FOI reveals nasty hateful emails sent to Phil Jones right after Climategate

Bishop Hill is reporting that some ugly emails have been published due to FOI requests. He writes:

In the wake of the death threats that weren’t at ANU, several people sent FOI requests to the University of East Anglia asking for copies of the death threats that they said Phil Jones had received. The relevant emails have now been released and can be seen here

Be warned, this is very, very ugly stuff, and there are several messages in there that seem to me to be criminal.

Colour me disgusted

I agree, they are vile and disgusting. Nobody should have to endure these. And, no credible climate skeptic would send them. These are the work of cowards.

From the perspective of these mild mannered scientists, I know these sorts of things come as a complete shock to them. I can see how Dr. Jones would have been driven to depression right after Climategate broke.

From my perspective, having been in television and radio newsrooms for 25 years, this is pretty run of the mill stuff. I’ve also gotten emails like this in my work on TV and radio, as well as during my publication of WUWT. I described my experience with this sort of stuff previously when I took the overly excitable David Appell to task for bringing my deceased mother into the argument in David Appell denies he has any class.

Note that all of the email sender addresses have been redacted. That probably wasn’t necessary, as it is highly unlikely any of these vile little cowards that wrote this stuff used a real email address. In my experience, people generally don’t write such things when they have their real name attached to such vile prose.

As I’ve always said about the Internet and electronic communications in general, anonymity breeds contempt.

This doesn’t change the ANU argument, which has been clearly and completely debunked. No death threats were sent there. I suppose that there will be another round of the story now that these have been published, because small minded people like Appell have a driven need to paint skeptics in the worst possible light, so I’m sure all sorts of associations will be made. He’s gone silent since he came out on the wronger than wrong  side of the ANU argument, expect a fresh set of hateful prose from him now.

As for this thread. I’m not going to tolerate much in the way of off color commentary. Moderators – snip at will anything that doesn’t meet policy.

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

168 Responses to FOI reveals nasty hateful emails sent to Phil Jones right after Climategate

  1. John Whitman says:

    The ~26 released emails had dates on them range from the period 22 Nov 2009 to 17 Feb 2010. I did not see the FOI request for the emails, so I do not know if the requestor only asked for threatening emails from Nov 2009 to Feb 2010. The distribution was 16 emails in Nov, 2 emails in Dec, 1 email in Jan , and 5 emails in Feb. There were 2 emails with no date.

    The 16 released emails which had times on them appear to be from random times of the day. One had a PST time zone indicated in the time stamp, US pacific west coast zone.

    I saw no pattern noted on occurrence during the days of the week. The days of the week were represented: 6 emails on Mon, 3 emails on Tue, 4 emails on Wed, 1 email on Thur, 4 emails on Fri, 4 emails on Sat and 4 emails on Sun.

    I am still thinking about the distribution of the types of linguistics shown in the various emails. I am a US citizen, for me many have a tone that seems to be American-ish. But since I am not very familiar with how Canadians, Brits, Aussies and NZers use violent and foul language, I abstain from saying if emails are from those countries.

    John

    PS – also posted this on BH’s thread.

  2. Steve T. says:

    I find these emails very, very suspicious. Terrible spellings and punctuation coupled with correct spelling of a more difficult word. Lack of capitalisation coupled with unusually broad vocabulary. Similar typing conventions on multiple emails (double space after a full stop). A lack of variation in the style of the abuse.

    I’d have an expert look at them…

  3. Bob Tisdale says:

    Oddly, UEA produced documents as a result of this FOI request.

  4. D.R. Williams says:

    Seeing the pattern of Phil Jones behavior and that of the Team in general as exemplified in the Climategate emails, cowards attracting email from cowards is not surprising. It’s clearly a case of “vile and disgusting” begetting the same.

  5. Connifer says:

    I don’t have any sympathy for Phil Jones. You make your own bed of nails, you lie in it. Some of you think the emails he received are disgusting. To me, what is really disgusting is that global warming alarmists continue to label AGW skeptics as “deniers” and the mainstream media continues to accept and promote this–this is hate speech, plain and simple.

    Just because my opinion of AGW doesn’t conform to the views of our political masters, it doesn’t mean I am a holocaust denier. As a Jew whose father fought in WWII, I find this continued use of the term to label AGW skeptics doubly offensive.

    I was especially offended when Barack Obama used this “denier” term to label AGW skeptics in one of his speeches–isn’t it ironic that it’s ok for the first black POTUS to promote hate speech, but a few angry e-mails to scientists falsifying their research gets blown out of proportion. Even the Australian prime minister Ju-liar Gillard used this “denier” term to slander AGW skeptics in Australia.

    This is the true meaning of post-normal science: it’s ok to lie, cheat, and commit fraud because those in power says it’s ok to do so. Just like it’s ok for Peter Gleick to commit wire fraud and not get punished. Just like it’s ok for Phil Jones and Michael Mann to “hide the decline” and not get punished. Just like it’s ok for Al Gore and the IPCC to demonize C02, a harmless gas plants need to make food, and not get punished. But if your views go against the political orthodoxy, you will lose your job in a heartbeat. This is the new post-normal science world we live in now.

    However, history is on the side of truth. Nazi’s came and Nazi’s lost. Dictators all eventually fall. Eventually, all these AGW scammers are going to get caught in their own web of lies and charged for serious crimes against humanity. It will be a long struggle but make no mistake, once the global public awaken to the massive lies and fraud going on in the name of AGW alarmism and carbon taxes, a few angry emails will pale in comparison to what these AGW charlatans are going to receive.

  6. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Not very nice. It was not unlike reading the comments at the likes of Huffpo. Or Romm’s on a bad day.

  7. ZT says:

    >These are the work of cowards.

    The email header might provide information on the origin, and it would be extremely interesting if these were published. The wording seems repetitive and American…(which don’t always go together!). Perhaps another FOI is in order.

  8. Latimer Alder says:

    @john whitman

    Definitely a US feel to my British eye/ear. Some of the constructions just aren’t used in UK. Neither do we assume that a sudden death will be by shooting.

  9. AB says:

    Came across this sort of script from time to time in the low socio economic school where I taught for many years. It’s inexcusable behaviour but teachers copped it regularly in it’s verbal form. A scientist leading a sheltered academic life would find it harder to deal with, but as teachers we just had to laugh it off. Considering the importance of climategate to the world the number of abusive emails is in actual fact very very low, in my opinion.

  10. Ric Werme says:

    Well, there’s not as many as I expected, and some writers almost have cogent thoughts. One even alluded to Jones’ Climategate message about John Daly’s premature death, but spoiled the moment with the death threat. Some aren’t even death threats, e.g. “May God punish you severely for your untruthful actions.”

    On the other hand, I have little use for people who think they’re communicating when every phrase has a vulgar word. Give ‘em a copy of Strunk & White! Heck, start a genre of hate limericks to get a little humor to the threats!

    I can almost feel sorry for Phil and his team. It must have been nice back when they had a nice, quiet academic environment where they wrote papers, get them published after pal review, and not bother to file the data someplace because no one bothered to reproduce the work. Then Daly, then M&M, then a flood of interested amateurs, then people screaming that CO2 is a trace gas and therefore can’t have an effect, then Climategate, and then these.

    On the other hand, they managed to set themselves up for the fall, so forgive me if I can’t feel too sorry for them. Who knows, maybe God is punishing Jones for what he said about Daly. Well, probably not, your faith may vary.

  11. johanna says:

    As I said at the Bishop’s place:

    Of course they are vile, but once again I am amazed at the preciousness of people who want to drive major changes in the way we live without any consequences. I have said before, and will keep saying, that Ministers get this stuff all the time, precisely because people think that they have the power to affect the way we live.

    The quoted examples are typical of what a powerful politician gets all the time. No, they are not ‘death threats’, and yes, there are some angry and disturbed people out there.

    It should be noted that these sorts of unpleasant communications are not limited to any particular kind of scientist, professional or politician. It is the perception that these people have the power to influence events that generates the hate mail. Judges get this stuff as well, as do doctors and lawyers, and public servants.

    Judges, lawyers, public servants, doctors and politicians all manage to keep doing their jobs despite the rantings of temporarily or permanently deranged members of the public. What is so special about snowflake climate scientists, whose only crime is to promote policies that make people poorer (at best) based on questionable premises, data, and conclusions?

    They, and their defenders, need to get out more. I’m afraid I don’t share the revulsion of previous commenters, having read this sort of garbage very day addressed to Ministers. Boo-bloody-hoo. An old saying about heat and kitchens comes to mind.
    ——————————————–
    I suspect that Anthony has been very low-key in his description of the stuff that he gets all the time, especially since the lowlife Appell released Anthony’s personal email details to the blogosphere.

    I deplore abusive or threatening communications from whoever to whoever. But, it is unrealistic to be an advocate of major political and economic change and expect that no-one will notice your name on the justification document. And, no, they weren’t just scientists doing their job, as the Climategate emails demonstrated.

  12. michael hart says:

    Anthony, how do you feel about this comment, posted at the BBC yesterday on Richard Black’s article [comment 68]? I won’t reproduce it here.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18379777?postId=112766350#comment_112766350

    REPLY: Well other than the commenter is too stupid to spell my name correctly, the correct response is to report the comment and see if BBC deletes it. – Anthony

  13. beng says:

    ****
    From my perspective, having been in television and radio newsrooms for 25 years, this is pretty run of the mill stuff.
    ****

    Anthony, you’re a hardened warrior from the front-lines, yet sympathetic to the sheltered academics. Not sure I’m that magnanimous.

  14. theduke says:

    Vile, of course. But I wonder how many of these type of emails Phil Jones and the others received before Climategate. In other words, I’m suspicious that his depression and thoughts of suicide had more to do with the damning and potentially incriminating content of the emails than the hatemail trash sent by these morons.

    Color me cynical. He’d been in the limelight a long time. Remember his comment to the effect that he’d spent his career collecting the data and why should he release it when all his correspondent wanted to do was find something wrong with it? I’m sure he’s gotten some nasty flak for that over the years.

