Quite a lot of interest continues in the files from CRU that were leaked/hacked and placed on a Russian FTP server. Quite a number of other websites have been things with them ranging from commentary to evaluation of validity. With over 1000 emails, it is a bit of a task to wade through.
The Internet is an amazing place. Now there’s a website that has put all of the emails into a searchable database with a web engine interface.
The screencap below shows the engine at http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
I have no idea who put this together, but it does seem to work quite well. For example, typing in the keyword “moron” yields an interesting email. So does typing in the name of a prominent climate “bulldog”.
Interesting stuff.
NOTE: Link updated to new website on 1/23/10
It’s on Wikipedia now:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate
“emerging scandal”
Also, the largest news paper web edition, aftonbladet.se, had it on the top of their first page today.
Oouch. Irony.
Thomas L. Friedman’s latest column.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18friedman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1258852196-dv8o23NFDuyu/rAHNB/aBQ
I hope his inbox is getting flooded with these damning e-mails. I see he also is ranting about “overpopulation”. Only in a few large cities. A little simple math shows that the entire world population would fit inside the borders of Texas with nearly two-thousand square feet of space for each person. Take the total *land* surface area of Earth – there’s around 81 billion 2K square foot chunks. Want to know how much space each person currently on Earth would have were they evenly spread over the land, even just the parts commonly called livable? Do the math yourself.
Earth is *huge*. The problem, such as it is, is in the utilization and distribution. Responsible use and care-taking of resources would address things, but the leftist response it to lock up resources with the intention that they should never ever be tapped. “For future generations” is a lie, “Never to be used” is what they really mean.
O/T Daniel Hannan in the Telepraph…
Herman Van Rompuy: today the EU, tomorrow the world!
Phil Jones seems to have an issue with,
Dr.Sonja A.Boehmer-Christiansen
> Reader Emeritus, Department of Geography
> Hull University
> Editor, Energy&Environment
> Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk),
Phil says this to Graham F Haughton when he learns of the e-mail she sent to Stephanie Ferguson;
“Dear Professor Haughton,
> The email below was brought to my attention
>by the help desk of UKCP09 – the new set of UK
>climate scenarios developed for DEFRA. It was
>sent by the person named in the header of this
>email. I regard this email as very malicious. Dr
>Boehmer-Christiansen states that it is beyond her
>expertise to assess the claims made. If this is
>the case then she shouldn’t be sending malicious
>emails like this. The two Canadians she refers
>to have never developed a tree-ring chronology in
>their lives and McIntyre has stated several times
>on his blog site that he has no aim to write up
>his results for publication in the peer-review literature.
> I’m sure you will be of the same opinion as
>me that science should be undertaken through the
>peer-review literature as it has been for over
>300 years. The peer-review system is the
>safeguard science has developed to stop bad science being published.”
Perhaps it was the 1st paragraph of Dr. Sonja’s e-mail to Stephanie that rattled Phil’s cage, that went like this;
“Dear Stephanie
>
> I expect that a great deal of UKCIP work
>is based on the data provided by CRU (as does the
>work of the IPCC and of course UK climate
>policy). Some of this, very fundamentally, would
>now seem to be open to scientific challenge, and
>may even face future legal enquiries. It may be
>in the interest of UKCIP to inform itself in good
>time and become a little more ‘uncertain’ about its policy advice.
Phil seems to be the muscle behind the operation, strong arming people into submission. Read all the sorted details here;
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=1065&filename=1256765544.txt
From: Ben Santer
To: Smithg
Subject: Re: data request
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:33:53 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mr. Smith,
Please do not lecture me on “good science and replicability”. Mr.
McIntyre had access to all of the primary model and observational data
necessary to replicate our results. Full replication of our results
would have required Mr. McIntyre to invest time and effort. He was
unwilling to do that.
Our results were published in a peer-reviewed publication (the
International Journal of Climatology). These results were fully
available for “independent testing and replication by others”. Indeed, I
note that David Douglass et al. performed such independent testing and
replication in their 2007 International Journal of Climatology paper.
Douglass et al. used the same primary climate model data that we
employed. They did what Mr. McIntyre was unwilling to do – they
independently calculated estimates of “synthetic” Microwave Sounding
Unit (MSU) temperatures from climate model data. The Douglass et al.
“synthetic” MSU temperatures are very similar to our own. The scientific
differences between the Douglass et al. and Santer et al. results are
primarily related to the different statistical tests that the two groups
employed in their comparisons of models and observations. Demonstrably,
the Douglass et al. statistical test contains several serious flaws,
which led them to reach incorrect inferences regarding the level of
agreement between modeled and observed temperature trends.
Mr. McIntyre could easily have examined the appropriateness of the
Douglass et al. statistical test and our statistical test with
randomly-generated data (as we did in our paper). Mr. McIntyre chose not
to do that. He preferred to portray himself as a victim of evil
Government-funded scientists. A good conspiracy theory always sells well.
