It seems I’m in a number of the Climategate 2.0 emails. Here’s a couple. The first one confirms to me that this batch is absolutely real, because Thomas Peterson is responding to a joint radio interview I did with him on a radio station in Seattle.
============================================================
File 0755.txt
date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:56:55 -0400
from: Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxx>
subject: Re: Lots about USHCN on Climate Audit
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxx>
<x-flowed>
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.
-Tom
Phil Jones said the following on 5/29/2007 6:14 AM:
>
>> Tom,
> I can’t find the stations Maryville and Lake Spaulding that
> have the pictures here in recent Climate Audit threads in the
> CRU database.
>
> CA seem to be working for Roger Pielke now, getting him
> loads of pictures !
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxx
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> —————————————————————————-
—
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: +1-828-271-4287
Fax: +1-828-271-4328
=======================================================================
date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:30:08 -0400
from: “Thomas.R.Karl” <Thomas.R.Karl@noaa.gov>
subject: Re: Keenan, China etc
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
Hi Phil,
Well… there will always be some outliers. Would be great to get IDAG and DAARWG on the same timeframe. Although let’s hope we don’t get the weather we had last Dec and early Jan in Boulder this year!
Regards, Tom
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:
Tom,
Have thought of you when sending the Wei-Chyung Keenan stuff.
Ferris and the DAARWG dates though reminded me of the above
again. Making the data available seems to make no difference to
Keenan’s response ! Hopefully you’ll report an update to DAARWG!
IDAG is meeting Jan 28-30 in Boulder. You couldn’t make the
last one at Duke. Have told Ferris about IDAG, as I thought DAARWG
might be meeting in Boulder. Jan 31-Feb1 would be very convenient
for me – one transatlantic flight, I would feel good about my carbon
bootprint and I would save the planet!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [1]p.jones@xxxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
—
Dr. Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.
Director
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
Veach-Baley Federal Building
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801-5001
Tel: (828) 271-4476
Fax: (828) 271-4246
[2]Thomas.R.Karl@xxxx
========================================================================
3739.txt
Here’s where Peterson is toying with the idea of the “ghost rebuttal”
date: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:31:24 -0400
from: Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxx>
subject: Re: Parker on Pielke
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxx>
Very cute, Phil. I’ve passed your suggestion on to Matt.
Tom
Phil Jones said the following on 5/15/2009 9:19 AM:
Tom, David, John,
Here’s the first paper to cite it! As we know they didn’t realise the significance
of Figure 1!
I hope you’ve persuaded Matt Menne to do that USHCN split (into the watts-up-that
categories).
You could then have a title.
Watts-up with this – no differences in US average for stations in different categories
Cheers
Phil
At 14:00 15/05/2009, Parker, David wrote:
Tom
Thanks.
For info, in the near future we plan to have discussions here on possible future
developments of the land surface air temperature analyses. We’ll let you know in due
course of any relevant developments.
David
David Parker, Climate Research scientist
Met Office Hadley Centre FitzRoy Road Exeter Devon EX1 3PB United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886649 Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
Email: [1]david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk
Website: [2]www.metoffice.gov.uk
See our guide to climate change at [3]http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: Thomas C Peterson [[4] mailto:Thomas.C.Peterson@xxxx]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:52 PM
To: Parker, David; Kennedy, John; Phil Jones
Subject: Parker on Pielke
David, Phil & John,
Attached is a copy of our paper:
Parker, David, E., Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, John Kennedy, 2009: Comment on
“Unresolved Issues with the Assessment of Multi-Decadal Global Land Surface Temperature
Trends” by Roger A. Pielke, Sr. et al., Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres,
114, D05104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010450.
When I took a couple month old BAMS with me to read while in a waiting room and
stumbled across a paper I was a co-author on, I realized I needed to update my vitae….
Regards,
Tom
—
Thomas C. Peterson,
Ph.D.
NOAA’s National Climatic
Data Center
151 Patton
Avenue
Asheville, NC
28801
Voice:
+1-828-271-xxxx
Fax:
+1-828-271-xxxx
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email [5]p.jones@xxxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
—————————————————————————-
—
Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D.
NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center
151 Patton Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Voice: +1-828-271-4287
Fax: +1-828-271-4876
========================================================================
3021.txt Somebody we know at WUWT and CA, is worried that people “I am very concerned that they are actually affecting the populace’s belief in GW”
date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 10:19:26 +0100
from: mike@xxxx
subject: A couple of questions
to: p.jones@xxxxx
Dr. Jones
I apologise for this intrusion!
I’m sure you are aware of the drivel posted on climateaudit –
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6654#comments
and wattsupwiththat
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
I have posted there under the name of thefordprefect. For a year or so.
A bit of background so you can confirm my name. About 2 years ago I was involved with some robust exchanges on a financial BB (ADVFN) and have been taken to court for defamation – the first judgement (now unfortunately appealed!) is here (my name is Tuppen)
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2008/1797.html&query=advfn&method=all
I can post on ADVFN or climateaudit under my pseudonym of thefordprefect to “prove” my credentials.
I find the current exchange on climateaudit to be very childish and have said so many times. In doing so I have apparently backed your actions and put my interpretation on your statements.
I was therefore hoping that you could reply to these questions. I will if you agree quote your responses (you may also give an “off the record” response which will never leave my computer (please make it obvious which is available for publication!).
1. In this statement:
I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top pass on to others.
We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
There is IPR to consider.
Is I have suggested you are refusing to give IPR info to others and have used a bit of humour with the “25 years or so” part
Is this an incorrect interpretation on my part?
2. Do you actually have agreements available for some of the data that prevents release to non academics?
Are these paper or email. Since the CRU has been around from the late 80s when the anti AGW were not in existence and data was not being questioned I can understand that these may have been verbal or lost in moves of location.
3. I understand that upward of 200 FOI requests have been made on the CRU – the attack being instigated and directed by wattsupwiththat and climateaudit. Do you know the cost to the CRU of processing such a FOI claim?
Whilst I can understand your reluctance to speak on such Blogs I am very concerned that they are actually affecting the populace’s belief in GW. If you repeat the same crud often enough it eventually gets copied to other blogs and so on.
By the way I have pointed them to this document
Click to access ECAD_report_2008.pdf
Which states that some data is unavailable because of IP agreements with the sources (i.e. they have the same problenm as you) – it has been ignored of course!
Thanks
Mike Tuppen (aka thefordprefect)
==============================================================================
4564.txt
Here we have Phil Jones saying there isn’t anything wrong with the DeBilt weather station data, but we know better now.
cc: Michael Mann <mann@xxxx>
date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:31:20 -0400 (EDT)
from: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxx>
subject: Re: attacks against Keith
to: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxx>
<x-flowed>
I agree with Mike. This is not a peer review issue – this is a propaganda
issue. And right now the good guys have conceded the field. The key
observation is that 99% of the people cheerleading have absolutely no idea
what McIntyre has done – they are just happy with the meme. Thus any
response can’t only be a technical one, it has to be one that demonstrates
the integrity of the process – and that requires some degree of further
info that only you guys can supply. The good news is that once something
is out there, people will counter with links to that without themselves
worrying about the detail. We are of course happy to help in any way.
Gavin
PS. Minor issue, but is Keith’s sick leave status being broadcast via a
vacation message on his email or website? I’m wondering if McI knew about
this ahead of time.
=============
Gavin Schmidt
NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies
2880 Broadway
New York, NY 10025
Tel: (212) 678 5627
Email: gschmidt@xxxx
URL: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/~gavin
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Michael Mann wrote:
> thanks Phil, Keith,
>
> I don’t think the peer-reviewed literature is an acceptable response to this.
> They don’t bother publishing there anyway. They know they can do more damage
> by just circumventing the process entirely, since they have immediate access
> to the right-wing media. Look at today’s Telegraph, the lie is already out
> there in the public domain.
>
> I think we ought to get some sort of comment out there, perhaps through
> “RealClimate”, though its worth some discussion as far as the best form that
> would take, perhaps in the form of an “editorial” (i.e. group post).
