. MattN says:

    “Instead of picking emails to bits, surely all the ‘skeptic’ side have to do is come up with evidence disproving the warming”

    You do know this is a strawman argument, right?
    You do know what a strawman argument is, right?

  547. wayne says:

    Man, how could I have left Obama and his administration from my list of culprits above! Must be because he such a late comer in this fiasco, but he was given it all lock, stock and barrel, so put him in there near the very top. ☺

  548. Jimmy Haigh says:

    No #1635 has Phil Jones upset at an article on the BBC website by Dr Martin Keeley.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4066189.stm

    date: Tue Dec 7 16:23:04 2004
    from: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxx
    subject: Re: FYI
    to: trenbert@xxxx

    Kevin,
    Wasn't rung about this one !
    What an utter load of rubbish. He should go back to the oil company who pays his
    salary. He should take the logic course he says we should go on. Claims climate
    can't be predicted (as the weather can't) and we can't modify the climate anyway,
    but wait for it (!) we should accept it's going to change – abandon Holland, shift
    Mediterranean crops to N. Europe ! Doesn't seem to consider modelling the climate
    to try and say when it might happen, so we can plan !

    Should be working for the Bush govt, with this sort of logic !

    Phil

  549. Bill Parsons says:

    Somehow, AGW’s trillion dollar heist seems a whole lot less threatening. It would be sad, really, if the perps hadn’t already bilked so much out of so many.

  550. Dave Wendt says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 4:59 pm
    Dave Wendt says:
    A physicist says: “A terrific example is the article in the November Notices of the American Mathematical Society, by Chen, Laane, Wheeler, and Zhang, titled ‘Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective.’”
    Just found your cite. In the first paragraph came upon this” ”The molecules of these gases trap heat in the form of infrared radiation, causing the atmospheric temperature to rise. But which molecules are the greenhouse gases, and just how do they trap heat?”

    Not a hopeful start.Take courage & read further, Dave … the plot thickens! :)

    Not too quick on the uptake are we? You give yourself the moniker “A physicist”, then show up here pimping this wonderful piece of scientific explication that begins with the above and goes on through some really “fascinating” mathematics to their “Concluding Remarks” where they slip in this beauty

    “We have only touched lightly on the greenhouse gas methane here. But methane (the key ingredient of natural gas) could be a much more worrisome greenhouse gas as it can trap
    much more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide does.”

    Greenhouse gas molecules “trap heat”? That’s really what you want to hang your hat on? “A physicist”? Sound’s to me more like “A pharmacist” sitting around dreading the next time the authorities show up to check his inventory of psychotropics.

  551. Allen says:

    ‘Instead of picking emails to bits, surely all the ‘skeptic’ side have to do is come up with evidence disproving the warming…”
    The temperature record does not support the “hockey stick” hypothesis of AGW. If it did, the Inuit would be wearing shorts outside year round. Instead they are getting ice roads for winter. Again.

    Natural climate variability is a hypothesis borne out by data representing hundreds of millenia. This is the more convincing hypothesis for those who know science and not the political advocacy / pseudoscience known as “The Cause”.

  552. Al Gorelioni says:

    Absolutely priceless.

    Once again the financial and corporate interests of the globalists in manipulating climate data have been exposed. Why are these “scientists” still in their jobs? Anywhere else they would be sacked long ago. Someone is desperate for the global warming agenda to be rolled out.

  553. Kozlowski says:

    The Readme file used unusual notation for the separation of thousands. Most countries use a comma but in the file it was a decimal point. So whomever was the originator of this file, the Readme file, might possible have come from one of these countries.

    http://www.statisticalconsultants.co.nz/weeklyfeatures/WF31.html

    Here is a list of countries that use a decimal point for separation of digits:

    Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Sweden.

    Not that I would want to out the person. They are doing a tremendous service for the integrity of science. Why should *any* of this ever have been hidden away from us? It all needs to see the light of day.

  554. Eve Stevens says:

    5333
    It is hard to find evidence of a drastic warming of the Arctic.
    It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban
    areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase in
    temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole are is urbanised
    So, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring temperature increase because of increased human release of CO2. In fact, the warming seems to be limited to densely populated areas. The often mentioned correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing. If there is a factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is
    solar irradiation. There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation
    but papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2
    release will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how
    expensive).
    You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and
    you need to have a basis, which you have not established. You seem to doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are
    very wrong. But of course there is a lot of variability and looking at
    one spot narrowly is not the way to see the big picture. In my mind, we have to accept that it is great if we can reduce the release of CO2 because we are using up a resource the earth will be short of in the future, but we are in error if we claims a global warming caused by CO2.
    Yours sincerely Wibjörn

  555. AndyG55 says:

    “Instead of picking emails to bits, surely all the ‘skeptic’ side have to do is come up with evidence disproving the warming”

    Matt, these emails pretty much point out that there was almost certainly NOTHING to disprove. !!

  556. David Falkner says:

    I haven’t checked the emails themselves yet, but is there anything in them about the science?

  557. Harry Won A BAgel says:

    I presume this is game, set and match. It would be in a rational world. Also in a rational world some of these people would be facing gaol time.

  558. crosspatch says:

    The Readme file used unusual notation for the separation of thousands.

    What’s Julian Assange doing these days? Isn’t this whole thing about releasing an encrypted file sans passphrase along his MO?

  559. A physicist says:
    A physicist says: “A terrific example is the article in the November Notices of the American Mathematical Society, by Chen, Laane, Wheeler, and Zhang, titled ‘Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective.’”

    Dave Wendt says: Greenhouse gas molecules “trap heat”? That’s really what you want to hang your hat on? “A physicist”? Sound’s to me more like “A pharmacist” sitting around dreading the next time the authorities show up to check his inventory of psychotropics.

    Gee Dave, your remark surprises me, considering that the infrared resonances responsible for greenhouse heat-trapping are thoroughly reviewed on pages 1425-6 and pages 1430-1 of the article cited.

    Most scientists think these theories have been pretty solidly validated over the past 180 years — one might even call this view a “consensus.” Certainly these authors don’t mind exposing their greenhouse gas analysis methods to the critical review of the AMS, whose members comprise the largest and technically strongest body of professional mathematicians in the world.

    This must mean … the AMS mathematicians are one-and-all of them … witches!!!  :)   :)   :)

  560. Jeff C says:

    Seems pretty likely “a physicist” is our old friend TCO. I don’t think he’s been around since he showed up as “scientist” over at CA a few months back.

  561. pat says:

    Samenow says nothing to see here!

    Washington Post Capital Weather Gang Blog
    Posted at 06:39 PM ET, 11/22/2011
    Climategate 2.0: Do new emails undermine global warming science?
    By Jason Samenow
    The “new” emails (not new in that they are from 2009 and earlier) – while trumpeted by some climate skeptics as “spectacular” and draining life from the manmade global warming movement – mean little substantively from a scientific standpoint, just like the set that preceded them.
    The climate skeptic blogosphere has been quick to cherry pick certain snippets from the emails they claim show dissension within the climate science ranks, perhaps to demonstrate scientists may express more doubt about their confidence in the science in private than they do in public…
    And they’ve pointed to emails where a scientist discusses ways to avoid releasing data, suggesting he has something to hide…BLAH BLAH
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/climategate-20-do-new-emails-undermine-global-warming-science/2011/11/22/gIQArptGmN_blog.html

    Jason Samenow: Center for Climate Change Communicati George Mason University
    by Kevin Rosseel
    Climate Change Division (formerly Division’s Communications Director)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Jason Samenow is an environmental scientist working in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Change Division in Washington, DC. A meteorologist by training, with degrees from the University of Virginia and the University of Wisconsin, Mr. Samenow has worked tirelessly in 2009 – and for almost a decade – to use communications as an effective tool to combat climate change.
    Among the activities in which Mr. Samenow has been a leader in 2009 are participation and sometimes management of the federal Communications Interagency Working group of the U.S. Global Change Research Program – see http://globalchange.gov/. His tireless efforts on behalf of promoting coherent and consistent climate messaging from federal agencies has been a remarkable contribution to making science intelligible to U.S. and international citizens at all levels, general and technical.
    http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/Jason.cfm

  562. Mac the Knife says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
    “That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That.”

    You empty bandwaggoning, bloviating git! I grew up farming. Done and still do a lot of fishing and hunting, as well. I hold 2 engineering degrees and have worked as an engineer and scientist for +24 years. Yes – I’ve done the things you just talk about. I and many folks like me reject the tragically flawed, criminally bastardized, and scientifically unsupported hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming. We reject similarly impaired folks like you, that spout ad hom attacks while providing nothing of merit to the discussion. We know crap when we see it being shoveled and smell it. Comes, in part, from growing up on a farm…..

  563. pat says:

    Bob Ward says nothing to see here:

    23 Nov: Independent UK: Michael McCarthy: Climategate erupts again ahead of key summit
    More hacked emails between researchers released in apparent bid to destabilise conference
    But climate experts asserted that they did nothing to undermine global warming science. “The emails… do not raise any questions of substance that have not already been addressed by the independent inquiries into the original publication of hacked messages in November 2009,” said Bob Ward at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.
    “None of the inquiries found evidence of fraud or serious misconduct by climate researchers, but they did conclude that levels of transparency should be improved. These emails, like the last batch, show that climate researchers are human and prone to the same rivalries and disputes that occur in many professions.”..
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climategate-erupts-again-ahead-of-key-summit-6266361.html

  564. David A. Evans says:

    Not read all the comments so this has probably already been mentioned. The reference to Judith Curry indicates this is a new set of emails.
    We’re talking at least one seriously peed off sysop here!

  565. DR says:

    @ physicist
    Now we know who Al Gore employed to do his “heat trapping” glass jar experiment.

    BTW physicist, just where is that missing hot spot?

  566. David Ball says:

    I love the “Yawn” posts on here when there is a 350 car pile up going on behind them. Who are they trying to kid?

  567. David Falkner says:

    http://www.yourvoicematters.org/cru/mailsearch.php

    Searchable database here.

    REPLY: Thats Climategate 1, not 2.0 – Anthony

  568. pat says:

    safer for the MSM to publish on Blogs!

    22 Nov: ABC America Nature & Environment Blog: Ned Potter: ‘Climategate 2.0′? Or Just Nasty Climate Politics?
    On the other hand, Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, writes on RealClimate.org, “Very little appears to be new in this batch. Indeed, even the out-of-context quotes aren’t that exciting, and are even less so in-context.”…
    And there is this from the University of East Anglia itself:
    …“As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context…
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/climategate-2-0-or-just-nasty-climate-politics/

    previous articles by “climate” hack Ned:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Author/Ned_Potter

  569. David Falkner says:

    Crap, nevermind, these are the old ones! I was fooled by the fact that today’s date was on it. Apologies.

  570. Dave Wendt says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    Gee Dave, your remark surprises me, considering that the infrared resonances responsible for greenhouse heat-trapping are thoroughly reviewed on pages 1425-6 and pages 1430-1 of the article cited.

    Most scientists think these theories have been pretty solidly validated over the past 180 years — one might even call this view a “consensus.” Certainly these authors don’t mind exposing their greenhouse gas analysis methods to the critical review of the AMS, whose members comprise the largest and technically strongest body of professional mathematicians in the world.

    This must mean … the AMS mathematicians are one-and-all of them … witches!!! :) :) :)

    What in your understanding is the residence time of a photon of infrared energy emitted from the earth which is absorbed by a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere? There are number of physicists among the community of commentors here. How about we do a short poll? How many of you guys or your colleagues in the physics community would use “heat trapping” as an analogy of what occurs in the radiative forcing that is supposedly the basis of the CAGW conjecture?

  571. crosspatch says:

    I have been fascinated with the emails pertaining to i.harris@uea.ac.uk

  572. Ron Cram says:

    MattN says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:00 pm
    Pepsi shot out my nose on this one:

    Haimberger:

    It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
    in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
    remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
    ——————-

    I hope Jon Stewart runs that on the Daily Show! That is high comedy to anyone who understands the lingo.

  573. pat says:

    Revkin is shameless, and he already has a newer thread above his Climategate 2.0 thread called “Dot Shot: Hong Kong Haul of Smuggled Rhino Horn and Ivory”, demoting the new email release in his mind, no doubt:

    22 Nov: Andrew C. Revkin: Another Treaty Negotiation, Another Batch of Climate Science E-Mail
    9:42 p.m. | Updated
    Talk about getting ahead of the news. There have already been pre-emptive posts by climate campaigners warning journalists not to be fooled into seeing news in a freshly revealed batch of what appear to be old e-mail exchanges among climate scientists. The material swiftly spread around the Web sites of climate doubt purveyors and energy stasists early today.
    Joe Romm’s headline began, “Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice, Shame on the Media.”
    Jocelyn Fong of Media Matters put it this way:
    The question is: will mainstream media outlets allow themselves to be made part of a campaign to distract the public from the big picture on climate change? Or will they fulfill their responsibilities as journalists? Looks like we’ll find out if they’ve learned their lesson to research first, then report.
    What these activists forget is that the first time around there was news. The contents of the files did raise questions. The questions were answered.
    In the meantime, Anthony Watts, perhaps desperate for a new raison d’être now that the relevance of his weather station investigations into global warming have evaporated, described the e-mail trove this way: “They’re real and they’re spectacular!”…
    I still stand by what I wrote in August of 2010:
    Do I trust climate science? As a living body of intellectual inquiry exploring profoundly complex questions, yes…
    [9:50 p.m. | Updated | Interviewed for the news story in The Times tonight, Raymond S. Bradley, a climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, said that criticisms he made in one e-mail of a particular past paper by Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist now at the University of Pennsylvania, had no bearing on his confidence in the basic body of science pointing to substantial human-driven warming:
    “I did not like that paper at all, and I stand by that, and I am sure that I told Mike that” at the time, he said. But he added that a disagreement over a single paper had little to do with the overall validity of climate science. “There is no doubt we have a big problem with human-induced warming,” Dr. Bradley said. “Mike’s paper has no bearing on the fundamental physics of the problem that we are facing.” Read the rest.]
    It’s also important to keep in mind how little of significance the first batch of e-mails and other material contained…
    Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the scientific integrity program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a news release that the new incident was a good reminder to British law enforcement agencies to “redouble their efforts to find the criminals who are behind” the initial release of the douments. “To do otherwise sends a message that freedom of expression will only selectively be protected.”
    Of course, the first step — after two years and counting — is for the Norfolk Constabulary (as I’ve written here before) to decide whether a crime was committed in the first place…
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/a-new-batch-of-climate-e-mail-surfaces-ahead-of-treaty-talks/

    ——————————————————————————–

  574. The blogger who calls himself “A physicist” claims that “America’s scientists have been pretty much right-on-target for eighteen decades in a row …” (Nov. 22, 2011 at 11:52 am). This claim is false on at least four counts. First, the implication that America’s scientists are unanimous in their opinion is wrong by reference to postings on blogs such as this one. Second, the implication that the subset of “scientists” supporting the anthropogenic global warming conjecture are indeed scientists is false, for these “scientists” have failed to frame their conjecture in a manner in which it is refutable by by comparison of the predicted to the observed outcomes of statistical events, thus placing this conjecture outside the realm of science and inside the realm of dogmatism. Third, the HADCRUT3 global temperature time series extends backward in time only 161 years; in climatology, the canonical duration of a statistical event is 30 years not the 1 year that is implied by “A physicist.” Thus, the 161 year period contains no more than 161 divided by 30, rounded to the next lowest integer or 5 events; the “scientists” can have been right in at most 5 events not 18. Fourth, whether the “scientists” were right is indeterminate in view of the fact that the models of these “scientists” did not make predictions; they made “projections” but unlike a prediction, a projection is irrefutable by the definition of terms.

  575. Lee says:

    Release all the emails, whats with this crap encryption.
    release it all or else its just crap.

    Sorry, as it stands, couldnt care less anymore…
    Release it all or else I state to everyone ‘load of hogwash’. Actually I already do this now, anybody that deliberately limits the release of information is not to be trusted or given the time of day.

    Cheers.
    Lee.

  576. David Falkner says:

    crosspatch says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    Are there any from Mick Kelly or Nguyen Nuu Hinh?

    m.kelly@uea.ac.uk

    cered@hn.vnn.vn

  577. Ron Cram says:

    Did everyone catch this bit from the end of the README file?