  15. Max Hugoson says:

    This is SO obvious. These Emails were created by “the team”. This is STRAIGHT out of the “left’s” playbook. Have someone create VILE, disgusting attacks in a public venue. Attribute them to your opponents. Beatify yourself…you are a saint. Your opponents (correctly) deny any connection. BINGO, you’ve won! It is an ADVANTAGE which completely corrupt people have over honest ones, who think that “proper” behavior always wins.

    I have no solution, only an insight.

    PS: The “catch” that they are written in a pseudo neanderthal style but the creators “slipped” and used vocabulary that is not typical of “neanderthal conservative/skeptics” is marvelous.

    The one thing we can count on is that EVIL ALWAYS OVERPLAYS ITS HAND in the poker game of life.

  16. Bill Tuttle says:

    As I’ve always said about the Internet and electronic communications in general, anonymity breeds contempt.

    Anonymity eliminates the necessity for someone to take responsibility — or consequences — for his words. I’ve never said anything in print that I wouldn’t say to someone’s face.

    That said, I agree with Steve T’s assessment. The e-mails are suspiciously akin.

  17. David Ball says:

    How many “victim” cards are in that deck?

  18. Terry says:

    Anyone save the pdf? The link to the emails is not working at this time.

    As for comments I have read about how ‘shocked’ people are (I read comments from Bishop Hill’s site) … try being a conservative blogger. From what is described, these are relatively harmless.

  19. jayhd says:

    Given the contents of the Climategate emails, I’m surprised there weren’t more nasty emails. Phil Jones and his CAGW co-conspirators have caused immeasurable economic damage and untold human suffering.

    Jay Davis

  20. kim2ooo says:

    Dono if I want to read them. D/L seems to have quit?

    Bob Tisdale says:
    June 13, 2012 at 6:49 am

    Oddly, UEA produced documents as a result of this FOI request.

    xxxxxxxxx
    :)

    UEA…you seem, Quick and willing to point to a person who punched your arm….but not quick to admit that you did some arm punching?

  21. Kaboom says:

    One can only hope for Gleick’s sake that he isn’t getting fingered for writing these, too.

  22. Steve C says:

    Dear God, I felt dirty just reading them. Has the UEA never heard of Bayesian filtering? – If I try sending so much as one ‘questionable’ word to my local council offices – even if not aimed at them – it bounces straight back. Ugh.

  23. mrmethane says:

    I’m sorry, but I’d put most of them, based on their similarity to each others, and the odd style, intio the category of “self-generated” sympathy magnets. In other words, I doubt they came from anyone but Phil or a supporter. Glieckenspool, anyone?

  24. more soylent green! says:

    Max Hugoson says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:24 am
    This is SO obvious. These Emails were created by “the team”. This is STRAIGHT out of the “left’s” playbook. Have someone create VILE, disgusting attacks in a public venue. Attribute them to your opponents. Beatify yourself…you are a saint. Your opponents (correctly) deny any connection. BINGO, you’ve won! It is an ADVANTAGE which completely corrupt people have over honest ones, who think that “proper” behavior always wins.

    I have no solution, only an insight.

    PS: The “catch” that they are written in a pseudo neanderthal style but the creators “slipped” and used vocabulary that is not typical of “neanderthal conservative/skeptics” is marvelous.

    The one thing we can count on is that EVIL ALWAYS OVERPLAYS ITS HAND in the poker game of life.

    If created by “the team” means written by useful idiot lackeys who decided to help out the cause by creating fake threatening emails, then you’re spot on.

  25. EternalOptimist says:

    Some of them may be from the US , but ‘f*ck face’ is a British insult, probably older generation

    I just dont understand how it got past the sweary filter

  26. Jim Clarke says:

    The emails are vile and ignorant. As a climate change crisis skeptic I completely renounce the views expressed in these emails. There is no place for these ad-homs-on-steriods, or any ad hominems at all, in the debate.

    (sarc) Almost all climate change crisis skeptics agree with the above statement, creating an overwhelming consensus. Therefore, the issue is settled and should not be brought up by David Appell, or any other warmist, ever again! (sarc off)

    Seriously…I do have one question about this that I believe would be of interest. How long did it take for the UEA to comply with this FIO, compared to requests for climate related data and emails?

  27. Kevin Kilty says:

    Perhaps I am completely jaded, but I am skeptical of these e-mails. Twenty-six emails over seven days of the week works out to an expectation of 4 per week day. But the actual distribution is so peaked at four per day that I’m suspicious. I’ll bet Hugoson is right–these are straight from a certain playbook.

  28. Aidan Donnelly says:

    Cannot read them as it wont DL at the moment.

    But already some are taking them as genuine, others are (with good reason given the Climategate etc), taking the position tha these are ‘false-flag’ attacks by ‘The team’

    So around and around we go, still trying to get the truth to the public in a believable way – truly it was said that the first casualty of war is Truth .. and this is quite definitely a war

  29. michael hart says:

    Anthony, I was the person being responded to in the post mentioned above [in my BBC username of many years standing]. Being in the UK and not the person named, my response was to let it stand, as I later said. I had second thoughts when I read the Bishop Hill post, but if you’re OK with it…

  30. Keith Pearson, formerly bikermailman, Anonymous no longer says:

    Anthony, you’re correct about this sort of garbage being all too common for public personalities. My observation is that female bloggers, journalists, etc get it the worst. You kind of expect this sort of thing from the Left, but it’s a damn shame when skeptics or people on the right do it. Whether in science or in politics, there are mountainsful of good honest criticisms to be made. Why do the hateful garbage, when you have perfectly legitimate arguments to make? I’ve said for some time that for all the good teh interwebz has brought, the anonymity, or at least non face to face contact, bring out the worst in people, on all subjects and all political flavors. Commenters, when you shoot off an email, or make a phone call, be logical and calm. No place for the hatefulness that goes on.
    /rant off

  31. gnomish says:

    not nearly as gripping as the videos of blowing up schoolchildren and soccer players, the suicidal animals or little girls clinging the the last tree on earth.
    much less credible than agenda 21
    however, they indicate that at least a few people got mad about being screwed.
    apart from those few, the perpetrators of the fraud and the robbers of your rights have no resistance that matters.
    but talk is just talk.
    40% of american income down the tubes in the last 3 years isnt’ enough to get a true believer to doubt the system he supports. doesn’t even get him mad. that indicates that he agrees that he’s suitable as fodder and has no claim to rights.
    I watched a tsunami vid yesterday. there were some who could not be so undignified as to run like hell. they walked as if they were balancing books on their heads – gracefully. they died.
    i’d hate to have to depend on anybody like that in the trenches, but that’s all there is.
    that’s why a ussr is all but assured.
    the meek shall inherit the grave.
    that’s justice. darwin says so.

  32. John Whitman says:

    Because just the pdf of these allegedly real emails has been disclosed at BH’s blog and nothing else related to the FOI request, then I am skeptical of the pdf file containing the emails. I will remain skeptical until I see:

    1) the original FOI request made to UEA/CRU by the person who made the FOI request

    2) the original UEA/CRU acknowledgement of receiving the FOI request that they are required to send to the FOI requester.

    3) any response by the requestor to UEA/CRU receipt acknowledgement notice

    4) the actual UEA/CRU transmittal letter/email sent to the requestor which contained the release of the requested emails/info.

    Also, I would like to see the Information Commissioner in the UK (I sorry if I got the title wrong) review the credibility that these are real emails.

    John

  33. Budgenator says:

    mrmethane said: onJune 13, 2012 at 7:52 am “… Glieckenspool, anyone?”
    How about Gliechendoof? seems more apropos.

  34. Markon says:

    “From the perspective of these mild mannered scientists, I know these sorts of things come as a complete shock to them. I can see how Dr. Jones would have been driven to depression right after Climategate broke.”

    Really? You suggesting his actions (lying and theiving) had nothing to do with driving him to depression? Are you saying that those who defraud the public should not have to endure any pushback by those about to lose their money and liberty?

    Mild mannered or not, the fraud must be exposed and those who committed it, Phil Jones included, should pay a very heavy and expensive price.

  35. Tom Moriarty says:

    The emails are vile. But I had to laugh at the illogic of the one that said…

    “I hope you f****rs die slowly and painfully. You are the scum of the earth and should be put in front of a firing squad.”

    So which is it, “slowly” or “firing squad?”

    Holy Cow!

  36. Titan 28 says:

    These emails just don’t ring true to me. Two, three groupings that have similarities, as well as really stupid inexplicable misspellings, the deliberate kind of misspellings you see in letters designed to make the sender appear to be an idiot. I think the Team is perfectably capable of generating this sort of stuff to make themselves appear rightfully aggrieved. I could be wrong. Best thing would be for someone with access and the requisite tools to follow these emails down the rabbit hole, see where they lead.

  37. meemoe_uk says:

    A lot of the emails will be from teenagers. This the norm in many modern sub cultures.
    e.g. Anyone who does online gaming will be exposed to similar constant abuse.

    Personally I can’t take it seriously, and so can find it somewhat funny. Although I wouldn’t post anything like that myself for fear of job security. Kids don’t have that worry, I kinda envy them for their freedom in this respect.

  38. EEB says:

    Hell, I’ve heard worst from my mother-in-law.

    And all I did was take the last chicken leg.

  39. Dave says:

    I think the emails can be broadly divided into three categories.

    There’s one set which is clearly the work of a loon, or several similar loons. Crack-head, meth-head, or merely unfortunately mentally ill, but, whilst distasteful, not subject to rational analysis beyond saying that if you’re in the public eye, you’re likely to attract rants from the odd nutter. Essentially, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. Of course they’re deplorable, and possibly even the highest risk as far as someone actually putting them into action, but they’re not politically motivated in any way that makes sense to sane people. Some of the long rambling rants contain actual threats, but they’re buried in lunatic babble.