>
> Interested to hear Gavin’s thoughts. got to run off to a meeting now,
>
> mike
>
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:20 AM, Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike, Gavin,
>> As Tim has said Keith is making a good recovery and hopes to be back in
>> soon, gradually during October and hopefully full time from November.
>> I talked to him by phone yesterday and sent him and Tom Melvin the
>> threads on CA. As you’re fully aware, trying to figure out what McIntyre
>> has done is going to be difficult. It would be so much easier if they
>> followed normal procedure and wrote up a comment and submitted it to a
>> journal. I looked through the threads yesterday trying to make sense of
>> what he’s done. My suspicion is that he’s brought in other tree ring series
>> from more distant sites, some of which may not even be larch. There are two
>> chronologies that have been used – one called the Polar Urals and one
>> called Yamal. PU is a Schweingruber site with density as well as ring
>> width. The PU reconstruction is therefore not a chronology, but a
>> regression based reconstruction from both MXD and TRW. Yamal is just a ring
>> width series (with lots of sub-fossil material, so much older) from an area
>> some distance (at least 500km) north of PU. It was developed by Hantemirov
>> and Shiyatov and was poorly standardized – corridor method. I also don’t
>> think McIntyre understands the RCS method even though he claims to have a
>> program. The ends and the age structure of the samples are crucial in all
>> this, but I think he just throws series in.
>>
>> I totally agree that these attacks (for want of a better word) are
>> getting worse. Comments on the thread are snide in the extreme, with many
>> saying they see no need to submit the results to a journal! They have
>> proved Keith has manipulated the data, so job done. Difficult to know how
>> to respond to this. They ignore journal comments anyway – just as they will
>> with Grant Foster’s.
>>
>> Hadn’t thought of Senate debates. I’d put this down to the build up to
>> Copenhagen, which is sort of the same.
>>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/a-look-at-the-thompson-et-al-paper-hi-tech-wiggle-matching-and-removal-of-natural-variables/
>>
>> is a complete reworking of Dave Thompson’s paper which is in press in J.
>> Climate (online). Looked at this, but they have made some wrong
>> assumptions, but someone has put a lot of work into it. ENSO influences are
>> probably slightly non-linear, but this didn’t stop Mclean et al.
>>
>> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/24/ooops-dutch-meteorological-institute-caught-in-weather-station-siting-failure-moved-station-and-told-nobody/
>>
>> This one is a complete red herring – nothing wrong with De Bilt
>> measurements. This is what it is about according to someone at KNMI
>>
>> The issue you refer to is causing a lot of noise in the Netherlands (even
>> MP’s asking questions to the minister). It seems this is not at all about
>> the observational series (nothing strange is going on), but more related to
>> the “Law on KNMI” and the division of tasks between commercial providers
>> and KNMI to be discussed by parliament soon.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Phil
>>
>>
>>
>> At 08:46 29/09/2009, Tim Osborn wrote:
>>> Hi Mike and Gavin,
>>>
>>> thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
>>>
>>> I’ll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith.
>>> He’s been off almost 4 months now and won’t be back for at least another
>>> month (barring a couple of lectures that he’s keen to do in October as
>>> part of a gradual return). Hopefully he’ll be properly back in November.
>>>
>>> Regarding Yamal, I’m afraid I know very little about the whole thing —
>>> other than that I am 100% confident that “The tree ring data was
>>> hand-picked to get the desired result” is complete crap. Having one’s
>>> integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil (as I’m sure you
>>> know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such attacks).
>>> Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I
>>> think Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently
>>> been asked to look at CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a
>>> co-author on that and Darrell had asked Keith to help with a response to
>>> the criticisms).
>>>
>>> Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could
>>> shed light on the McIntyre criticisms of Yamal. But he can be a rather
>>> loose cannon and shouldn’t be directly contacted about this (also he
>>> wasn’t involved in the Yamal chronology being discussed, though he has
>>> been involved in a regional reconstruction that we’ve recently been
>>> working towards that uses these — and more — data).
