Mr. David Palmer Explains The Problem

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Whoever took the Climategate emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) are certainly playing the long game. Two whole years they waited before publishing the second group of 5,292 CRU emails, now known as Climategate 2.0. Impressive. I’m mentioned in 17 of the emails, because I made the first Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request to Phil Jones and the CRU to release his taxpayer-funded temperature data collection. Phil at the time was the head of the CRU. His data collection was and is the basis for one of the major global temperature records.

At the time they fobbed me off using a succession of excuses. They claimed the information was available on the web. But they were unable to say where. They put me off and put me off. My contemporaneous account of the CRU and the FOI lunacy is a posting on ClimateAudit entitled “Measuring Precipitation on Willis’ Boots“. (Not my title, that was Steve McIntyre’s). You should read it first for a concise background, it’s important for understanding the following story. I’ll wait here while you read it …

Eventually, after much time, long after I’d given up the chase as hopeless, the CRU folks admitted that the reason they didn’t release the data was that they didn’t have the data. Somewhere along the line, it had been lost.

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. I absolutely love his honesty at the time, but unfortunately, it’s a shame he didn’t say the same thing publicly. These latest emails fill in some very interesting holes in the story with new information that wasn’t revealed in the first set of Climategate emails.

From David Palmer to Phil Jones, regarding my FOI request, email #1184, April 2007 (emphasis mine):

Gents,

My head is beginning to spin here but I read this as meaning that he wants the raw station data; we don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct?  Our letter stated:

“We can, however, send a list of all stations used, but  without sources. This would include locations, names and lengths of record,  although the latter are no guide as to the completeness of the series.”

Can we put this on the web?  Perhaps I am being really thick here but I’m not sure if putting this on the web will actually satisfy Mr. Eschenbach - we’ve said we don’t have data sources, he says the external websites don’t have them, so who does? Are we back to the NMS’s? [National Meteorological Services  -w.]  I am happy to give this one more go, stating exactly what we are putting on the web and seeing if that suffices. Should Mr. Eschenbach still insist that we actually possess the information in the form he requests, I can then only give the file to Kitty Inglis for review and then we move on formally….

Cheers, Dave

Dave is right, there’s yer problem. “We don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct?”. That’s staggering, it’s gotta be in the running for some kind of truth in advertising award. Shame he wasn’t that honest with me. Instead, he worked hard to obscure that fact.

Phil Jones isn’t having any of it, though. He replies to David Palmer’s email on 23 April 2007 (emphasis again mine)

Dave,

I do not want to make the raw data available, as it will involve more and more requests. We make the gridded data available and that should be enough.

I think it would be worthwhile having a meeting involving a few more people in the light of the Keenan letter and what has been said on the Climate Audit website from Friday.

This to my mind is bullying and virtual harrasment. This is not for any reasonable scientific point. It is quite simply harrasment. These people are self appointed.

Cheers

Phil

My conclusion after all this time is that Phil truly didn’t get it. He actually didn’t understand. He was not the owner of private data. He was the curator of public data. He didn’t understand that FOI requests are legal documents. Throughout the whole episode he treated them as some kind of optional request to grant or not as he saw fit. In this he was aided and abetted by David Palmer.

Upon reading this email, I was very curious to find out what had gotten Phil’s knickers in a twist regarding “what has been said on the Climate Audit website from Friday”. Upon looking up the ClimateAudit post from Friday, April 20, 2007, I laughed when I found out that what Phil was referring to as “bullying and virtual harassment” was the post I cited above and requested that you read. I’m sure you picked up on how I was “bullying and virtually harassing” Professor Jones.

So that was what Phil was complaining about—me pointing out the foolishness of their various excuses. And on that basis he said that would not make the raw data available, as though me laughing at his transparent dodges were a valid exemption to an FOI request.

I note that over at RealClimate they are desperately trying to spin this as two-year-old turkey. However, it’s not just my case that has new information. Regarding a host of other issues, the recent emails contain much previously unrevealed evidence of the perfidy, subversion, misdirection, and malfeasance practiced by the Climategate un-indicted co-conspirators. Among many other things, they provide clear evidence of the destruction of incriminating emails. This was not just “boys will be boys”. This was the leading lights of the AGW supporting scientists, working together to deny access to publicly funded climate data, and twisting, bending and breaking the scientific norms, FOI regulations, and possibly the law in the process. And that’s just what they did in my case, that doesn’t even begin to touch their other misdeeds that they discuss in detail.

The discouraging part is that, to this day, not a person among them has admitted that they did anything incorrect in the slightest. Not one has acknowledged that they went a ways, not just a little ways, but a long ways over the line of ethics, morality, and honesty. No one has said they did a single thing wrong, no one has admitted they evaded an honest FOI request. Silence.

And silence, unfortunately, has also been the overwhelming response of the climate science community to their misdeeds. The miscreants say nothing, their supporters say nothing, they keep awarding each other honors and prizes, and they hope it will go away.

Ah, well. The saddest part is that the new revelations of the unthinking, off-hand venality of these main scientists of the AGW movement have lost their power to shock. That is a tragedy for climate science in particular and for science in general.

Finally, my particular thanks to Steve McIntyre for his part in all of this. Not that he advised me or told me to file the FOI in question, he didn’t do either. That was my own idea and choice. But his dogged persistence, his insistence on and demonstration of transparency of code and data, and his general Canadian generosity, honesty, and geniality have been an inspiration to me. His work is generally an example of the scientific method at its cleanest.

My best regards to all,

w.

PS—Interestingly, whoever released the emails also released a whole host of other CRU emails in a password protected archive. The purpose of this archive remains obscure, and the password has not been provided. At a minimum the publication of the archive ensures that the other emails will not be lost in a hard drive crash, or seized by the authorities. Whether it constitutes a warning or a message, and to whom it might be addressed, is unclear. Grab a beer and some popcorn, this story’s not over.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

120 Responses to Mr. David Palmer Explains The Problem

  1. Thank you for spelling this all out in a clear and concise (dare I say scientific) fashion….. it is appreciated

  2. Bloke down the pub says:

    Persistence frequently pays off Willis.
    Perhaps if every peer reviewed paper that relied on data that has since been lost, was withdrawn. And also any later papers that referenced them for support, then, just maybe, scientists would look after their archives a bit better.

  3. Jessie says:

    Willis, thank you for all your hard work. Also your posts. Informative as always.

  4. pesadia says:

    I agree with you Willis, that the silence is deafening.
    These so called scientists indulged in this behaviour (and continue to do so) for many years.
    There is evidence of corruption, conspiracy and other illegal activity in the first batch of E-Mails and that has lead to ,,well nothing nada from the establishment.
    We appear to at the stage where the scientists could declare that white was black and they would be supported the Royal Society and the rest of the so called institutions.

  5. Latimer Alder says:

    Exceprt from a post I made at Judith’s place

    ‘We already know that Phil Jones – along with Mike Mann – believes that as a ‘Climatologist’ he has been granted some special immunity from adhering to normally accepted standards of professional behaviour and integrity. And in the case of FoI – the law of the land as well.

    The only remaining question for me is whether this comes from sheer academic naivete, or through an earlier flawed assessment that nobody would ever dare to catch him.

    In Mann’s case, the answer is clear. The jury is still out on Jones’

    In other words

    Is Phil Jones a fool or a charlatan? Or both?

  6. Peter Miller says:

    Why would we expect anything else from ‘climate scientists’?

    “we don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct?”

  7. 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

  8. David says:

    Jones mindset.

    From #5303

    Ian,
    I have too much on to think about this. This meeting isn’t really about my area – the
    science of climate change. It is more about doing something.
    I know there are climate change deniers trying to malign some of the research going on.
    They do not write any of this in the scientific literature, only on right wing blog sites.
    All the climate scientists I know though are fully behind the conclusions of the last IPCC
    Report in 2007. There is no doubt the world is warming and will continue to warm.
    Cheers
    Phil

  9. Günther says:

    I made the first Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request to Phil Jones and the CRU to release his taxpayer-funded temperature data collection. Phil at the time was the head of the CRU. His data collection was and is the basis for one of the major global temperature records.

    Willis, when can we expect your analysis now that you have all the data? I’m sure there must be a lot wrong with it.

    [Günther, what makes you think that now we have all the data? -w.]

  10. Matthew W says:

    “but unfortunately, it’s a shame he didn’t say the same thing publicly. ”

    From just a quick look at many of the excerpts that I have seen posted, it seems that applies to many of the scientists as well.

    All is not well in the CAGW camp.

  11. dearieme says:

    ” …the perfidy, subversion, misdirection, and malfeasance practiced by the Climategate un-indicted co-conspirators.” Nicely phrased, sir. Bunchabloodycrooks lacks elegance by comparison.

  12. artwest says:

    Palmer: “We don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct?”

    Was it Palmer’s official function to enable the FOIA to be complied with fully or to help the institution to thwart FOIA requests?
    The tone of that comment suggests that, whatever he was supposed to be doing, he was doing the latter. After all, he wasn’t saying “Are you sure we can’t figure out which data belongs to which station?”. It sounds more like “this is the excuse we could use, nod, nod, wink, wink.”

