Now that we all have time to take a breath from the whirlwind of Climategate, Copenhagen, and the Christmas/New Year holiday, Steve McIntyre has written up a timeline on how the Climategate emails came to be public knowledge on the climate blogs.
Titled The Mosher Timeline, for our well known and frequent commenter Steven Mosher, it ties all of the blogs together that received the Russian FTP server link to the FOIA2009.zip file as a comment from the person(s) who leaked the file.
There are familiar but disassociated bits of knowledge tied together with new information to create a complete picture.
It is well worth the read, here.
For those who didn’t know, our own Charles The Moderator figured greatly in this timeline, props to him.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On my last post …distint… should be ‘distinct’.
@Daniel H: “On Tuesday November 17, a substantial file including over 1000 emails either sent from or sent to members of the Climatic Research Unit (‘CRU’) at the University of East Anglia, was downloaded on the RealClimate website, ….”
I don’t see this as proof that the file ever was downloaded from RealClimate by a third party. It’s quirky English and I suspect they meant “downloaded onto” meaning “uploaded to.”
“steven mosher (01:37:44) :
P gosslin. SteveMc and charles and I have disclosed all we know. we have to live in uncertainty. I’d put the SD very tight around norwich.
REPLY: That’s true, and I don’t know the identity either. All we know about the comment left at WUWT is that it came from an anonymous proxy server in Riyadh Saudi Arabia with a link to an FTP server in Russia. The trail stops there. – Anthony”
Darn – I was hoping for it to be some disgruntled turncoat at CRU or something. I guess it’s still quite an amusing ending. Important thing is that it’s out. Thanks for your tenacity and great result!
sHx (05:00:16) :
Yes there is a book coming out. However, The story of how the files came out
needed to be a PUBLIC story before the book came out. This has been a hard hard decision. But so many people, Charles, Anthony, SteveMc, Jeff, Lucia
had a role in getting this out that it would be unfair for me and Tom to use information that many of had just to promote a book. I dont want people to buy it to find out WHO DUNNIT.
1. we dont know
2. it doesnt matter
3. the issue is greater than personalities.
The book essentially will give you a detailed view of some of the episodes
over a 5 year history. our conclusions about what happened and why it matters.
mkurbo (04:07:05) :
When one considers the real magnitude of this subject ( control of the world via eco governance ) it deserves a book and a movie if it indeed plays out as a turning point on AGW – which it may…
You might find this interchange of interest:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/12/the-mosher-timeline/
Dave McK
Posted Jan 13, 2010 at 1:01 AM | Permalink | Reply
Lol @ur momisugly Scott-
The Devil in Mr. Jones
*
Steven Mosher
Posted Jan 13, 2010 at 2:08 AM | Permalink | Reply
ha. Ok chapter 3 of the book is the “The devil and mr Jones”
haha.
o
Dave McK
Posted Jan 13, 2010 at 3:41 AM | Permalink | Reply
Isn’t that the usual double feature with Deep Throat?
+
jtom
Posted Jan 13, 2010 at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Reply
Triple Feature: The Devil in Mr. Jones, Deep Throat, and Behind the Green Door.
steven mosher
Everything you’ve been saying in comments at the various blogs about openness and peer-review and swift correction of errors and advancing science and frozen mindsets etc. is simple, plain, and obvious to those without a myopic view. Protecting territory in the future is going to be a losing game. I hope you include a chapter on the benefits and implication of openness and collaboration beyond the tribe. Otherwise, what happened is just a sad story.
Dave UK (07:22:35) :
Alex:
China is the largest, if not only supplier of ‘Rare earths’ without which all green technology is buggered.
You want to see the pollution they produce extracting the rare metals that go into a ‘Prius’.
There may be an answer to the China – rare earth problem:
http://www.ecnmag.com/Blogs/2010/01/new-elements-from-old.aspx
From the Air Vent comment:
“November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm ”
‘We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.”
“We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”
I find the use “we” by the commenter on Jeff Id’s blog intriging. Is it misdirection? It doesn’t feel like it to me. Is it just my wishful thinking that there could be a group of concerned scientists (with some of them inside of CRU) that made the release happen? A group dedicated to restoring open and independent science. I find a group theory of data/code/email release more plausible than the “lone” releaser theory.
John
superDBA (06:43:45) :
Skeptic Tank (04:18:23) :
Nostalgic about nixie tubes? Pulease! Don’t you remember the heat and the buzzing from the power supply? You might as well be nostalgic about 8 inch floppies and 64k of Ram and Winchester disks. Or getting coffee while waiting 30 minutes for a short program to compile … , no, wait, that last one was a good thing!
The Polywell Fusion Reactor may be the biggest tube ever built. If it works the final power producing device is expected to be 3 to 6 meters across. We Will Know In Two Years or less.
Speaking of weird tubes. The Phasitron.
http://www.w9gr.com/phasitron.html
I have worked on transmitters similar to the one pictured.
steven mosher (11:08:57) :
Steven, I am looking forward to reading the book but a lot depends on the length. Approx how many pages do you think it will be? Also, will it be issued in print for purchase, or freeley available online?