>>>
>>> Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already
>>> considering a response.
>>>
>>> Off to lecture for a couple of hours now…
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
>>> Climatic Research Unit
>>> School of Environmental Sciences
>>> University of East Anglia
>>> Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
>>>
>>> e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk
>>> phone: +44 1603 592089
>>> fax: +44 1603 507784
>>> web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
>>> sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
>>>
>> Prof. Phil Jones
>> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
>> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx
>> University of East Anglia
>> Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
>> NR4 7TJ
>> UK
>> —————————————————————————-
>>
>
> —
> Michael E. Mann
> Professor
> Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
>
> Department of Meteorology Phone: (814)xxxx
> 503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxxx
> The Pennsylvania State University email: mann@xxxx
> University Park, PA 16802-5013
>
> website: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html
> “Dire Predictions” book site:
> http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html
Oh, please submit info on how to download the files. I’m sure there are some bright computer guys/gals out there, who have managed in securing the infos on sites in access to normals as myself…
Thanks in advance!
Brgds from Sweden
ThomasJ
For the uninitiated, ‘nonce’, for British prisoners, is a convicted sex-offender.
I woke up to find that Climategate 2.0 had just happened. Here we go again. Oh, happy days…
‘Team’ work at its best!
Duncan B (UK)
Hubris, the gift that keeps on giving….
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Fresh_round_of_hacked_climate_science_emails_leaked_online/16679/0/0/0/Y/M.html?
Russian download link within…
I’m sending my wife out for a couple months supply of popcorn. On with the show 🙂
Ferris and the DAARWG dates though reminded me of the above
again
Who he? Ed.
Congratulations Anthony! These reflect very well on you.
This bit from Tom P is an absolute beauty: “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.”
That says it all! Both about your genuinely scientific approach and, by comparison, the opposite on the other side of the debate (that is, reach a conclusion and then look for the data to support it). I hope to see this or similar quotes far and wide in the blogosphere and can only wonder how the usual suspects will attempt to spin it.
Meanwhile, I see one of those usual suspects, the BBC’s Black Knight, is already out throwing feces at the crowd:
2 hours ago
@BBCRBlack via Twitter
Michael Mann comes out swinging in story update http://t.co/W24IM8WX
4 hours ago
@BBCRBlack via Twitter
More hack with UEA response http://t.co/bAp9s0xJ
7 hours ago
@BBCRBlack via Twitter
A new UEA email release, it seems http://t.co/W24IM8WX
A fresh round of inquiries is in order to vindicate the climate science. I dedicate this song to the
whitewashersUK government investigative team and hope it provides them the appropriate inspiration.“Stand By Your Mann” ~The Blues Brothers Rythm & Blues Revue
What is an interesting angle relates to UEA and the CRU. If they confirm the emails as genuine, that means they have copies.
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t
The more I read these messages, the more I am reminded of that part of my life when I was a Whitehall civil servant. (For our American cousins, that’s a bureaucrat working for central government…).
The interminable little plots, the mutual congratulations for ‘our’ team, the obvious sense of ‘Our work is the most important, and we must push it through in spite of everything’, the hatred for anyone with a different point of view, the way they work seamlessly with their ‘colleagues’ in quasi-governmental institutions… all these are the mark of a narrow-minded bureaucrat.
I’m not surprised that they are doing bad science. They’re no longer scientists….
Is there any reason why some e-mail addresses have been redacted while others have been left in?
Why do I expect that there currently is a run at the sores carrying top hats, canes, and tap shoes… I’m sure the Team of characters is practicing up their tap dance routine while looking for the exits.
Occupyed by facts.
Facts rule.
CO2 floats.
I guess the question is will the NYT be supportive of this release or once again say its evil will be fun for a sociological study perspective anyway.
“Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position” Does he ever do otherwise?
“I must say”
COMMA
“in fairness”
COMMA
Geez, really?
He has to go through painful verbal contortions to say ANYTHING that might not help “the cause” ?