Mr. Smith, you chose to take the extreme step of writing to LLNL and DOE
management to complain about my “unresponsiveness” and my failure to
provide data to Mr. McIntyre. You made your complaint on the basis of
the information available on Mr. McIntyre’s blog. You did not understand
– and still do not understand – that the primary model data used in our
paper have always been freely available to any scientific researcher,
and are currently being used by many hundreds of scientists around the
world. Any competent climate scientist could perform full replication of
our calculation of “synthetic” MSU temperatures – as Douglass et al.
have already done.
Your email to George Miller and Anna Palmisano was highly critical of my
behavior in this matter. Your criticism was entirely unjustified, and
damaging to my professional reputation. I therefore see no point in
establishing a dialogue with you. Please do not communicate with me in
the future. I do not give you permission to distribute this email or
post it on Mr. McIntyre’s blog.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ben Santer
—
omg please don’t tell me my tax dollars are funding this guy’s arrogance!
Folks, I have to say, as an impartial average person, though of uncommon beauty, that reading this archive … to be honest, I think you’ve shot yourselves in the collective foot.
The Wall Street Journal has taken an interest in this story and they seem to be shifting to a more skpetical stance:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=762&filename=1167928837.txt
Attached is the Met Office forecast for 2007. It seems that I’m
getting the credit for this in the media. All I did was talk to the
Independent about what I thought 2007 had in store weatherwise. With an El Nino going on, I thought it might be a record and just trotted off the typical
things that happen in El Nino years.
Cheers
Phil
Which led to this alarming article to be printed:
World faces hottest year ever, as El Niño combines with global warming
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-faces-hottest-year-ever-as-el-nintildeo-combines-with-global-warming-430407.html
Paul Vaughan (16:41:16) :
I too am concerned that the AGW soapbox had occluded any attention to events that should have resulted in preparedness. There is much callousness in regards to populations. Perhaps that is the decision they felt they had to make in order to secure their agenda.
From hot-proposal doc:
Quality of science
Participation improves the quality of science as the inclusion of all different viewpoints prevents misuse of science and maintains science’s integrity
Participation does not improve the quality of science, as stakeholders lack a reasonable level of knowledge to participate effectively, and are not capable of rational judgement
Legitimacy of science
Participation contributes to the legitimacy of science, as all stakeholders are capable of a rational judgement on an issue that is of their concern
Participation threatens the scientific integrity, as stakeholders only look after their own interests
Legitimacy of democracy
Participation legitimates democracy as it enhances popular sovereignty and political equality
Participation threatens democracy as it conflicts with legal procedures and rights
Quality of decision-making
Participation enhances the quality of decision-making as it enables decision-makers to take into account all the relevant perspectives on an issue, and improves implementation
Participation is an obstacle to decision-making as there are no objective selection criteria for participation. Furthermore, it tends to worsen conflict and raise expectations that cannot be fulfilled
Table 2: Overview of different views on participation
Looking through various emails, I come to the conclusion that the human race in general is being sneered at/looked down upon as ‘pedestrian’.
Participation in thier process is decidedly exclusive.
I was wondering do these emails provide sufficient grounds for defamed scientists Like Pat Michaels, Von Sotch or Neibitz to take legal action acgainst Journals and individuals who have acted against them to exclude their publications and pressure their resisnation from editorial posts? Also has there been a restraint of trade? Have the individuals been materially disadvantaged by false accusations.
Juraj V. (08:44:03) :
Thank you again, Mr Gore, for inventing the internet.
Touché!
============
vulgarmorality (08:46:08) :
This isn’t about data but about politics – and not really about politics but about a certain mindset. Many scientists have succumbed to the temptation to became Platonic guardians, telling the rest of us how we must life. See
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/the-scientist-as-political-guardian/
They are the psychological type that wants to “play parent.” (From the book I’m OK, You’re OK.) Their stance is “I’m OK, You’re Not OK,” which makes them feel “One Up” and in control. (A compensation for God-knows-what pathetic complex or anxiety.)
============
“Dr. Jones said his H-index ( an index indicating how significant one’s scientific papers have been) is about 52 …”
Could someone check out (skeptic) Dr. Akasofu’s H-index? I’ve heard he’s the 12th most cited scientist in the world.
BBC radio 4 covered the story on their midnight news and Roger Harrabin did a total white wash. Id like to see the the BBC go down with these so-called scientists.
Shirley Knot,
does the term USEFUL IDIOT mean anything to you??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Let’s game plan this. The hacker is likely to have gigs of emails, and might release 200 megs a fortnight. Mann, Jones etc have to presume that every email they ever wrote will be drip fed into the public domain.