    Jones:

    [FOI, temperature data]
    Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
    get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
    Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
    station data.

  578. Can’t be happier than I am right this minute thinking of all of this coming out right on DURBAN. These lying swines have had their fun – now it is our turn. Thanks for all the great work being done…..

  579. Ron Cram says:

    Lee, I think this release a little bit at a time thing is following the Saul Alinsky strategy of “drip, drip, drip.” It keeps it in the news cycle longer. The more they draw it out, the more painful it is to UEA. It is kind of like holding something over your opponent’s head and trying to take their will to fight.

    I’m not sure it is a bad strategy. It appears whoever this deep cover agent is has a plan and is a very patient person.

  580. crosspatch says:

    Bunch pertaining to Mick Kelly, one pertaining to “Nguyen Nuu Hinh”

  581. Ron Cram says:

    When is someone going to put these emails into a searchable format online? I can’t wait to run a few keywords!

  582. Jeff C says:

    Charlie Martin at PJ Media outed A physicist was long ago. It’s in the comments of this thread:
    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/09/24/cain-what-happened-in-florida/

  583. crosspatch says:

    $ less 0062.txt
    date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000
    from: “Mick Kelly”
    subject: NOAA funding
    to: Nguyen Huu Ninh

    —-boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_-
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″

    Ninh
    NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
    How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the
    trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
    Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
    Best wishes
    Mick

  584. David Falkner says:

    I ask because he is involved in some interesting stuff in the first batch. To wit:

    From: Mick Kelly
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: RE: Global temperature
    Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

    Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
    to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
    longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
    might expect from La Nina etc.

    Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
    Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
    give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
    and the recent cold-ish years.

    Also:

    From: “Mick Kelly”
    To: Nguyen Huu Ninh
    Subject: NOAA funding
    Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000

    —-boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_-
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″

    Ninh
    NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
    How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
    Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
    Best wishes
    Mick

    Is there anyone that knows of someone creating a webpage with a search engine function like the one I mistakenly linked to?

  585. philincalifornia says:

    Ron Cram says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:49 pm
    MattN says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:00 pm
    Pepsi shot out my nose on this one:

    Haimberger:

    It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
    in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
    remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
    ——————-

    I hope Jon Stewart runs that on the Daily Show! That is high comedy to anyone who understands the lingo.
    ============================

    Might be similar comedy for A Physicist to explain it.

    ….. or maybe for him to show us the difference between radiative forcing of 280 ppm of CO2 and 30,000 ppm of water vapor vs. 392 ppm of CO2 and 30,000 ppm of water vapor in the oceanic tropics below 2 kilometers altitude.

    Cue a response with no mathematics in it, just links and appeals to “authority”.

  586. Mann Bearpig says:

    So we have;

    Global Warming
    Climate Change
    Weather Weirding
    The Cause

  587. TedK says:

    Sure looks like turkeys simmered in their own bastings to me. :> My guess is that these burnt birds will be having trouble digesting their stuffing this Thaksgiving weekend. So sad. Couldn’t have happened to a badder bunch of snake oil swillers. A large helping of indigestion all around for those exposed author turkeys.

    Let’s see, FIOA2011 (Yeah! Hurrah!) released the first bunch of emails and torpedoed Copenhagen.

    The climate racketeers snubbed the release and kept pressing for CAGW funds to be pulled from the mouths of the world’s poor (and almost poor).

    So FOIA released a second batch of emails, just before the climate faithful meet in Durban and again try to ram CAGW regulatories through.

    This time FOIA left a huge maybe sitting on the shelf. Can one say the nuke option? Now most rational people would recognize overwhelming force when they see it, especially if they are responsible for many of the emails. Does anyone know any rational CAGW climate hucksters?

    Snippets of emails does allow claims of “out of context”. However, the nuke option on the shelf just might have entire email threads; and those complete threads will make it much easier to determine “intent”. It’s a shame that FOIA (as far as we know) doesn’t have some of the American mail boxes; those complete email exchanges would be very entertaining.

  588. David Falkner says:

    Ok, there are definitely duplicates in the second batch then. Is it even a second batch? The original set of emails had 6 from Mick Kelly and one to Ninh.

  589. Anthony says:

    Well the tax is in and at the end of the day (Psalms 118:8) It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. God is incharge.

  590. wayne says:

    Eve Stevens says:
    November 22, 2011 at 8:49 pm
    5333
    ______________________________

    Eve, the way you put that text without divisions threw me at first… just spent the time to dig up that e-mail and read top to bottom. Quite interesting, probably would have never made it that far down the email list to ever have read it. It is especially amazing how trivially Trenberth tries to put Wibjörn, a geology professor evidentially, in his place by claiming “You seem to doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas…” which is not at least what Wibjörn had laid out in great sensible detail through his e-mail. It’s like Trenberth saying—YOU MY DEAR SIR ARE A DENIER.

    But what Wibjörn presented make IPCC a bald face liar.

    I recommend all to dig that e-mail up at some time, 5333, and read it completely. (watch for the ‘>>’ being Wibjörn speaking and ‘>’ when usually Trenberth is replying, but not always)

    Just shows you just how pompous these clown gods of AGW can be. There is no reason they should be receiving public funds of any kind with such attitudes. Not a single penny.

    UAE and Boulder Colorado, without them both this world would be a whole lot saner.

  591. Danielle Westerbank says:

    What is astonishing is that these emails seem to have less to do with manipulating science than the first set did….
    And this is proof of something?
    Ok.

  592. P Wilson says:

    Interersting.

    The Cause = made up dogma, possible bearing no relation to reality

    At least labels such as “global warming, climate change, climate disruption”, give the impression of a pretense to objectivity

  593. PositivePaul says:

    the politicians go by the information given them from the IPCC – the Gillard Brown Carbon Tax is much like the bloke in old B & W movies wearing a sign that reads “The End Is Nigh” and we look but at the same time know that the ignorance of the dark past has still not left us. Church and State still believes it has total power over us – but the masses are now learning what they are not supposed to know and the light is on – and it’s not powered by windmills but by enlightenment.

  594. Robbo says:

    @ Venkman says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:04 am

    2368

    “…With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
    numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics.”

    Nice catch. Now we know why the enquiries never asked Jones if he deleted emails.
    The task ahead is to parse the ‘Team’ responses to and enquiry evidence about Climategate 1 emails against the further background now revealed.

    In the markets, they say “When the tide goes it it shows who’s been bathing naked”. The Climate tide is now going out (again).

  595. Craig Stone says:

    Hello folks

    I have published a searchable database of the emails at http://foia2011.org

    All email addresses and phone numbers are automatically redacted. It’s extremely rudimentary right now, but I’ll be refining the functionality and improving the search capabilities and navigation over the course of the next week.

  596. Steve B says:

    Excerpt from #5323

    3. After “The Ten” have signed on, we need an enthusiastic
    organization to carry out the time-consuming task of collecting as
    many signatures of scientists in Europe as possible, so that we can
    say “1,865 European scientists, including (the prominent ten) have
    signed a Statement that says .. and so forth”. I don’t think that
    either you or Rob or I have the time to do this. For the American
    statement this job was done by an organization called “Redefining
    Progress”. Perhaps for us it could be WWF. What do you think.

  597. Ron Manley says:

    Could the statement in the ‘readme.txt’ file be the password?

  598. Roger Knights says:

    And the response of the second Michael Mann, to the Guardian today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails) is textbook paranoia. He describes the person/people who released the latest batch of CRU emails as: “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry …”

    And they stole his strawberries too!

  599. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Danielle Westerbank says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:56 pm

    Danielle. You remind me of the story of Louis Armstrong, when he was asked what jazz was, replied: “Lady? If you gotta ask, you just ain’t got it”.

  600. crosspatch says:

    I find one of the emails pertaining to Rob Swart fairly interesting. Seems he is really interesting in getting the correct “spin” on things and cranking up the alarmism. e.g. 4957.txt

  601. crosspatch says:

    Actually, I find many of the emails pertaining to Rob Swart interesting, as he seems to be pretty much completely concerned with spinning things in a political sense. Looks like he is good for “the cause”.

  602. petermue says:

    I like the WP comments:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/climategate-20-do-new-emails-undermine-global-warming-science/2011/11/22/gIQArptGmN_blog.html

    Or, as MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel said in an essay published by the National Association of Scholars, the emails demonstrated scientists being human, frankly discussing the quality of their peers’ work, usually nobly but with the occasional lapse:

    … the emails in question were semi-private correspondence among scientists …

    Semi-private… LOL
    Sounds like semi-pregnant, or semi-dead… or semi-truth.

  603. Larry in Texas says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am

    I wonder who this troll really is. If you want open and honest intellectual debate, tell us who you really are and where stands your affiliation.

    As for the so-called “Conservative War on Science,” I have to laugh at the observation. I know a lot of engineers and scientists, many of whom have posted artfully on this website (and no, mr. physicist, there has been little – if any – cherry-picking, slogan-shouting, or witch-hunting among them), who are quite legitimately concerned about the state of science in general and climate science in particular, and the fact that there are a number of people in government who seem to want to control not only the process, but the results. The conservative war is not on science itself, simply bad science and bogus science put to political ends. You, on the other hand, seem to have sold out for a mess of porridge.

    The claim that conservatives “war” upon science is just another bogus ploy by those who seek to place control of everyday life on the planet in the hands of a relatively few technocrats and bureaucrats, rather than ordinary people. I tire of egos like yourself, mr. physicist, who claim to know better than I how I should live. Enough! Mr. physicist, you are a dunderhead.

  604. PositivePaul says:

    Getting paid to officially falsify the records must attract some kind of penalty surely. So which courtroom do we approach? The ABC or The Australian?

  605. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    Roger Knights says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    And they stole his strawberries too!
    <<

    The mental image this gives me is of Captain Queeg clicking those steel balls in his hand.

    Jim

  606. Spector says:

    RE: Dave Wendt says: (November 22, 2011 at 9:42 pm)
    “What in your understanding is the residence time of a photon of infrared energy emitted from the earth which is absorbed by a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere? There are number of physicists among the community of commentors here. How about we do a short poll? How many of you guys or your colleagues in the physics community would use “heat trapping” as an analogy of what occurs in the radiative forcing that is supposedly the basis of the CAGW conjecture?”

    The following diagram would seem to indicate that CO2 has a relatively minor role in radiative forcing. I see a primary CO2 hole at about 667 kayzers (cycles per centimeter, cm-¹) that occupies about ten percent of the bandwidth and a minor ozone hole at 1111 kayzers, but curiously, no holes due to H2O–the primary greenhouse gas in the lower troposphere.

    Comparison of Radiative Forcing for 300 PPM and 600 PPM
    Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in the Atmosphere.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png

  607. Jimbo says:

    Yes!

    Most of us suspected there were more emails due to the language used in the first release. Our suspicions have been confirmed. Are there still more?

    Cue Lord Oxburgh and whitewash team 2.0. ;O)

  608. Patrick Davis says:

    “Dave Wendt says:
    November 22, 2011 at 9:42 pm”

    Exactly! This is one question no alarmist I have asked has been able to answer.

  609. Robert says:

    There’s no “Conservative War on Science” but there sure is a “progressive” war on truth.

  610. smr says:

    #666
    > > I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having
    > >nothing more to do with it until they
    > > rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the
    > >editorial board, but papers
    > > get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Phil

  611. Mike Jonas says:

    Some material has apparently been removed from UEA computers, and is now held privately by Jones and Briffa. Surely that does not put it out of range of FOI – perhaps someone needs to get an FOI application in pronto. (It should of course be sufficient for UEA to be alerted to the fact that material that belongs to them has been removed, thus causing them to retrieve it, but somehow I suspect it would not happen quite like that.)

  612. Jim Masterson says:

    >>
    Larry in Texas says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:26 am

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am

    I wonder who this troll really is.
    <<

    His first post was so content free, that the “bot” claim seemed to hold some merit. However, his later posts seem more troll-like than bot-like. I think he may have been Irwin Allen’s science advisor for the TV series “Lost in Space.” One of my favorite “Lost in Space” robot nonsense quotes is:

    “Warning! The craft is surrounded by a force field in the fifth dimension, which is mathematically impossible.”

    Doesn’t this sound just like “A physicist?”

    Jim

  613. wayne says:

    After reading through a hundred or so emails, what stands out the most is that all of IPCC’s thousands of pages is nothing but sophisticated curve-fitting on a grandiose scale, with hundreds of instigators busily filling it, and very crafty I must add. But seems the people guiding this wagon, giving the orders, is always UCAR, NCAR or UEA. Why? Why do these entities have such ultimate power?

    Of this fitting, I don’t want to imply proper curve fitting, as improper as that is per proper science, but curve fitting to match a preconceived warming trend. If it doesn’t go up, that’s a bad model run and clearly needs further adjustments of course. And what you take away after reading all of this is… this is nuts! this is not science, not even close.

    For instance, in 0851 it is says:

    Tmax = A + B ln(S)

    which implies odd results for very low sensitivity. Instead, I have fitted
    a relationship of the form

    Tmax = A [S**n]

    which gives Tmax = 0 when S = 0.

    That’s right, that will fix it, now let’s just pick and choose different equations of all things to fit. That takes the cake and you should get my message. You keep seeing this type of subtle fiddling and fitting scattered everywhere within the words in these e-mails. Sometimes it is even picking-and-choosing entire peer-reviewed papers to support some other related relationship fit the cause, always picked for the warmest results. See some of Phil Jones emails.

    Should make any real scientist sick. I have kept skeptical of other skeptics on this very matter but now I see what they have saying all along. Yes, sorry to be harsh, but, that’s all IPCC reports are, fancy ‘scientific’ trash. Can’t trust a bit of it, they are contaminated by the methods, but not necessarily the data.

  614. Robert Clemenzi says:

    from Phil Jones Tue, 16 Nov 1999

    I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
    to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

  615. Michael says:

    I just had to chime in on this joy’s occasion after seeing the initial report on Drudge.

    Tis the season;
    Christmas by Heineken – Let It Snow / Best ad

  616. Bulldust says:

    Ironically that episode of Seinfeld is playing as a rerun in Australia tonight (The Implant). Correlation does not prove causation of course.

  617. Michael says:

    This thread will definitely go over 1,000 comments.

  618. Corey S. says:

    This would be interesting to McI:
    http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA/mail/2274.txt
    From: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD)
    Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:16 PM
    To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
    Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD)
    Subject: RE: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69]
    Hi Dave,
    We all just had a very good laugh at Phil’s comment “We do sometime ignore the
    Registry advice”… If this is going to have the kind of publicity that you
    suggest, I would prefer if you do not quote ANY of his answer to question 1.
    The UEA actually has a very strict policy on entering into confidentiality
    agreements, however as Phil so blithely admits, a handful of academics take it
    upon themselves to foul things up!
    As you will note from points 1 & 2 of our policy; no UEA employee, except
    members of our office, has the right to sign anything on behalf of the
    university – the problem is that funders/other parties can be sneaky by
    sending the agreement in the name of the academic.
    Our policy is:-
    Someone from the Commercialisation & Enterprise Team should approve and sign
    all Confidentiality Agreements:
    only our staff have the legal authority to sign agreements on behalf of the
    University
    all agreements should be between the University of East Anglia and the party
    requesting the agreement (not an individual academic or school)
    we will negotiate with the other party on any issues within the document that
    may be contentious
    by doing this we will ensure you the best protection of your IP rights
    (In special circumstances, authorisation may be obtained from the
    Commercialisation & Enterprise Team allowing you to sign the agreement
    yourself. Such authorisation must always be obtained in advance, will only be
    valid for a specific instance, and the standard university agreement must be
    used without amendment – unless we have authorised an amendment)
    In all cases, a copy of the fully signed confidentiality agreement must be
    retained in our office.
    FYI – we are currently finishing off the final touches to our new intranet
    pages – there will be a page on CDA’s with this info on it.
    Also, I am away on holiday next week (10th -14th), so if you do any more info
    on our policy regarding agreements etc, please contact Anne Donaldson, one of
    our Commercialisation Managers ([3]a.donaldson@uea.ac.uk).
    Thanks
    Matt.

  619. Michael says:

    You people on WUWT may not know it, but you destroyed the third leg of the hypothetical power stool of the new world order.