OK, my skeptic instincts are on high alert. So far, there is no smoking gun in the emails. There are only some uncomfortable exchanges, expressions of doubt, etc., etc. How do we know that this isn’t Mann or another member of the team putting these emails out to try to sway public opinion. . The idea would be to put out a bunch of legitimate emails that put people in a mildly bad light (so as to establish their genuineness), but don’t contain any really damning stuff. There will be a big flurry of press coverage and blogger buzz, but in the end, its all about nothing. The public will then conclude that its all been overblown and that the skeptics are wrong about the degree of dishonesty within the team. Public interest (and the concomitant public pressure) in the UVA emails would subside. This would be a fairly sophisticated strategy (sort of a ‘false flag’ operation), but I’m worried because these emails are not nearly as damning as Climategate I. It all looks very suspicious to me. And it coming just prior to the ATI hearing.
OK, my skeptic instincts are on high alert. So far, there is no smoking gun in the emails. There are only some uncomfortable exchanges, expressions of doubt, etc., etc. How do we know that this isn’t Mann or another member of the team putting these emails out to try to sway public opinion.
Yeah – my BS radar is twitching too but hasn’t locked on to anything yet…..especially since there were responses by Mann etc, so quickly. Seems like they knew this was going to be an issue and couldn’t stop it in time so had a hasty reply ready. Just seems off-kilter.
Ouch! I guess being talked about is better than the alternative, but it looks as though they really hate you!
to mpaul
I really doubt that the like of Mann etc are that sophisticated.
I do think though, that the password for the remaining emails should be released.
So it seems that PC plod at the Norfolk constabulary is interested in finding out the source of the emails but not so interested in investigating Phil Jones et al for possible breaches of the law relating to the deletion of emails.
I help pay the salary of said PC plod’s with my income tax. I think PC plod in Norfolk owes us an explanation. Presumably PC plod is more worried about being politically correct and about his one day to be pension.
The police are net beneficiaries of tax. I am a dissatisfied net contributor of tax.
mpaul says:
November 22, 2011 at 1:14 pm
“…in the end, its all about nothing.”
“I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there.” – Bill
Lumbergh.
Over 200 requests to the UEA CRU under the Freedom of Information LAW yielded nothing.
The University of Virginia, Mann’s former employer, has spent a million dollars, fighting, and continuing to fight in court, perfectly reasonable requests under the Freedom of Information LAW…
After FIGHTING against citizens exercising their rights under the LAW, and WHITEWASHING misbehavior, some small amount of information related to what was being requested under the LAW, was finally leaked to the public, which caused the miscreants to squeal to High Heaven, and claim Holy Victimhood.
I’ll let the “victims” of this round of releases tell me by their reactions, whether this is all about nothing (ha ha! another Seinfeld reference!), or all about something.
Investment tip of the week: go short on windmills, go long on whitewash.
New link as others seem to be down:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26761740/Climate/FOIA2011.zip
I noticed in at least one of them, they worry about being taken out of context. That is very nice. All they have to do is provide the context. We don’t want to take them out of context, but we are kind of stuck with the way whoever is releasing these is doing it, and as a result, through no fault of our own they may indeed be out of context.
We’d be delighted to have the authors release all of their emails. Its the idea that they try at every turn to keep them private that makes us so suspicious of them. Based on Climategate 1.0, I’d say our suspiciousness is warranted. When any of the team says they are being taken out of context, and we look at it and it is in context, then that is just their code to pretend they are innocent victims.
This second batch of emails reminds me a lot of the strategy James O’keefe used in dribbling out the ACORN videos. They put the first out, and the institutional reaction was to say that it was only that office and not representative of the organization. Then they release the second tape, with the same results until all of the tapes are out, and that organization was defunded by congress. It was one of the best strategies for dealing with the media support of that organization. I’m hoping this second release will show how bad the “investigations” were whitewashed. I would like to see the whitewashes exposed and that even after the truth came out, they continued to try and hide their malfeasance.
If this batch is as damaging as the first batch, these guys will either need to come clean now or get their clocks really cleaned later. The timing is wonderful as Penn State is on the hot seat for more than climate hoaxing. I’m not sure I’m going to have enough funds for all the popcorn I’m gonna need.