  13. Pamela Gray says:

    Phil Jones, rising above the fray of handwringing, washes his hands in a bowl of water.

  14. Gabby says:

    #0344 is a great e-mail chain on UAE and FOI strategery.

  15. Ian W says:

    Bloke down the pub says:
    November 23, 2011 at 3:15 am
    Persistence frequently pays off Willis.
    Perhaps if every peer reviewed paper that relied on data that has since been lost, was withdrawn. And also any later papers that referenced them for support, then, just maybe, scientists would look after their archives a bit better.

    Fully agree.

    This should be done in every branch of science. There are citing engines around that would allow every paper that cites a suspect paper to be ‘asterixed’ as “Based on Unreliable Paper Unsupported By Data” any paper based on that paper would also be asterixed.
    Such papers should then be disallowed as supporting PhD research papers and be a block on publication.

  16. Harold Ambler says:

    As Jones so beautifully projects: “These people are self appointed.”

  17. DaveS says:

    artwest says:
    November 23, 2011 at 4:40 am

    I find it difficult to believe that Palmer could have been unaware of the extent to which Jones and Briffa were (as stated by themselves in some of the emails) deleting emails. This is one area which needs revisiting given the whitewash applied by the various ‘inquiries’ to the issue of email deletion.

  18. Dave in Delaware says:

    Palmer: “We don’t know which data belongs to which station, correct?”

    No surprise about that, if you recall the Harry_Read_Me file from the earlier Climategate release. Harry was a UEA employee (an insider working with the station data), and his frustration was evident in his running commentary.
    The Harry_Read_Me file documents that Harry was not able to duplicate the CRU TS2.1 result using CRU’s own programs and data files! Then he documents his efforts trying to get the data files to work for Version 3. No wonder Jones didn’t want anyone else to see them.
    Harry says –
    * “am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
    * “But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I’m continuing the approach that created these broken databases.”
    * “So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
    * “Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ’supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)”

    … more details on his frustration with trying to work with the temperature data files, starting with Australia …
    Harry says –
    “getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.”
    “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.”
    “Wrote ‘makedtr.for’ to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not being kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!”
    “…and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they’re found.”

  19. AnonyMoose says:

    I wonder how many British citizens will report the failure to follow FOI requirements.

  20. Ken Hall says:

    After reading this I am beginning to sense a pattern as to why these climategate releases are happening over such a long time frame and in the way that they are. Excuse me whilst I don a ‘tin-foil hat’ and please indulge me in wild theorising for a moment but, perhaps these leaks are coming from the team themselves?

    The first tranche caused a stir, had several whitewashes exonerate them and so they carry on…. What was revealed in the first tranche was prima facie evidence of bullying of journals and dishonest reporting within scientific publications and much else besides. Nothing that obviously rises to the level of outright fraud, but stuff that is clearly wrong, but with the right corporate, political and media spin, could be harmlessly ignored. It has hurt “the cause”, but not fatally and they had time to prepare for further releases.

    This second tranche offers much more damning context, and shows alongside the first tranche, motivation to mislead, lie, obfuscate in publications and mislead the public. They wanted to present a wholly false level of consensus and absolute certainty, yet in these emails many of the key players express exactly the same doubts as those who they maliciously insult as ‘deniers’, then they go on to deny those doubts in public and present a false impression of the “science” in order to materially benefit from further research grants and the pursuit of academic prestige.

    Had both tranches been released at once, then the investigations would not have had as easy a time covering these things up.

    I am now more sure than ever that the remaining 22,000 emails and accompanying data in the encrypted file will show the whole picture and be much more damning and the mainstream media, the mainstream politicians and corporate interests who are making a fortune from this climate con, will continue to cover up and claim that these new releases are simply “malicious leaks from deniers which actually show nothing new” in the hope to distract everyone from what is actually being released.

    Yes this is a high-risk strategy, but the alternative could be far worse for them.

    Having parts of the picture released in this way allows the team to deal with each bit of new truth as it emerges with minimal damage to their “cause” (which is what they are confusing real science with, BTW) Had all this information come out, including the as yet non-public 22,000 emails, all at once due to the original lawful freedom of information requests, then the team would not have been able to contain the full extent of how utterly unscientific they have been in promoting and protecting their “cause” and how dishonest they have been. It would most likely be game over for the team and their acolytes.

    This is how they get the information out whilst causing as little damage to their cause as possible as they hope each new tranche will have less and less impact as their co-conspirators in politics and the media keep covering up for them.

    We are seeing much more of the same spin from the media and the alarmists as during climategate 1.0. Now with the addition of constant reminders of the whitewashes, cover-ups, inquiries. The “nothing to see here” meme is sure sign that actually there is lots to see here, but they are desperate to avoid mass-public discovery of their deceit.

  21. TrueNorthist says:

    Very well put Willis. If only the media would take interest. So far there is nary a peep. Even Sun News here in .ca is mum on the topic. (They should be ashamed!) I get the feeling it isn’t just the gang at UAE that are working to hide all this dirt. They are all keeping quiet and hoping it goes away — just like the economy.

  22. George Tetley says:

    A very big thank you Willis, I just wish I had your style.

  23. John W. says:

    “I do not want to make the raw data available, as it will involve more and more requests. We make the gridded data available and that should be enough.”

    And evaluating how accurately the raw data was converted to gridded is precisely the first step in ensuring that the data being used is correct. That they insist on concealing it is the reason so many people, myself included, have suspected politically motivated fraud from the start. I still find it inconceivable that anyone who would claim the title “scientist” would be unable to understand or acknowledge the importance of evaluating the raw data and its analysis as the critical first step in reproducing the result.

    Add the constant personal attacks on anyone who questions, let alone challenges, their findings, the distortions and misrepresentations of alternate hypotheses, and these people have so damaged the public understanding of science and scientists …

    I dislike imputing motives, but I can only understand this entire charade as an arrogant, ideological passion.

  24. pokerguy says:

    As I said on Revin’s site, If I had to pick just one email which demonstrates the sheer nasty ill-intent of some of these people, I’d pick this one by 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.”

    Wow. Now bear in mind that it’s more than likely than Mann well understands McIntyre is no more motivated by “fossil fuel interests” than the man in the moon. This is exactly what it looks like, a petty, nasty human being who’s willing to destroy someone’s reputation in order to protect his own, discredited work.

  25. liontooth says:

    “I do not want to make the raw data available, as it will involve more and more requests.”

    What exactly is the problem with releasing everything involved for a government funded project and having it posted on the universities website? One would think that if you REALLY believed in the validity of the results, you would want to explicitly detail every fact so that NOBODY could dispute the results. And they actually wonder why people are skeptical?

  26. Mark Buehner says:

    One old prosecutor trick is to confront the person with only a part of the evidence, let them get on record with their response, and then compare it to the balance of the evidence. Hence you expose them as a liar, making excuses for the entirety of the case transparent and unreliable.

  27. Dave says:

    Is it just me who’s assumed all along that David Palmer is actually on our side, going by the tone of some of the responses he’s had to write?

    Anyone remember the bit in Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress where the computer is practically begging the humans to ask it the right question so it can tell them information it otherwise has to keep secret?

    I wouldn’t be overly surprised to find out that Palmer’s the leaker/whistleblower.

    (NB: this is pure speculation, I have no knowledge not widely available.)

  28. Jay Davis says:

    My question to all the real scientists and researchers out there is – If the raw data supporting your research and conclusions is lost, how can those conclusions be considered valid without redoing everything? And if the lost original data invalidates the original research and conclusions, doesn’t it invalidate any subsequent research and conclusions based on the original?

    And by the way, the U.S. IRS doesn’t buy the “I lost my original records” excuse. They just redo your tax form based on the information they have, meaning all your deductions disappear.

  29. JJ says:

    Correction Willis:

    “… working together to deny access to publicly funded climate data, and twisting, bending and breaking the scientific norms, FOI regulations, and possibly the law in the process. …working together to deny access to publicly funded climate data, and twisting, bending and breaking the scientific norms, FOI regulations, and possibly the law in the process.”

    FOI regulations are the law.

    There is no “possibly” here. If they broke FOI regs, they broke the law. They certainly may have broken other laws as well, which was perhaps your point. But as stated, what you said actually reinforces Phil Jone’s and others’ notion that FOI laws are optional guidelines that may be disregarded at will.

    Thanks for your dogged determination.

  30. Alex the skeptic says:

    Just out:
    >>Google pulls plug on renewable energy plan<>Search giant quitting non-core projects, including solar power<<

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45409951/

    Could this ditching of RE projects by Google be a result of Climategate-Season 2?

  31. 1DandyTroll says:

    I believe most of the criminal offenses are too old to bring charge for, but not so for civil case in civil court. Misappropriating public property and money isn’t exactly looked kindly upon in the EU.