    There’s another set which expresses the wish that the recipient would die, or kill themself, but which aren’t actually threatening. There’s one which ends by wishing Phil would crawl away and rot in a ditch, and then adds ‘(Please don’t take the black humour to heart.)’, which whilst not a threat as such is a bit like saying ‘no offence’ instead of avoiding giving offence…

    The third set is the one consisting of the emails which are relatively short, relatively coherent, and have a clear, unambiguous threat. It’s a small minority, but they’re certainly there. As Anthony Watts points out, such things are almost always merely venting, but that doesn’t mean a recipient of them isn’t entitled to call them death threats. Personally, I don’t find receiving death threats to be particularly serious when they’re of this unspecific nature and in this quantity, but there are some there.

  40. cui bono says:

    Where’s Sherlock Mosher?

    Seriously, whoever these people are, they need help beyond anger management courses.

    And why is it assumed they are right-wingers? Several of the mails refer (vaguely, in between the expletives and the spleen) to the economic damage done by the AGW crowd, including “dead children”. This is a common complaint by both right- and left-wing critics of The Cause.

    Ironically, none of this would have happened if the CRU crew had paid attention to FOI requests in the first place.

    Still, utterly sick.

  41. James Ard says:

    I call bs on this. Your typical person who is interested in climate issues generally knows how to spell. These are false flag attacks. This is exactly the kind of thing I’ve come to expect from the team. Like has been said upthread, I’d look for Glieks fingerprints on this.

  42. eyesonu says:

    Max Hugoson says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:24 am

    David Ball says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:37 am
    How many “victim” cards are in that deck?

    Kaboom says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:47 am
    One can only hope for Gleick’s sake that he isn’t getting fingered for writing these, too.

    mrmethane says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:52 am

    John Whitman says:
    June 13, 2012 at 9:23 am

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

    As to the comments noted above, count me in this camp. What I would say has been said.

    I agree that this type garbage is out of order. I would also say that if these emails are in fact real and were fabricated for political purpose by someone for the purpose of garnering sympathy for Jones, then heads should roll (this is a figure of speech and not a threat).

  43. John Greenfraud says:

    Death threats are over the line, however, calling for these people to be jailed because of their participation in outright fraud, is not. People will be held accountable, regardless of some unverifiable ‘hate’ mail from dubious sources. I have no sympathy for scam artist who have (IMHO) brazenly committed scientific fraud and malfeasance in pursuit of political power and/or self-enrichment. The cost of this scam to the people of this country is incalculable. We won’t forget or forgive, and they won’t be let off the hook so easily.

  44. BradProp1 says:

    After resorting to cussing and threats; the debate is lost. Either some really stupid people sent the emails, or they are scam emails designed to gain sympathy for Mr. Jones.

  45. I think the well-known pro-AGW troll Vendicar Decarian posts similar messages in tone and quantity every day.

  46. Disko Troop says:

    I have had a Chief Petty Officer stand one inch from my face and hurl expletives and abuse at me for 5 solid minutes and then make me lie face down in the mud while he stood on me and hurled abuse at the rest of the squad. That’s abusive. Three large Gentlemen carrying an axe amongst other things pursued me for about ten minutes in West Wego before I lost them. That is a death threat. A Captain friend of mine was a protestant living in a particular area of Belfast in 1973. Two well dressed men came to his door one night and told him to leave. He moved to Scotland the following day and left everything except his personal effects behind. That was a death threat.
    If a few abusive e-mails from loonies is the worst that these wussy “scientists” have ever had to worry about then pardon me for not feeling at all sympathetic.

  47. hunter says:

    Are there any death threats in this stuff?

  48. James Sexton says:

    Put me in the “false flag” camp as well. As stated earlier, I also see 3 different writing styles, There is a definite American feel for the emails.

    But, these are definitely not the work of the typical skeptic. Recall, that after Climategate emails, skeptics weren’t angry, heck many were darn near euphoric!

    In spite of the content of some of those emails, I had to “LOL” at some of them….. one signed “Chaos Deathwalker”. Aparently, that’s a reference to a Babylon 5 episode?

    But, here’s what really jumped out at me….. bottom of page 7, “dodgy emails that were hacked…“. Uhmm….. oops! That’s not how us skeptics term the “release” of the emails.

    BTW, Anthony et al, the comment referenced earlier at the BBC has been removed.

  49. Yep, the left would never stoop to such levels. http://scoamf.us/Hass

  50. alan says:

    The AGW people are in the business of faking data! Probably an inside job.

  51. Philip Peake says:

    As presented, there is no way of telling anything about these emails.
    If anyone EVER submits an FOI request for emails, you really need ensure that you request emails with all headers intact.

    That’s not just the From, Subject, Date headers, but all the rest not normally displayed in most email clients, which give routing information etc. These are somewhat harder to forge, and are very useful in determining if multiple emails originate from the same individual(s).

    The emails listed here are useless. Just a bunch of nasty words and phrases which have some indications of coming from a very restricted set of originators.

  52. Chuck says:

    My first impression is that there’s something off about them. Reminds me of forum trolls, just trying to get a reaction. They seem to be too contrived to be taken seriously. And I agree that they sound like they came from just a few people.

  53. Jenn Oates says:

    A couple of months ago a FB “friend” erupted into a vile, profane, obscene rant about something that I had posted. She sad many hateful things to various posters on that thread, things that were over the top, out of bounds, and beyond the pale. A relative of mine posted that while she normally would be inclined to support the harridan’s position, she felt that when a person resorts to such angry vituperation to someone else’s opinion, one’s argument is automatically disregarded by rational folk. Debate need not be rude, nor disrespectful to those who disagree.

    I could not agree more.

    Well do we need to remember that.

  54. Neo says:

    Perhaps, we should a FOI to the University of Virginia asking for death threat emails to Michael Mann. If they send any, ask for the other emails.

  55. Owen in GA says:

    Tom Moriarity: Firing squad with bb-guns and an unlimited number of BBs? That’s about the only way I see that one working.
    Some people really don’t think their threats through. We used to see that sort of thing occasionally aimed at government offices and laugh at it. We only got interested when someone said something like “I am going to shoot you”, (or “kill you”, or “blow you up” etc.) that got things forwarded to the federal protection service in a heartbeat. The most common ones were very improbable sexual suggestions – some of which were quite funny when taken literally.

  56. pk says:

    these things are “cooked up” by a small number of probably college students.

    they are not the real thing.

    they fall into the catagory that “if you see the real thing then you know it immediatly for what it is”.

    and these arn’t it.

    C

  57. markstoval says:

    I just can’t work up a drop of sympathy in light of the fact that Jones and his partners in crime are trying to physically hurt the poorest people on the planet by his frauds. Add to that the damage done by his assault on honest science.

    No, he is the scum that several called him. What goes around comes around.

  58. John Whitman says:

    I confirmed that the emails are the product of an official FOI request to and a response from UEA.

    So that leaves me only with a nagging question of doubt about the real source of the threatening emails. I think I am entitled to that doubt given lack of morality by CAGW activists in the past few months wrt Gleick’s perpetration of an email scam and fraud.

    My questions about the real source of the emails can only be answered by a formal investigation of the full email metadata and authors identity. What is the chance of getting that? I will continue my skepticism until that info is made public.

    John

  59. woodNfish says:

    Jenn Oates says: June 13, 2012 at 11:44 am “Debate need not be rude, nor disrespectful to those who disagree.”

    This isn’t a debate. It is billions of dollars, the economy, your job that supports your way of life and your personal freedom. The eco-terrorists are already murdering people in Africa to force this garbage on them. People get angry when what they need to live is threatened, and these “scientists” want to destroy it. I don’t find the comments surprising at all, and I expect at some point some people will carry out their threats.

    Please give up on this “gentle minded academic” nonsense. These people are complete misanthropes and they don’t give a hoot who they harm. They don’t feel your pain. I have a hard time understanding how you can fail to understand that after years of writing this blog and being attacked by them, Anthony. You need to wake up to reality, you really are too kind.

  60. Poptech says:

    What one should immediately recognize is the email reference to Alex Jones, the conspiracy talk show host. I guarantee you that most if not all of these emailed originated from people who listened to his shows. It is no coincidence the comments are closed on all relevant Climategate stories on Info Wars and Prison Planet.

  61. Duster says:

    As concerns the emails, an email arrives with an extensive set of headers that are usually concealed from the user by the email client software. Most of it looks like gibberish anyway, and your average user can’t make much out of it. These can always be used to track back to a source or to evidence that the chain was spoofed. If they derived from a legitimate source, either the owner was the culprit or his account hijacked. Either way one gets a read on the computer sophistication of the sender and their relative criminal leanings. The owners of hijacked accounts should have been informed. So, what did the UEA computer security team do?

    gnomish says:
    June 13, 2012 at 9:17 am

    the meek shall inherit the grave.
    that’s justice. darwin says so.

    Darwin says no such thing. Darwin says, in a reductio ad absurdum, that “survivors survive” – in short, whatever works. What this means is that under many conditions, cooperation among a group leads to enhanced survival within the group; it isn’t anywhere near as simple as “nature bloody in tooth and claw.”

  62. D. King says:

    So, one needs an FOI request to prompt one to send the emails that make one look like a victim?
    Yeah, I wasen’t going to send these out( bad language!), but, since you requested them…
    Sheesh…pathetic!

  63. D. King says:

    wasn’t…sorry.

  64. GlynnMhor says:

    All that looks like “business as usual” on open (non-moderated) posting fora.

  65. Nigel Harris says:

    I found the emails distressing to read, but not nearly as distressing as vile, hateful opinions appearing here in the comments thread. I think the WUWT readership has really lost contact with reality. The very suggestion that these emails would be concocted to garner sympathy is beneath contempt. I would very much like to see Anthony weigh in and condemn these speculations.

    REPLY: I’d be happy to do so, if I had the data. Unfortunately the emails had the most critical data redacted, much like the end of Mann’s hockey stick, so there’s no way for us to prove the true origin. If anyone can get the full emails with headers, and allow me to look at them, I’d be happy to confirm or condemn such speculations. – Anthony

  66. Gary Pearse says:

    John Whitman says:
    June 13, 2012 at 9:23 am
    “… I will remain skeptical until I see:

    1) the original FOI request made to UEA/CRU by the person who made the FOI request

    2) the original UEA/CRU acknowledgement of receiving the FOI request that they are required to send to the FOI requester.