Anthony, I agree with others, Congratulations are in order! I have my own views on atmospheric carbon deposition, but you have served science a very valuable service as a catalyst for introspection and thought. This is an amazing and historic event, I’ll be interested to see how the media handles this henceforth.
Let’s hope that “pal review” is dead, and that true peer review, including fair and transparent Internet review of ALL data, will take its place. Cheers and best, Charles the DrPH
Prefectly pathetic.
Tucci78 @ November 22, 2011 at 7:22 am on the previous thread:
Skeptik @ November 22, 2011 at 12:17 pm says:
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.
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.
Skeptik November 22, 2011 at 12:17 pm: is relevant.
New download link..and it’s working this time! Sorry…
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/26761740/Climate/FOIA2011.zip
The trouble is that the clear FOIA violations by UEA can not be prosecuted because of a quirk in the UK law. So for example:
…will amount to nothing because the statute of limitations has passed. In Climategate I the Press reported that Jones was ‘cleared of all wrong doing’. In actuality, the government decided not to prosecute Jones because the statute of limitation passed. The Press took this to mean that everything was A-OK. I think we are going to see the same kind of behavior unless there is a smoking gun.
The question is, ‘is there any smoking gun related to Mann’s behavior?’ If not, then one has to question whether Mann is behind this disclosure.
These emails clearly show a non-scientific mindset: the CAUSE supersedes the truth! From a military standpoint, they remind me of generals moving troups (emails) around to block hostile advances that are hurting the CAUSE! All of these guys should end up in prison for their partisan antics and their “hide the decline” deceptions!
Bill
I read with joy some of these emails, the idiots at CRU and there merry-band of data modifiers did not learn a thing from the Climatgate 1 fiasco. They are a conniving bunch of soon to be has been’s.
And for those who will try to fluff these damming emails off you’d better read just a few to get a bad taste in your mouth, they are nuggets of pure gold that prove the CAGW warmist are starting to doubt themselves the temperature and the data – I think it’s called scepticism!
Unfortunately for warmers and their faithful supporters they have pushed there 4 wheels AGW show bus so far down a rocky road of deception, that Climatgate 1 punctured the first tire. Now this Climatgate 2 has punctured the second tire and the rest of the tires are running out of pressure.
See some more juicy stuff at Tallbloke:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/http://www.blacklistednews.com/Fresh_round_of_hacked_climate_science_emails_leaked_online/16679/0/0/0/Y/M.html?
Here’s the README contents:
/// 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…
/// The IPCC Process ///
Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary […] Thorne:
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!
Jones:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group. Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […] Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out. Overpeck:
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion […] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and evolving phenomenon Jones:
the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different from what would have happened without a climate treaty. […] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable Singer/WWF:
we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and b) in order to get into the media the context between climate extremes/disasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and energy Torok/CSIRO:
We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written[…] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff. Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about. Ashton/co2.org:
Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics– to one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. […] the most valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as possible Kelly:
For those interested there is lots more!
The search below reports many comments of the nefarious “thefordperfect”
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22thefordprefect%22+%22thefordprefect%22&qs=bs&filt=all&first=1&FORM=PERE
mpaul says:
November 22, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Um, …
wow.
I just…
uh….
Have you been reading any of this ?
Are you at all familiar with the term “Climategate” ?
wow.
So, unless there’s an indictment, this is “all about nothing” ?
Anthony shouldn’t bother posting any of this, “because the statute of limitations has passed.” ???
Sorry, but I have to ask you directly: Are you commenting on behalf of The Team ?
To mpaul.
Statute of limitations ?!
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure there is basically no such thing in the UK. Phil Jones et al can still be prosecuted in 50 years time if the Plod force or CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) so choose.
In the case of FOI in the UK, they have 6 months from the date of the offence to bring the case. Designed by civil servants who knew that the chances of being found out within 6 months is effectively zero, and when you add the investigation time on top, its easy to drag it out.