    It’s rather interesting to note that, the intricacies between the university/researcher groups who are mandated to pull this crap through and the NGOs (like Sierra Club, WWF and Greenpeace) and other corporations (like BP and csiro), it’s all seemingly noise to the real cause, it seems, to protect the unregulated lay of the land and the golden goose to the road to potentially tens of trillions of dollar in untapped world revenue streams. So it’s no wonder that middle management muppets at universities and NGOs all just are working (for their own respective ideas and agendas of why) out how to best scare people into believing in some crap or another just to pull through policies that keep end up costing tax payers even more parts of those potential unregulated tens of trillions of (tax)dollars.

    Even the sketchy involvement of lefty news media seem to unravel too.

    But it’s like they say in the emails pretty much, it has to create headlines otherwise it ain’t worth it.

  32. John Silver says:

    “as though me laughing at his transparent dodges were a valid exemption to an FOI request.”

    It is to a diagnosed psychopath. But Phil Jones isn’t one, is he? Or is he?

  33. PhilJourdan says:

    I disagree that there is silence. There is a lot of noise, mostly signifying nothing.

    Before November 2009, the world saw the duck floating on the lake of climate science. Climategate I showed the legs of the duck. An ugly sight indeed. Climategate II has shown even more of the legs. There is a lot going on in climate science that indicates a cover up, a fraud, but most of all, fear. Fear that their incompetence will be exposed. Climategates I & II are doing just that.

  34. TomB says:

    The discouraging part is that, to this day, not a person among them has admitted that they did anything incorrect in the slightest.

    They can’t. As you pointed out, many of these actions constitute criminal acts. Were they to admit guilt, to any degree, it would also be and admission of guilt to actionable criminal offenses. They now have no choice but to defend the indefensible.

  35. Carbon-based life form says:

    Willis: “Whoever who…” in the lead sentence.

    Thanks to you and all the unpaid seekers of truth. “Climate science” will one day be a case study of confirmation bias and the political corruption of science.

    [Thanks, fixed -w.]

  36. Eric Seufert says:

    Can someone please answer this. Do they now know which data belongs to which station? How could apply corrective factors like Heat Island Effect if they don’t know where the data comes from? How is this even possible, and is it not totally a smoking gun?

  37. TomB says:

    Mark Buehner says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:19 am

    One old prosecutor trick is to confront the person with only a part of the evidence, let them get on record with their response, and then compare it to the balance of the evidence. Hence you expose them as a liar, making excuses for the entirety of the case transparent and unreliable.

    Exactly, the person who released this data is waiting for them to say something (probably multiple somethings) that can be contradicted by the still undisclosed evidence.

  38. Robert Kral says:

    In my field (drug development), inability or refusal to provide raw data and appropriate supporting documentation would result in complete failure of the project. No regulatory agency would even consider approving an application that lacked this kind of fundamental documentation. Falsification of these records can result in criminal convictions (and has in fact recently had that result). The AGW people cloak themselves in the mantle of scientific respectability while consistently failing to observe the basic practices of good science. They are pathetic.

  39. Ken says:

    The incremental release MIGHT be indicative of a passive-aggressive manipulation: Release some data, let those involved take a firm stand…then…after those positions are firmly locked in….release more that exposes contradictions.

    If I was trying to maintain anonymity AND expose truth that’s how I’d go about it.

    WHICH MEANS: if some do a thorough scrub of the data released, cross-referencing with prior releases & and the defenses/explanations those prompted, one is likely to find some very incriminating inconsistencies.

    The value isn’t in any particular e-mails & associated attestations, its in the piecing together of the right puzzle pieces to expose a more significant picture.

    Like finding needles in a haystack & then arranging them in their proper context. That’s better than finding gold, its more like finding the recipe for making gold…but a lot more work to sort out. I truly hope someone/some people have the patience & bookkeeping skills to tease out & compile the bigger pictures waiting to be found & exposed.

  40. Ric Werme says:

    I found the following while looking for Email referencing John Daly. This only mentioned data from Daly’s website, but a couple unrelated excerpts on the quality of CRU’s data is quite relevant here.

    I’ve only partially reformatted this, if it posts poorly I may redo it.

    Excerpts from 3838.txt:

    cc: Thomas C Peterson, David Easterling
    date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:07:59 -0500
    from: “Russell.Vose”
    subject: Re: Climate Audit and Rewriting History!
    to: Phil Jones

    I saw the HCN bit this morning. These people have an obscure hobby — I certainly don’t give HCN thought in my spare time!

    Matt Menne probably has a plot of v2 minus v1. He’s working on two papers, which should be done about end of March. We want to get things in the pipeline before the Peilke paper comes out.

    Phil Jones wrote the following on 2/16/2007 12:05 PM:

    Russ, Dave,
    There is a new USHCN bit on the Climate Audit website. They have picked up some
    series from John Daly’s website (the guy who died 2 years ago), differenced
    them from your new one and produce a difference plot, then said this…

    The effect of the adjustments since 2000 has been to bring the USHCN history more in
    line with the CRU version. One wonders exactly what adjustments have been performed by
    CRU and the recent admission by Brohan et al 2006 that original versions of many series
    have been overwritten leaving only the adjusted versions is extremely disquieting.

    Now, guys I know we’re good…….. so they seem to believe you’ve adjusted your
    new version to be like ours. This gets funnier and funnier……
    I reckon Daly’s version, which is from Jim Hansen may be pre-v1.
    By the way do you have a plot of v2 minus v1?
    Is there a paper coming on v2?
    Cheers
    Phil

    Phil Jones wrote the following on 2/16/2007 7:46 AM:

    Occasionally I get to the end of a week and have a little spare
    time. I then look at Real Climate and Climate Audit. Look at the
    link above and the story about the USHCN. I began to look at
    the comments and said to myself – how long will it be before the CRU
    data are dragged into this. Answer – not long!

    What Brohan et al were getting at was the issue you know well.
    Country X or Scientist Y sends some data – saying its been homogenized.
    We added this data to the database as it looks fine (after some checks).
    Most of the data were for new stations. They may or may not contain
    adjustments but we use them, and we don’t have the raw data, just what
    we’ve been sent!

    I bet you’ll get many more accusations of manipulating the data. The
    skeptics don’t seem to want to accept that techniques get better and new
    ideas come along.

    Cheers
    Phil

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit
    School of Environmental Sciences


    Russell S. Vose, Chief
    Climate Analysis Branch
    National Climatic Data Center

    ——

    So – CRU data is “may or may not contain adjustments but we use them, and we don’t have the raw data, just what we’ve been sent!” Willis, just what were you hoping to get?

    On top of the data lost in Phil’s office, they don’t know what they have in the first place.

    Of course, after reading Harry’s README file from Climategate 2009, I’m not surprised….

  41. Ken Hall says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:40 am

    Ken, you credit this bunch with way too much intelligence!

  42. Stu in SDGO says:

    What I’d like to know (among other things) is this: who thought up the notion that CO2 was responsible for AGW in the first place? I guess terrarium experiments in high school are no long in vogue.

  43. Speed says:

    “Admit nothing, deny everything, launch counterattack.”

  44. liontooth says:

    “I bet you’ll get many more accusations of manipulating the data. The
    skeptics don’t seem to want to accept that techniques get better and new
    ideas come along.”

    Isn’t the burden of proof on the person who comes up with techniques (that) get better and new
    ideas (that) come along? Instead of thinking about whether Steve McI is a shill, maybe that effort could go to meticulously detailing these techniques and ideas so that no arguments will hold up?

    I would think that the worst critics of data, techniques, and “new ideas” would be those on the inside since they know it will be scrutinized, criticized and questioned. That is if you really wanted to shut down the “deniers”.

  45. Somebody with too much time needs to compare the contents of the emails to what was given as evidence in the earlier “inquiry”.

  46. It sounds to me more and more that the truth is as I have suspected all along since Climategate Mk 1. Long before the temperature series came into the public spotlight, Phil Jones (and others) muddled along very happily for years and years in their unremarkable backwater building their academic careers. In those days it simply didn’t matter whether they preserved the original raw station data (and meta data), or how they processed it, or how they re-tweaked it subsequently whenever any particularly embarrasing issues came up. It was just all part of the general muddle of acedemia with Phil Jones (and others) in charge and no one ever for one moment expecting anybody else to be in a position to gainsay them because they were, after all, the world authorities.

    That this is a cockup rather than a conspiracy is evidenced by ‘Harry the programmer’ being so frustrated with the mess he was being asked to sort out. If Jones et. al. has been up to skulduggery from the beginning they would have surely been far more careful to cover their tracks against the day when outside people would inevitably start lifting a few stones and questioning their information processing methodology (or, as it transpires, lack of it).

    I suspect Jones isn’t really scared about others getting hold of the raw data but he IS scared of people finding out how incompetently he tweaked it because he now realises just how sloppy, subjective and unscientific his procedures actually were. So he fights to withold (or make difficult to obtain) both station data and processing method to thwart people who suspect the veracity of his results and want to reproduce his calculations precisely.

    The BEST obvious recourse therefore is to undertake the huge task of getting hold of all the raw temperature data (and metadata) and carrying out a complete reprocessing of it using an openly declared set of statistical processing rules and then publishing the whole thing on the web for all to see. Oh dear, I forgot. That’s already been recently tried and has failed entirely to resolve the matter.