    3) any response by the requestor to UEA/CRU receipt acknowledgement notice

    4) the actual UEA/CRU transmittal letter/email sent to the requestor which contained the release of the requested emails/info. ”

    Now this is a skeptic talking and with good grammar and spelling. Gleick underestimated the grit of real skeptics in his juvenile attempt to deceive. Mr. Whitman is from Missouri, or he deserves to be made an honorary citizen.

  67. Tom Barr says:

    So, no resisting that FOI, then?: Notwithstanding the moronic undesirability of such a dense innocuous attack (it’s only words after all, not something genuinely damaging like carbon taxation) I’d say the content, construction & credibility of the emails is directly in line with Gore et al’s unscientific musings, albeit with added profanity. “Reaping the Whirlwind” comes to mind.

  68. These e-mails are very interesting, they look at first sight as if they came from loutish thugs, but if you read them for a second and third time, they are well punctuated, grammatically correct, with no spelling mistakes (apart from “neads”, which no-one ever mis-spells!).
    These e-mails are a contradiction, they are full of foul language and threats, but they are obviously the product of someone who is intelligent. Intelligence seldom goes hand in hand with thuggery, unless the person is a psychopath. I do not think that there are many psychopaths who have an interest in the planet or their tax returns!!!!
    I think these e-mails originated from the recepients!

  69. Poptech says:

    The very suggestion that these emails would be concocted to garner sympathy is beneath contempt.

    No it is not, this is perfectly valid speculation and entirely plausible.

  70. G. Karst says:

    As anyone who has many employees working for them knows: One will find worse, written to them, on the bathroom and elevator walls, of the work place. Any unpopular decision or action will require repainting of walls in these locales. I don’t see this as much different.

    Many frustrated, fearful, angry people love to vent in inappropriate ways. Anonymity gives them this ability to indulge, while seething. Nothing more. GK

  71. Jimbo says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    June 13, 2012 at 6:49 am

    Oddly, UEA produced documents as a result of this FOI request.

    Exactly.

    I join Anthony in condemning such emails. They serve no purpose at all no matter how angry you are at these brazen manipulators.

  72. more soylent green! says:

    I’m still more concerned about seeing the original (unadjusted) climate data than I am about these emails.

  73. Owen in GA says:

    Nigel Harris: When one first endeavors to deceive, one should not be surprised that others cease to take anything one says at face value. The fact that Jones et al decided to prevaricate through omission and manipulation of the process means that those of us who caught them in the act are naturally going to be suspicious of anything they put out including (but not limited to) the breakfast menu of the local East Anglian public house. So unlike the old Ronald Reagan line of “Trust, but verify”, with these characters it is “Verify, then take what’s left with a pound of salt”.

    That said, people really shouldn’t wish others harm even if they are perpetrators of the biggest fraud (monetarily at least) in the history of history. It is much more polite, when passing a train wreck of this magnitude, to point and laugh.

  74. John Whitman says:

    Nigel Harris says:
    June 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    I found the emails distressing to read, but not nearly as distressing as vile, hateful opinions appearing here in the comments thread. I think the WUWT readership has really lost contact with reality. The very suggestion that these emails would be concocted to garner sympathy is beneath contempt. I would very much like to see Anthony weigh in and condemn these speculations.

    - – - – - -

    Nigel Harris,

    An experienced hardened investigative journalist, a good defense attorney or tough nosed senior police detective would not take anything for granted if email threats were formally reported to them. They would question the source of the emails themselves as a routine matter and question the recipient just as closely. You cannot assume anything about the motives any of the people involved. You should read some criminal court transcripts.

    In addition, an edited comment from another blog,

    I think it is prudent to trust but verify first, in general, irrespective of whether or not you are looking at UEA/CRU & Phil Jones related matters.

    Why not question everything? Young children do it naturally. It is healthy and beneficial to learning and self-esteem.

    John

  75. eyesonu says:

    Nigel Harris says:
    June 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    =============

    Could you please identify and be more specific with regards to “… distressing as vile, hateful opinions appearing here in the comments thread”?

    Could you recommend sites that you visit that discuss the so-called death threats where we could read comments that would be more suitable to your liking?

    “I would very much like to see Anthony weigh in and condemn these speculations.” Did I condemn your viewpoint which I don’t agree with? Why would you want the majority here to be censured or condemned?

    Are you a bleeding heart liberal who espouses the politically correct view to the point that you are choking on it?

    Am I simply feeding a troll?

  76. Skeptik says:

    Looks like a typical comments page on YouTube.

  77. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Heh. A lot of the foul language, I’ve heard the same or worse in the break room. Some comments are reasonably erudite but with some choice epithets thrown in, in the vein of “To thoughtfully conclude, you ******** ******** who deserves to be shot and left in the street…” I just can’t take that sort of stuff seriously.

    There are some odd notes in there. Like in the pg 5-6 continuous “Chaos has risen” rant, with a reference to Alex Jones, and “or you will simply disappear much like Dr. Moshe”. References from InfoWars, 2009: Nov 5, Nov 21; HuffPo piece listed as posted on Sept 13 2009, updated May 25 2011 (Huh? Why?), with an URL-based date of August 14 2009 (?). Dr. Moshe made a claim on the radio about certain flu vaccines actually being bio-weapons. He was arrested by the FBI and Secret Service for threats against the White House and detained.

    So that would make Dr. Moshe a whistle-blower who went against “the governmental conspiracy”, exactly the opposite of Dr. Jones. So why equate them? Sounds like someone dug up some “right-wing conspiracy nutjob” names to spice up the email. Likewise other words seem out of place.

    Top of pg 4, the writer identifies themselves as Canadian, and basically says if you tick off Canada you’re going up against “340 million heavily armed ******* off North Americans”. Previously I had heard Canada had gone strongly towards civilian disarmament, impacting even their Olympic shooting team (yes it’s a real but rarely-mentioned sport). Only recently did Canada get rid of their long gun registry and its data (although the French colony of Quebec wants the info for their own registry).

    So given that and the number given, this “Canadian” writer is saying that if you tick off Canada, then you’ll have to answer to US citizens? Come on, any “right-wing whacko” should know better than that.

    The pg 6 all-caps rant featuring “masonic”, “goatheaded”, “protestant”, and using ‘(out)house’ fifteen times? If I found that posted as a “standard internet rant” I would laugh. Venting like that just can’t be taken seriously.

    And the pg 7 “To the Charlatans of Science” email? Why is that even in there? If you would consider that threatening, you have a problem.

    Yes, I can see how the collection can be viewed as threatening to those naive to the depths of internet comments. But it’s not the angry shouters one should worry about, unless they’re right in front of you and obviously deranged. Worry about those who are calm, collected, and communicating clearly, those who are “deadly serious”.

  78. u.k.(us) says:

    Yep, best to steal the thunder.
    Might even call it, that often misused/misunderstood word :
    “transparency”.

  79. My spidey sense is working overtime.

  80. patrioticduo says:

    @Nigel, “vile and hateful” – that’s a stretch. And surely you are aware that some nuts down in Australia National University did in fact exaggerate wildly when they made claims of having received death threats? So doesn’t it seem particularly odd timing that after the ANU death threats are finally completely and utterly debunked only maybe a week or two, now we get a new batch of evil, hateful, death threat emails? Rather odd coincidence, don’t you think.

  81. Bloke in a Pub says:

    I didn’t read all the letters but I didn’t see any that were criminal in my jurisdiction. Generally death threats in and of themselves aren’t illegal unless made against a head of state. To prosecute it must be criminal coercion i.e. blackmail: “do this or I kill you”.

    As far as nobody should have to endure that I would say that’s a bit too general. I’d offer up “You reap what you sow”. Personally I think Jones is getting less than his just desserts if this the only thing he has to endure.

  82. eyesonu says:

    Skeptik says:
    June 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm
    Looks like a typical comments page on YouTube.
    =========================

    Are the so-called death threats being discussed on YouTube? Please provide link.

  83. Phil. says:

    andrewmharding says:
    June 13, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    These e-mails are very interesting, they look at first sight as if they came from loutish thugs, but if you read them for a second and third time, they are well punctuated, grammatically correct, with no spelling mistakes (apart from “neads”, which no-one ever mis-spells!).

    I suggest you try again there are many spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors in them.

  84. John Doe says:

    Connifer says:
    June 13, 2012 at 6:50 am

    “I was especially offended when Barack Obama used this “denier” term to label AGW skeptics in one of his speeches”

    Consider the source. Uber pothead, inventor of the “interception” and “total absorption” policy when it came to his Hawaiin “Choom Gang”. He thanked his drug dealer and the other members of the Choom Gang in his high school yearbook while leaving out his mother.

    It’s actually the closest I ever felt to him! But just because we’re alike in that we were both loadies in high school and college I’m not running for president or expected to be a role model for the youth of America. The message it sends is literally, “Smoke pot and become President”. How can anyone now possibly, with a straight face, say pot smoking is bad for kids when the president of the United States spent his youth obsessed with smoking it?

  85. Bloke in a Pub says:

    Connifer says:
    June 13, 2012 at 6:50 am

    “I was especially offended when Barack Obama used this “denier” term to label AGW skeptics in one of his speeches”

    Consider the source. Uber pothead, inventor of the “interception” and “total absorption” policy when it came to his Hawaiin “Choom Gang”. He thanked his drug dealer and the other members of the Choom Gang in his high school yearbook while leaving out his mother.

    It’s actually the closest I ever felt to him! But just because we were we were both loadies in high school and college I’m not president or expected to be a role model for the youth of America. The message it sends is literally, “Smoke pot and become President!”. How can anyone now possibly, with a straight face, say pot smoking is bad for kids when the president of the United States spent his youth obsessed with smoking it?