Looks like the Hockey Team were pretty naïve in thinking that the wealth redistribution that they were trying to engineer would actually end up benefiting the dirt poor and not be directed to political cronies. Such is the history of these type of ruthless idealism.
JMartin, see http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/29/uea-policies-and-statutes-of-limitations/
John-X — in the world of politics, the golden rule is that if a scandal is about to break that involves you, then you should leak the news out yourself so that you can control the story.
There’s a hearing on December 20th in the ATI v. UVA case. Its likely that the judge will order the production of all of Mann’s covered emails by some date that is likely to be in Q1 2012. I’m simply suggesting that its not unreasonable to theorize that Mann might be behind this current release. By releasing some of the less damaging emails now, he can claim, when the more damaging emails are ordered released by the judge, that its all old news, that there is nothing new to see, they have all been completely gone over, etc., etc.
Mike Mann outs his blogging alias “thefordprefect”, which is a character from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
Douglas Adams, the author, comments on the character (From Wiki)
Although Ford had taken great care to blend into Earth society, he had “skimped a bit on his preparatory research,” and thought that the name “Ford Prefect” would be “nicely inconspicuous.”
10 points for his choice of alias 🙂
Dear Informant,
Thank you. So many questions answered. I will buy that Jeep my wife has been looking at now.
In lead-in on main page should say “corroborates”, not “collaborates”. No need to print this.
Did I say we owe Anthony $2 Trillion. Sorry. I was off by $35 Trillion!!!!
No, TFP was a guy named Mike Tuppen, not Mike Mann.
Recall that in the last two years the CRU ‘scientists’ et al have sworn under oath that e-mails were not deleted, nor did they advise others to do so.
Perjury could easily be charged.
Who knows what else they said ‘under oath’ that is contradicted by this 2nd batch of e-mails
John-x: “Over 200 requests to the UEA CRU under the Freedom of Information LAW yielded nothing.”
Don’t be fooled by there propoganda. Between January 2005 and December 2009 they received 6, you read it right, 6, FOI requests. in 2009 they received a further 97 requests, 59 of which were the requests for station data in batches of 5 organised by Steve McIntyre’s blog. 15 came before climategate 1 and the rest came after. They may have been inundated with requests for data, but they weren’t inundated with FOI requests.
I should add that no matter how the information was requested they still didn’t provide any meaningful answers.
To the simpleton who said CO2 floats. About a year or so ago I found a paper on the NASA website that admitted that they don’t know where 50% of the atmospheric CO2 goes to. They know it’s bad and causing climate change, but after sequestion and photosynthesis they can’t account for half of it, and it’s not all staying there or we’d all be effed tommorrow. Makes ‘The Nutty Professor’ seem like cold hard scientific knowledge.
Well, for those that like delicious irony in soap operas, perhaps Climategate will follow the sub-plot of ‘Hack-Gate’ in the UK, whereby the nefarious industrial-scale phone hacking, PC hacking and who knows what else hacking is finally beginning to see responsibility being taken. For anyone who has watched the imbecilic inanities of James Murdoch at our Parliament the past few montsh, it will come as no surprise that he has relinquished a variety of senior roles at News International today.
This comes at the end of previous police enquiries being compromised through inappropriate links between the police and News International only 3 years later leading to a beefed up enquiry with a ‘I don’t give a **** if this ruins Murdoch’s empire, he’s accountable like everyone else if he breaks the law!’ brief.
One suspects that what has been revealed to date in Climategate isn’t enough for a hanging.
What would constitute a hanging?
1. Totalitarian organisation becomes sole arbiter of climate change.
2. Data inputs into aforesaid organisation are censored to ensure uniformity of political message, no matter if the science disagrees.
3. Computer models are regarded as science, rather than tools to allow the framing of testable hypotheses.
4. Brainwashing of children with scaremongering, leaving the science to one side.
5. Attempts to retain power if the science is shown to be wrong.
6. Closing ranks of the scientific establishment to perpetuate a false ideology.
Question is: who has the power to hire a hanging judge if a hanging is needed??