  47. 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

  48. Alan the Brit says:

    Well done, Willis, for explaining the background on this.

    As I commented on the original Climategate 2 post ing on WUWT, this guy could be playing a patient waiting game of softly, softly. The first tranche raised questions, although relatively easily blocked through inept & incompetent enquiries, very likely the good old Civil Service rule of “never have an enquiry unless you the know the outcome beforehand” routine! Which is what we got. Those invovled at Penn State & CRU/UEA were seriously rattled but the establishment stood by them. This second tranche seems far more detailed & should lead to more investigations. The final pasord protected maywell be the coup de grace, of undenyable luminousity that they will have to come clean in the end. I don’t know, but is seems that way to me, this is your second chance, the next shot will be right between the eyes!

    I will contact my MP, one Mel Stride, & ask if he is going to rattle his sabre to push for a fuller enquiry into all this or not!

  49. Kev-in-Uk says:

    I’ve said my piece on Jones elsewhere – his ‘hard done by’ bullied attitude just won’t wash anymore. He is a manipulating charlatan member of the climate science mass idiots masquerading as scientists! HE is the SELF appointed one! HE is the one obfuscating the issues and breaking the law.
    He can get down off his high horse now – he has demonstrated absolutely NO morals, NO scruples, NO scientific integrity and is of NO fecking scientific value – in my humble opinion…..

  50. Interstellar Bill says:

    “I do not want to make the raw data available, as it will involve more and more requests.”

    Even though once you make it ALL available, there will be nothing more to request?

  51. Rickard B says:

    If you have Bittorrent or uTorrent or similar, use this torrent to download all the emails:
    http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6835213/Climategate_2___Climategate_II___FOIA2011___FOIA_2011

    Easy to do, and no problem with too many people who download at the same time.

  52. Jeremy says:

    Willis,

    While I might want to believe there is more to the story because of the existence of the AES-encrypted file inside the zip, I don’t. It’s not because I don’t want to believe there’s more juiciness from it, I do. However, the size of the encrypted zip was suggested at what, 200,000+ more emails? The size alone tells us that those are likely personal and/or irrelevant. Any e-mail box might have millions of messages. A significant portion of those (from Phil’s generation especially) are likely spam they didn’t know what to do with. This is not to mention all the personal correspondence, travel itineraries, meeting schedules, etc… The contents of that file is most likely all the mundane stuff that has nothing to do with climate science. Their release might be embarrassing personally for the scientists, but our goal is not to personally humiliate them. It’s likely a veiled and perhaps empty threat that all that personal correspondence is available publicly behind a password. I’m guessing the purpose of the person who released it was not to hold out on releasing ‘ever-more incriminating’ evidence, but rather to stop short of personal attacks while pressuring those men to do what is right.

    As such, I believe this is the last release we’ll see about Climategate. It should be enough.

  53. pat says:

    It is clear that much of the so-called scientific research was anything but. The AGW proposition had already been laid out. Any ‘study’, theory, conjecture, observation, or graph was then ‘tuned’ (their word) to support it. Many have noted for years the seemingly poor scientific, mathematical, and statistical skills exhibited by AGW proponents. The reason is now clear. This cabal that controlled the publication of scientific papers dressed up even the weakest entrants so long as it supported AGW, while ensuring that more critical studies, likely more meritorious and reality based, were embargoed.The proliferation of publication thus served to advance the careers of very weak academics and stifle those that were either neutral , skeptical, or simply uncaring of AGW.

  54. PaulH says:

    I said at the time of Climategate 1.0, and I’ll say it again. I shake my head in disbelief that these (allegedly) highly intelligent scientists don’t have any clue about how email works. Simply deleting email from your computer does not delete all of the uncounted copies of the email that exists on various servers and archives that are out of your reach. Email is not like pen on paper. You can’t tear it up and think it’s gone forever.

  55. doug s says:

    “Alex the skeptic says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:40 am
    Just out:
    >>Google pulls plug on renewable energy planSearch giant quitting non-core projects, including solar power<<

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45409951/

    Could this ditching of RE projects by Google be a result of Climategate-Season 2?"

    I'm pretty sure that I had already read about this before the latest climategate emails where broken. This story is revised also.

  56. Werner Brozek says:

    “Whether it constitutes a warning or a message, and to whom it might be addressed, is unclear.”

    Perhaps more mileage can be obtained by NOT releasing the rest just now but by merely threatening to do so. Several years ago, an article appeared in our paper that police have 22 license plate numbers of men who sought the services of prostitutes. The men were told that if they showed up at the police station to pay their fine, no one would come knocking on their door at home. As I recall 25 showed up!

  57. Scott Brim says:

    With this second release of Climategate emails, it has become clear that whoever is behind the liberation of this information, they have a preplanned strategic communication strategy they are working from.

    Their apparent strategy is to throw some meat and vegetables into the communications stew pot; let it come to a boil; let it simmer for awhile; then open the pot and let the interested public and the press chew on the latest batch; and then throw in some more fresh meat and vegetables to keep the topic fresh in the public’s eye.

    Concerning the topical content of the emails themselves, I would observe the stark contrast between how the climate science industry approaches its fundamental responsibilities in terms of professional data management and end-to-end traceability of analysis and data, and how the nuclear industry approaches those same responsibilities.

    In the nuclear industry, the data and the analysis are one inseparable thing. If an analysis is published, or if it is used to support a decision making process, a clearly defined end-to-end audit trail must exist in readily retrievable condition which clearly establishes the flow of data among the various analytical processes, in addition to maintaining a historical record of the data itself and any transformations to that data which occurred along the way.

    Maintaining a history of the current and past configurations of the data and the analytical processes is an expensive proposition. Providing an airtight data/analysis audit trail was one of the primary cost drivers behind the considerable expense of the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository project, which spent roughly $15 billion dollars over twenty years before being terminated by the Obama Administration for purely political reasons.

    I bring up the situation with the Obama Administration’s illegal termination of the Yucca Mountain project as being indicative of the enormous contrast between the disciplined and highly transparent approach used by DOE and the NRC in documenting and analyzing the science and engineering behind the geologic spent fuel repository, as opposed to the highly opaque and generally undisciplined approach used by key climate scientists supported by DOE, NOAA, and the EPA in pushing the IPCC’s anthropogenic global warming agenda.

  58. GregO says:

    ClimateGate 1.0 got me interested CAGW – until then I just blew off AGW as “that Al Gore thing”. I’ve read up on the topic (Donna’s book makes the 12th book I’ve read with the Mosher/Fuller book being number 1), hang-out on blogs, I’ve downloaded temperature reconstructions, bought a logger from Anthony and measure my local UHI (mind-blowing here in Phoenix AZ), cancelled subscriptions to magazines, written my congressman and senators repeatedly and routinely bore my friends and family to tears describing this thing. In other words, Climategate 1 forever changed my outlook and changed my life.

    One can’t help but ask the question, “what were they thinking?” If the whole thing is an organized fraud/conspiracy wouldn’t any reasonable crook/conspirator at least do something a bit more careful like keep two sets of books – one for FOI and one for “Climate Science”. Or are they simply incompetents.

    If they are incompetents wouldn’t they be subjected attacks from inside academia – after all; isn’t science a “blood-sport”. If they are incompetents, it also helps explain why they were unprepared for FOI requests. Let’s see here, you are making pronouncements to alter modern society, and you think no one is going to want to have a look at the raw data? No anticipation of “self-appointed” investigators?

    Wouldn’t the climate crowd, flying around the world, making earth-shattering pronouncements to media, think that somewhere out there in the voting public, there would be scientifically/mathematically inclined people that would exert extreme scrutiny of their work? Even “self-appointed” ones?

    Bottom line question: Why weren’t they ready for FOI requests because it appears they really weren’t ready. Had they had simply provided the data, some data, anything at all, wouldn’t it just have remained in the realm of a nit-picking squabble because after all, these temperature anomalies are counted in tenths of a degree delta. So it seem to me that running the clock back, it would have been far better to comply with FOI requests from the beginning.

    But that would have meant they would have had to spend time on the requests. No sweat. Call a meeting with the FOIA officer and simple build a little organization within the department to do just that – a nominally paid grad-student and make it a little PR cottage industry.

    Willis, thanks for all your hard work and for this post – this must take a tremendous amount of your time and if you are doing this as a hobby; you have chosen quite a demanding hobby

  59. doug s says:

    “GW says:
    November 23, 2011 at 8:58 am
    If I were President of the US…

    Finally, I would announce that all funding within executive jurisdiction to or for green energy projects would be cancelled henceforth.”

    How would you kickback/launder campaign contributions then?

  60. Mohib Ebrahim says:

    How does this e-mail from July 2009 fit into this story of the raw data:

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1527

    date: Tue Jul 28 09:19:16 2009
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: FOIA requests for ‘confidentiality’ agreements
    to: “Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)” , “Colam-French Jonathan Mr (ISD)” , “Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)” , “Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)”

    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.

  61. Johanus says:

    @Phil Jones
    “This to my mind is bullying and virtual harrasment. This is not for any reasonable scientific point. It is quite simply harrasment. These people are self appointed.”