  86. Gary Pearse says:

    Neo says:
    June 13, 2012 at 12:02 pm
    “Perhaps, we should a FOI to the University of Virginia asking for death threat emails to Michael Mann. If they send any, ask for the other emails.”

    This is a good idea for a reality check on the nasty emails allegedly sent to Dr. P. Jones. Send the same FOI to the other institutions where Mann, Trenbreth, Gavin… work to see if they also received such emails. It would be unusual for only Jones to be victimized.

  87. Bloke in a Pub says:

    I’m SO glad the death threat sender’s email addresses were redacted. It’s important that their privacy is respected. /sarc

  88. oakwood says:

    I repeat what I posted at Bishop Hill
    ***
    I’ve read through the emails and draw the following conclusions.

    Of a total of 27, most were written by an American, at least 22 of them are pretty certain (based on a combination of date stamp style and use of language, especially certain expletives, and spelling. Although some still have a European-style date stamp, the language is definitely American). Of these, most, likely all, were written by the same person – based on writing style. Only one is definitely written by a Brit, that at the bottom of page 7, which is the only one referring to any true climate science issues – the MWP and ‘cooling since 1998′. The remaining 4 could be UK or USA sourced, but more likely USA
    - based on language style.

    The one ‘definite UK’ source includes an unpleasant suggestion to ‘rot in a ditch’, but no direct death threat.

    In my view, all of the direct death threats or suicide recommendations come from the same US citizen. Therefore, these emails are not an indication of a pattern of death threats against Jones. Instead, it is the story of one sick individual, with little understanding of Climategate or the climate change debate, who chose to harass Jones.

    Of course its fodder for those who want to use it to portray pro-AGW scientists as victims, but its a further diversion from the chance of a rational scientific debate.
    ***
    By the way, as a Brit, I’ll highlight some US/UK language indicators:
    - Date stamp: putting the day no AFTER the month as in January 29, as well as using AM, PM instead of a 24 hr clock.
    - In UK, an ass is a donkey
    - we don’t use c…sucker or motherf…r, and rarely faggot
    - Our name for Santa Claus is Father Christmas
    - Goddam is certainly more American
    - the ‘definite UK source’ uses spellings: ‘favour’ and ‘humour’.

  89. John Whitman says:

    Bloke in a Pub says:
    June 13, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    - – - – - – -

    Bloke in a Pub,

    What pub and when? : )

    John

  90. mathman2 says:

    Gosh.
    You would think that the posters on this thread are unfamiliar with ‘flaming.’
    Just ask any conservative female blogger. Their mail is much worse than these snippets.
    Even some conservative male bloggers incur the same sort of venom.
    Just calm down out there.
    Minds are not changed by vitriol. Reasoned argument, backed up by accurate data, is the only way to make any progress. Calling someone a name solves nothing and changes no minds.
    So Phil Jones got some nasty mail?
    Any mail which was a credible threat should have been turned over to the Police. The rest simply need to be erased and forgotten. This is the risk anyone runs when acting in the public square.

  91. dp says:

    As if we needed more proof that 50% of all humanity is below average. They read like typical Usenet flame fests. There was/perhaps still is a group dedicated only to this kind of thing. Some forums still allow this stupidity to flourish. It is drugs, booze, and bad parenting plus the enabling power of the Internet.

  92. jollygreenwatchman says:

    “dodgy emails that were hacked…“ ? How, er, “anti-science” ;-)

  93. James Ard says:

    The fact that climategate was barely mentioned by any of the mainstream media, I don’t buy the idea that a flaming fest all of the sudden popped up. Patrons of these sights were pretty much the only people who even knew about it. and I’ve never seen this type of talk from the people around here.

  94. Mr.D.Imwit says:

    Just kids having fun.

    [REPLY: Kids that should, perhaps, become the poster children for the need to engage in more corporal punishment rather than less? -REP]

  95. James Sexton says:

    John Doe says:
    June 13, 2012 at 2:22 pm

    Consider the source. Uber pothead, inventor of the “interception” and “total absorption” …….

    …….. The message it sends is literally, “Smoke pot and become President”. How can anyone now possibly, with a straight face, say pot smoking is bad for kids when the president of the United States spent his youth obsessed with smoking it?
    =================================================
    Uhmm….. John, there are some anti-pot smokers who would hold up Obama as a reason why one shouldn’t partake of the herb. It must be bad for development! Look what happened to Barry!!! He’s lost all cognitive function! Just say no!!! Just imagine what would happen if we had a bunch of Obamabots running things!…… Oh, crap…….

  96. James Ard says:

    If the moderators have spared us of from such crass vitriol, I thank them and rescind my comment. But I wonder if they have seen this kind of crap.

    [REPLY: Not all in one place, but yes. Not to mention attempts at character assassination, outright lies, astro-turfing, use of other people's e-mail addresses and identities.... -REP]

  97. Goldie says:

    I’m with you Anthony. This debate will be won on the science or it won’t be won at all. It would be nice if both sides would debate openly and honestly though.

  98. Sean says:

    I have no sympathy for an activist like Jones receiving these emails in response to his crooked behavior and Lysenko science. Nor do I trust him or his organization to have not made these emails up. He has zero credibility. As for his depression – well he should be depressed – he is an odious cretin in my view.

  99. zefal says:

    Goldie says:
    June 13, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    I’m with you Anthony. This debate will be won on the science or it won’t be won at all. It would be nice if both sides would debate openly and honestly though.
    ——————————————————————————————————–

    One side is nothing but unopened and dishonest and that’s how they will stay, because to do otherwise, will expose them as the frauds they are. That’s the catch. When you trap a rabid animal into a corner it’s not going to turn into a pussy cat. So this debate propaganda war will remain in the trenches through their intent.

  100. sean c says:

    Based on pattern analysis these emails were written by a single author. Aside from the foul language and obvious angry tone the author makes some good points and is passionate. The profile suggests the author has a personal connection with his audience. The ability to create multiple email sources reveals the author’s advanced IT savy. Could we be looking at a very jaded former employee and the source of the ClimateGate emails? I’m not saying I agree with the nature of these emails. But I don’t disagree with the points the author makes about the harmful nature of AGW alarmists that drive destructive policy in the absence of sound science. It is more destructive than war. My suspicion is that these emails are the work of the ClimateGate leak.

  101. gnomish says:

    Duster says:
    sorry, duster, you haven’t got that right.
    marginal competence is all that’s required to survive.
    natural rejection is the alternative = extinction.
    but go ahead and debate whether cannibalism is merely a dietary preference if you will.
    suicide is a metaphysical preference, i suppose.
    the taxpaying, voting, dignified schmucks who meekly debate the weather have not got the marginal competence to pass the test coming up.
    i can’t tell you what to do, but i can tell you that first you have to have an objective standard of values that can distinguish between right and wrong.
    that’s the marginal competence clause for homo sapiens qua sapiens.
    survival as a slave is not the nature of man – but go ahead and call it a lifestyle preference if you will.
    survival as a beast is not the nature of man – but go ahead and glorify squirrels if you will.
    i know where that will take somebody. it’s not a matter of opinion – but go ahead and equate all ideas as equally worthless if you will.
    that, after all, is the nature of political correctness.
    it would improve the mind greatly to study what it takes for a liberal apostasy.
    i highly recommend the daniel pearl beheading video. he was mr nice guy until it was too late. then, for a few minutes he was merely disgusting, pathetic and craven. then he was no more.
    nature extinguishes stupidity in the absence of substitute victims.
    taxpayers are merely goats. there is nothing they should expect but what they get.
    heh- with a racist, communist homosexual as president, americans are on the fast track.
    because you know no better, you quibble, whine, appease and suffer and die.
    darwin named this natural rejection.

  102. Bob in Castlemaine says:

    Steve T. says:
    June 13, 2012 at 6:46 am

    Indeed very tacky stuff, deserving of nothing but contempt.
    But I agree with Steve, many of these emails are suspiciously similar in line of thought and mode of construction, possibly too similar to be coincidence.
    Also, as Bob Tisdale points out, it appears that UEA doesn’t appear to have considered it necessary to fight tooth and nail to prevent FOI release?

  103. R.S.Brown says:

    Anthony:

    November 19th, 2009 Climategate emails escape and go viral

    Re: Jones and those 24 “threats”

    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/116404/response/288373/attach/4/Appendix%20A%20Data%20file%20072.pdf

    This is part of the four weeks that was:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7180154/Climategate-Professor-Phil-Jones-considered-suicide-over-email-scandal.html

    “His ‘David Kelly moment’…came as death threats poured in from around the world.”

    http://doc-snow.hubpages.com/hub/Green-Fascism-Let-The-Facts-Speak

    Dr. Phil Jones, at the epicenter of the scandal, received over 200 threatening
    Messages
    , according to Nature.com. The most troubling said things like “Someone, somewhere, will hunt you down,” or “Expect us at your door to say hello.” The result for Dr. Jones was depression, rapid weight loss, suicidal thoughts and a reliance on anti-anxiety medications—a decline that reportedly stunned his friends. (emphasis added)

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/15/phil-jones-lost-weather-data

    …and in the same week, Jones gave an interview in Nature: which
    included His comments on the old 2007 allegations by amateur climate-data
    analyst Doug Keenan who claimed Jones, et al., had used some wrong and
    possibly made up temperture/station from China for a their Journal of
    Geophysical Research report:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008JD009916.shtml

    The data Jones, et al., used from China was somehow “lost” and couldn’t
    be brought back… but the “science was sound”

    The first release of the Climategate emails gave Keenan’s, McIntyre’s.
    etc. contentions of scientific misfeasance some international veracity
    and traction. The good Dr. Jones tried a number of variations of his
    message via the publicity circuit to tap dance around the sudden spate
    of questions that surfaced.

    He wasn’t a very good dancer.

  104. Jesse says:

    Trolls are a dime a dozen.

  105. Big deal. Everybody who expresses his opinion openly, gets nasty emails once in a while. Words are cheap (unless you get paid for writing them).

    Phil Jones was depressed because he was afraid that uncovering of his lies would result in dire consequences. But he and his co-conspirators was thoroughly and unethically shielded by the establishment, and everything is honky-dory now in his neck of the Academia woods.