  620. phil says:

    TEAM AT WORK: Fri, 11 Jul 2003: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5271

    > At 07:51 04/07/REDACTEDTom Wigley wrote:
    > >Mike (Mann),
    > >I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what
    > >would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell
    > >people to avoid the journal?
    > >Tom.

    > >Michael E. Mann wrote:
    > >>Thanks Mike
    > >>It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and
    > >>he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we
    > >>have to go above him.
    > >>I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in
    > >>this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all
    > >>levels–reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way
    > >>into oblivion and disrepute,
    > >>Thanks,
    > >>mike

  621. TrevorG says:

    #4039
    So, that’s how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC record on the last millennium!
    > 4. Ray Bradley sent this text:
    >
    > I believe this graph originated in a (literally) grey piece of
    > literature that Jack Eddy used to publish called “Earth Quest”. It
    > was designed for, and distributed to, high school teachers. In one
    > issue, he had a fold-out that showed different timelines, Cenozoic,
    > Quaternary, last 100ka, Holocene, last millennium, last century etc.
    > The idea was to give non-specialists a perspective on the earth’s
    > climate history. I think this idea evolved from the old NRC
    > publication edited by L. Gates, then further elaborated on by Tom Webb
    > in the book I edited for UCAR, /Global Changes of the Past/. (This
    > was an outcome of the wonderful Snowmass meeting Jack master-minded
    > around 1990).
    >
    > I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I
    > recall getting a fax from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked
    > me to review. Where he got his version from, I don’t know. I think I
    > scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some way, but have no
    > recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it
    > further, I don’t know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to
    > go through ~1950) perhaps it’s not so bad. I note, however, that in
    > the more colourful version of the much embellished graph that Stefan
    > circulated (
    > http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
    > the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different
    > spin on things. They also seem to have fabricated a scale for the
    > purported temperature changes. In any case, the graph has no
    > objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a “visual guess” at what
    > happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for
    > some overly persistent inquisitor….. (so make sure you don’t leave
    > such things on the table…).
    >
    > What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris
    > Folland must have seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter
    > he was editing. I don’t think he gave a citation and it thus appeared
    > to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having submitted a great deal of
    > text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that Chris
    > essentially ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the
    > paleoclimate record in that volume.
    >
    > There are other examples of how Jack Eddy’s grey literature
    > publication was misused. In a paper in /Science/ by Zielinski et al.
    > (1994) [v.264, p.448-452]–attached– they reproduced [in Figure 1c] a
    > similarly schematic version of Holocene temperatures giving the
    > following citation, “Taken from J. A. Eddy and R. S. Bradley,
    > Earth-quest 5 (insertREDACTEDas modified from J. T. Houghton, G. J.
    > Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Climate Change, The IPCC Scientific
    > Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeREDACTED
    > But I had nothing to do with that one!
    >
    > So, that’s how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC
    > record on the last millennium!

  622. Michael says:

    Hide the Decline

  623. Jockdownsouth says:

    Richard Black’s BBC article is now open for comments. Guardianistas have been swarming all over it using terms such as “contrarians”, “neocon political activists”, “evil Murdoch Corporation”, “nutters”, “Climategate conspirators” etc. Any comment which is even mildly sceptical has been marked down.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15846886#dna-comments

  624. MrV says:

    Just when you were hoping to get a break (rest) Anthony …

  625. Alec, aka Daffy Duck says:

    Here’s a gem! Love the way Phil closes this email, “This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!” LOL!!!!

    Mike, Ray, Caspar,

    REDACTEDA couple of things – don’t pass on either.
    REDACTEDHave seen you’re RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way to go,
    but it will drum up some discussion.
    Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the
    SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The first of these will appear
    in Nature on May 29. There should be a News and Views item with this article
    by Dick Reynolds. The paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now (or since
    about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low. This likely won’t
    get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase confidence.
    Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1 deg C too cool
    globally. Issue is that the preponderance of drifters now (which measure SST
    better but between 0.1 and 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low
    relative to the ship-basedREDACTEDbase.
    This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their runs
    was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc.
    There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can’t
    even measure it properly now.
    The 1940s/50s problem with SSTs (the May 29 paper) also means there will be
    warmer SSTs for about 10 years. This will move the post-40s cooling to a little
    later – more in line with higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late 50s and 1960s70s.
    The paper doesn’t provide a correction. This will come, but will include the addition
    of loads more British SSTs for WW2, which may very slightly cool the WW2 years.
    More British SST data have also been digitized for the late 1940s. Budget
    constraints mean that only about half the RN log books have been digitized. Emphasis
    has been given to the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean log books.
    As an aside, it is unfortunate that there are few in the Pacific. They have digitized
    all the logbooks of the ships journeys from the Indian Ocean south of Australia and NZ
    to Seattle for refits. Nice bit of history here – it turns out that most of the ships
    are
    US ones the UK got under the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in early 1940. All the RN bases
    in South Africa, India and Australia didn’t have parts for these ships for a few years.
    So the German group would be stupid to take your bet. There is a likely
    ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing!
    REDACTEDYou can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but
    this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim
    have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way
    around this.
    I can’t wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix showing what
    that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on.
    The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern Report.

    This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
    Cheers
    Phil
    Prof. Phil Jones

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=231

  626. dave ward says:

    The story gets a mention in the local Norwich newspapers this morning. The same could not be said for the original leak, which barely got a mention, and even then not for several days.

    http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/more_emails_posted_in_climategate_row_involving_university_of_east_anglia_in_norwich_1_1134073
    http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/more_emails_posted_in_climategate_row_involving_university_of_east_anglia_in_norwich_1_1134073

  627. David L says:

    This gang, referred to as “The Team”, are unbelievable. I spent many years as a successful academic researcher (defined by garnering grants and publishing papers) and I guarantee you that if someone hacked mine and my colleague’s e-mails, you wouldn’t see anything like this. We did our research and published our findings. There was no threatening reviewers, stacking the review process, ousting editors, claiming one thing in the e-mails yet publishing another thing in the peer review. Having lived in that world I do understand the culture…and there are some “funny” things going on in general (relative to non-academic culture), but the “The Team” are really a gang of thugs. It’s evident in these e-mails and I don’t think there’s a context to justify it.

    And now I work in Pharma where we have a records retention policy to delete various things at various times. However, if there’s legal action whole classes of e-mails and documents are not to be deleted under serious penalty. This is a private industry and our e-mails are open for search and seizure. These glorified public welfare recipients in academia think they are above all that? And they hide behing “context”???? Give me a break. Where there’s smoke there’s fire.

  628. MrV says:

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=788

    This shows how co-operative they are on reproducing data I think!

  629. MrV says:

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=10362

    Here is some Kiwi Cheerleaders.
    Mike appears on the TV authoritive like the pope apparently.

  630. David L says:

    wayne says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:32 am

    “After reading through a hundred or so emails, what stands out the most is that all of IPCC’s thousands of pages is nothing but sophisticated curve-fitting on a grandiose scale, with hundreds of instigators busily filling it, and very crafty I must add.”….

    I agree with you. I spent a lot of years fitting mathematical models to data. You can fit nearly unlimited numbers of mathematical models to any data set and get the same R-square. I always attempted to fit some fundamental principle or, if that was lacking, the simplest model possible. With the simplest model, this is only good for interpolating points within the fit. Unless fundamental science is known, you cannot extrapolate the trend outside the bounds of the fit. The problem is that the simple model fitting procedure is difficult or impossible to develop the sound underlying fundamental principles even though the quality of the fit looks tempting. Classic example is the ideal gas law, joining the two relationships of pressure to volume and temperature. These work on a small scale of values but break down at larger values. The fundamental physical relationships are simply not linear.

    You can fit their data to a series of sines and cosines, or even an nth degree polynomial and you’ll get an excellent fit to the current data…but it will also predict that the data will oscillate up and down in the future. I don’t see them applying those types of fits. Why not, cyclic behaviour would be expected in a climate system.

    The reliance of the Team’s “science” on these simple mathematic models to predict the future is grounds enough to call their science bogus. I scientifically don’t need to look any further honestly.

  631. Kevin Cave says:

    ~/Downloads/FOIA$ ../../rarcrack all.7z –threads 12 –type 7z
    RarCrack! 0.2 by David Zoltan Kedves (kedazo@gmail.com)

    INFO: the specified archive type: 7z
    INFO: cracking all.7z, status file: all.7z.xml
    Probing: ‘2Nm’ [4880 pwds/sec]
    Probing: ‘6B5′ [4871 pwds/sec]
    Probing: ‘aoR’ [4872 pwds/sec]
    Probing: ‘ecN’ [4876 pwds/sec]
    Probing: ‘i0Z’ [4881 pwds/sec]

    ;)

    This might take me a few trillion years, but I’ll tear this universe a new black hole if I have to find that password!

    (Actually, no, I’ll run it for a wee while and stop it – just having a bit of fun – I know there’s no chance of cracking this if it’s AES256 encrypted – even running this on my AMD Phenom 4-core beastie is like trying to break the Enigma code with an abacus – it can be done, but it’ll take a LONG time to do so. And by long, I mean, like never.)

    Tee hee.

  632. They’re tellin’ me the world is warmin’ up
    And my minivan’s part of the cause
    And the science is settled so it’s time for big change
    To our economy and our laws

    Well if the science is settled then tell me why their
    Computer models can’t agree
    And why the world’s cooled down for the past several years
    While they’re hidin’ their data from me

    Despite their erudition
    And academic pedigree
    The Best and the Brightest look instead
    Like a box of dim bulbs to me

    They’d put us in the soup lines over
    Parts-per-billion probabilities
    The Best and the Brightest look instead
    Like a box of dim bulbs to me …
    … Like a box of dim bulbs to me

  633. MrV says:

    Could this be the holy grail.
    Phil as the chairmen of alarmist selectors!
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=8447

  634. Andrew says:

    Ill bet that BEST used this data from Jones etc to invent current data RAW data was and will never be given as it shows no warming my bet anyway

  635. Corey S. says:

    According to Jones, the raw data isn’t destroyed either. After getting an email from Ben Santer, he says still has the 1980 data from DoE reports:
    http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA/mail/1192.txt
    cc: “Phil Jones” , “Ben Santer”
    date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:03:13 +0100 (BST)
    from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
    subject: Re: Your comments on the latest CEI/Michaels gambit
    to: “Rick Piltz”

    Rick,
    What you’ve put together seems fine from a quick read. I’m in Lecce in
    the heal of Italy till Tuesday. I should be back in the UK by
    Wednesday.

    The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what we
    had from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start
    with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete wate of
    time though. I may get around to it some time. As you’ve said, the
    documentation of what we’ve done is all in the literature.

    I think if it hadn’t been this issue, the CEI would have dreamt up
    something else!

    Cheers
    Phil

    > Phil and Ben–
    >
    > Thanks for writing. I appreciate very much what you’re saying.
    >
    > I’m going to be posting some entries on this matter on the Climate
    > Science Watch Web site. I’m sure others will weigh in on it in
    > various venues (Steve Schneider has supplied me with an on-the-record
    > quote), and I suppose that a more formal response by the relevant
    > scientists is likely eventually to become part of the EPA docket as
    > part of their rejection of the CEI petition. But that will drag on,
    > and meanwhile CEI and Michaels will demagogue their allegations, as
    > they do with everything. No way to prevent that. But I would like to
    > expedite documenting some immediate pushback, helping to set the
    > record straight and put what CEI and Michaels are up to in perspective.
    >
    > I have taken the liberty of editing what you wrote just a bit (and
    > adding some possible URL links and writing-out of acronyms), in the
    > hope that, with your permission and with any revisions or additions
    > you might care to make, we could post your comments. This requires
    > no clearance other than you and me. I would draft appropriate text to
    > provide context. Please take a look at this and RSVP:
    >
    > Ben’s comment:
    >
    > As I see it, there are two key issues here.
    >
    > First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels
    > are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the CRU [Climatic
    > Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK ] willfully,
    > intentionally, and suspiciously “destroyed” some of the raw surface
    > temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface
    > temperature datasets.
    >
    > Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
    > temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC “discernible
    > human influence” conclusions.
    >
    > Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no
    > intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that,
    > over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw
    > station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and
    > Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts
    > by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based
    > estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature.

  636. Andrew says:

    Over at dot.earth
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/a-new-batch-of-climate-e-mail-surfaces-ahead-of-treaty-talks/

    100 to 1 against Revkin article gave up and changed subject .To his credit he appeared to start to admit that perhaps the skeptics were right in this case anyway

  637. waterside4 says:

    CLIMATEGATE – ACT 2

    Please be seated for our stageshow
    We are about to start act two,
    Of the greatest farce in history
    Showing the corruption of the Cru;
    Let’s reprise the cast of actors
    For those who do not know the plot,
    The setting is East Anglia
    Where they have hit the grants jackpot.

    Here’s Professors Jones and Briffa
    Who helped invent the Hockey Stick,
    By manipulating data
    For Mike Manns Nature Trick;
    The Freedom of Information
    Was just a doddle to avoid,
    With connivance in high places
    And all the Fourth Estate on-side.

    But it does not stop in England
    We must now cross the ‘Warming’ pond,
    For this Hydra-headed monster
    Has spread its tentacles beyond;
    The accepted bounds of decency
    Upon which science once was found,
    Now it’s dependant on the dollar
    The worthless euro and the pound.

    Enter Trenbet and John Holdren
    Obama’s esteemed science Czar,
    The former – a well known boxer
    The latter holding views bizarre;
    Jonnie is a Malthusian
    Who would decide just who should breed,
    He’s also an Algorian
    Who spreads the Global Warming Creed.

    It’s just Act Two of Climategate
    There will be two more acts to see,
    We await the leading actor
    The Chairman of IPCC;
    He is cooking books in Durban
    Watts Up With That – for it is true?
    Our new Saviour of the Planet-
    From that vile poison Co2.

    Pat Healy

  638. markus says:

    Take this as a comment.
    How come when you post something on the Skeptical Science Blog that isn’t warmist, even if it is a balanced statement gets deleted, but on this blog all sides of the argument are aired?

  639. Gabby says:

    Exhibit A as to why the Original unedited Data is needed:

    ~ “I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. ”

    ~ “I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have”

    #3998

  640. pwl says:

    Dr. Michael Mann, wayward climate scientist not doing science but political games, now confirmed with his own incriminating email: “1485> Mann: the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.

    Evidently Mann’s Real Climate site is a political machine not a science site. Good to know. Thanks for this very important clear confirmation, Dr. Mann, of what we already suspected.

    http://foia2011.org/

  641. Harriet Harridan says:

    You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours….

    “Hi Phil,
    I hope things are going well these days, and that the recent round of attacks have died
    down. seems like some time since I’ve heard from you.
    Please see below: Gavin was wondering if there is any update in status on this?
    By the way, still looking into nominating you for an AGU award, I’ve been told that the
    Ewing medal wouldn’t be the right one. Let me know if you have any particular options
    you’d like me to investigate…

    thanks,
    mike
    REDACTED- Original MessageREDACTED
    Subject: Re: Even more on Loehle’s 2000 year climate analysis”

    From: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=130

  642. Gabby says:

    GREAT NEWS: The Dept of Energy is funding Phil Jones! #1765

  643. Alexander says:

    Is it perhaps possible to move the “fold” way up in this sticky post, so that it’s easier to find new posts beneath it? I think one paragraph, perhaps the most recent update, would be sufficient. I’d really appreciate it! Thanks.

  644. Al Gormless says:

    Here’s some REAL climate science pointing to an inconvenient truth for the warmists, which uses simple not sports-massaged statistics and make-up:

    This expose will not rest until at least climategate 46.0!

    HAHA!

    I even include my full workings and raw data unlike all the tax-spongers (I mean ‘climate scientists’):
    Climategate 1&2 + 220000 emails to come at 5000 per release

  645. lester says:

    There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

    Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi 173-6 (1883)

  646. Alec, aka Daffy Duck says:

    Tweeking The Guardian:

    letters@guardian.co.uk

    UEA should demand return of computer records taken by UEA employee

    University of East Anglia is rightly upset with hackers taking their computer records, however UEA should be doubly upset that one of their own employees appears to have been also taking the university’s computer records.

    In one of the released email UEA employee Keith Briffa writes “UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.” [http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=2044 ]

    Just as the hacker stole from UEA, it appears the Mr. Briffa also took records that rightfully belonged to stole university. Mr. Briffa notes that he kept those records “….which I copied onto private storage”.