    Yes, “self appointed” in the same sense that Rosa Parks, back in 1955, “appointed” herself to demand the right to a seat on a publicly owned conveyance. Possibly some folks saw her in same light that Phil Jones is seeing the skeptics: “Why is she acting like a bully and harassing us? Not for any reasonable need for transportation (i.e. back of the bus is fine). If we let her sit up front then they’ll all want to sit up front. Better to stop and discredit her now. Or these harassments will never end.”

    Just substitute “public bus” with “public documents” and think of someone like Ms. Parks demanding access to documents paid for and owned by the American people. Denying access is thus equivalent to denying civil rights.

  62. John F. Hultquist says:

    Alex the skeptic says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:40 am
    Could this ditching of RE projects by Google be a result of Climategate-Season 2?

    Unlikely. I’ll bet Google has had this in the works for awhile. As a public company Google has shareholders who find wasting money not to their liking. My guess is that Google’s leaders were taken in by all this green energy nonsense – this isn’t their area of expertise. Others, whose knowledge does include energy and economics, and are large holders of GOOG (stock; see the 5-year chart):
    http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/goog
    have not been pleased.
    Almost as soon as they started this plan there were critics:
    http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/03/05/05greenwire-google-ceo-fires-at-critics-defends-its-energy–9995.html

    And the world has learned a lot in the past 2.5 years. “NoTricksZone” by P Gosselin has had recent posts. Here is one:

    http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/22/german-ard-public-television-green-energy-in-germany-threatens-to-be-biological-and-environmental-debacle/

  63. John West says:

    Harold Ambler says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:22 am
    As Jones so beautifully projects: “These people are self appointed.”

    Yes, he’s obsessed with authority. Just like it’s not science unless its peer reviewed, apparently, in his mind he’s under no obligation to provide anything to anyone who hasn’t been appointed by someone with some sort of authority.

    Well, if it makes him feel better, as a member of the human race (that’s been convicted without due process), I do hereby appoint the bloggers, moderators, and regular contributors of CA, WUWT, and JN (and expressly including Lord Monckton and Willis Eschenbach) as counsel for the defense with the authority to audit, debunk, fact check, or any other humanity defending or catastrophe denying activity that they see fit.

  64. Kev-in-UK says:

    Just for fun, I remembered where I’d heard the University of East Anglia mentioned before:
    sometime after 2.40 – if you cannot be bothered to watch it all…….LOL

  65. John-X says:

    AnonyMoose says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:31 am
    “I wonder how many British citizens will report the failure to follow FOI requirements.”

    It’s clear that to far too many US & UK agencies and institutions, there is no “Freedom of Information LAW.”

    It’s either a “freedom of information SUGGESTION,” or worse, a “Freedom to Manipulate Information Act.”

  66. Nullius in Verba says:

    Another possible explanation for the encrypted archive is that it would discourage the authorities from pursuing an arrest. Suppose they figured out who it was, who had the remainder of the emails – their priority would be to make a surprise arrest and impoundment to capture any further damaging data before it can be released. It would be a strong motivation to actually make a quick arrest. But a passphrase would be easy to get out – virtually impossible to prevent. There’s now no benefit to the climate community in prosecution, and a potentially massive risk. It’s like a hostage situation.

    The police, probably, would not let that stop them. If they have evidence of a crime, they have to prosecute. (Although there can be ‘public interest’ considerations.) But the academics and politicians now have a very good reason for wanting Mr/Ms FOIA to be left alone. Whether this is in response to events happening in the background or a simple precaution there’s no guessing.

    It could also be a way to reduce the risk inherent in future disclosures. Had they simply released another block, I think further releases would have been expected, and they would have been watching for them. This tactic could be read either way.

  67. Good post. I get it, but unfortnately the press hardly care about good or bad practice in science. The culprits are responding to Climategate 2 as being more of the same but weaker.

    There is plenty here that seems to bolster up the “Hide the Decline” manipulation, and give an impression of slight of hand. There is evidence of real nastyness, such as paying for private investigations on opponents to their theories.

    I suppose what we need is evience that they lied to the whitewash enquiries. This might provide the UEA with soap to wash their hands clean of the scandal. Lots more evidence of email deletion on a grand scale, but they say that was part of routine clean up. (I know it is clear that the clean up was stimulated by a wish to hide, but is this enough?)

    Funding form Energy companies looks liek a good hook

    Are there any silver bullets emerging from this latest selection of emails?

  68. Olen says:

    Where else in any kind of job is sloppy work and outrageous claims, predictions, and demonstrations be tolerated? I can’t think of any jobs that tolerate sloppy work and the only jobs I can think of that should prosper from outrageous claims and predictions and demonstrations are in science fiction novels and movies.

    Science fiction movies where there is one lone scientist, usually a divorced young hot female scientist, who knows and predicts impending disaster and has the solution. The movies often made from novels that have the slowest bullets, explosive shock waves, response from the hero who has to say his lines before responding to the obvious immediate danger while the danger is on hold, the fastest subway trains that can plow through steel reinforced concrete pillars without losing speed and staying intact, violent weather caused by global warming moving like a tidal wave and causing instant freezing to absolute zero, and of course the detached visitors from outer space either warning mankind to change or face destruction from them or with the intent to destroy mankind up front for bad behavior against nature and the planet.

    The novels and movies don’t pretend to be real science and are to entertain and sometimes stimulate the imagination and decisions in law and regulations are not made from movies as they are sometimes from scientific reports.

  69. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Interstellar Bill says:
    November 23, 2011 at 9:21 am

    “I do not want to make the raw data available, as it will involve more and more requests.”

    Even though once you make it ALL available, there will be nothing more to request?

    Thanks, Bill. I was going to highlight that issue, but the piece was getting long. In the event you’ve done it better than I would have, I had a muddy paragraph on the subject that I threw out.

    Jones has complained mightily of getting so many FOI requests … not realizing that the numbers kept increasing simply because he wasn’t answering them.

    w.

  70. I wonder if FOIA is playing a long game or just woke up in a bad mood. Two years is a very long time to wait, they could have kept the pot boiling with more interim releases. Maybe they felt threatened and wanted to protect their position (if that is the motive they succeeded, the warmist don’t want to bait FOIA)

    Also how much work have they done selecting these emails. If I were planning a second attack for two years I would spend some of that time collating the emails. For instance pick out a selection to do with data manipulation, or focus on hide the decline, and put them out together as as single release, and then make another selection about corrupt pal review for another hit later.

    The Climategate 1 failed to have more impact because the information was sporadic in nature, and each scandal relied on isolated pieces of the jigsaw. This allowed the warmists to say it was an isolated quote taken out of context.

    It seems these new emails are just a random pull from a very big library that has not been looked at in much detail by FOIA. They back up and build on what we already know, but do not provide an audited narrative (yet). I wonder how committed FOIA really is.

  71. DJ says:

    “Jones also was asked about a message he wrote suggesting that emails could be deleted to dodge freedom of information requests. Both he and his university have been criticized for obstructionist attitudes toward Britain’s right-to-know law, and the university now says it’s far more open about sharing its data.
    In his response, Jones appeared to suggest that the public need not interest itself in the inner workings of groups such as the International Panel on Climate Change, which produces authoritative reports on the future of the world’s weather.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/leak-climatologist-takes-case-public-135113620.html

    Nothing to see here, move along.

  72. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Phil Jones has spoken out on the release:

    Jones also was asked about a message he wrote suggesting that emails could be deleted to dodge freedom of information requests. Both he and his university have been criticized for obstructionist attitudes toward Britain’s right-to-know law, and the university now says it’s far more open about sharing its data.

    In his response, Jones appeared to suggest that the public need not interest itself in the inner workings of groups such as the International Panel on Climate Change, which produces authoritative reports on the future of the world’s weather.

    “Why do people need to know who wrote what individual paragraph?” Jones said.

    Does anyone but me think that his answer and the question come from different planets? He’s asked about deleting emails, and he answers about whether we need to know who wrote the IPCC report.

    Say what??!?!?

    w.

  73. Latitude says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:34 am
    Jones has complained mightily of getting so many FOI requests … not realizing that the numbers kept increasing simply because he wasn’t answering them.
    ================================================
    He’s not that stupid…..no one is that stupid
    …he was stonewalling and lying

  74. Joe Public says:

    Perhaps someone should submit a Freedom of Information request to the Freedom of Information Commissioner, enquiring if he considers CRU-UEA has completely & truthfully provided all relevant information in all the responses CRU-UEA has provided to every FoI request it’s received?

  75. Alex the skeptic says:

    CNN.com has climategate 2 mentioned in small text in a list of other minor news.
    >New e-mail leak from UK climate research center<
    http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/23/world/europe/climate-email-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

    Opening the link one finds that the report pours lots of water on the news item, without even quoting one single e-mail. It even tries to criminalise the leak using words such as 'theft' while using innuendos such as' thought to originate from…', 'If genuine…these e-mails…' "As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context." Then it goes into a spin saying how the perpetrstors in climategate 1 were all found innocent and also tried to justify this scam by mentioning the BEST report.