Mann, Jones etc won’t get any respect on their public outings from here on. There is at least one book in this. It will be a “Caspar and the Jesus Paper” writ large. I think it is Bishop Hill’s job to write the book.
Here’s to the whistle-blower:
“And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
The Christian Science Monitor just put up a story. They use the “tempest in a teapot” line, giving you an immediate idea on how they are playing the story. They do, however, quote both Pielke Sr. and Christy on this mess.
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/11/21/hacked-climate-emails-conspiracy-or-tempest-in-a-teapot/
If there is anyone reading here who has not yet voted in the Science Museum Prove It! poll, which asks you to send a strong message to the UK Government in advance of the Copenhagen Conference, you can find it here:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
If you want the full story behind that poll, this thread makes interesting reading:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/23/and-then-what-happens/
By all means, let them know you’ve seen the evidence. Let your legislators know.
*******************
Paul Vaughan (15:18:21) :
Basically I’m hoping people are digging for more than just gossip items while this info is still available.
*************************
This info will be available when the Sun goes red giant and global warming becomes a reality.
Lucy Skywalker (13:49:13) :
….not yet the end of the war.
But the Russians are moving toward Berlin.
The Google New Aggregator is now covering the story, indicated over 200 news stories available at this point.
The Wall Street Journal article is a well balanced piece that reaches into the more serious problems raised by these emails.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Smokey (14:24:38) :
Actually, if you read the sentence closely, you will see that Gavin is prevaricating…
O, there will be a lot of tap dancing in the days to come as this hack/wistleblow issue grows, as the Titanic takes on more water.
And the band, the team, will keep playing.
Adam said:
“University administrators are passive aggressive by nature in my experience. Mann will get a soft, private rebuke then will think everything is behind him in a few weeks. Then he will lose a little budget. Then a few research assistants. Then his office will get moved. And then the university will publish some brochure at some point and his face won’t be in it. A long, slow death that only Universities can devise.”
I have found this to be the case at the university level at least here in the states. I played a small part in the dismissal of 2 music professors at my school (minor embezzlement, resultant cover-up). The department head was “promoted” to a position that was previously held by 3 different people in the previous 4 years, all of which suddenly left the university ~6 months after they took the same position. True to form, in less than 6 months, the former department head was out the door.
If you see a “promotion” soon for Mann, I give him a 6-9 month shelf life. There are NEVER promotions after scandles. Only “put him somewhere he won’t do anymore damage while we cross our I’s and dot our T’s on his termination paperwork….”
Phil discussing destroying data which doesn’t fit the hypothesis:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: Re: For your eyes only
Date: Thu Feb 3 13:11:46 2005
Mike,
It would be good to produce future series with and without the long
instrumental series and maybe the documentary ones as well. The long
measurements can then be used to validate the low-freq aspects at least
back to 1750, maybe earlier with the documentary. There are some key
warm decades (1730s, some in the 16th century) which the Moberg
reconstruction completely misses and gives the impression that all
years are cold between 1500 and 1750.
Away Feb 6-10 and 12-20 and 22-25 (last in Chicago – on the panel to
consider the vertical temp work of CCSP).
Cheers
Phil
Cheers
Phil
At 15:26 02/02/2005, you wrote:
Thanks Phil,
Yes, we’ve learned out lesson about FTP. We’re going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.
Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn’t clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.
I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present–will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms–there will be many. I’m hoping they’ll stand firm (I believe
they will–I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)…
Will keep you updated on stuff…
talk to you later,
mike
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is
trawling
them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear
there
is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than
send
to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also
have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here,
but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere
to it !
Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.
Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz – oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can’t see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right
emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the
main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems
the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer’s
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.
Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he’s a paleo expert
by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00cs19l
At 13.36 mins into the broadcast
Brilliant! Here’s what came up on searching “cover our”:
===========================================
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: VERY VERY IMPORTANT
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 14:19:20 -0400
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Hi Phil et al,
Re, Malcolm co-authorship–big oversight on my part. Can you ask Ellen if we can add his
name (i.e., just say it was ‘accidentally left off’), where it belongs alphabetically in
the list.
I’ve talked to Malcolm on the phone. The PC #1 *is* the right one–but Malcolm has raised
the valid point that we need to cover our behinds on what was done here, lest we be
vulnerable to the snipings of the Idsos and co (i.e., that non-climatic influences on
recent growth were nominally dealt w/, as in MBH99).
Malcolm is supposed to be sending some text to Phil.
So, can we incorporate his small bit of text, and add his name, and then resubmit to AGU
ASAP?
Thanks all for all the help here. Now, I better get back to my newlywed wife!
mike
============================================
Covering their “behinds” and lying about paper authorship. Nice.
The other email that popped up talks about rebutting something without “stirring up the borehole folks”. Hmm. Wouldn’t want accurate science to come out now, would we!
Someone take Nic up on his offer. I’m on a work computer and I can barely download my email….