    Knowing now that those records still exist, UEA should demand that Mr. Briffa return all the records, and UEA should immediately provide copies of the records covered in the freedom of information request to all parties whom Mr. Briffa wrongfully denied access.

    Alec ….
    …….
    Fairfax, VA 22032
    703…….

  647. Alec J says:

    More bitchiness.
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6455
    #1213
    Scroll down to the comments in Caps.

  648. Gabby says:

    #0344 is a great e-mail chain on UAE and FOI strategery.

  649. Alec J says:

    #1175 Dave Palmer
    On phone to ICO at moment awaiting input on the section 77 question – am arguing that
    taking the files off was to meet with our contraction obligations under which we received
    it and to repair what we perceive as a lapse in security….

    They have now stated they don’t think the removal of the data is in contravention of
    section 77 in that the sole purpose of the removal was NOT to deny the requester his
    legitimate right of access to the information. I did tell them that that our intention was
    stated in our response to Mr. McIntyre; namely to deny him the information on the basis of
    EIR Reg. 12(5)(f) & the public interest & this did not alter their position.

    This still leaves us with a PR problem but eliminates the legal problem….

    Cheers, Dave

  650. PhilJourdan says:

    A physicist says:
    November 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    “It’s fair to say, however, that the folks who understand the mathematics of climate change science

    I just read this quote from our resident physicist. As a mathematician, I would like to correct his ignorance. The BEAUTY of mathematics is that it does not change from one discipline to another. 2+2 equals 4 in chemistry, biology, and geology. So your statement is patently false. Perhaps you meant to say “for those who understand mathematics’. The only way the statement you made could be correct is if climate science math is a sham.

  651. RockyRoad says:

    Lee says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    Release all the emails, whats with this crap encryption.
    release it all or else its just crap.

    Sorry, as it stands, couldnt care less anymore…
    Release it all or else I state to everyone ‘load of hogwash’. Actually I already do this now, anybody that deliberately limits the release of information is not to be trusted or given the time of day.

    Cheers.
    Lee.

    Just one question: Who should “Release it all or else…”? Are you referring to Phil Jones (who claims he can’t find his data or methodology), or are you referring to Michael Mann (who is fighting with UVa against the release of his correspondence while at UVa–a public university)?

    Or maybe you’re talking about the UEA–they have ALL of these emails and other documents but they’re anything but open. Might you be talking about James Hansen? He’s been fighting requests for open disclosure for years–and now we find he’s a tax dodger (among other things).

    These folks have all deliberately limited the release of information. They’ve repeatedly fought FOIA requests. They work in secret and hide the details of their work from all but their “Team”.

    And you’re right–they are not to be trusted or given the time of day.

  652. Mann Bearpig says:

    ok, so you download the file and have 5000 text files. What can you do with them ?

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=N47O1293

    Email Viewer. Just enter the folder location where the text files are, Then the program will list the emails and you can view them normally. Has navigation buttons, search tool.

    Let me know what you think. It is free but Contributions would be welcomed :)

  653. Kaboom says:

    @Ron Cram Unfortunately, for all his analytical skill and calling out of bs, Jon Stewart is a firm believer in AGW (as well as woefully uninformed about Europe, but that’s another subject entirely)

  654. motsatt says:

    For anyone using linux..
    http://www.commandlinefu.com/commands/browse

    for loads of clever commands to handle all these files.

  655. Mann Bearpig says:

    Version with textwrapping ..

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PJX17WB0

  656. Jean Parisot says:

    5336 — WWII, Aug1945, and instrumentation changes and a startling admission at the end:

    > And as for the dip in 1945:
    > Fig 2 shows the residual (ie with the COWL or ENSO time series
    > removed) global-mean land and ocean time series. The point here is
    > that the large dip in Aug 1945 does not show up in the land data.
    >
    >
    > My impression from your emails last week is that the dip is almost
    > certainly due to changes in instrumentation during the war. But it’s
    > also my impression that the specific reasons for the dip are not yet
    > known. It’s possible that the dip is offset by spurious rises in SSTs
    > at the start of the war. But this isn’t certain. And even so, there is
    > a large drop in SSTs between the period before the war (1939) and the
    > period after the war (1945). To my eye, the residual ocean time series
    > in Fig. 3 suggests temperatures ratcheted downwards spuriously in
    > 1945.
    >
    >
    > In our view, the dip in Aug 1945 is very important and warrants being
    > highlighted in the literature. In fact, once you know it’s there, it’s
    > hard to view any time series of global-mean temperatures and not
    > wonder how different it would appear if the dip was not there. For
    > example, Fig. 4 shows the raw and residual global-mean temperature
    > time series assuming the 0.3 K drop in Aug 1945 is spurious. I realize
    > the figure is crude, and it might not make it into the paper. But the
    > point is that you would get a very, very different impression of 20th
    > century temperature trends if the dip proves to be an artifact of the
    > end of the war.
    >
    >
    > So our main point regarding the drop in Aug 1945 is this: if we assume
    > the dip is spurious, then the global-warming of the past century would
    > be at least ~0.3 K larger than currently thought, and global-mean
    > temperatures would have risen steadily throughout the past century.

    Risen steadily = no AGW signature

  657. Shevva says:

    Sorry computers on the fritz managed to copy before the web browser crashed so don’t have the exact file #, the PR machine that is Real Climate shows up alot :-

    thanks for forwarding Phil,
    Its amazing how much nonsense they are able to pack into a few pages. The Beck Co2 stuff
    we just dealt w/ last week, and most of the other issues have been dealt with in the
    past at RC. However, if folks think this is getting enough attention, maybe we need a
    specific RC post debunking this.
    I’ve copied to Gavin for his thoughts too.

  658. henrythethird says:

    The only good thing I’ve seen from these e-mails is the fact that members of the team that were not cc’d will now see exactly what other team members actually thought of them.

    For example, you can bet that Mann didn’t see this email (out of context or not) until now:

    “…Cook:
    I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead…”

    Maybe he should ask Cook to explain the full context of THAT message…

  659. Jason says:

    This chapter precedes the chapters on modeling and prediction. Therefore a
    focus of the state of knowledge of the “processes” is that these are the
    ingredients of models and what goes into models reflects our understanding
    and the technology limitations. By the latter I mean restrictions through
    space and time resolution, and so forth. The key questions, it seems to me,
    concern the roles of convection and precipitation in climate and the global
    atmospheric circulation, so that heat, moisture and momentum transports are
    important, and what they mean for the water vapor, cloud, precipitation and
    latent heating that result.
    You may be interested in a study I was involved in on related matters:
    Dai, A., F. Giorgi and K. E. Trenberth, 1999: Observed and model simulated
    precipitation diurnal cycles over the contiguous United States.
    J. Geophys. Res., \vol 104, (in press, March).
    This study documents the diurnal cycle of precipitation over the United
    States and how well it is simulated in high resolution regional (Giorgi’s)
    models with different convective parameterizations. We have explored various
    convection parameterizations over the United States in a high resolution
    regional model and shown that none do it right. In particular all tend to
    kick off convection prematurely compared with the real world and instability
    does not build up adequately. Premature cloud formation occurs in the models
    as a consequence and this prevents the correct solar heating from occurring,
    impacting the development of the continental-scale “sea breeze” and
    associated convergence at the surface which acts to trigger convection. No
    known scheme can deal with the summer U.S. precipitation diurnal cycle.
    I think this scale interaction problem is also involved in the failure of
    models to deal with the Madden Julian Oscillation successfully. So this
    stuff is intended to provoke you.
    Other topics we listed under these categories include: lapse rate, vertical
    coupling, model sensitivity, extremes, and orography.
    Overall, we need some sense of how well we know these things and how limiting
    the lack of knowledge might be on model simulations. Of course
    parameterizations are not supposed to get the details and exact sequences
    right but they are supposed to get the average effects right, so perhaps the
    details don’t matter.
    The first draft of the chapter is due by 14 May. This means I need your
    contributions by 10 April if at all possible. (In fact I can’t use it much
    before then owing to other travel commitments I have). Please copy Ray
    Pierrehumbert on any responses.
    Many thanks
    I would appreciate an acknowledgement of this before I leave for New Zealand
    next Tuesday, if possible.
    Regards
    Kevin

  660. A physicist says:
    A physicist says: “That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism [that is, skepticism founded upon cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting] that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That.”

    Mac the Knife says: “You empty bandwaggoning, bloviating git! I grew up farming. Done and still do a lot of fishing and hunting, as well. I hold 2 engineering degrees and have worked as an engineer and scientist for +24 years. Yes – I’ve done the things you just talk about. I and many folks like me reject the tragically flawed, criminally bastardized, and scientifically unsupported hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming. We reject similarly impaired folks like you, that spout ad hom attacks while providing nothing of merit to the discussion. We know crap when we see it being shoveled and smell it. Comes, in part, from growing up on a farm…”

    Not all WUWT posts/comments are substantially founded upon cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting … but regrettably an increasing fraction of them are. However:

       • cherry-picking of data gets harder as data gets better,
       • fervent witch-hunts are finding … no witches, and
       • the politics-first slogan-shouting is ringing hollow.

    On other forums, sober-minded folks talk seriously about the challenges of energy, technology, and climate change, these sites include The Oil Drum, Season’s End, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Skeptical Science, GreenBiz, etc. And needless to say, the Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review 2010 tackles these climate-and-energy issues unflinchingly — as will every future Quadrennial Defense Review. For the simple reason that the realities of our times demands it.

    Obviously there will always be plenty of folks folks whose skepticism (on any subject) is founded mainly upon cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting; increasingly the main role of forums like WUWT is to provide a comforting echo-chamber within which cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting are viewed as praiseworthy activities.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the planet is busy creating humanity’s future.

  661. docB says:

    In the documents file: statements.doc, I see…

    >Re: Statement of European Scientists on Actions to Protect Global Climate

    >Dear Colleague, Attached is a draft Statement that has been informally drawn up by Joe >Alcamo, Rob Swart and Mike Hulme working in Europe on climate issues. Its main purpose is to >bolster or increase support for controls of emissions of greenhouse gases in European >countries in the period leading up to Kyoto. The Statement is intended to be from European >scientists, and is aimed towards governments, citizen groups, and media in European countries. >The statement has specific goals in specific countries:

    >1. In European countries where the government supports controls of greenhouse emissions: In >these countries, certain government ministries and other climate stakeholders in the country are >trying to get the government to retreat on its policies before Kyoto. Here, the Statement is >intended to be used by the government and citizen groups via the national media to support its >position.
    > 2. in european countries where the government does not support controls of greenhouse >emissions: here, the statement is intended to help citizen groups and other stakeholders in the >country to convince the government to support controls of emissions.

    This is activist ‘science’, not impartial science. I presume, simply to secure more funding.

  662. averagejoe says:

    Maybe the algorithm is mike’s trick?

  663. Latitude says:

    At 10:10 31/07/2009, you wrote:
    Dear all,
    After the recent problems with ClimateAudit, Phil has asked for all
    unnecessary files to be purged from the FTP server. You have a directory in /cru/ftp1/people. Please could you take a look to see what files need to remain there?
    If you would like assistance with this, let me know. Please confirm by email when you’ve done it, so I can cross you off the list.
    thanks
    Mike
    ==================================================

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/phils-pre-cover-up/

  664. twawki says:

    Oh dear the warmists are in a flap ; once one accepts the documented evidence that CO2 is insignificant in warming the climate, all kinds of consequences follow logically

  665. Doug says:

    Henrythethird…

    I agree, in email 0003, Ed Cook writes to Briffa:

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

    This was in response to a comment that Briffa had made to Cook. I don’t know who Bradley is, but if anyone knows, they should forward this on to him. Stir, stir, stir.

  666. David L says:

    @You Guys are unreal on November 22, 2011 at 3:39 pm said:
    “The Cause” = the cause of getting the world to sit up and take notice of the warming, future warming and detrimental effects thereof. Nothing sinister.

    Instead of picking emails to bits, surely all the ‘skeptic’ side have to do is come up with evidence disproving the warming…
    ——————-
    Your last sentence is completely wrong. Look up the scientific process. It is NOT the burden to disprove the theory…. It is the burden to PROVE it. The theory is stated, data is supplied (and picked apart)…. If the theory can survive then it is advanced. And there’s no statute of limitations on this either. The law of gravitational attraction was proposed in the 17th century and effectively challenged by Einstein in the 20th century.

  667. Jean Parisot says:

    4265, seems they practice the “hide the baseline” trick internally as well

    Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    Thanks Jim
    Another typical UAH response though: every time we found something, they changed the
    dataset so they could argue our findings were no longer relevant, but they did not ever
    take care of the issues.

  668. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    So, if these e-mails are the way they talk via e-mail, just think of how truthful they were one on one say in a car talking it over Mann to Man on the way to a conference where they would pick up an award check.

  669. Jean Parisot says:

    4269, those silly World Bankers didn’t realize that on a 10K timescale the current and “future” warming isn’t anomalous – had to drop the scale to manage the message.

    If we wanted to put the 10,000 year record of Earth’s >> avg >>
    temp on the cover of our World Bank Report….

    results in

    Need to draw the 1000 yr >> record on a World Bank cover asap

  670. Jean Parisot says:

    4270 — oh no, somebody got our data

    The problem I have now is that the file that was accessed contains data
    up to the end of 2002. This was for data that went into a publication that
    appeared in the Journal of Climate in 2003. Since then we’ve added
    lots more data. So they have a copy of the data from CRUTEM2. They do
    not have CRUTEM3.

  671. A physicist says:

    LamontT says: “It’s sad “a physicist”, really apparently nothing more than a propagandist, doesn’t offer any actual arguments for her position but instead does nothing but spout empty psychobabble rhetoric that means nothing as if if were somehow a profound criticism. Really Miz “a propagandist” needs to present coherent logical arguments not just empty disenfranchised language …

    LamontT, with respect, thoughtful conservative scientists like Barry Bickmore are doing a much better job of presenting “coherent logical arguments” than me!

    Prof. Bickmore’s much-viewed lecture (on YouTube) titled “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” summarizes clearly the logical arguments that you and many other posters are WUWT are (rightly) seeking. Prof. Bickmore’s lecture’s includes video clips of Newt Gingrich arguing too that AGW is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.

    Nowadays, more-and-more thoughtful American conservatives are aligning with Prof. Bickmore’s brand of thoughtful conservatism.

    Recommended.

  672. Jean Parisot says:

    4271 – isn’t model initialization still an issue, here is Mike and Phil talking about and some publication issues. Personally, I’m not sure where all the various model permutations show up.

    The runs will get a huge hit from this. The only way
    a coupled model can get a continued trend (without invoking an energy leak somewhere) is
    when there is a terrible deep-ocean spin up available even for their present day
    initialization, not to speak about the subsequent shock to pre-industrial conditions.
    Did you really say 1.5 degrees? Wow, that is quite a bit

  673. Ric Werme says:

    When I realized the Climategate 2009 Emails went back many years, one of the first things that occurred to me was there might be Emails from John Daly. He died before I became involved in the online climate debate, and that’s one of my main regrets. I won’t repeat one of Phil Jones’ comments from then, except to note Phil’s a rather nasty guy.

    Two interesting Emails mention Daly. One I’ll excerpt in Willis’ most recent post.

    The other is the following Email from Daly about tree rings. A lot of his writing style reminds of Willis’ – simple, direct and informative.

    I’ve reformatted things to post better here and deleted most of the long list of people Daly sent this to. I left a few of the more obvious or meaningful names.

    3826.txt:

    date: Tue Feb 13 09:05:58 2001
    from: Keith Briffa
    subject: Fwd: Re: Hockey Sticks again
    to: wigley

    Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:47:57 +1100
    From: “John L. Daly”
    To: Chick Keller
    CC: “P. Dietze”, mmaccrac, Michael E Mann, rbradley, wallace, Thomas Crowley, Phil Jones, McKitrick, Nigel Calder, John Christy, Jim Goodridge, Fred Singer, k.briffa
    Subject: Re: Hockey Sticks again
    Dear Chick & all

    [I think Chick Keller wrote:]

    the first is Keith Briffa’s rather comprehensive treatment of getting climate variations from tree rings: Annual climate variability in the Holocene: “interpreting the message of ancient trees”, Quaternary Science Reviews, 19 (2000) 87-105. It should deal with many of the questions people raise about using them to determine temperatures.