    The Main Lier Media are at it again.

  76. GregO says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    … “Does anyone but me think that his answer and the question come from different planets? He’s asked about deleting emails, and he answers about whether we need to know who wrote the IPCC report.”

    People need to know. If their is urgent need for action, we need the data, we need to know, we are free citizens in freely operating democracies and we need complete transparency. We need the truth, not someone’s version of it, in order to support urgent action as called for by the CAGW crowd. I find it either disingenuous, or dangerously naive to think otherwise.

    Phil and company have demonstrated time and again they operate with half a brain and no moral compass resulting in poor judgement as pertains to the public impact of their work – resulting in FOI requests and finally Climategates 1.0 and 2.0. They brought this on themselves.

    Their and their institutions failure to respond to FOI requests in accordance with law, let me repeat, in accordance with law, was a bad call and has provided massive ammunition for their opponents, whomever they may be, and forever tarnished their reputations and legacies. No matter how all this plays out in the near-term, they will go down in history as villains; if earth heats up catastrophically for bungling the message; and if not for being fooled by confirmation bias. “The Cause – good grief! Can you imagine Einstein referring to the Theory of Relativity as “The Cause”? I cringe at the thought.

    I also don’t buy the argument that they were hapless, harassed, honest, academics being besieged with requests for data. Come on. Phil could have got back up from the institution and got enough funding to put a mini-red team together to cobble some sense into his data and handled the immense traffic in data requests (/sarc) from what; a half dozen “self-appointed” parties.

  77. Dave says:

    Julian Williams in Wales says:
    November 23, 2011 at 11:57 am

    I wonder if FOIA is playing a long game or just woke up in a bad mood. Two years is a very long time to wait, they could have kept the pot boiling with more interim releases. Maybe they felt threatened and wanted to protect their position (if that is the motive they succeeded, the warmist don’t want to bait FOIA)

    Also how much work have they done selecting these emails. If I were planning a second attack for two years I would spend some of that time collating the emails. For instance pick out a selection to do with data manipulation, or focus on hide the decline, and put them out together as as single release, and then make another selection about corrupt pal review for another hit later.

    [Thanks for your contribution, Dave, but ... far too much cut and pasted stuff snipped. Please, folks, links were invented for a reason. Don't just cut and paste a mile and a half of text into this thread. Provide a link. -w.]

  78. Gail Combs says:

    Latimer Alder says:
    November 23, 2011 at 3:47 am

    Exceprt from a post I made at Judith’s place

    ‘We already know that Phil Jones – along with Mike Mann – believes that as a ‘Climatologist’ he has been granted some special immunity from adhering to normally accepted standards of professional behaviour and integrity. And in the case of FoI – the law of the land as well…..
    ____________________________-

    As a chemist, I think referring to this bunch as ‘Climatologists’ vs Climate Scientists would be a good idea. What they do is NOT science by propaganda generation and it will eventually taint all the sciences with its stench.

    I can not believe that the scientific societies are actually standing behind this bunch and lending them their good name because when the ‘Climatologists’ finally fall it will take down all the rest of the groups who “bought in” to turning science into a propaganda generating machine.

  79. Gail Combs says:

    GregO says:
    November 23, 2011 at 10:09 am

    …..One can’t help but ask the question, “what were they thinking?” If the whole thing is an organized fraud/conspiracy wouldn’t any reasonable crook/conspirator at least do something a bit more careful like keep two sets of books – one for FOI and one for “Climate Science”. Or are they simply incompetents……
    ________________________________
    The “team” are useful stooges and nothing more. They are expendable and their incompetence really doesn’t matter in the long run to those in charge. They were pick for their blind faith in “The Cause” and thier usefulness has about run its course.

    The brains behind the CAGW mess goes all the way back to Maurice Strong/David Rockefeller and the UN/World Bank among others. (1972 First Earth Summit) The “team” were picked to come up with a “Scientific basis” for the “de-development of the USA.

    “A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

    “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation,” http://cnsnews.com/node/75388

    You can not set out to smash a successful economy and political structure without a reason the masses will accept. Pollution, the environment, followed by CAGW was that reason. The result is the destruction of the US manufacturing base. In 1970 over 25% of the labor force worked in manufacturing, the last I looked it was less than 9% and dropping. Also what manufacturing that is left is foreign owned. Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990, before WTO was ratified (1995), Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. http://www.fame.org/HTM/greg%20Pickup%201%2010%2003%20report.htm

    “For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will.

    If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” — David Rockefeller’s autobiography ‘Memoirs’

    Sounds like a conspiracy theory until you look at the publications of General Pascal Lamy, World Trade Organization Director. Looking beneath the surface, the ratification of the World Trade Oranization ===> final collapse of US manufacturing ==> collapse of the economy ===> the dissatisfaction of the USA dollar as the reserve currency ===> Carbon Credits the new global Currency? [Harvard] http://irps.ucsd.edu/dgvictor/publications/Faculty_Victor_Article_2004_A%20New%20Currency_Harvard%20Intl.pdf

    Acquired through a FOIA request, CIA Document, Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture http://www.foia.cia.gov/2025/2025_Global_Governance.pdf

    WTO Chief Says World Facing New Leadership Patterns http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/284/

    Of What Use is Global Governance? http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/

    Global Governance, for Whom? A response to Pascal Lamy – Global Governance: Getting Us Where We All Want to Go and Getting Us There Together http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/content/global-governance-whom-response-pascal-lamy-global-governance-getting-us-where-we-all-want-g

    The Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/world-economy-trade-and-finance/global-economy%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%84%A2s-shifting-centre-gravity

    Global Governance and Systemic Risk in the 21st Century http://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/articles/global-governance/global-governance-and-systemic-risk-21st-century

    Pascal Lamy: Need Truly Global Monetary System http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/256/

  80. John-X says:

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    “(…)“Why do people need to know who wrote what individual paragraph?” Jones said.

    Latitude says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:31 pm
    “He’s not that stupid…..no one is that stupid”

    I cannot reconcile these two sentences.

  81. Latitude says: November 23, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Willis Eschenbach says: November 23, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Jones has complained mightily of getting so many FOI requests … not realizing that the numbers kept increasing simply because he wasn’t answering them

    .
    ================================================
    He’s not that stupid…..no one is that stupid …he was stonewalling and lying

    I’ve seen folk with early senile dementia “coping” by being really nice to everyone – everyone “in authority”, that is. Then there’s the devastating research of Stanley Milgram, showing how “pleasers” become the most inhuman tyrants of all, if they believe they are being instructed to do so by “authority”.

    To me, this is where Jones fits. Inept scientist, gets his position because he succeeds so well in pleasing co-workers and those in authority over him, his real expertise is this lifelong coping strategy to cover his innate spinelessness and gullibility… he’s too spineless to see the corrupt nature of that authority.

  82. John Whitman says:

    I suggest the self-named ‘we’ who released the info of climategate 1.0 (Nov ’09) and of 2.0 (Nov ’11) did not time both the releases based on upcoming IPCC conferences.

    For the 1.0 climategate release it was likely timed wrt to the climatic buildup to the Copenhagen IPCC conference. Since Copenhagen there have been IPCC meetings/conferences prior to the upcoming Durban with no releases and the imminent Durban conference looks to be impotent at best. So, Durban does not appear to be a significant reason for the major 2.0 climategate release.

    For this current 2.0 climategate release the timing, to me anyway, appears more likely based on the intervention by Mann in the court case of ATI’s FOI request for Mann’s info while at UVa. The evidence of this reason for the timing of release 2.0 is suggested because many of the emails are focused on Mann and cover the period Mann was at UVa; as well as other periods and other ‘Team’ members.

    As to whether ‘we’ is a single person or a number of people. Looking back at the professional cool execution of the releases and the patient strategy then I find it more likely ‘we’ indeed is a number of people.

    John

    PS – this was also posted on CA

  83. Myrrh says:

    “However, it’s not just my case that has new information. Regarding a host of other issues, the recent emails contain much previously unrevealed evidence of the perfidy, subversion, misdirection, and malfeasance practiced by the Climategate un-indicted co-conspirators. Among many other things, they provide clear evidence of the destruction of incriminating emails. This was not just “boys will be boys”. This was the leading lights of the AGW supporting scientists, working together to deny access to publicly funded climate data, and twisting, bending and breaking the scientific norms, FOI regulations, and possibly the law in the process. And that’s just what they did in my case, that doesn’t even begin to touch their other misdeeds that they discuss in detail.

    The discouraging part is that, to this day, not a person among them has admitted that they did anything incorrect in the slightest. Not one has acknowledged that they went a ways, not just a little ways, but a long ways over the line of ethics, morality, and honesty. No one has said they did a single thing wrong, no one has admitted they evaded an honest FOI request. Silence.”

    In a nutshell – should be required reading for everyone and for those supporting or promoting AGW-themed policies accompanied by a request to explain why they support or promote in light of the crass scientific dishonesty on which the AGW campaign has been built.