  106. Richard Day says:

    What would be interesting is to use the JGAAP linguistic software to compare the emails to the team’s published works. Me thinks we will be attributing the emails to a team member.

  107. Several folks are questioning the authenticity of the emails. Similarities and all . . .

    I don’t know. I would not be surprised if most (if not all) are legitimate. The tone of some people, unfortunately, isn’t much better at many blogs and news sites (try scrolling through the comments at Yahoo! News sometime on any controversial topic). There are lots of places on the Internet where the conversation floats at about the level of high school hallways and locker rooms. In addition, if the emails were produced under FOI it is unlikely that Jones/UEA would have released anything that wasn’t authentic. Yes, it is still possible that one or two single individuals were responsible for the whole lot of emails, and that would be interesting to know. But if there are a couple of kooks willing to send such emails, doesn’t stretch the imagination much to think there might be a few more kooks out there who are also willing.

    I doubt the emails drove Jones to depression — these are so far out there that you just delete them and move on. Yet the emails are clearly reprehensible and if any of them are found to go beyond crude to actual criminal intent, they should be followed up on by authorities. My condolonces to Jones for having received such vile emails.

  108. Owen says:

    Relating global warming skepticism with holocaust denial is a lot worse then anything in these emails. The Climate Liars will call people like me a Denier at the drop of the hat, but I’m not supposed to be upset, (which I don’t because I expect vile stuff from these people ) but they get some childish, moronic emails and I’m supposed to feel sorry that their tender feelings got hurt. *Roll my eyes*

    If I lied, distorted the truth, corrupted the science and called skeptics Nazis, like the Climate Liars do, then I would expect emails a heck of a lot worse then these !

  109. Gunga Din says:

    Nigel Harris says:
    June 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    I found the emails distressing to read, but not nearly as distressing as vile, hateful opinions appearing here in the comments thread. I think the WUWT readership has really lost contact with reality. The very suggestion that these emails would be concocted to garner sympathy is beneath contempt. I would very much like to see Anthony weigh in and condemn these speculations.
    =====================================================================
    Should they have been sent whether real or fabricated? No. Do I think that just about anybody in the public eye get such … attention … from some nuts that disagree with them or just don’t like them? Sure. I imagine there are even some actors that get similar things from people who confuse them with a character they played. Vile? Yes. A big deal? No. If real and they upset Jones then I’d guess it’s because he wasn’t used to being in the public eye.
    Regarding the speculation that they might be fabricated to garner sympathy or in some other way further “the cause”, the suggestion is not “beneath contempt”. We’ve seen similar things happen. Attempts were made to use kangaroo culling for that purpose.

  110. Jack says:

    OK, emails making threats are dead wrong. (No pun intended). But scientific misconduct, falsifying data, misleading public statements, refusing to release data so that it can be checked and replicated has lead to one of the greatest, most expensive frauds that has ever been perpetrated on the US taxpayer. And the people of the world.

    I believe that Michael Mann, Phil Jones have lied to all of us. I can only hope that history will vilify these men because they will never have to answer for their crimes in this lifetime. And that is a travesty. But that is probably the end game for which they are playing.

    And then I think of Anthony Watts and the rest who have dealt with their own email death threats, scientific and social isolation, MSM ridicule, complete lack of public funding or any funding (unlike Mann, Jones, Briffa, et al.) and my blood boils

    I know two things: Mann, Jones, Briffa et al. will never answer for their crimes. In the end they will be but a footnote in history, linked in Wikipedia to the Piltdown Man. But history will show Anthony Watts to be a hero on the scale of Gallileo and Newton.

    Mann, Jones, Briffa will be remembered, if at all, as frauds and hucksters.

  111. Martin Clark says:

    Linguistic and typographical analysis anyone?
    Much of this looks to be carefully constructed. Too many “hard” words correctly spelt. (Ok spell-checker – you want “spelled”? I had a classical education. I can spell hard words, can’t spell easy ones …)
    Anger and rapid typing would tned (sic) to throw up letter juxtapositions, but I didn’t notice any.

  112. Gary Hladik says:

    Wow, nasty stuff. You’d think the guy had published cartoons of Mohammed or something…

  113. Reg Nelson says:

    I’ve handled Exchange administration for our company for over six years now. No way these emails would have made it through our message filtering software (Microsoft Forefront cloud app). They would have never even made it to our mail server, let alone an end user.

    The only way these emails could have been delivered to Jones’ mailbox would be if the UEA is not using any type of mail filtering software, which is simply impossible to believe, given the size and funding of the organization.

  114. benfrommo says:

    As others have said, they sure responded to this FOI request quickly. But that being said, we should never condone this kind of treatment. Only through actual getting the truth out and winning the people to the idea that they are crooks and getting them justice through the system will we win.

    That is the only way, and I do kind of wonder if this isn’t some sort of scam where some warmist sent the emails…..

    But either way, never underestimate the power of stupid either.

  115. James Sexton says:

    gnomish says:
    June 13, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    ….. gnomish, you seem down my friend. Here, this should cheer you up! http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/nature-workign/ It’s a riot!

  116. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    I’ve had too many people in my own life attempt suicide, including a brother (I’m the one who saved him). When I read about Jones in this article, I was quite alarmed: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7180154/Climategate-Professor-Phil-Jones-considered-suicide-over-email-scandal.html

    In response, I sent an email to the health service at the CRU (Feb 9, 2010) that said, in part:

    It is normal for depression and suicidal ideation to wax and wane, and
    although Prof. Jones may believe he is “past that stage now,” his
    condition is probably still fragile in terms of stress and depression.
    Please ensure that Prof. Jones and his colleagues at CRU are receiving
    mental health support services.

    I may be a skeptic and disapprove mightily of the Hockey Team shenanigans, but I’m not heartless…..nothing is accomplished if Jones “snuffs it.” Someone else would take his place. And, the emails are mostly sophomoric and infantile, I really doubt if he read any of them.

    BTW, I’m trained in a mental first aid technique that was developed in Australia, if interested, please see: http://www.mentalhealthfirstaid.org/cs/first_aid_strategies

  117. ggm says:

    Considering that Jones, Mann, Hansen etc are engaing in the largest fraud of all time, that’s costing tax payers gazillions of dollars, then it should be expected that they will receive lots of hate mail. I`m not justifying it, I`m just saying that there are enough people out there who understand the scale of Mann/Jones/Hansen’s fraud, there it`s a 100.00% certainty that there will be some who take it too far. This should not even be news. When “skeptics” are threatenened, it doesnt make the news. Andrew should not even be covering this, other than to state “we dont care one bit”.

  118. DirkH says:

    Nigel Harris says:
    June 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    “I found the emails distressing to read, but not nearly as distressing as vile, hateful opinions appearing here in the comments thread. I think the WUWT readership has really lost contact with reality. The very suggestion that these emails would be concocted to garner sympathy is beneath contempt.”

    Warmists would never do that, right, with their iron clad commission to scientific honesty (or efficiency… take your pick [Schneider]).

  119. Menth says:

    Theory: Alex Jones fans.

  120. Tim Minchin says:

    It was pretty tame comapred to some of the vitriol you get on forums.

  121. OssQss says:

    Quite the stunning display of the lack of control in today’s anonymous electrified world all the way around, and simply unacceptable behavior. Step up people, and use the facts as a tool for your disagreement, not threats !

    There is certainly a better, more effective, way to influence opinion ………

  122. eyesonu says:

    The ALL CAPS threat on page 6.

    That may have been one of my ex-girlfriends. The last time she ‘talked’ to me she sound very similar. But she was ‘talking’ much faster and louder than I can read. ;-)

  123. KenB says:

    I’m commenting without seeing the emails (link down?) but surely these would be referred to security at the university, for at least some investigation to identify the source/individuals/groups involved, a pretty normal precautionary measure. ? If any concerns or perceived risk was identified to either the University or individuals working at the university should automatically trigger a report to police.

    Has anyone asked the question? IF a report was made, there should be both a risk assessment and evidence of an investigation relevant to identification of the source of the email. That is the minimum level for intelligence/risk reporting, just in case a more overt threat is made ?

    Just asking?

  124. Darren Potter says:

    Based on the poor writing and vulgarity, I would say the E-mails came from ultra disappointed Greenies, Tree Huggers, and AGW Scam supporters.
    /sarc

  125. KenB @ 8:46 p.m.

    Excellent point.

  126. johanna says:

    patrioticduo says:
    June 13, 2012 at 2:12 pm

    @Nigel, “vile and hateful” – that’s a stretch. And surely you are aware that some nuts down in Australia National University did in fact exaggerate wildly when they made claims of having received death threats? So doesn’t it seem particularly odd timing that after the ANU death threats are finally completely and utterly debunked only maybe a week or two, now we get a new batch of evil, hateful, death threat emails? Rather odd coincidence, don’t you think.
    ————————————————————-
    I am usually sceptical about conspiracy theories, but this thought crossed my mind also. Remember, the bogus ANU ‘death threats’ meme started at the same time as reports of intimidation of Team members surfaced in other countries. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

    Having been trounced on the last round by inconvenient facts, and with Gergis et al’s paper shredded, it does seem that a new initiative has commenced courtesy of the Team’s master tacticians :) It is indeed remarkable how quickly this fairly trivial FOI request was acceded to, in contrast to the way that substantive requests for data are opposed every inch of the way.

  127. Steve McIntyre says:

    One of the emails from Nov 23, 2009 is headed “ARA Scalars”. Anyone know the meaning?

    Also if you order the emails by date, there is one batch between Nov 22 and Nov 25 that have UK date sequence; the ,later ones have US date sequence – one batch around Nov 27-28 and the other batch from Feb 7, 2010 on. The

    The writer of the first batch definitely seems to have watched Alex Jones. A Nov 23 email mentions climategate which was mentioned by ALex Jones that day:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yis2loKSLFY.

