Climategate 2.0 emails – They're real and they're spectacular!

Even more!
It has also come to light that Mr Harrabin, science and environmental correspondent for the BBC received £15000 from the UEA for services rendered. Harrabin established the BBC as media of choice for climate alarmism. I am having problems at the moment getting a blog about this accepted on Paul Hudson’s page.
So wheels within wheels and money flowing to maintain the lies.
Wonderful revelations just before Durban.

I read the e-mails early this morning at Jeff Id’s blog and to be honest there’s nothing unexpected (for me) in the content. It simply confirms what we’ve known all along about the politicization of climate science by the climate elites in search of fame, publicity, and (of course) loads of climate ca$h…
(By the way, Anthony, in the words of Mike Mann in several of the e-mails, you’re NOT helping “the cause” – LOL!).

Wow… Will be interresting to see what they conclude that the scientists haven’t done wrong this time. 🙂
Funny quotes. 🙂

Admit it, WUWT, you’re funded by Big Popcorn!

The gift that keeps on giving.

Ray says:
We see that the insider is still active…
Is he? Are any of the new emails of more recent vintage than the release of the first batch?

Bloke down the pub says:
November 22, 2011 at 6:49 am
It’s beginning to feel a lot like Christmas…..
—
Yes it is! In fact, here comes Santa “Cause”!!
// The Cause ///
Mann:
By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
Mann:
They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Climate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.
Mann:
I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause.

Hah, this is going to be entertaining.
I wonder how many more whitewash inquiries this will produce this time around?

If the ZIP is all text it should be quite vulnerable to brute force cracking by using known information (i.e. email addresses, keywords/phrases) in it.

As Crowley says the “truth” must take a back seat to their presonal relationships, including their religious beliefs and self-appointed duty to arbitrate the end results of climate research. They find the ends justify the means, like so many Utopians before them. Their beliefs and Utopian ideals take precedence over all of tthose other people who may have other Utopian ideals and disagree with them.

I think this is IT caught!
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-ii-more-skeletons-in-the-closet-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
look at the programs
[REPLY: Those code snippets are from the original FOIA two years ago. There is no computer code in the current download. -REP]

I may even be running rarcrack now…
(not optimistic given the possibilities, but it’s bopping away on a separate thread)

http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-ii-more-skeletons-in-the-closet-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Can anyone re-host the files? I think the original server getting slammed

Buy popcorn and whitewash futures!
Have to say I’m enormously impressed with the patience of FOIA – to sit on that treasure trove for 2 years waiting for the right moment to strike again.
The mention of the password is surely a threat – we’ve already seen the BBC’s Richard Black’s dismissive reaction. I wonder if further attempts at whitewashing will see the nuclear strike of releasing the password.

I’m also hoping for someone to extract the MIME-encoded attachments. I’m swamped at work today with a big deplloyment or I’d give it a shot.

“…there are reports circulating of unprecedented demand on the world’s whitewash reserves…”

As with the last time, I have re-uploaded to another download location in case the first one stops working.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37

Kick the leaves and the cockroaches shuffle….hear that sound?

I wish this would finally bring an end to the global warming/ climate disruption movement. Unfortunately, I suspect the climate disruption zombies will keep going no matter how clearly their lies are exposed. I think this site should run a contest to predct the exact date when the truth finally triumphs and global warming dies. I bet everyone playing would donate towards a prize. I bet the contest would get media coverage too.

At 7:03 AM on 22 November, Andrew had written:

Penn would do well to fire Mann immediately (re new emails) considering their extremely fragile position at this time.

Be advised that in the Keystone State and thitherabouts, the use of “Penn” denotes the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League school in Philadelphia, whereas Dr. Mann is employed (for the nonce) by Pennsylvania State University, established in Centre County as the Commonwealth’s agricultural school.
When referring to this latter (now exquisitely tarnished) institution, it’s common to differentiate it as “Penn State,” not “Penn.”

Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

Silly man. 😆 😆

The most fascinating part of this is to watch it spread around the blogosphere (with of course the MSM being quiet as a tit mouse). I caught it early at tAV, but even Oz got it within an hour!

I wonder how the chump who released the “BEST” results feels now? Proud of the club he’s joined? Keen on The Cause?
Anyway, back to scepticism: how do we know they’re genuine?

If I had to guess, the encrypted files were included as insurance against a complete server wipe. This way, they can run their servers through the fires of hell, and FOIA forever retains the option of releasing them.

OK, I will say it. It’s worse than we thought.

Voila, “noble cause corruption” again. The end justifies the means.

” Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.”
Real Climate or the climate of PR not the science of climate but the science of how to make the other side win … And a splendid job you did little Mann. :p

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
The US is $15 trillion in debt. How much debt does Europe have. So who is going to pay? The Chinese? I think their vastly overrated holdings won’t even dent that number.
MikeEE

Penn State’s Michael Mann should be convicted of molesting young temperature data!!