    Take this from first principles.

    A tree only grows on land. That excludes 70% of the earth covered by water. A tree does no grow on ice. A tree does not grow in a desert. A tree does not grow on grassland-savannahs. A tree does not grow in alpine areas. A tree does not grow in the tundra We are left with perhaps 15% of the planet upon which forests grow/grew. That does not make any studies from tree rings global, or even hemispheric.

    The width and density of tree rings is dependent upon the following variables which cannot be reliably separated from each other. sunlight – if the sun varies, the ring will vary. But not at night of course.

    cloudiness – more clouds, less sun, less ring.

    pests/disease – a caterpillar or locust plague will reduce photosynthesis

    access to sunlight – competition within a forest can disadvantage or advantage some trees.

    moisture/rainfall – a key variable. Trees do not prosper in a droughteven if there’s a heat wave.

    snow packing in spring around the base of the trees retards growth temperature – finally!

    The tree ring is a composite of all these variables, not merely of temperature. Therefore on the 15% of the planet covered by trees, their rings do not and cannot accurately record temperature in isolation from the other environmental variables.

    In my article on Greening Earth Society on the Hockey Stick, I point to other evidence which contradicts Mann’s theory. The Idso’s have produced more of that evidence, and a new article on Greening Earth has `unearthed’ even more.

    Mann’s theory simply does not stack up. But that was not the key issue. Anyone can put up a dud theory from time to time. What is at issue is the uncritical zeal with which the industry siezed on the theory before its scientific value had been properly tested. In one go, they tossed aside dozens of studies which confirmed the existence of the MWE and LIA as global events, and all on the basis of tree rings – a proxy which has all the deficiencies I have stated above.

    The worst thing I can say about any paper such as his is that it is `bad science’. Legal restraint prevents me going further. But in his case, only those restraints prevent me going *much* further.

    Cheers
    John Daly

    John L. Daly
    `Still Waiting For Greenhouse’

  674. Jason says:

    24 hours on and having trawled through a lot of the emails, I’m a little unerwhelmed.

    Sorry but I am.

    There is no new “wow” in the real sense rather than Judy Curry sense. It’s more of the same, but without a harryread me, or hide the decline. There is little theme building and no real paths from last time to any bigger scandal .

    It seems basically to be randomly selected emails, a lot of which are completely mundane.

    Does FOIA think its enough to derail Durban, or cause an outcry, or a reanalysis, or even stir a bit of general public scepticism? If he/she does then I suspect they are mistaken.

    The only revelation really of any note is that there are 220000 emails locked away that nobody can open. Are they explosive? If they are, then there is little to suggest in the current batch that the paths in those emails leads anywhere explosive.

    So I’m not really sure what the point of releasing it now was if I’m honest. Either this is all he/she has, in which case although its bad science, there’s not enough rope to hang them with, or the locked zip contains dynamite, the worst scandals yet. It has to, otherwise this is all utterly pointless

  675. Jean Parisot says:

    4272 — Wahl-Ammann back channel communications, they really don’t like MM/CA.

    In complete confidence (please share with no one), I will now mention that they formally
    petitioned NCAR and its parent organization UCAR to have them force
    Caspar and me to alter the Wahl-Ammann paper in fall 2005, based on a
    series of charges related in spirit to those you mention below .

  676. Jean Parisot says:

    Jason – two clear themes pop out to me: 1) control the message, 2) within the team, the science was not settled – but the cause (and the result) was.

  677. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    Of some note regarding those of us who have a gene code of horse trading, things like,”if I’m honest” is a “tell” regarding not doing a deal with such a person.

  678. Sean Peake says:

    Looks like A Physicist has gone off to unloosen his bow tie. Or do you wear a clip-on John?

  679. Latitude says:

    Ric Werme says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:38 am
    ==========================================

    from: “Michael E. Mann”
    subject: Re: WMO Climate Statement for 1999 – IMPORTANT !
    cc: k.briffa, t.osborn

    Hi Phil,

    I’m attaching the plot you may remember that we (actually, the UK Met Office staff) prepared for the final version of the IPCC chapter 2 draft (in pdf format). To refresh your memory, we used the ’61-90 base period for the absolute anomaly scale, but we aligned the series based on an earlier (’31-60) interval of the instrumental record, which pre-dates (largely) the recent decline in the Briffa et al series. I think this leads to a similar picture, but if you think there are any significant discrepancies w/ what Tim is preparing, we should discuss.

    cheers,
    mike
    ==========================================
    The effect of an increase in CO2 would be to increase growth, which mimics warmer temperatures. Mikey’s graph should have been adjusted downwards, not upwards.

    http://www.real-science.com/mikey-hiding-decline

  680. Magnus says:

    “E-mail leakage” and “methane seepage” are two serious factors leading to AGW. I bet Gavin would go so far as to say that “E-mail leakage” puts the “C” in CAGW. Therefore we need political action to stop further leakage now by sequestering leaked e-mails. In any event the government should take action and ban leakage NOW and store what is in the “pipelines” on leakage-secure servers in the pentagon.

    There. Forward to ALL concerned citizens.

    I have a very elementary physics question since I am a pretty stupid, so any of you physics ppl out there feel free to explain:

    I have read that the basic sensitivity of climate (the power of the GHG-effects) is logarithmic expressed as about 1 degree celsius for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Does this mean that models stating a possible 6 degree increase by 2100 expect feedbacks to make the concentration (let’s assume a starting point of 350ppm) 350×2=700 (1C), 700×2=1400 (2C), 1400×2=2800 (3C), 2800×2=5600 (4C), 5600×2=11200(5C), 11200×2=22400 (6C).

    Are they expecting a tipping point around 400ppm to send us into a possible concentration of 22400 ppm by 2100?

    Sorry for this very basic question, but I need it sorted out.

  681. Jean Parisot says:

    4285 lots of politics and internal spite wrt Baliunas/Soon, I’m still trying to get check out of the “artillary” on the “other side” – I wish they would have posted an address where I could send an invoice.:

    to supposedly support the non-sequitor conclusion that the “MWP was warmer than the 20th century” is irresponsible, deceptive, dishonest, and a violation of the very essence of the scientific approach in my view.

    One or two people can’t fight that alone, certainly not with the “artillary” (funding and
    political organization) that has been lined up on the other side. In my view, it is the
    responsibility of our entire community to fight this intentional disinformation campaign,
    which represents an affront to everything we do and believe in.

  682. P.F. says:

    A physicist says: November 23, 2011 at 7:34 am . . . Recommended.

    Prof. Bickmore’s “brand of thoughtful conservatism” is deeply flawed, corroded with logical fallacies and a thin understanding of the depth of the history of climate alarmism. He focused on elements that have serious questions of credulity and completely ignored evidence that cuts global warming alarmism down at its knees. He has done a disservice to understanding the truth.

    I’d enjoy an opportunity to take him on, point for point, but I suspect he is of the sort that backs away when he realizes history and solid data demolishes his arguments.

  683. Mike Lewis says:

    I just submitted the following at RealClimate. Hopefully I won’t be moderated into the ether. Just in case, I brought my thoughts here. The “believers” are out in full force, waving their hands and claiming intellectual superiority over the “deniers”. This really has become a PR battle, hasn’t it?

    The problem with these emails is that they convey a sense of subterfuge coupled with some very insensitive remarks aimed at their peers. Regardless of the science, it gives the group the appearance of being unprofessional which lends credence to the claims that the science may have been done in an unprofessional manner as well. Proving or disproving the AGW hypothesis should not be a PR contest; it should be an open discussion as we all stand to lose much if it is true and the worst case scenarios are possible. Why “hide” anything? Share the data among the peer groups. Truth will out.

  684. Jean Parisot says:

    4286, should we laugh or cry?

    With regard to refs – remember that our goal is to cut the number of
    references significantly.

    and —

    Also, please not that in the US, the US Congress is questioning
    whether it is ethical for IPCC authors to be using the IPCC to
    champion their own work/opinions. Obviously, this is wrong and scary,
    but if our goal is to get policy makers (liberal and conservative
    alike) to take our chapter seriously, it will only hurt our effort if
    we cite too many of our own papers (perception is often reality).
    PLEASE do not cite anything that is not absolutely needed, and please
    do not cite your papers unless they are absolutely needed. Common
    sense, but it isn’t happening. Please be more critical with your
    citations so we save needed space, and also so we don’t get perceived
    as self serving or worse.

  685. Jean Parisot says:

    Gotta go, that was fun

  686. Ray says:

    This new release might be the proof that it is a whistle blower and not a hack job. Either that or officials lied about the size of the data that was taken back then.

  687. TheGoodLocust says:

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=231

    “This will move the post-40s cooling to a little
    later – more in line with higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late 50s and 1960s70s.”

    -Phil Jones

    I like how the guys at CRU thoughtfully consider how the temperature record should be adjusted.

    Climate science in action.

  688. Steve Keohane says:

    A physicist says: November 23, 2011 at 7:34 am
    Prof. Bickmore’s[..]

    Um, he calls himself an associate professor, as of 2010:
    “Sincerely,

    Barry Bickmore

    Associate Professor of Geological Sciences

    Brigham Young University”

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700016608/BYU-professor-Barry-Bickmores-letter-to-Utah-legislators.html
    Without directly saying, he seems to infer that CO2 is not necessary for plant growth, or CO2 can’t be excessively used as phosphates and nitrates resulting in pollution, in the aforementioned link.

  689. Ron says:

    Now what?

  690. A physicist says:
    A physicist says: Prof. Barry Bickmore’s much-viewed lecture (on YouTube) titled “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” summarizes clearly the logical arguments that you and many other posters are WUWT are (rightly) seeking.

    P.F. says: Prof. Bickmore’s “brand of thoughtful conservatism” is deeply flawed, corroded with logical fallacies and a thin understanding of the depth of the history of climate alarmism. He focused on elements that have serious questions of credulity and completely ignored evidence that cuts global warming alarmism down at its knees. He has done a disservice to understanding the truth.

    I’d enjoy an opportunity to take him on, point for point, but I suspect he is of the sort that backs away when he realizes history and solid data demolishes his arguments.

    It seems to me that Prof. Bickmore’s analysis is rational, respectful, and fact-driven … a model for conservative scientific analysis at its best. In particular, throughout his lecture Prof. Bickmore scrupulously refrains from cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting.

    Watch Prof. Bickmore’s lecture, and judge for yourself whether this assessment is correct.

    Here on WUWT, far too many posts/comments relating to climate change compare poorly with Prof. Bickmore solid conservatism. The time is long overdue for thoughtful conservatism to reject cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting, because if these practices are the future of American conservatism, then American conservatism has no future.

  691. henrythethird says:

    From Phil:

    “…Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve
    discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data…”

    Seems to me that FOIA should be sent to the DoE – sure would love to see what bureaucrat signed off on that conversation.

  692. TheGoodLocust says:

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5703

    “If we had got a larger sulphate cooling in our model, then to be consistent with the observations, the detection procedure would have to scale down the sulphate response ( in
    which case the estimate of the GHG response is unchanged and there is an
    implication that the non-ghg forcing or response is over-estimated) , or
    scale up the greenhouse gas contribution, in which case the larger sulphate
    forcing is balanced by a larger greenhouse gas warming as we imply in the
    chapter. Either way, we still detect a substantial GHG contribution. ”

    An argument from ignorance. No matter what the guesstimated effects of sulphates it will either have no effect on the model’s calculations for CO2’s forcing or they will increase the effect of CO2 in their models.

  693. GW says:

    If I were President of the US, I would request airtime for a Presidential Address, but I would not give the media a clue as to the nature/subject of the address.

    I would then announce that in the wake of the Climategate 2.0 release which revealed the outright collusion of scientists and false, perhaps criminal behavior on their part, that the person(s) behind the release via “FOIA.org” would receive, in abscentia, the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom for services to the nation, and indeed the world, in the pursuit of truth.

    I would then announce that the United States would immediately cease all funding to the UN IPCC, and freeze all existing grants/funding for AGW research to all institutions worldwide and cancel any pending awards.

    I would then announce that I had directed the US Justice Department to add 1000 agents/investigators to fully investigate the conduct and research of all US scientists for potential criminal indictments.

    Finally, I would announce that all funding within executive jurisdiction to or for green energy projects would be cancelled henceforth.

    While the above is simply a feelgood wish for me, I sincerely hope that the republican presidential candidates will be made acutely aware of Climategate 2.0 and add these revelations into their campaign platforms and future debates.

    God Bless FOIA.org

    GW

  694. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    A (gazed/glazed) Physicist,

    Judge ye not harshly lest ye be judged likewise.

  695. TheGoodLocust says:

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=6840

    “In doing this we are showing that even the most extreme mitigation does not remove the threat
    of global warming. Furthermore, it also highlights the problem in delaying
    the next round of mitigation negotiations. My question is do we want to
    proceed with this amended figure?”

    So the “threat of global warming” can’t be removed …..but do we really want to show that?

  696. Denise says:

    The real sad thing is how WUWT got sucked into the BEST project, despite numerous warnings. I’m certain all their data was also manipulated to show warming . For example, ask them (BEST) to supply you ALL the unadjusted raw data. Not a chance! Muller Is from the same crowd as the team and WUWT should have seen this from word go. The video he put up was a real sucker (Skeptic, my foot) and preparation for the temp data project planned by his daughter to follow…Sad…

  697. Gail Combs says:

    petermue says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Michael Mann

    “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

    I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and discrediting them….”

    Obviously this is how modern “real climate science” works….
    /sarc
    _____________________________________
    That tidbit shows that it never was about science. With science you produce evidence that puts the other scientist’s work into question.

    In Climate Scientology you attack and discredit the PERSON so your “Useful Innocents” will not look at the work showing you are full of B.S.

    The fact that McIntyre and Keenan must be subjected to a smear campaign instead of rebutted with scientific evidence indicate there is no rebuttal possible.

    “If the law is against you, argue the facts; if the facts are against you, argue the law; If both the facts and the law are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”

    Neither the facts or the laws are in the favor of the Climate Scientologists so when it comes to the FOIA’s we are seeing a lot of pounding on the table and yelling and squirming. Mann’s being provided with FREE lawyers tells you there is a lot of money hanging on the CAGW scam or he would have been hung out to dry by now. Whether Mann is tossed under the bus or not will tell us if the money men are determined to continue pushing the Carbon Trade Bubble down the throat of the world economy. I do not know if western economies can withstand another bubble, but that is part of the game, to collapse our civilization. “Would we not shatter it to bits, and then Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire!” This is written on the Fabian Society stained-glass window installed in the London School of Economics in a ceremony attended by Fabian Tony Blair in April of 2006. Bill Clinton has been one of their speakers and George Soros a graduate.

    The great American Bubble Machine: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

    How Goldman Sachs Created the 2008 Food Crisis: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/27/how_goldman_sachs_created_the_food_crisis?page=0,1

    The Coming Carbon Bubble: http://www.iatp.org/blog/2009/07/the-coming-carbon-bubble

  698. HenryP says:

    Denise says
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#comment-806126

    Henry@Denise

    In the case of the Gibraltar (UK) data I’m pretty much convinced they were altered by someone
    (look at the differences in the results around Gibraltar: Tanger, Malaga and Granada)
    I have said again and again here that you cannot just look at the average increase of temps.
    You have to also look at the increase in maxima and minima
    Note the correlation with the leaf area index, that I have picked up on…
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

  699. Blade says:

    elmer [November 22, 2011 at 11:11 am] says: :: “What do you guys think? [Link]“

    That’s great work. I love you folks at M4GW.

    More Soylent Green! [November 22, 2011 at 11:28 am] says: :: [to A physicist @ November 22, 2011 at 10:38 am] “You’re obvious new to this trolling thing, aren’t you? … Consensus does not determine science, nor does appeal to authority. I find the progressive mind, like that of children, to be very susceptible to peer-pressure. That’s why progressives have such uniformity of opinion and so little original thought. Conformity is very important to progressives and they inhabit a shame sub-culture.”