    Willis Eschenbach says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    “Phil Jones has spoken out on the release:

    Jones also was asked about a message he wrote suggesting that emails could be deleted to dodge freedom of information requests. Both he and his university have been criticized for obstructionist attitudes toward Britain’s right-to-know law, and the university now says it’s far more open about sharing its data.

    In his response, Jones appeared to suggest that the public need not interest itself in the inner workings of groups such as the International Panel on Climate Change, which produces authoritative reports on the future of the world’s weather.

    “Why do people need to know who wrote what individual paragraph?” Jones said.

    Does anyone but me think that his answer and the question come from different planets? He’s asked about deleting emails, and he answers about whether we need to know who wrote the IPCC report.

    Say what??!?!?”

    Several months ago I tried to find again something on this aspect I’d read on WUWT, failed to. It was written possibly by Pilke or McIntyre and a description of how the questions asked were never directly answered, but subtly shifted sideways and an answer given to a completely different point, one not being made.

    If you could ask around..? I should be grateful, I’d like to read it again it was thought provoking.

    As is this:

    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.

    What is he actually saying here?

  84. John-X says:

    John Whitman says:
    November 23, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    “As to whether ‘we’ is a single person or a number of people. Looking back at the professional cool execution of the releases and the patient strategy then I find it more likely ‘we’ indeed is a number of people.”

    If the [unintentionally?] hilarious “Occupy” hippie nonsense in the ReadMe file is genuine and not a cover, e.g.:

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

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

    (yeah, right. Let me just get out my invisible checkbook here, and with this invisible pen, I’ll write a $37,000,000,000,000 invisible check, payable to Gaia. There you go. And don’t take any wooden Carbon Credits)

    if that’s “FOIA’s” true sentiment, I suggest this could indeed have come from willie leaks (oops, typo. I meant wikileaks).

  85. Max Hugoson says:

    Willis:

    I recently paid $70 for the 1925 to 2005 station data, day by day, high and lows..for Chaska MN. (Obviously I’m engaged in an “apples to apples” comparison using the Chaska to bounce off the DISMAL (since WWII) Mpls data, which comes from…the middle of two runways at the Mpls Int. Airport.) This was a 1.5 MB file. I did a quick calc, and figured the WHOLE USA data set would cost me $100,000.

    I’m OUTRAGED and ANGRY. Do you have ANY suggestions how we PRY THIS INFORMATION OUT OF THE NATIONAL CLIMATIC DATA CENTER for NOTHING!

    I paid for this info. My PARENTS paid for this info. MY GRANDPARENTS PAID FOR THIS INFO.

    I’ll be damned if I have to pay again.

    You are very GOOD at this sort of thing. FOIA act or Class Action Lawsuit? What’s the best way to slice and dice these turkeys for thanksgiving. I’ll have them WITHOUT gravy please, they’ve been on a “gravy train” too long as it is.

    Max

  86. John Whitman says:

    John-X says:
    November 23, 2011 at 5:52 pm

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

    if that’s “FOIA’s” true sentiment, I suggest this could indeed have come from willie leaks (oops, typo. I meant wikileaks).

    John-X,

    You should re-parse what ‘we’ said in “/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///”.

    The thrust is that spending that $37 trillion is stupid.

    John

  87. Alcheson says:

    Perhaps the reason for the slow response from the Climate team is because they already know what information is in all of those encrypted files that no one gets to read…. YET. Anything they say will have to be tempered by what yet may be released at some time in the future.

  88. jorgekafkazar says:

    Kev-in-UK says: “Just for fun, I remembered where I’d heard the University of East Anglia mentioned before:..”

    I’ll bet all those idiots in the video know Excel.

    Gail Combs says: “As a chemist, I think referring to this bunch as ‘Climatologists’ vs Climate Scientists would be a good idea.”

    As a student of astronomy, I lean towards the term “Climatologers.”

  89. Willis Eschenbach says:

    Max Hugoson says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Willis:

    I recently paid $70 for the 1925 to 2005 station data, day by day, high and lows..for Chaska MN. …

    I’ll be damned if I have to pay again.

    You are very GOOD at this sort of thing. FOIA act or Class Action Lawsuit? What’s the best way to slice and dice these turkeys for thanksgiving. I’ll have them WITHOUT gravy please, they’ve been on a “gravy train” too long as it is.

    Max

    Max, go here, the data is free. You’ll have to navigate to the location you are interested in.

    w.

  90. Rational Debate says:

    re post by: Harold Ambler says: November 23, 2011 at 5:22 am

    As Jones so beautifully projects: “These people are self appointed.”

    Gee, and here I thought they were all lavishly funded by Eeeevil Big Oil!!! /sarc

  91. Werner Brozek says:

    “John Whitman says:
    November 23, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    The evidence of this reason for the timing of release 2.0 is suggested because many of the emails are focused on Mann and cover the period Mann was at UVa; as well as other periods and other ‘Team’ members.”

    Alternatively, could your arguments also be used to suggest the person wanted to help out Dr. Tim Ball against Mann?

  92. Max Hugoson says:
    November 23, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Willis:

    “”I recently paid $70 for the 1925 to 2005 station data, day by day, high and lows..for Chaska MN. (Obviously I’m engaged in an “apples to apples” comparison using the Chaska to bounce off the DISMAL (since WWII) Mpls data, which comes from…the middle of two runways at the Mpls Int. Airport.) This was a 1.5 MB file. I did a quick calc, and figured the WHOLE USA data set would cost me $100,000.””

    Willis says it is here free [Max, go here, the data is free. You’ll have to navigate to the location you are interested in.]

    w.

    Reply;___________________
    if you are interested in the whole national sets of data, it can be had compressed onto DVDs is several formats, for about what you paid for one station, here is the link to the online store I bought the TD3200 Coop data set I use.

    http://ols.nndc.noaa.gov/plolstore/plsql/olstore.prodlist?category=C&subcatc=01&groupin=CDV

  93. Streetcred says:

    I love this gem from “Harry”,
    “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.”
    ———————————–
    He just had no idea how “poor a state” Australia was to become under the governance of current ALP/Greens/Independents bro-ha. A government that has embraced the deceit, dishonesty, and censorship of the TEAM with two hands and both legs to foist a CARBON DIOXIDE TAX on the Nation.

  94. Willis, how does #2581 fit into the story now? Note the date.
    From: Phil Jones [[1]mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
    Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:15 PM
    To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD)
    Subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations
    request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03)
    Dave,
    I have found all the input data for the paper from 1990. This includes the
    locations of the sites and the annual temperature values. If I were to get
    someone in CRU to put them on our web site, do you think that would
    keep them quiet, or just spur them into more requests?

    There is much more at this number.

  95. Willis, try #3791 The last line is especially illuminating.
    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

  96. Roger Knights says:

    jorgekafkazar says:
    November 23, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    As a student of astronomy, I lean towards the term “Climatologers.”

    Excellent! That’s the best yet!

  97. Roger Knights says:

    Werner Brozek says:
    November 23, 2011 at 10:06 pm

    “John Whitman says:
    November 23, 2011 at 4:56 pm
    The evidence of this reason for the timing of release 2.0 is suggested because many of the emails are focused on Mann and cover the period Mann was at UVa; as well as other periods and other ‘Team’ members.”

    Alternatively, could your arguments also be used to suggest the person wanted to help out Dr. Tim Ball against Mann?

    Good one! Here’s another: Maybe he held back these documents hoping Mann would be emboldened to “overreach”–at which point a second release could pull the rug out from under him.

  98. PaulID says:

    Willis you have access to many things I do not would you be able to show me the way to a graph or three that show the increase in co2 over the last 150 years also the amount of mankinds co2 output compared to natural I am having a “discussion” with a person about the latest emails and thease things come up and I am not sure where to find them.

  99. ttfn says:

    David Socrates says:
    November 23, 2011 at 8:43 am

    “The BEST obvious recourse therefore is to undertake the huge task of getting hold of all the raw temperature data (and metadata) and carrying out a complete reprocessing of it using an openly declared set of statistical processing rules and then publishing the whole thing on the web for all to see. Oh dear, I forgot. That’s already been recently tried and has failed entirely to resolve the matter.”

    I think the BEST thing to do would be for someone to collect all the raw data, identify where it came from and how it was measured (metadata), etc, and release it to the world as the true uncorrected raw data. Then and only then should anyone embark on the arduous task of correcting and analyzing the data. I think it’s a tad presumptuous of Phil to believe that his method is the best and only method. This is what Berkley’s BEST should’ve done. Maybe once we have 12000 independent studies of the same raw data set, we can get consensus on the true global temperature over the past 100 years and its probable error.

    That beats trusting Phil, NCDC, Berkley and NASA to do a proper job of it.

  100. Camburn says:

    The question to thinking folks is:

    Why is there so much secrecy concerning climate science? The deception, the shoddy science, the blatant mis-use of statistics, the blatant misunderstanding of all forces…..unbelieveable how plain flat out stupid these fine folks really are.

  101. Eric (skeptic) says:

    Summary by SteveM in 2010 http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/21/inquiry-disinformation-about-crutem/ Scroll down to Mosher’s comment, is the UHI influence on CRUTEM issue resolved?