I hope a book so soon after the event won’t be too premature. I predicted and said so in several of my comments elsewhere that the contents of the CRU emails and the science contained in it will be scrutinised and debated for months, years and even decades into the future. I believe in due time other scientific disciplines will put Climatology under the microscope, examine its methods, and assess whether Climatology is a bona fide scientific field. Following the CRU leak, I read thousands of comments in the Real Climate blog -which suddenly opened up to criticism- as it tried to provide ‘context’ to the contents, and I found people who claimed to be from other scientific disciplines were very critical of Climatology for damaging the general public trust in science. That Michael Mann complained of not receiving much help in his defence from the community is a sign that other scientists -climatologists and others alike- do not want to be associated Mann, Jones, et al.
Anyways… all the best with the book. No doubt it will be a source of reference for the debates to come. I hope you have catchy title. 🙂
Quote: steven mosher (11:08:57) :
sHx (05:00:16) :
“Yes there is a book coming out. However, the story of how the files came out needed to be a PUBLIC story before the book came out. This has been a hard hard decision. But so many people, Charles, Anthony, Steve Mc, Jeff, Lucia had a role in getting this out that it would be unfair for me and Tom to use information that many of had just to promote a book. I dont want people to buy it to find out WHO DUNNIT. . . .
The book essentially will give you a detailed view of some of the episodes
over a 5 year history, our conclusions about what happened and why it matters.”
Thanks Steven, Charles, Anthony, Steve Mc, Jeff and Lucia for keeping the spotlight focused on this scandal.
You do a great service to mankind and to future generations of scientists.
The roots of the climate scandal go very deep into the past.
The current scandal is only the tip of a very dirty iceberg of deceit and data manipulation that probably started soon after the US government switched its priorities from nuclear to space sciences following the surprise launch of the Sputnik spy spacecraft in 1957.
NASA was created in 1958. Power shifted to space sciences (NASA and the Geophysics Section of the National Academy of Sciences-NAS) from nuclear sciences (AEC and leaders of the Manhattan Project to build the atomic and hydrogen bombs).
As a result of several decades of fraud and deceit by the Geophysics Section of NAS, a revolution will occur in astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, solar and space sciences if you succeed in using the spotlight of public attention to completely melt the climategate iceberg.
I hope you succeed!
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
O/T sort of
Re Alex 06:15:19 and Chinese site access – this might be connected?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/google-mulls-china-exit-after-cyber-attack/story-e6frg996-1225818786765
John Hutto: Just wait for the next chapter to know this is not the end of the story☺
AdderW (05:10:36) :
“Anthropogenic global warming -> Global warming -> CLimate change ->
Background warming -> ?
what’s next ?”
—-
Catastrophic Background Warming ->……..
I’m not joking either, they keep changing the definitions along with the weather. How can they ever prove background warming in a cooling world? Will they create another model showing the background human signal and say that it would be -50 C in London but instead it is -1C. :o)
Oliver K. Manuel (12:35:25) :We are waiting for the “Astro-Gate”
Buy more popcorn!
And “Universegate”! (LS)
Anthropogenic global warming -> Global warming ->CLimate change ->Background warming -> ….and…
->Pipeline Background Warming
The big deeep Ocean currents, in other words. Not CO2.
800 years delays….
Prions living on a cathode surface discuss about what climate is?
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8pjd9xpp
What about a new phrase: Jonesing the data. Synonym for “gun decking”.
Heh.
[snip – nothing to do with this thread]
RE sXh et al.
There is a human interest story here that will not come out of Mosh’s book nor from the blogosphere that recieved or gained access to the FOI2009.zip files (one way or another). Your question was about the simmilarity between the July CRU leak and “Climategate”.
The simmilarities:
They came from the same organization.
They came form the same server system.
The data was left on that server and was accessable to others.
Where are they different?
The July leak wasn’t a leak. Data was readily available from the FTP site so the information came direct from source.
The CRUtape files were a compilation and a subset of a larger group of emails. As CTM stated, they were probably aggregated by David Palmer as part of the FOI investigation, whereas the July leak was just data and code.
Did one precipitate the other?
The July leak sent a lot of indaviduals to the CRU website to see for themselves how data files -avaialble to the public- were being moved, deleted, etc. It was verification for me and others that the “mole” was just a file server, and not a person. The servers were locked down to outside access as the FOIA requests became more prominent and speculation grew as to what was happening to all that data being shuffled about. The mole was continuing to hold data, but was now also was collecting and collating emails.
Where is the human interest story?
The CRUtape files were “sent away” by “someone” coincident with the pending announcement that the CRU was going to reject Steve McI’s FOI request. Someone was either present in that meeting, or heard about the outcome.
Anonamous is legion.
Martin Brumby (05:13:40) :
…”It wuz Jolly Jim Hansen wot dunnit!”
______________
Could be. Lightning and/or Ice have made many repent their sins and seek redemption. But… I still think some Chinese wiz kid did it.
kadaka (01:38:43) :
Many thanks. For a chemist having pubished 30 or so translations, it was often difficult to get to the most suitable pronunciation of foreign proper names.
Hello,
This is a general question, rather than a comment to this thread.
I have been been doing some multiple regression analysis with global temperature data, and in the process have found some very interesting correlations that explain much of the variance observed in the global temperature data over the past 50 years.
I have written a paper describing this work, abstract below. Is it possible to contribute this paper for your consideration. If so, how does one go about it?
Thanks,
Donald Holdner
Abstract
A multiple regression model of global temperature anomalies is presented. The model, based on the El Nino Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle, explains more than 80% of global temperature variance over the period 1960 to 2008. A novel parameter, extracted from the ENSO data, accounts for the long-term effects of ENSO events. The paper shows that it is these effects, rather than greenhouse gases, that are responsible for the increasing global temperatures observed over the last century.