    Yep. It is positively Freudian. Parental issues are behind it. They long for a mommy and/or daddy, hence the overwhelming need for a nanny state. If things were left to the progressives, nothing in your life would be safe. They are about control. Forget abut ‘government in your bedroom’ as they sometimes complain about, with them it is the bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, EVERYWHERE! They are spoiled children, the types that were never scolded. Good job trying to discipline this child here, but alas it probably will do no good.

    sandw15 [November 22, 2011 at 5:43 pm] says: :: “This offer is specially prepared for A Physicist (or occupant troll) You are just the kind of forward-looking person I’m looking for. What you need is an investment strategy for the future. This is your opportunity to be among the first to get a ground-floor stake in the investment opportunity of the century. I’m talking about Sandw15’s South Texas Sea Resort Communities.”

    Excellent response to this AGW cultist. You would think that in our enlightened technological era, that the age of the scam or hoax might be over. Nope. In reality, the abundance of male enhancement pills and free energy and fuel additives and instant cures and Nigeria investments exist primarily because of the self-broadcasting of their own stupidity of these victims-in-waiting all over the world, with these AGW zombies leading the charge. There is one born every nanosecond.

    Jimmy Haigh [November 22, 2011 at 11:49 pm] says: :: [to Danielle Westerbank @ November 22, 2011 at 10:56 pm] “Danielle. You remind me of the story of Louis Armstrong, when he was asked what jazz was, replied: “Lady? If you gotta ask, you just ain’t got it”.”

    ROTFLMAO! That’s gonna leave a mark. But will she even realize it?

    Michael [November 23, 2011 at 1:54 am] says: :: “This thread will definitely go over 1,000 comments.”

    Not only that. I predict a new hockey stick in the near future. This one will again be found on Alexa graphs when WUWT is plotted alongside RealClimate. The blade will be WUWT, the handle will be RC, and Gavin will whine about someone Hiding the Incline.

    David L [November 23, 2011 at 7:10 am] says: :: [to You Guys are unreal on November 22, 2011 at 3:39 pm] “Your last sentence is completely wrong. Look up the scientific process. It is NOT the burden to disprove the theory…. It is the burden to PROVE it. The theory is stated, data is supplied (and picked apart)…. If the theory can survive then it is advanced. And there’s no statute of limitations on this either. The law of gravitational attraction was proposed in the 17th century and effectively challenged by Einstein in the 20th century.”

    Perfectly stated sir, absolutely perfect. That *is* Science pure and simple. The destruction caused to Science by the AGW cult is simply unimaginable. If that troll has any sense whatsoever he will listen up and learn something, because as it stands now, he knows nothing at all and in fact has it exactly ass-backwards.

    A physicist [November 23, 2011 at 7:34 am] says: :: “Prof. Bickmore’s much-viewed lecture (on YouTube) titled “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” summarizes clearly the logical arguments that you and many other posters are WUWT are (rightly) seeking. Prof. Bickmore’s lecture’s includes video clips of Newt Gingrich arguing too that AGW is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.”

    That makes you both crackpots. I don’t need Newt Gingrich to tell me the planet has warmed since the LIA, *and* since the 1970’s, *and* since the Holocene began. You are the worst kind of cherry picker on the planet. You are lucky enough to live in an age where the confluence of not one, but all THREE of those warming events are occurring simultaneously. And you have the nerve to measure the small difference between the temps now and when it was naturally colder. Then you run around madly screaming: ‘We caused this by using fossil fuels to keep warm and for transportation! We must stop!’. You’re all sick. In reality you lot are the same as earlier eras that ran wild when a comet appeared in the sky, or more recently when pacific cultures tossed virgins into volcanoes. Of course neither of these earlier peoples had science or the Internet for a reference. So what is your excuse?

  700. John from CA says:

    Steve McIntyre has made “a time-conco­rdance of the new emails and placed it online”: http://www.climat­eaudit.org­/correspon­dence/clim­ategate2/i­nfo.cg2.cs­v

    He feels, “The present dossier looks like a much more complete version” of the original email set.
    source: http://cli­mateaudit.­org/2011/1­1/22/new-c­limategate­-emails/#c­omments

  701. Michael Jennings says:

    I have to agree with “a physicist” here. There is a lot of slogan-chanting, cherry- picking and witch-hunting going on but most of it comes from people like him/her at other sites. I am still waiting for his answer to Dave Wendt’s last question which, if they are truly a physicist, should not be too hard.

  702. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    from: Michael Mann
    subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    to: Kevin Trenberth
    Michael Mann wrote:
    extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
    since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).
    From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
    We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

  703. A physicist says:
    A physicist says: “Prof. Bickmore’s much-viewed lecture (on YouTube) titled “How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change” summarizes clearly the logical arguments that you and many other posters are WUWT are (rightly) seeking. Prof. Bickmore’s lecture’s includes video clips of Newt Gingrich arguing too that AGW is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.”

    Blade responds: “That makes you both crackpots. I don’t need Newt Gingrich to tell me the planet has warmed since the LIA, *and* since the 1970′s, *and* since the Holocene began. You are the worst kind of cherry picker on the planet. You are lucky enough to live in an age where the confluence of not one, but all THREE of those warming events are occurring simultaneously. And you have the nerve to measure the small difference between the temps now and when it was naturally colder. Then you run around madly screaming: ‘We caused this by using fossil fuels to keep warm and for transportation! We must stop!’. You’re all sick. In reality you lot are the same as earlier eras that ran wild when a comet appeared in the sky, or more recently when pacific cultures tossed virgins into volcanoes. Of course neither of these earlier peoples had science or the Internet for a reference. So what is your excuse?”

    With respect, Blade, it seems to me — and to most CEOs, military strategists, mathematicians, scientists, and engineers — that Prof. Bickmore’s brand of thoughtful science-respecting conservatism is superior to the less rational brand of conservatism that your post represents.

    It seems likely to me, Blade, that in the near future more-and-more climate-change skeptics like you will be changing their minds. There will always be some skeptics, even among business and military leaders, but it is true too that both their reputations and numbers are steadily diminishing.

    Another well-conceived lecture, that reaches similar conclusions to Prof. Bickmore’s, is US Admiral David Titley’s YouTube video US Navy Chief Oceanographer: I Was Formerly a Climate Skeptic.

    Recommended.

  704. The New York Times refers to these as “stolen” e-mails in the headline.

    Did the Times ever call Wikileaks, “stolen?”

  705. P.F. says:

    A physicist says: November 23, 2011 at 8:40 am “It seems to me that Prof. Bickmore’s analysis is rational, respectful, and fact-driven.”

    Without going into a long treatise about Prof. Brickmore’s lecture’s short comings, I will point out just a few of the problems.

    Brickman used Oreskes’s 2004 paper in Science to demonstrate the “consensus.” Oreskes was rebuked on several levels. For one, she neglected to cover any geophysical papers that presented data that made the AGW statements based on modeling incorrect on their face. In particular, the many papers regarding the MWP refuted on evidence MBH98’s model of 1,000 year global temps. None of them were mentioned as going against the consensus.These numerous peer-reviewed papers do not expressly try to refute the “consensus” by stating they go against the consensus and so, did not appear in her search for papers. But the works that show explicitly the sea level was higher and the atmosphere warmer during the MWP strongly refute the “consensus” that bought into MBH98 (the “Hockey Stick”).

    Further, the six-scenario modeling used by the IPCC and Hansen in his testimony to Congress in 1988 had its roots in the mid 1980s. We’re now more than 30 years on — plenty of time to see if those models are proving at all correct. They are not. So poorly have the models performed that their results show no statistical relevance to what really transpired. For example, Hansen predicted that, under the “do nothing” premise, the global average temperature should rise more than 1.2°C over that period. The average global temperature rise from Hansen’s base line is only about 0.2°C and declining.

    Brickman himself resorted to cherry-picking when he went after Monckton’s recent decadal comparison of observed temperatures with the IPCC projections. If he had considered the IPCC’s century-based sea level projections and compared them to the PGR-adjusted tide-gage studies (Gornitz & Lebedef for example), he would have noticed that there was no agreement at all between the two projections — the IPCC’s best case scenario showed a higher sea level rise than the highest estimate of sea level rise parsed from the observed data. When the subsequent directly observed sea level rise played out over the past couple of decades, reality did not conform with the IPCC projections. The requisite accelerating rise of over 4mm/yr necessary to achieve the IPCC “target” by the end of this century, ended up more like less than 2mm/yr and decelerating. In deed, the sea level fell 6mm in 2010 and is expected to fall even farther this year when all data is in.

    Brinkman’s lecture is clever, rational, and somewhat respectful, but missed (avoided?) the heart of the entire matter — what has really happened with the global climate(s).

  706. For those unfamiliar with all the players and issues, I suggest a review of my (shameless plug) “ClimateGate: 30 Years in the Making” graphic timeline (hosted on JoNova’s site), which covered the first batch of ClimateGate e-mails, to get some background and context. And for those familiar with the players and issues, you’ll find it helps understand what else was happening at the same time as a given e-mail to give it more context.

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/

  707. A physicist says:
    Dave Wendt asks: “What in your understanding is the residence time of a photon of infrared energy emitted from the earth which is absorbed by a molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere?”

    Michael Jennings says: “I have to agree with “a physicist” here. There is a lot of slogan-chanting, cherry- picking and witch-hunting going on but most of it comes from people like him/her at other sites. I am still waiting for his answer to Dave Wendt’s last question.”

    It’s pleasant to see such a thirst for knowledge here on WUWT. A certain humility is helpful, since as Chen, Laane, Wheeler, and Zhang accurately assert in their article (available free on-line) in the November Notices of the American Mathematical Society titled “Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective”

    “At a most fundamental level, the understanding of the greenhouse effect requires atomic and molecular physics and chemistry, as well as the associated mathematics: partial differential equations, group theory, and large-scale scientific computing. In fact, in order to fully understand the relevant properties of H2O, CO2, CH4, and others, one needs at least a whole year’s worth of graduate courses in physical chemistry. This will far exceed the scope of this article. Regardless of however small the amount of information we may be able to convey here is, we hope that we can arouse some interest in physical chemistry in the mathematics community.”

    In a similar vein, a concrete place to start in grasping why Dave Wendt’s one-sentence question leads planetary climatologists to write book-length answers is the American Institute of Physics (AIP) web site “The Discovery of Global Warming” in particular Spencer Weart’s (lengthy) survey page titled “Basic Radiation Calculations” (a Google search will find it).

    Spencer Weart’s survey is highly recommended … if you’re extraordinarily keen on math, physics, and the history of science! :)

  708. Theo Goodwin says:

    A physicist says:
    November 23, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Son, we are happy to debate you. If you have an argument to make, make it in your own words. Do not refer us elsewhere and expect a reply.

  709. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    This troll is making this thread too long, too boring.

    later when its gone,,,

  710. David Falkner says:

    Interesting. Edited for readability:

    We are now using the average of 4 AR4 scenarios you gave us for GHG + aerosol. What is the situation likely to be for AR5 forcing, particularly anthropogenic aerosols. Are there any new estimates yet? Pareticularly, will there be a revision in time for the 2010 forecast? We do in the meantime have an explanation for the interannual variability of the last decade.

    However this fits well only when an underlying net GHG+aerosol warming of 0.15C per decade is fitted in the statistical models. In a sense the methods we use would automatically fit to a reduced net warming rate so Mike McCracken can be told that. In other words the method creates it own transient climate sensitivity for recent warming. But the forcing rate underlying the method nevertheless perhaps sits a bit uncomfortably with the absolute forcing figures we are using from AR4.

    However having said this, interestingly, the statistics and DePreSys are in remarkable harmony about the temperature of 2009.

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5794

  711. Stephen Wilde says:

    “At a most fundamental level, the understanding of the greenhouse effect requires atomic and molecular physics and chemistry, as well as the associated mathematics: partial differential equations, group theory, and large-scale scientific computing. In fact, in order to fully understand the relevant properties of H2O, CO2, CH4, and others, one needs at least a whole year’s worth of graduate courses in physical chemistry. This will far exceed the scope of this article. Regardless of however small the amount of information we may be able to convey here is, we hope that we can arouse some interest in physical chemistry in the mathematics community.”

    Yeah, right. As in “certain molecules slow down the transfer of energy to space a bit more than others”.

    Talk about obfuscation.

  712. TomB says:

    As expected, the only MSM coverage of this on the front page UEA’s outrage and denial.
    http://news.yahoo.com/university-slams-apparent-climate-email-leak-172056597.html

  713. Gail Combs says:

    Jeffrey Davis says:
    November 22, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    Gail Collins sez, “Beliefs” and “Causes” belong to religion and politics they have absolutely no place in science because it leads to “Confirmation Bias”

    Well, no.

    Scientists are scientists only when they do science. The rest of the time, they have ordinary lives to lead…….
    __________________________
    I know about “Confirmation Bias” because I have caught “Scientists” in the act and had the owners of the firm fire their rumps. I have also been fired because I would not falsify lab data at the directive of other firms. I have had several knock down drag out fights because of the issue of “Confirmation Bias” during my forty year career as a chemist. From my experience “Confirmation Bias” is probably one of the biggest problems in science and the scientists not effected by it are a lot few than those who are.

    Why the heck do you think new information must be replicated at three independent labs is a rule of thumb?

    For example if I come up with a new drug it will be handed to a second scientist within the company to be validated BEFORE the company will spend the money for sending it to an outside testing firm.

    The Fleischmann–Pons cold fusion controversy was all about independent lab validation. This is how science is SUPPOSED to be done!

  714. Leon Brozyna says:

    We’ve heard so much from everyone about this latest offering of e-mails, but have yet to hear from the Union of Concerned Scientists’ spokesdog, Mr. Kenji Watts. I wonder what his take on all this might be.

  715. A physicist says:
    From the on-line Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective: “At a most fundamental level, the understanding of the greenhouse effect requires atomic and molecular physics and chemistry, as well as the associated mathematics: partial differential equations, group theory, and large-scale scientific computing. In fact, in order to fully understand the relevant properties of H2O, CO2, CH4, and others, one needs at least a whole year’s worth of graduate courses in physical chemistry. This will far exceed the scope of this article. Regardless of however small the amount of information we may be able to convey here is, we hope that we can arouse some interest in physical chemistry in the mathematics community.”

    Stephen Wilde says: Yeah, right. As in “certain molecules slow down the transfer of energy to space a bit more than others”.

    Stephen, your post correctly summarized in one sentence the fundamental reason why global warming is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.

    For many CEOs, military strategists, mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, Stephen’s one-sentence summary is sufficient; the above-named on-line lectures by Prof. Barry Bickmore and by Admiral David Titley work through the scientific and military implications very clearly.

    Other folks may prefer to delve more deeply into the fundamental math and physics of climate change, and to help these ambitious learners abundant scientific resources are available on-line and free-as-in-freedom.

    A third option is to embrace the peculiarly popular brand of skepticism that is grounded mainly in slogan-chanting, cherry-picking and witch-hunting. This brand of skepticism has the advantages of being easy and fun, but in the long run it has little or no enduring value.

  716. Denise says:

    AW have you seesn this
    http://brohan.org/philip/job/crutem3/docs/
    can you do anything with it?

  717. Gail Combs says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 22, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    Trenberth is an awful poet. I figure even I can do better:

    We, the kings, of climate are
    Raising the price, of running your car…..
    ________________________
    ROTFLMAO I hope Anthony puts this in a prominent place. Or maybe elmer (November 22, 2011 at 9:47 am) can do it as another video.

    (Give them permission Hint, Hint)

  718. Robert Clemenzi says:

    This is weird, when the archive is searched for the word “moon” (no quotes), it crashes.

  719. David Falkner says:

    Oh, this is good. Skeptics are funded by Big Oil, but who is running everything by Shell so they don’t “rock the boat”?

    …The report back etc will be to Shell International in London and not Shell
    Solar in Holland or South Africa. This is a critical point as there are
    numerous sensitivities here. To over-simplify somewhat – Shell
    International are interested in generic conclusions regarding the
    viability of CDM (and we should have some very useful information for
    them). Shell Solar do not want anyone ‘interfering’ with their set-up in
    South Africa (so we have to be a little circumspect in regard to the
    specifics of that situation). That’s in strictest confidence!
    Regards
    Mick

    Mike Hulme later writes:

    Mick,
    Thanks for clarifying. We have no intentions of ‘rocking the boat’.