  102. Thank you very much Willis,
    An excellent article that I have linked from my Climate pages.
    Happy Thanksgiving to all!

  103. Willis Eschenbach says:

    PaulID says:
    November 24, 2011 at 6:17 am (Edit)

    Try the woodfortrees site, it likely will help for the Mauna Loa CO2. The carbon cycle is not well understood, with say ± 10% error on the numbers. Raw figures for the carbon cycle are available at CDIAC. Let me know if you need more.

    w.

  104. Rational Debate says:

    re post: Geoff Sherrington says: November 24, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Geoff, that seems a rather amazing find – good catch on your part.

    So nice, so kind, of Tim Osborn to attempt to yank Phil Jones up short and provide him with the convenient way to perjure himself or lie to the world all in one little smiley email.

    What’s truly astounding is that he would do so in an email no less, all while saying they need to not discuss such things using email.

    All in all, the display seems about as diametrically opposed to integrity as one can get.

  105. Rod says:

    WE and All,

    First, i wish to thank Anthony and Willis for hosting such a compelling discussion. I’ve no real background in hard science, save for schoolboy stuff years ago, but I do have a background in investigative reporting. In other words, the E-mails themselves are quite illuminating and suggest a coverup, or more broadly put, an attempt to obscure and misdirect. Are the Emails snipped/ cut or otherwise incomplete, as their defenders assert? I ask because having read through caches of discovery and Emails, some otherwise scintillating and compelling messages, when put into context of the entire thread and what was plainly being discussed, often become quite pedestrian.

    In thanks.
    Rod

  106. B Dubya says:

    Where would a person get his virtual hands on this cache of CRU emails?

    I’m thinking a crowd sourced analysis of the texts could prove interesting, particularly with regards to determination of a probable criminal conspiracy on the part of the email corespondents to disguise or hide the evidence of their political and fiscal motivations that directly lead to their manipulation and fabrication of data to arrive at the required answer.

  107. Claude Hopper says:

    The Portland Oregonian, a pretty leftist outfit, just today (Nov 25,11) editorialized about how we must prepare for the coming heat wave. Prepare, as defined by the Big O’s editorial staff means accepting socialistic rulers with dictatorial powers.

  108. G. Karst says:

    If I was the deepthroat FOIA, it would have been salt on a wound, to see these bad actors, giving themselves medals and awards. With Durban approaching, the urge to make further leaks, must have been overwhelming. Now, if we could only convince him that full disclosure IS the only way to clean-up this chapter of history. He must forget about protecting all his dear friends, involved in this scandal. There are NO innocents. GK

  109. glenn says:

    Two years ago I posted a snarky comment on SfGate the website of the San Francisco Chronicle. Something to the effect of “Slaps forehead, has revelation, there never was any data, the guys at EAU bought some cool lab coats, castoff sets from “The Avengers” and ginned up the whole thing” Little did I know.

  110. ZZMike says:

    “That is a tragedy for climate science in particular and for science in general.”

    Science in general is doing its own bad PR. There’s the recent researcher who admitted he made most of it up and gave back his degree. All the papers that referenced his had to be withdrawn, and since the studies involved human subjects, there’s a certain amount of real harm done.

    Then there’s Hwang Woo Suk, who “fabricated stem cell research results” (2006). And Scott Reuben, “… faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals” (2010). And Diederik Stapel, “Totally fabricated. Stapel made it all up.”.

    “One in ten research psychologists appear to have actually falsified scientific data, and the majority have engaged in some of the more ambiguous “questionable” practices.”

    But surely, only the “soft sciences” would do such things……

  111. htom says:

    It’s possible that the encrypted package includes video or audio messages.

  112. Myrrh says:

    Willis – another example of the sideways shuffle:

    A post from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/crus-dr-phil-jones-world-renowned-climatologist-cant-even-plot-a-trend-in-excel/#comment-807839

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 24, 2011 at 9:09 pm
    Speaking of Phil, he’s got some explanations up on the web about the context of some of those emails. He comes up with some very nice explanations that I have some questions about. Oddly, comments aren’t allowed, so, with the permission of the mods, I’m posting my questions here in the hopes that Phil sees them and answers.

    Professor Phil Jones explains the context of some of the phrases cherry-picked from the thousands of emails (from 1995 to 2009) posted on the web on November 22, 2011.

    Email 0714:
    “Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”

    Phil;
    This was related to the selection of contributing authors, not IPCC-appointed chapter authors over which I have no influence. It means scientists we could trust to write succinct and clear text.

    REPLY:
    Phil, Phil, Phil. Poor Phil, you have no influence over chapter authors? Well, the implication isn’t that you did, is it? The implication is that you were part of a concerted effort to stack the writing team with like minded individuals to ensure there were no dissenting view points for the chapter to deal with. That sounds reminiscent of one of your emails from ClimateGate 1 about keeping certain papers out even if you had to redefine the meening of peer review, does it not?

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

  113. manversgwtw says:

    My conclusion after all this time is that Phil truly didn’t get it. He actually didn’t understand.

    Oh, I think actually Phil “got it” all right. If his data was now corrupt and untraceable, any conclusions drawn from it worthless. Admitting to that fact would be a professional faux pas rising to scientific fraud, likely the end to his career and possibly the entire CRU climate science train.

    Conversely, just failing to follow FOI requirements might be a slap on the wrist, first time offence and all, which is about how it turned out. With Associate Palmer’s complicity of course.

    The dog ate my homework. Bad doggy!

  114. Dave72 says:

    Climate “scientists” rank just below phrenologists and astrologers. Few, if anr, of them could hold down a real job. AGW is the greatest hoax since Piltdown man, and has far greater costs to society.

  115. Keith Sketchley says:

    The long game may simply be phased salvos, especially prior to formative alarmist conferences.

    Ken Hall’s theory is far too much of a conspiracy theory. At this point it is early to guess.

    Last time theories abounded, the only ones of much credibility in my reading of theories and known parameters was an assembly of documents prepared for an FOIA request that was denied, with an insider a strong possibility as the releaser.

    BTW, what is Keith Briffa’s status? Did he have health problems a couple of years ago?

  116. William McClenney says:

    I can remember when the soup de jour was described as the “Post-Modern” era, about as early as I can remember. My wife put this into perspective for me in the early ’90′s when she coined her term for when we lived as the “Post-Literate” period.

    What has transpired over the past decade or so (since MBH98) is what I had come to think of as the “Post-Sentient” period. Personal experiences at the professional level since about 2006 have occasioned rethinking this definition, yet again.

    Maybe it is that ever since I can claim to have become sentient I have ever since become more aware of the proliferation and permeation of perfidy. If we just take Willis’ experiences here it is impossible to come to any other conclusion. Impossible, that is, unless you cannot think for yourself.

    It really is incomprehensible to me that FOIA2009.zip occasioned any blowback at all coming after the Nixon era. Which really makes you wonder if we really are nine times more susceptible to rumor than we are to facts. FOIA2011.zip, at least the tidbits we can gaze at of this moment, provide more pixels to an already horrid picture of the misprision of science.

    This is staggeringly beyond the simplistic “Post-Sentient” moniker that I had been considering for the recent century. May need some help here coming to the enormity of all this.

    This is “Post-” something, but what? When one considers in isolation what Willis’ experience in just this FOI excursion represents about where we are ethically, what in the world should it be called?

    I was in the deep desert all this week until this evening when I got back, so I am just reeling at this moment from what happened while I was gone. A lot more new/old information, but OMG what does this really say about H. sapiens?

  117. Gene L. says:

    So, it’s confirmed: not only did they (CRU, et al.) not know from whence the data used were derived in the past, and by their own admission they dumped original data due to “storage” capacity problems (I STILL can’t get my head around the idea that a “leading” research institution did not think it both necessary and prudent to find a way to maintain such data ad infinitum), and they apparently did not really track what they did, how the did “it,” or why and when “it” was done.

    Thus, one of the traditional hallmarks of [reliable and ethical] scientific research — reproducibility — is toast. There would be, apparently, no way on God’s Green Earth to even hope to assembly “raw” met data and create a new set of values that might be highly similar to what Jones, eta al., have foisted upon us. Very poor judgement, weak ethics, and a high degree of overall irresponsibility.

    Unbelievable… All those millions of dollars spen,… errr … wasted by “top scientists,” and nothing left to show for it. Sounds like the usual games in Congress and the White House.

  118. Robw says:

    Anthony

    I am a big fan and have been very well informed by your site (and others). I think the quotes in this link

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/456-5/#more-12663

    deserves a story all by itself. I also think it should be sent to MSM around the world. If there is any integrity left in the MSM they will publish it.

    No need to publish this e-mail unless you want to. Either way I am fine with it.

    Rob

  119. Brian H says:

    Perhaps the third tranche, when it comes, will not be the entire encrypted file, but another selected chunk of it. The existence of the entire file in public hands is thus mainly a guarantee it won’t be disappeared, but doesn’t necessarily imply it will be opened all at once.

    BTW, the “boys will be boys” is clearly more like “malefic brats will be malefic brats”. >:}

Comments are closed.