  128. John Kettlewell says:

    I ENJOYED THE ONE IN ALL CAPS…..CLEARLY NOT FROM THE USA….BUT NO SUBTITLES NEEDED…. WITH HOSTILITY TOWARD BRITISH RELIGIOUS MAJORITY….WONDER IF THE DUDE WHO WROTE IT IS STILL SHAKING

    A couple others look non-USA due to grammar and spelling. I believe in every other nation, communications, such as these, are unlawful; yet I’ve heard nothing of attempts to investigate. I’m left to assume they look upon these as farcical.

  129. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Jones et al are white-coated wiseguys running a climate protection racket and are shaking down gutless governments for megagobs of cash. They got what they deserve.

  130. Steve McIntyre says:

    One of the emails from Nov 23, 2009 is headed “ARA Scalars”. Anyone know the meaning?

    Figured it out. ARA stands for Applied Research Associates. Scalars is something to do with “scalar wave weapons”. Something to do with 9/11 and directed energy weapons e.g. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/haarp/esp_HAARP_33.htm

    REPLY: Congratulations Steve, you are AFAIK, the only person successful at getting a HAARP comment posted here, they are normally filtered automatically. – Anthony

  131. Poptech says:

    I assume the “scalar” reference is to scalar weaponry,

    http://www.infowars.com/the-10-leading-theories-for-dead-birds-and-fish/

    The use of the word is a dead giveaway of a fringe conspiracy theorist.

    ARA might have been a bumbling of AR4.

  132. Lubos Motl says:

    These are rather ordinary real-life people’s e-mails; for example, this is how many internet discussion forums about pretty much any topic look like, too. They’re surely not a symbol of quality research and kindness; however, they’re not extraordinary, either. I have gotten such mails in the past from the alarmists, too. Phil Jones has at least some sensitivity; I am sure that Michael Mann has to get lots of these e-mails as well but he thrives when he swims in this material.

    While there are many tough words in the list of e-mails to Jones, there are still e-mails I would peacefully endorse if I were asked. And quite generally, I don’t think that it’s not constructive to moralize in this way all the time. If a clear majority of the mankind will realize that the climate hysteria has been unsubstantiated, it inevitably implies that the list of skeptics will contain many ordinary, emotional, uneducated, excessively candid, and tough people, if I can use a few euphemisms. So we shouldn’t be surprised if we see that this is actually happening.

    Many of these people feel that they need to (over)compensate some job that others should be doing but they are not. From a broader perspective, I disagree with the proposition that nobody should be enduring these e-mails. The climate regulation movement deserves them and it may deserve much more of a punishment than tough words.

  133. Aidan Donnelly says:

    Now having had the opportunity to read them, like others I am of the opinion this is a ‘team’ scam.

    Having worked in IT most of my life, I cannot conceive of a mailserver so badly managed that any of them could have made it through the filters to the recipients inboxes.

  134. Merovign says:

    So is this based on models or real-world measurements?

    The “they’re meanies” claim, especially based on anonymous comments by unknown persons, does nothing to address the issue people claim to be arguing about.

    Because they’re not really arguing about that, it’s power and control.

    This is basically in the form of an generalized accusation against people the “team” have a disagreement with. I would also object to trying to tar the “team” with anonymous threats apparently from their sympathizers.

    Unless they have someone specific to name, this really doesn’t do anything.

  135. R.S.Brown says:

    I’m still intrigued that the “over 200 threatening messages, according
    to Nature.com”
    that were aimed at Phil Jones seem to have declined
    to the roughly two dozen that came out of the UEA/CSU FOI sausage
    factory.

  136. Mike Busby says:

    Nut job worriers fighting in the only way they know how. By writing emails, so poorly constructed that if you where to take out any reference to climate and add in “Seal clubbing, dolphin killing, rain forrest clearing etc” you will see how pathetic they really are. Next week it will be GM Crops, the next week Contrails etc.

    Usual fare of this ilk. Nothing to get too excited about.

  137. UK Sceptic says:

    I have no sympathy for Jones whatsoever. Empty threats, no matter how vile, will never trump the millions of bellies the CAGW bollocks will empty, is emptying through turning arable land over to biofuel production.

  138. Rob says:

    It makes you wonder just how many email personas people like Gleick and the team have?

    Off course this was a team scam, the important information, the actual senders emails are not printed and it would have been simple for authorities to track down the senders and prosecute the actual death threat senders. That would ave been an own goal.

  139. johanna says:

    Simon Hopkinson, who initated the FOI request, has provided background information here:

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/13/uea-death-threats-published.html?currentPage=2#comments

    It was posted on June 14 at 3.10am.

  140. Barry Woods says:

    Simon also has this FOI respnse from Norfolk police.

    ————————————————

    By way of a quick follow-up, in my FOI to the UEA I had also requested some detail about consequent actions by UEA as a result of each of the threats they received. As Bish and others noted, some of these threats do appear to be criminal in nature. UEA did not respond with this particular detail.

    In anticipation of this, I had also put in a FOI to Norfolk Constabulary:

    Please provide a breakdown per month, the number of:
    a) threats to life
    b) threats of bodily harm

    which were reported to Norfolk Constabulary by members of the
    University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in the period 1st
    November 2009 to 30th April 2012, inclusive.

    They responded this morning:

    Response to your Request

    Norfolk Constabulary were made aware of emails that had been received by a member of the staff at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. No specific complaint or report was made to the Constabulary and no crimes were recorded detailing threats to life or threats of bodily harm.
    ——————————————–

    my thoughts – probably because many (most?) seem to have originated in the USA, UEA thought the threats were unlikley to be carried out (ie keyboard warriors thousands of miles away?)

    additionally unlikely to be able to (or difficulties) pursue any action against non UK residents.

  141. Peter Wilson says:

    These are just disgusting, and a couple of them could well be construed as death threats. I know Jones is a scoundrel, but this sort of behaviour is unacceptable in any context, and only serves to concede the moral high ground. I’m ashamed to share an opinion with the authors of such deranged filth.

    One wonders why it took an FOI to get these out of UAE. Surely the effect of releasing these at the time would have been to Jones’ advantage – it turns out at least one of his complaints was true.

  142. Eli Rabett says:

    One of Eli’s commentators described what is happening here

    1: Abuse.

    2: Contemptuous denial that any abuse has occurred.

    3: Grudging acknowledgement that abuse has occurred, but it’s the abusee’s own fault, combined with nit-picking about what constitutes a threat that would never be applied to verbal thrusts directed at the ‘skeptic’s own precious carcass.

    4: Revisionist claims that any grudgingly acknowledged abuse is actually all a ploy anyway because we all know the abusees are actually the abusers.

    Sometimes being quiet is the best policy.

    REPLY: Speaking of abuse, Eli knows all about abuse, as he dishes it out regularly in comments elsewhere about the owner of this blog. As I promised, all commentary from “Mr. Rabett” shall now include his full name, since it has been well known for a long time, yet he still has not the courage to put his own name to his own words when abusing others he disagrees with, sort of like the letter writers to Phil Jones.

    He is: professor Joshua Halpern of Howard University

  143. M Courtney says:

    Aidan Donnelly says:
    June 13, 2012 at 11:47 pm
    “Now having had the opportunity to read them, like others I am of the opinion this is a ‘team’ scam.

    Having worked in IT most of my life, I cannot conceive of a mailserver so badly managed that any of them could have made it through the filters to the recipients inboxes.”

    I’m not so sure. Thye are really bad at running computers. Some of them can’t even put a line on an excel graph. And they have a record of poor email security.

    And the clincher is… if they were going to fake the 200 emails they would have faked 200 not 2 dozen.

    To me the funny thing is that such a high profile figure in such a controversial area has had so few nutjobs hassling him. They should still be hunted out and shamed though.

  144. Eve Stevens says:

    I didn’t see anything in there that Phil didn’t deserve. People get annoyed when they are freezing to death. Phil didn’t think of that?

  145. Phew. After confirming none was from me, I read the lot and put them down as kids’ play. Guessed maybe 3 different authors. Provenance uncertain, possible inside job.
    Not as bad as “No worries”.
    I’ve had far worse incoming experiences, but you get hardened.
    But nobody should try to do any more. It’s undignified, no matter whom the recipient is.

  146. EEB says:

    Eli Rabett says:
    June 14, 2012 at 4:36 am

    One of Eli’s commentators described what is happening here…

    Oh, real nice, just humiliate the poor guy in front of the entire internet. You know, if he really wanted a lot of people to see that he would have posted it here himself.

    Sheesh!

  147. John Whitman says:

    Eli Rabett says:
    June 14, 2012 at 4:36 am

    Sometimes being quiet is the best policy.

    - – - – - – - -

    Eli Rabett,

    Silence thyself. : )

    Let me repeat my position wrt to the emails just released by UEA FOI request.

    My questions about the real source of the emails can only be answered by a formal investigation of the full email metadata and authors identity. What is the chance of getting that? I will continue my skepticism until that info is made public.

    John

  148. I agree with commenters, these emails are everyday stuff compared with many fora and U-tube commentaries. Two hundred claimed when it was 24! And yes they could have been “ordered” by warmists, to drum up emotional support.

    There’s apparently good evidence that both Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Lusitania were deliberately engineered, to get the US into the second World War. So – “Let Phil suffer a little for “the Cause” – such a “nice” guy and he won’t see these aren’t real death threats that would be a police matter and could be traced back to us – it will help”. There are those with vested financial interests in AGW, quite able to hire a couple of thugs.

    But what Phil has had to suffer pales vilely in comparison with the damage he’s inflicted on others, still happening, as we know. And I have heard of loosened wing-nuts from a skeptic’s car.

  149. Always, always, I see Phil Jones as a classic Stanley Milgram type. Needs desperately to be liked, by those in authority – so he obeys commands even when it means abandoning his own commonsense and inflicting hurt on others who are “beyond the pale” of his reality.

  150. Gail Combs says:

    Phil Jones, Mile Mann and the others left their ivory towers and entered the world of Politics. Lies, back stabbing, cheating stealing and threats are all a part of politics so they should not be surprised that with political power come hate for those seen as powerful especially when those in power are revealed to have lied to the public.