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=752

  720. Stephen Wilde says:

    A physicist said:

    “Stephen, your post correctly summarized in one sentence the fundamental reason why global warming is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating”

    You should read my stuff because there is more:

    The water cycle gets bigger and/or faster to speed up the transfer of energy to space thus offsetting the GHG effect.

    All you get is an infinitesimal shift in the surface air pressure distribution. Merely a tiny fraction of the similar shifting from oceanic and solar causes.

    Keep it simple.

  721. P.F. says:

    A physicist says: November 23, 2011 at 10:56 am “Stephen, your post correctly summarized in one sentence the fundamental reason why global warming is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.”

    I believe the “accelerating” part has been disproved. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I’m a sea level guy mostly and whether it be decadal or century long, there is no signal of present acceleration. Indeed, all evidence says the rate of change has diminished such that the recent decadal rate is less than the mean rate going back more than 100 years. (That means deceleration.)

    You, dear physicist, are resorting to slogan-chanting. I invite you to demonstrate that the present rate of sea level rise (or surface temperatures) is accelerating and is within the projections put forth by the IPCC and its ilk. In the absence of such effort, you are, simply, a slogan chanter.

  722. Chris B says:

    A physicist says:
    November 23, 2011 at 10:56 am
    From the on-line Greenhouse Gas Molecules: A Mathematical Perspective: “At a most fundamental level, the understanding of the greenhouse effect requires atomic and molecular physics and chemistry, as well as the associated mathematics: partial differential equations, group theory, and large-scale scientific computing. In fact, in order to fully understand the relevant properties of H2O, CO2, CH4, and others, one needs at least a whole year’s worth of graduate courses in physical chemistry.

    __________________________________

    And just how many Angel’s do you think can dance on the head of a pin, and why?

  723. David Falkner says:

    Robert Clemenzi says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:05 am

    I have had some issues also. When I try to go to the second page of the 30 results for ‘Mick Kelly’, it is blank.

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=4&search=mick+kelly&sisea_offset=10

    It isn’t a URL problem.

  724. Birdieshooter says:

    Climategate-the gift that keeps on giving

  725. David L says:

    #1737
    About our friend Steve McIntyre (who sent a request to Phil to retract a statement in a paper)….See 1737 for the full thread. Mann’s advice to Phil how to respond to Steve:

    To: Phil Jones
    From: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: Re: Fw: Rutherford et al. [2004]

    Phil,
    I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud.
    You’ve probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes
    McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on
    “RealClimate”, but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I’ve attached
    it in case you haven’t seen (please don’t pass it along to others yet). It should be in
    press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things
    can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate–he is funded by
    the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc…
    Other than this distraction, I hope you’re enjoying the holidays too…
    talk to you soon,
    mike

  726. A physicist says:

    P.F. says: I invite you to demonstrate that the present rate of sea level rise (or surface temperatures) is accelerating and is within the projections put forth by the IPCC and its ilk. In the absence of such effort, you are, simply, a slogan-chanter.

    P.F., that’s easy. Decadal variations in Arctic sea-ice coverage are relatively small compared to predicted AGW effects, and in this relatively low-noise data-set we see the acceleration of AGW plainly, at a rate well above IPCC’s highest predictions.

    Needless to say, this marked acceleration of AGW has not escaped the attention of the world’s shipping companies and military strategists; and this a major reason why prominent CEOs and military leaders are turning away from AGW skepticism. For one plain, simple, non-ideological reason: AGW skepticism doesn’t work.

  727. motsatt says:

    A physicist says:
    November 23, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Other folks may prefer to delve more deeply into the fundamental math and physics of climate change, and to help these ambitious learners abundant scientific resources are available on-line and free-as-in-freedom.

    Really? You really haven’t paid any attention to what is being said on data ‘ free-as-in-freedom’. FOI means freedom of information act for your further reading on the issue. Good reading.

  728. Smokey says:

    a physicist says:

    “…global warming is real, serious, human-caused, and accelerating.”

    Two out of three wrong = FAIL.

    Of course global warming is real. The planet is still emerging from the LIA. Temperatures have been much higher [and much lower] prior to the industrial revolution, when CO2 was very low. So you got that one right, but for the wrong reason.

    There is ZERO testable, empirical evidence that warming is human caused. That is simply a conjecture. It may be true that added CO2 causes some minor, beneficial warming. But real world, falsifiable evidence is non-existent.

    And global temperatures are not accelerating.

    You don’t know much about this subject, and what you ‘know’ is wrong.

  729. Joe says:

    Police: Stop right there!
    Killer: What?! What did I do?
    Police: You killed that man!
    Killer: No I didn’t!
    Police: We caught you red handed. You’re standing over the body with a smoking gun.
    Killer: So?!
    Police: And a check from the dead man’s wife, made out to you, with “for killing my husband” in the memo section.
    Killer: … well you’re just cherry picking!

  730. R.S.Brown says:

    Please note that neither Climategate 2.0 or the password protected 7zip file
    will contain e-mails that were circulated exclusively among Team
    members here in the United States and Canada.

    The trioika of Mann, Bradley and Hansen may not have shared many of their
    e-mails with their cousins at UEA/CRU.

    If true, then the exclusively American side of the “CAUSE” will be found in
    those e-mails currently sequestered by the court in the University of
    Virginia FOIA case concerning the e-mails emanating from Mike Mann back
    then.

    Mann’s proclivity for snarky or downright insulting comments about
    anyone who disagrees with him in the slightest may be why he wants
    those particular e-mails to be considered his very personal and very private
    property.

    He could never afford to be seen offending his fellow travelers and defenders.

  731. Sean Houlihane says:

    foia2011.org id=5102 Susan Solomon calling for emails to be written to New Scientist, in rebuttal to a suggestion that there was political influence in the drafting of SPM.

    Regarding Paris: If you wish to refer to the fact that you as a
    group feel that the changes that occurred in Paris were essentially
    editorial issues of language or presentation style, that you were
    indeed surprised by how minor the changes were (as many of you have
    said to me) this would be good to have in a document if you feel so.
    ‘Presentation style’ is good language, I think, since even the
    famous change regarding ‘likely five times’ and solar in the RF
    headline was a non-change, really, since we fully retained all the
    information in the figure and in the main text – so in essence even
    that was a matter of presentation in the end, which is a key reason
    why I didn’t push harder to keep it. I don’t suggest you get into
    details but this is FYI.

    Regarding earlier drafts: It could also be useful to state that at
    no point during any step in the drafting and revision process was
    there any inappropriate input by ‘government agents’ to the framing
    of the document that was the starting point for Paris (rather that it
    was prepared jointly by the authors in order to present the report
    clearly in the collective judgement of those authors). I had to
    write a short description of how the SPM was prepared in response to
    a question after our congressional hearing (and I add that Kevin,
    Jerry, and Richard Alley all saw this and agreed with it). A
    little more detail than I put in here could be useful for this. The
    fact that collectively the authors made choices based entirely upon
    their own expert judgements about clarity, conciseness, and accuracy,
    bearing in mind the need for brevity in the document could be
    helpful. I am not trying to put words in your mouth but rather make
    a suggestion about the type of thing to say – in fact it will be
    better if you rewrite this so it is your own words. Such a broad
    letter could have great utility: we could all use it whenever
    appropriate, rather than just for New Scientist. We might consider
    putting it on the WG1 web site too.

  732. A physicist says:

    motsatt says: Really? You really haven’t paid any attention to what is being said on data ‘ free-as-in-freedom’. FOI means freedom of information act for your further reading on the issue. Good reading.

    Motsatt, to mathematicians, scientists, and engineers the phrase “free-as-in-freedom” means even more than that: it means a sustained commitment that scientific publications, data, and software should none of them be hidden behind paywalls.

    Two patron saints of the “free-as-in-freedom” movement are Richard Stallman and Al Gore. For some reason, neither name is commonly applauded by conservatives … both names should be.

    At the end of the day, broader acceptance of the conservative principle “free-as-in-freedom” means swifter acknowledgement of the sobering realities of climate change. Both outcomes are good for conservatism and liberalism alike.

  733. Jeff C says:

    Folks, don’t waste your time engaging “A physicist”. He isn’t a physicist but rather college professor John Sidles of the University of Washington.
    http://faculty.washington.edu/sidles/FRIAS_2011/

    Google his favorite phrase, “slogan-chanting, cherry-picking and witch-hunting” and you’ll find him using it among his own community with his real name. Charlie Martin at PJ Media outed him months ago, he’s a troll of the worst sort.

    I’m reasonably sure he’s also the infamous TCO, banned from Climate Audit, WUWT, Lucia’s, Air Vent, and numerous right-wing political blogs including PJ Media, Just One Moment, and Patterico. He was “scientist” at Climate Audit last year and I’m sure has countless other aliases.

    Did I miss any TCO? I thought you were an HVAC engineer?

    http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/01/lights-0-air-conditioners-22/#comment-96953

  734. Theo Goodwin says:

    A physicist says:
    November 23, 2011 at 10:56 am

    We now have incontrovertible evidence that “A Physicist” is a bot.

  735. David L says:

    Phil Jones saying that he stopped World Service from doing anything on a press release prior to COP…”control the message”!!!!
    excerpt below…see #2245 for full text

    from: Phil Jones
    subject: RE: something on new online.
    to: “Alex Kirby”

    Alex,
    Of course, I’ll still talk. I was just looking at your items as the COP-10
    is coming up very soon – could have started.
    I managed to stop the World Service doing anything on this lot (see below).
    Julian could see it was just pre-COP propaganda, and all the issues are
    being dealt with, some better than others.
    The report is not worth getting involved with as it is all the same sort
    of rubbish that these groups peddle at this time.
    Cheers
    Phil
    From: Julian Siddle [[1]REDACTEDREDACTED]
    Sent: 07 December 2004 11:01
    To: REDACTED
    Subject: Climate change
    Dear Cathy Young,
    Hi I was just speaking to Emma in your press office who suggested I send you
    an email. I am a radio producer with the BBC World Service responsible for
    science news coverage.
    I have received a press release, copied below, from a group which
    fundementally opposes the conventional views of climate change. Please could
    you show this to your colleagues in the climate research unit, I would be
    interested in their views on the assertions put forward in the release.
    Unfortunately I do not have the full report at present.
    Please could they comment on the assertions which follow the paragraph
    ‘There are key issues that must be better understood if policy is to more
    closely match current knowledge levels. Examples of issues that are not
    adequately understood in the climate debate include:’
    I am hoping to produce a news report about this later today for broadcast
    after midnight. Please do give me a call with any questions.
    Many thanks
    Julian
    Julian Siddle
    BBC Science Radio
    Bush House
    London
    WC2B 4PH

  736. Magnus says:

    I have a very elementary physics question since I am a pretty stupid, so any of you physics ppl out there feel free to explain:

    I have read that the basic sensitivity of climate (the power of the GHG-effects) is logarithmic expressed as about 1 degree celsius for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Does this mean that models stating a possible 6 degree increase by 2100 expect feedbacks to make the concentration (let’s assume a starting point of 350ppm) 350×2=700 (1C), 700×2=1400 (2C), 1400×2=2800 (3C), 2800×2=5600 (4C), 5600×2=11200(5C), 11200×2=22400 (6C).

    Are they expecting a tipping point around 400ppm to send us into a possible concentration of 22400 ppm by 2100?

    Sorry for this very basic question, but I need it sorted out.

  737. A physicist says:

    Smokey asserts: “And global temperatures are not accelerating.”

    Smokey, looking for evidence of AGW in high-variability data-sets is futile: skeptic and true-believer alike shamelessly cherry-pick their data, hunt their witches, and chant their slogans … as we are seeing very plainly here on WUWT.

    On the other hand: (1) oceans act as thermal reservoirs that average short-term variations, (2) shallow oceans respond more rapidly than deep oceans, and (3) high-latitudes are most sensitive to greenhouse gas effects.

    For these three reasons, climate scientists expect to see evidence for AGW most plainly and most quickly in the arctic. And what every space-faring nation on earth sees plainly is accelerating climate change in the arctic … at a pace substantially more rapid than the IPCC’s most pessimistic predictions.

    That’s a major, sobering, common-sense reason why the world’s prominent CEOs and military leaders are turning away from AGW skepticism.

  738. Steve Garcia says:

    @Ron Cram says:
    November 22, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    “When is someone going to put these emails into a searchable format online? I can’t wait to run a few keywords!”

    Ron –

    I’ve been successful just using Window’s XP’s search. I narrow it down to the Mail or Documents folder, and then enter the term in the “a word or phrase in the file” field. It’s been finding things every time.

    If you have Windows 7 which has a search UI I freaking HATE, I can’t help you.

  739. Robert E. Phelan says:

    A physicist says:

    John, you’ve done a fair job of thread-hijacking, but this thread is about the revelations in the latest group of e-mails. You are an award-winning researcher, so tell me, are the events documented here also common practice in your lab? Do you hide data and methods, obfuscate results, attempt to recruit investigative journalists to discredit your critics? Do you downplay negative results to present a nice tidy picture? If you became aware of such practices in your field, would you just shrug your shoulders and say that the underlying science is sound?

    Frankly, despite your credentials and accomplishments you are just another political troll contributing nothing but sound and fury.

  740. Ammonite says:

    Magnus says: November 23, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    I have read that the basic sensitivity of climate (the power of the GHG-effects) is logarithmic expressed as about 1 degree celsius for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere… Are they expecting a tipping point around 400ppm to send us into a possible concentration of 22400 ppm by 2100?

    No, CO2 concentration does not double in the way you describe. The theory is that the initial 1C temperature rise sets of a chain of positive feedbacks that act to increase temperature further. Examples might include rising water vapour (itself a potent GHG), lowering surface reflectivity as ice melts etc. The median result from scores of studies is +3C per doubling. See Knutti & Hegerl 2008 http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf. (A result of +6C seems extremely unlikely.)

  741. TheGoodLocust says:

    “Magnus says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:18 pm

    Are they expecting a tipping point around 400ppm to send us into a possible concentration of 22400 ppm by 2100?”

    No, they understand it is logarithmic so in order to get the models to show such scenarios they have invented a set of hypothetical positive feedbacks. They say the warmth from the CO2 will:

    1) Increase water vapor (down 10% in the last decade of real world measurements)
    2) release methane from permafrost and other sources (methane has leveled off in real world measurements)
    3) Melt the Greenland ice sheet, Antarctica and generally reduce albedo

    In short, such models are little more than fan fiction for the climate community that exaggerate warming effects while minimizing or ignoring cooling effects.

  742. RACookPE1978 says:

    A physicist says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:33 am
    (replying to)
    P.F. says: I invite you to demonstrate that the present rate of sea level rise (or surface temperatures) is accelerating and is within the projections put forth by the IPCC and its ilk. In the absence of such effort, you are, simply, a slogan-chanter.

    P.F., that’s easy. Decadal variations in Arctic sea-ice coverage are relatively small compared to predicted AGW effects, and in this relatively low-noise data-set we see the acceleration of AGW plainly, at a rate well above IPCC’s highest predictions.

    Needless to say, this marked acceleration of AGW has not escaped the attention of the world’s shipping companies and military strategists; and this a major reason why prominent CEOs and military leaders are turning away from AGW skepticism. For one plain, simple, non-ideological reason: AGW skepticism doesn’t work.

    Dead wrong. CAGW has nothing but a religious-led dogma behind it. “The Cause” as it is referred to in these released emails: The desire to “free” mankind from all (efficient and economical) energy use. The desire (unstated) to kill billions in order to “save the planet” from that virus known as humans.

    The politicians feed on that dogma, that fear that they can inspire in their enviro-led leftist community who support them. From that fear, that feeding frenzied feedback of politics and the easily-deluded leftist/social-justice voters comes MONEY and POWER. The politician use both to control money and new projects. The universities? Even more dogmatic, more tied emotionally to the CAGW dogma. Even less tied to moral reason and moral codes.

    You – wrongly – claim CEO’s and engineers believe in CAGW. They don’t. But their company’s current income (this year, the past years since 2007 when Pelosi began control of the federal budget now can ONLY come from fed-funded “green energy” projects. So they apply for them – the lucky ones, the ones who bundled millions of dollars for Pelosi and Obama, get the first loans and the first grants. The “insiders” who controlled the market since Al Gore began with Enron carbon tax and carbon trading schemes in the late 1990’s, make their billions already.