Well if nothing else comes out of this at least we’ll not see Phil’s little helper “TheFordPrefect” on here again….will we? DEFAMATION NO LESS!!!!the shame of it,.. LOL LOL
Having just done a quick (but scrupulously scientific fnord) peruse of some of the e-mails in our new Trevor Trove (it’s an old joke… sorry), I am amazed at the juvenile nature of the stuff written by Phil Jones.
I mean although it’s clear he is a “True Believer”, he could perhaps think about trying to write a little more like a university professor and a little less like a 12 year old girl on a Justin Bieber forum.
Exclamation marks at the end of every second sentence? For [SNIP: sorry, language. -REP]’s sake – what is he, 11?
In my time in academia (back in the olden days, in an economic think tank), the professoriat was prone to over-egging the pudding when it came to gravitas – but it is truly horrifying to see the pendulum swing back past “neutral” to the point where the writer conveys an immaturity more in line with Dora the Explorer than a tax-funded ‘think tank’.
In case nobody’s aware of it yet… the whole climate fraud is about finding a rationale for a raft of new ad valorem taxes. The political class are FINALLY aware of stuff that folks like me were modelling in the 1990s: the retirement of the demographic bulge of the 1940s cohort (who got rich and had fewer kids: the one sensible thing they did) means that there will be MASSIVE budgetary pressure due to over-promising by the political class over the last five decades. By some decent estimates, in places like France there will only be 2 workers per retiree by 2035… down from 12 per retiree in the 1950s: given that retirement benefits are Ponzi-style “use current contributions to pay retirees benefits”, this poses a huge problem – either promises will be welched on, or a new revenue source with broad social approval must be found.
Ad valorem taxes (GST/VAT etc) are useful in that for the most part people don’t examine shopping dockets in the same was as they examine payslips.
Dressing up the new revenue grab by claiming that unless we Do Something, a bunch of Pacific Islanders will be drowned while napping on the beach a hundred years from now (having presumable not noticed the tide rising in the intervening period) – well, that whole narrative style appeals to the New Mum mentality (the same way as “disinfect every surface or you’re a bad Mum” led to a generation with scant resistance to the daily vicissitudes).
There are people who want to Nerf the Worlds, but they’re not politicians… but the politicians will exploit that tendency in order to ram their next grab down our throats (and ram their tentacles into our wallets and bank accounts – the better to enable them to live in palaces once they’re finished sucking at the tax tit).
The claim that the statute of limitations applied in this circumsance appears peculiar from a U.S. point of view for a number of reasons. For one example there is the tolling of the time period during which the statue of limitaton runs. During such time as the law denies the plaintiff and the court the jurisdiction necessary to prosecute a complaint, the statute of klimitation period tolls and extends the date upon which it expires.
A defendant who steals a briefcase filled with $100,000USD from the desk of the State District Attorney in the state capitol can go public and claim the money freely more than 7 years later, if the defendant can prove beyond reasonable doubt they never left the state during that time and paid all applicable income taxes and other taxes. If the defendant left the state immediately after the theft and returned to the state 3 years later, the statute of limitations takes the 3 years of the defendant’s absence from the jurisdiction of the state courts and the 7 years of the statutory period or at least ten years to expire.
In the example of the FOIA request for the e-mail, it would otherwise seem that the legal incapacity to prosecute the violation of the FOIA laws should have tolled the time period of the applicable statute of limitations until such time as the legal capacity to investigate and prosecute were restored to jurisdiction. Consequently, it would seem from a U.S. perspective that the statute of limitation should have actually expired after the number of months in which the investigation and prosecution were barred by law plus the six months allowed by the stature of limitation. Does anyone have any authoritative knowledge indicating the applicable law of the U.K. does NOT toll the time period of the statute of kimitation while the investigation and prosecution are barred by the courts?
Also, why haven’t Phil Jones et al been found accountable for an unlawful conversion of the public property to their own personal use and destruction of public property for which they had custodial duties?
Boy, these ‘climatologists’ are lying $acks of $hi+ $cumbag$ with Ph.D.’s behind their names.