    CNN: Death Threats Against Obama Increase By 400 Percent ~ The Public Record Aug 28th, 2009

    However this is NOT something I condone. We, at least in the USA, have other recourses besides nasty cowardly notes. Josh’s Lampoons and Anthony’s WUWT come first to mind.

  151. Silver Ralph says:

    Hmmm. They all appear to be written by the same person – same refrain, same tempo, same disjointed cadance.

    Now who would that person be? Wouldn’t be called ‘Jones’, would he?

    .

  152. Gunga Din says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    June 14, 2012 at 9:21 am
    There’s apparently good evidence that both Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Lusitania were deliberately engineered, to get the US into the second World War.
    ==========================================================
    Small correction, the Lusitania was about WW1.

  153. Gunga Din, yes, thanks for correction.

  154. Poptech says:

    Who but those on hallucinogenic drugs would take scientific advice from someone who thinks they are a bunny rabbit?

  155. gnomish says:

    poptech-
    sandusky would.

  156. Smokey says:

    Poptech says:

    “Who but those on hallucinogenic drugs would take scientific advice from someone who thinks they are a bunny rabbit?”

    And who writes [and presumably speaks] in the 3rd person?

  157. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Smokey says:
    June 14, 2012 at 7:48 pm

    Poptech says:

    I agree. The guy we are talking about seriously gives me the creeps.

  158. Smokey says:

    Bob Tisdale says:
    June 13, 2012 at 6:49 am:

    “Oddly, UEA produced documents as a result of this FOI request.”

    Bazinga!

    .

    And count me in with those suspicious of the provenance. Most skeptics have plenty of good arguments and don’t need to resort to scatological insults. These emails seem specifically designed to generate sympathy. Poor Phil.

  159. Poptech says:

    I think Halpern did his chemistry “experiments” with the wrong chemicals one too many times. How someone who delusionally believes they are a bunny rabbit maintains employment at a university is beyond imagination.

  160. Skiphil says:

    Eli Rabett

    I noted while visiting your own blog’s thread (my first and probably last visit to that juvenile site) that the commenter you quoted above so approvingly ended with an important line which you omitted. After the obligatory swipe at Delingpole your commenter ended with,

    “There are plenty of historical precedents of this kind of hateful targetting of outgroups. None of them are pretty…”

    You seem to be an intelligent guy, so I am puzzled by your inability to understand why it is the diverse band of “skeptics” on climate issues who are the endangered, menaced “outgroup” here in our time, in every relevant way. We are bullied, harassed, menaced, defiled all over the place. The “messages” which pour out continually in the media and policy worlds from abusive activists, academics, policy officials, and many activist-scientists like Mann & co. are extreme in their attempts to deprive us of any legitimacy or place in democratic politics. I am learning that you are an energetic perpetrator of the loathsome “denialist” meme against dissenters from your juvenile form of orthodoxy.

    On the one hand, we have a bunch of nutty abusive emails, nearly all (likely) sent from thousands of miles away, few with any hint of a credible threat. Reasonable, decent people condemn these types of messages but ALSO condemn your dishonest attempts to smear all “CAGW skeptics” with bad words from a few anonymous fools. Of course the public has been offered no evidence that some or all of these emails are not propaganda acts by CAGWarmists, but after reading some of your blog threads with the many inane comments there, that is a possibility that must be considered. What we do not have is any evidence that any of those emails were written by anyone with an engagement in climate issues from the “skeptical” sides of matters (there is hardly a reference to the science and policy debates in any of the emails).

    There is a great asymmetry of faux concern from you and your disciples.

    For on the other hand, we have the real and continual, massive verbal abuses (and worse) of “skeptics” of whatever ilk in the climate debates. You and your associates habitually invoke the (holocaust) “denier” meme to smear everyone in your way. You strive to discredit and demoniize us, to deprive us of any legitimate say in these weighty public policy matters. Huge numbers of people are bullied, abused, and menaced into silence or web anonymity with threats to our jobs, our well-being, our livelihoods.

    WE (varied as we are, the dissenters from climate orthodoxy) are the threatened “outgroup” here. Do you ever raise your voice against the countless abuses of “skeptics”?? From what I have seen you are instead a prominent malevolent conductor of such abuses on the web.

    [cross-posted from Bishop Hill if mods permit]

  161. Skiphil says:

    Nigel Harris says:
    June 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm

    “I found the emails distressing to read, but not nearly as distressing as vile, hateful opinions appearing here in the comments thread. I think the WUWT readership has really lost contact with reality. The very suggestion that these emails would be concocted to garner sympathy is beneath contempt….”

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

    Well Nigel, lots of us have condemned these emails, but the “reality” is that they only help the “warmist” side of the climate battles…. not only from the “sympathy” aspect for the embattled CRU scientists embroiled in scandal, but from the use many CAGWarmists make of such emails to paint all “skeptics” with that nutter brush. This does not say anything about whether any were “fake rants” (I think they mainly read as some lone angry people with little connection to climate issues). My guess is that they mainly come from a few angry people who just heard a radio show or read an article about the very real depraved scandals that go by the term “Climategate”. If real data is ever released or investigated about sources of those abusive emails (few of which are “threats” as opposed to offensive abuse) then perhaps we will know something more.

    Still, I can’t help but recall a statement similar to yours, only a few months ago, when “Fakegate” had burst onto the scene, the energetic CAGWarmist blogger Michael Tobis ridiculed the idea that the AGU’s Chairman of the Ethics Committee could possibly have committed such provocations on behalf of the CAGW cause:

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

    “…The suggestion that someone as socially adept and successful as Peter Gleick is involved in this proposed clumsy heist and forgery is ludicrous and not worth considering either way.”

    Michael Tobis says:
    February 17, 2012 at 10:18 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/17/the-desmoggers-are-crashing-and-burning/#comments

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

    Of course there was growing textual and circumstantial evidence (h/t Mosher and other sleuths) pointing straight at Gleick, but forgive us if some want to analyze what textual evidence there is to determine whether the “death threat” emails really are exactly what is claimed for them.

  162. PaddikJ says:

    M Courtney says:
    June 14, 2012 at 4:43 am

    Aidan Donnelly says:
    June 13, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    “Now having had the opportunity to read them, like others I am of the opinion this is a ‘team’ scam.

    Having worked in IT most of my life, I cannot conceive of a mailserver so badly managed that any of them could have made it through the filters to the recipients inboxes.”

    I’m not so sure. Thye are really bad at running computers. Some of them can’t even put a line on an excel graph. And they have a record of poor email security.

    But Jones and his fellow incompetents are almost certainly not running their IT system. It is almost certainly being run by UEA, possibly but not likely by the CRU; but either way by professional IT folk who know their business and are upholding university (and possibly national) standards.

    The first thing that occurred to me on reading the filthy emails: How did they get past the the university’s filth filters? When other commenters pointed out the syntactical irregularities, that cinched it: those hate mails are as phony as dendrothermography.

    To non-skeptics it might seem absurd that “respected university folk” could attempt something so clumsy and amateurish, but then it wasn’t so long ago that people were saying the same thing about a certain high profile director of a west coast NGO.

    FOI anyone? How about the e-copies this time, with all the meta-data?

  163. M Courtney says:

    PaddikJ says:
    June 15, 2012 at 12:48 am
    “To non-skeptics it might seem absurd that “respected university folk” could attempt something so clumsy and amateurish, but then it wasn’t so long ago that people were saying the same thing about a certain high profile director of a west coast NGO.”

    I’m a skeptic and I can see that the UEA are stupid and morally challenged enough to do it. But I don’t think they did.
    They didn’t fake enough emails (24 not 200).
    They didn’t fake pertinent emails (none that can be linked to a prominent skeptic blogger or scientist’s influence).
    They didn’t fake believably threatening emails (they all sound like sulky schoolboys not serious terrorists).

    So their IT department look like fools? Yes, what’s new?
    So they didn’t release private email addresses like Peter Gleick did? Perhaps their legal team forbid it; the UK has strict laws on data privacy (the Data Protection Act).

    I’m just skeptical about this conspiracy theory. It would be strange if they had no loonies on the email. Just look at the internet. There’s no shortage of loonies.

  164. Brian H says:

    Lucy Skywalker says:
    June 14, 2012 at 9:21 am

    But what Phil has had to suffer pales vilely in comparison with the damage he’s inflicted on others, still happening, as we know. And I have heard of loosened wing-nuts from a skeptic’s car.

    Lucy, I generally like your posts, but this is pretty lame stuff. “pales vilely”?? Urk.

    And, FYI, cars do not have “wing nuts”. Those are lightweight fasteners with flanges (wings), meant to be turned by hand. Perhaps you meant hub nuts, that hold wheels on.

  165. matt says:

    If the emails are real they represent the feelings of people who have had their livelihood impacted by GW alarmism.

    However, these are clearly US English emails, now, so far as I know, the US has not implemented any kind of carbon based law, such as Europe has done, and hasnt seen jobs and industry moved offshore, such as Europe has experienced.

    Also the language used is that of a sociopathic adolescent, I cannot imagine for one second that any European would write like this seriously. They are a joke, and therefore I think they are fake.

  166. Jim says:

    If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen! While I agree the e-mails cross the line, they are nothing compared to the lies fostered on us by Phil and his colleagues. So Phil won’t be getting any of my sympathy, until he comes forward and honestly acknowledges the AGW fraud. And as other commenters have noted, these very well may be faked or a false-flag psyops perpetrated by AGW enthusiasts.

  167. Jim says:

    I disagree Matt. As an American, I find some of the curse word spellings and usage unusual. I would say it’s most likely British English.

  168. Jim says:

    My other post looks like it disappeared. I think Phil would garner more sympathy if he would be forthright and apologize for the AGW hoax. As it is, he and his colleagues are responsible for defrauding the world of billions of dollars! So as much as I’d like to sympathize, I’m unable to do so. And I am suspicious that these e-mails are actually a false flag psyops perpetrated by AGW enthusiasts and their operatives.

Comments are closed.