    The rest? The honest ones? The engineers, the CEO’s, the writers, the REAL military analysts who didn’t “buy their retirement” by toeing the party line, and who didn’t payoff the democrats? Were screwed. Were fired. Lost their companies, their lived

    Academics? You, the others who claim skeptical scientists change their results for money from “big oil” … So, that means you absolutely believe “money can change scientific results”.

    If so, how many “scientists” did money, power, influence, and a righteous dogmatic religious fervor in “The Cause” change and influence results did 89 billion in federal money buy?

    How many “pal-reviewed” articles were approved due to CAGW group think, and how many were rejected by unknown, never-accountable judges who follow the CAGW mantra? You stand condemned by your own words.

  743. Latitude says:

    And what every space-faring nation on earth sees plainly is accelerating climate change in the arctic … at a pace substantially more rapid than the IPCC’s most pessimistic predictions.
    ====================================
    If your point is that they’ve been wrong about everything…….then you’re right

  744. Jose Suro says:

    FOX News has a new piece in SciTech titled: “Did £10 Stand in the Way of Climate Science?

    Article here: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/11/23/did-10-stand-in-way-climate-science/

    Best,

    J.

  745. TheGoodLocust says:

    A Physicist:

    “And what every space-faring nation on earth sees plainly is accelerating climate change in the arctic ”

    Doesn’t sound very “global” now does it? Oh wait, we can only say that about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age despite widespread proxy evidence that indicates otherwise.

    It is awfully convenient that we only see this “accelerating climate change” in the arctic where we don’t have long records of any sort and where infillling makes things look warm – as they admit in their emails (to get things back on topic):

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=270

    “The infilling is partly the reason they got 2005 so warm, by extrapolating across the Arctic from t the coastal stations.”

    Warmest year EVER! Bwahaaha!

  746. David L says:

    Mike Hulme sympathizes with Will Hutton:
    “In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about
    power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many
    “facts” about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal.”

    #2037
    shackley_Simon,REDACTED
    date: Mon Dec 8 14:10:21 2003
    from: Mike Hulme
    subject: Re: Will Hutton’s A-level essay
    to: “Richard Starkey”

    Richard,
    The McIntyre and McKitrick paper (MM03) has got a hidden agenda behind it. Check out this
    web site for some commentary on it. As with the contentious Soon and Baliunas paper, MM03
    has been published by Energy & Environment and is part of Sonja Christriansen-Boehmer’s
    on-going campaign.
    [1]http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/EEReply.html
    So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global
    warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In
    particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about
    power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many
    “facts” about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal.
    I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of “sound science”
    and Tyndall’s reaction to it some thought recently.
    Mike

  747. harrywr2 says:

    @A Physicist

    For these three reasons, climate scientists expect to see evidence for AGW most plainly and most quickly in the arctic.

    Temperature change in Alaska – notice the step change around 1975.
    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

    Please explain to me how a 5F step change in a couple of years is caused by ‘gradual warming’ due to Co2 emissions. I think it’s called the ‘PDO’.

  748. elmer says:

    How about this? A parody of ” A Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall” by Bob Dylan

    “For The Cause of Global Warming”

    Oh, where have you been my balding son?
    And where have you been my bearded one?
    I’ve stumbled on glaciers on twelve misty mountains
    I’ve walked and I’ve crawled to both polar ice caps
    I’ve taken tree ring samples from seven sad forests
    I’ve been out in front of a dozen dead oceans
    I’ve been to ten thousand weather stations that are all next to pavement
    It’s for the cause, for the cause, for the cause, for the cause
    It’s for the cause of global warming

    Oh, what did you see my balding son?
    And what did you see my bearded one?
    I saw a newborn baby exhaling carbon dioxide
    I saw a mass transit system with nobody on it
    I saw a big glacier that seemed to be drippin
    I saw 3 things floating that might have been polar bears
    I saw a tall building all covered with water
    I saw ten thousand tree rings that were flat as a pancake
    I saw one tree ring sample that went up on the right
    It’s for the cause, for the cause, for the cause, for the cause
    It’s for the cause of global warming

    And what did you do my balding son?
    And what did you do now my bearded one?
    I took the tree data that was flat as a pancake
    I merged in the one tree but multiplied it by a hundred
    I added the compromised land station temperature
    I formed it and bent it till it looked like a hockey stick
    I used it to get a lot more grant money
    I showed it to a man who used it in a movie
    It’s for the cause, for the cause, for the cause, for the cause
    It’s for the cause of global warming

    Oh, who did you meet my balding son?
    Who did you meet my bearded one?
    I met a young child beside a dead eagle
    I met a white man who drove an SUV
    I met a young woman shoveling her driveway
    I met a young man, he was wearing a rainbow
    I met an old man who looked really scary
    I met a bunch of old men all wearing dark robes 
    It’s for the cause, for the cause, for the cause, for the cause
    It’s for the cause of global warming

    And what’ll you do next my balding son?
    And what’ll you do next my bearded one?
    I’ll tell all the people the oceans are rising
    We’ll tax them untill their pockets are all empty
    We’ll scatter the landscape with a million wind turbines
    Where the spinning blades will kill all of the raptors
    Where the home in the valley is a damp dirty prison
    Where the executioner’s face is always well hidden
    Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten
    Where black is the color, where none is the number
    And I’ll tell and think it and speak it and breathe it
    And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it
    Then I’ll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin’
    But I’ll know my songs well before I start singin’
    It’s for the cause, for the cause, for the cause, for the cause
    It’s for the cause of global warming

  749. Lance of BC says:

    Someone has said it already, “a physicist slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting”
    Is John Sidles
    http://en.gravatar.com/sidles
    Found this out last night but the internet went down and couldn’t post it, he is not a physicist.

  750. RACookPE1978 says:

    A physicist says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:24 pm
    (Responding to)
    Smokey asserts: “And global temperatures are not accelerating.”

    Smokey, looking for evidence of AGW in high-variability data-sets is futile: skeptic and true-believer alike shamelessly cherry-pick their data, hunt their witches, and chant their slogans … as we are seeing very plainly here on WUWT.

    On the other hand: (1) oceans act as thermal reservoirs that average short-term variations, (2) shallow oceans respond more rapidly than deep oceans, and (3) high-latitudes are most sensitive to greenhouse gas effects.

    For these three reasons, climate scientists expect to see evidence for AGW most plainly and most quickly in the arctic. And what every space-faring nation on earth sees plainly is accelerating climate change in the arctic … at a pace substantially more rapid than the IPCC’s most pessimistic predictions.

    False. Dead wrong.

    Arctic Sea ice is declining slightly, but Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Explain that inconvenient fact.

    The ONLY temperatures showing the Arctic temp’s have increased are NASA-GISS extrapolated 1200 km smoothed areas around limited single thermometers on land areas extrapolated out over the sea. And Russian stations that Russians claim are wrongly presented! (But does Hansen have any reason to present false conclusions? At 1.5 person millions is payoff a year????)

    DMI Latitude 80 north summer temperatures have declined since 1959. They are declining even more since the last 12 years. What increase in temperatures are they (not) measuring? Nothing ‘melts” at -25 degrees in the winter.

  751. Julia Townsend-Rose says:

    It would be good if they had a proper inquiry into these peoples activities, only this time appoint an unbiased chairman! Now there’s a revolutionary idea!!

  752. sophocles says:

    ROFL … ah, what a great crowd—the comments are more entertaining than the dancing emails! :-) … pass the popcorn … pass the soda … pass the icecreams …

  753. A physicist says:

    Robert, you raise plenty of good points. In medicine, about one-in-ten physicians is mentally ill and/or substance-impaired and/or unethically profit-centric — yet medicine progresses. In mathematics, science and engineering, roughly half of all articles (in my opinion, and to use Pauli’s famous phrase) are “not even wrong” — yet mathematics, science, and engineering all progress.

    The point is that progress in medicine, mathematics, science, and engineering is driven entirely by the best practitioners … not the worst.

    The same general principles apply both to the climate science and to skepticism of that science: (1) it is a grave mistake to focus exclusively on the weakest climate science (which to my mind is that climate science which is unimaginatively data-centric), and (2) it is equally a grave mistake to criticize climate-change science by the weakest expressions of skepticism (which to my mind are cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-chanting).

    The plain fact is, a planet inhabited by seven-going-on-ten billion people cannot afford either kind of weakness, and our children’s generation is depending utterly upon our generation not to make either kind of mistake.

  754. crosspatch says:

    3556.txt is rather interesting. Here we have Briffa apparently “setting up” someone to arrange for a reviewer for someone who apparently wouldn’t want him as a reviewer. In other words, looks like Briffa is stacking the deck here for an unfavorable review:

    > please accept – the answer is that it is likely someone who might
    > prefer you not to do it
    > Keith
    >

    The paper in question is “Manuscript ID HOL-09-0054 entitled “A 622-year regional temperature
    history of southeast Tibet derived from tree rings” has been submitted to The Holocene.”

  755. Gail Combs says:

    HenryP says:
    November 23, 2011 at 9:31 am

    …….You have to also look at the increase in maxima and minima
    Note the correlation with the leaf area index, that I have picked up on…
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
    ___________________________
    Henry, you really should cross post this stuff. That is what Willis Eschenbach has done and he ended up with a peer reviewed paper by the end of it. I hate seeing your work buried in the bottom of the comment section. Several people Like Bob Tissdale, George E. Smith (ChiefIO) Roy Spencer, and others cross post here to see that ideas get a wide exposure and a proper vetting.

    The Thermostat Hypothesis: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

    Tropical Tropospheric Amplification – an invitation to review this new paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/30/tropical-tropospheric-amplification-an-invitation-to-review-this-new-paper/

    This is an extension of the ideas I laid out as the Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis on WUWT…. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/28/sense-and-sensitivity/

    Willis publishes his thermostat hypothesis paper: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/24/willis-publishes-his-thermostat-hypothesis-paper/

    Further Evidence for my Thunderstorm Thermostat Hypothesis: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/further-evidence-for-my-thunderstorm-thermostat-hypothesis/

  756. Max Hugoson says:

    I have just completed a 6 month contract engineering job. I developed a Quality Assurance plan, wrote the manual, revised about 40 detailed operational procedures…fought with the “Certification Agency” to demonstrate that we met their 40 page certification guideline.

    I created and recieved over 4,000 Emails in that 6 months time.

    I archived and indexed the 4,000 Emails, leaving them under a folder for the QA department, for ANYONE to review.

    NOTHING in my PROFESSIONAL/Courteous Emails would be found that I would NOT PUBLISH TO THE WORLD! I NEVER put any emotion into my “professional work”. I never put anything that cannot be transparently justified as “fact”. I’m not afraid of discussion and “point by point” rebuttal or responses. I’m not afraid to say, “I think you will find according to section 14.0 of the Guide, paragraph 4, this sentence (I quote.) and would ask if this document and our section (?) do not meet this criteria.

    The CHILDISH, petulent, silly, politically (translate, EMOTIONALLY) driven nature of these communications drive me NUTS!

    These are written by people with NO FEAR OF GOD or MAN. This is a tragedy of first order. These people have no “higher authority” to respond to. Thus they behave as their own “Demigods”. We must strive to cut off their FUNDING, to allow them to “die on or off the vine” as it would be.

    I have no sympathies for them. Also, at least in the “medical field” when people are found to engage in deliberate FRAUD they are: 1. Censured. 2. Loose academic positions, 3. Banned from further research or publication for periods of time. 4. Occassionally stripped of their Medical License. IT is to bad this cannot be done to the “climate scientists”. I would recommend that PHD granting Universities consider revoking PHDs for some of the more aggregious offenders!

    Max

  757. Rob Crawford says:

    “(from her/his handle, claiming to be ‘A physicist’, but using only non-Physics arguments)”

    The fellow calling himself “a physicist” used to frequent the PJMedia “Tatler” comments until he apparently got tired of having it pointed out that he never actually makes a scientific argument in favor of CAGW. His “arguments” are invariably logical fallacies and propaganda techniques: appeals to authority, appeals to the bandwagon, etc.

    Kudos to the people here for recognizing his… quality… so quickly!

    (BTW — weep that he apparently actually holds a PhD and a university position.)

  758. John-X says:

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/11/foia2011-on-shameful-paper.html

    Trenberth:

    “I am just back from travel and I have not seen any of the new batch of emails yet. Whatever is there is highly selective.”

    Ha ha. Have not seen it, but it’s ‘highly selective.’ Sounds a little like, “I haven’t read Donna’s book, but it’s terrible.”

    Being on The Team means you don’t need to see any evidence. And if you do see it, it supports your position completely…

    …or is Big Oil-funded denier quackery right-wing anti-science confusing the public.

  759. Jeremy says:

    A physicist says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    For these three reasons, climate scientists expect to see evidence for AGW most plainly and most quickly in the arctic.

    That’s strange, since they previously said they expected to see a “hot spot” over the high-altitude tropics based on their model results. That “hot spot”, btw, has completely failed to materialize. So exactly what kind of new modeling behavior now demonstrates that whatever Arctic changes have been definitively observed is enough to declare the old models wrong?

    This is basic goalpost movement behavior. “Oh that model doesn’t work, quickly create a new explanation for what we expect to see to confirm CAGW and make sure it agrees with what we see.”

  760. A physicist says:
    A physicist reminds folks: Smokey, looking for evidence of AGW in high-variability data-sets is futile: skeptic and true-believer alike shamelessly cherry-pick their data, hunt their witches, and chant their slogans … as we are seeing very plainly here on WUWT.

    On the other hand: (1) oceans act as thermal reservoirs that average short-term variations, (2) shallow oceans respond more rapidly than deep oceans, and (3) high-latitudes are most sensitive to greenhouse gas effects.

    For these three reasons, climate scientists expect to see evidence for AGW most plainly and most quickly in the arctic. And what every space-faring nation on earth sees plainly is accelerating climate change in the arctic … at a pace substantially more rapid than the IPCC’s most pessimistic predictions.

    RACookPE1978 claims: False. Dead wrong. Arctic Sea ice is declining slightly, but Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Explain that inconvenient fact.

    RACookPE1978, the short answer is that the Arctic is a shallow ocean that is surrounded by land, while the Antarctic is a deep ocean that surrounds an island — two very different climatological set-ups. A longer answer is given on-line by the folks at SkepticalScience.

    The longer answer is that science and skepticism equally serve humanity best when the most rational forms of skepticism are directed against the strongest scientific evidence.

    What’s happening here on WUWT is that the least rational kinds of skepticism (namely, cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-chanting) are being directed against the weakest kinds of climate science (namely, theory-free curve-fitting to noisy observational data sets).

    What that combination creates is a doubly-toxic public dialog that ill-serves our children’s generation.

  761. David Falkner says:

    @ physicist:

    Counting by billions, 8 is after 7. Your welcome.

  762. APACHEWHOKNOWS says:

    A Physicist,

    As you are so sure of the case of human caused global warming, a date boundary should be easy for your math skills to pass on to us of less knowledge.

    Year 2030, 2070, 2100, some mark by you with your name on it for history to review in time.

  763. Stephen Wilde says:

    “science and skepticism equally serve humanity best when the most rational forms of skepticism are directed against the strongest scientific evidence. ”

    Of course. But I couldn’t find any strong scientific evidence in favour of AGW.

    The strongest there is being the simple observations of Arrhenius but that tells us nothing of the system response to that which he observed. Everything since is just speculation unsupported by empirical data.

    Nothing yet observed is outside the normal range of natural variability.

    We owe it to our children to stop bad science. We also owe it to the energy poor around the world now and in the future.

  764. Humphrey says:

    Update 17: This is truly shocking. This is so clear cut that I would expect that Trenberth will have to resign or be fired somehow. This is because he is in the USA. Jones will stay on he is in Europa.

  765. strawbale says:

    from one of the emails, peer review and a science journal editor that apparently isnt AGW biased enough and cannot be tolerated…

    “>>This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that
    >>>deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the
    >>>skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions.
    >>>How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of
    >>>individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by
    >>>an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get
    >>>through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas,
    >>>Soon, and so on).
    >>>
    >>>The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be
    >>>difficult.”

  766. A physicist says:

    Stephen Wilde says: Nothing yet observed is outside the normal range of natural variability.

    Stephen, I’m sure you didn’t mean to say that! Gee, the levels of greenhouse gases that we’ve already injected are hugely outside the normal range of natural variability.