I wonder who this guy is, he is certainly very clever & patient! Was the November 09 release just a warning shot across the Clique’s bow to try & get a reaction to come a little bit clean on the realities? Is this the second warning shot now a lot closer to that bow? Is the final release the “all right matey youv’e asked for it” shot straight amidships to blow the Clique ship clean out of the water? Whatever it is, it’s going to get jolly uncomfortable & rather smelly as the steaming brown stuff flies around the interweb, for some people in East Anglia & Penn State (or is it State Penn?)! Lovely jubbly, can’t wait! 🙂

Gosh,
I’m just surprised how many passwords are conveyed through email… I hadn’t done that search in Climategate 1.0 🙁

This one wis classic, Pery like, ecept Perry at least at one time new the answer.
3456> Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. WHAT IS IT?

Briffa here is quite clear on his internal repression of a true scientific view
2009> Briffa:
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
I wonder where here was.

Leftist Red-Green Grauniad on the offensive.
Grauniad is hacking & spitting …
…-
“Hacked climate science emails leaked”
“Last updated less than one minute ago”
“File containing 5,000 emails made available in an apparent attempt to repeat impact of 2009 release”
“In the new release a 173MB zip file called “FOIA2011” containing more than 5,000 new emails, was made available to download on a Russian server called Sinwt.ru today. An anonymous entity calling themselves “FOIA” then posted a link to the file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. The same tactic was used in 2009 when the first 160MB batch of emails were released after being obtained – possibly illegally – from servers based at the University of East Anglia, where a number of the climate scientists involved were based.
One marked difference from the original 2009 release is that the person or persons responsible has included a message headed “background and context” which, for the first time, gives an insight into their motivations.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

“This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets. The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase.”
I would guess from this that FOIA used a keyword search within the 220,000 emails to quickly find the juiciest ones and present those. I am guessing that with these juicy emails removed, the remaining 220,000 are not so interesting, apart from a handful of exceptions.
I guess FOIA did things this way because Team AGW used the fact that a lot of the previous released emails were just “blah” and therefore they were able to imply that all of the emails were uninteresting to discourage their acolytes from delving further. FOIA probably need to read and process some of the emails to ensure that simply posting them all isn’t putting anybody at risk (especially if FOIA is an insider that could be named in the emails – maybe he/she got fired in 2009/2010?).

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
____________________________
Your comment sounds a lot like:
‘It started by them hitting back … ‘

“Getting people we know and trust into the IPCC will help” gawd I just love Jonesey. UEA will have a wriggle a lot to win the Ministers aroung=d this time, the MP’s in house, well the ones who are awake, will catch up on this , in about a week or so. Harrabin is a DMW.

Pennsylvania State University – the employer (for the nonce) of our hockey-sticking “suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” Dr. Mann – is currently getting scandal-to-the-jaybirds treatment in the (old, moribund, bankrupt, and increasingly irrelevant) “mainstream” media over the eyeball-grabbing salacity of events more than nine years ago in the shower facilities of the school’s Division I football program (the only real reason why the Commonwealth’s former agricultural high school in Centre County has any national prominence at all).
With this antique but gonads-groping story occupying every third minute of the news cycle throughout the nation (all these nominally orthosexual men and women so lickerishly fixated upon allegations of a grown man in unnatural coitus with little boys…), and in light of the fact that the MSM “journalista” types desire desperately to shove the preposterous anthropogenic global warming fraud figuratively up the public tochus for their own left-”Liberal” political purposes, this FOIA2011.zip archive is going to get studiedly ignored to death.
Looks as if we’re going to have to hammer this one home ourselves, just as we had to do with FOIA2009.zip.
Gives continued significance to the phrase “an army of Davids.”

Time for a memory check. I seem to recall Deep Climate (cryptically) saying at the time of the original drop that there was more. Can that be confirmed? This may very well have been sitting around for two years.

A physicist says:
That hollowing-out is the common-sense reason why the perception of a “Conservative War on Science” is becoming the consensus view of America’s mathematicians, scientists, and engineers …
Gads, another fabricated “consensus”.
Speaking as an American scientist, I view the “Conservative War on Science” meme to be little more than the Liberal Pot’s preferred method of chasing the Conservative Kettle around the political cooktop. The damage that Liberal religiosity is doing to science right now is unprecidented.
… and even more seriously for all who hope that American conservatism has any future, is becoming the consensus view too of America’s serious-minded CEOs.
LOL. Serious minded CEO? You mean the ones that see the ‘wisdom’ in making sure the tracks for the gravy train run through their station? Yes, they can be quite serious about such things. Downright earnest, if they think they can garner a subsidy or a mandate …

At 8:06 AM on 22 November, Tom Davidson had commented:

I’m willing to bet that some clever investigator will be able to eventually puzzle out what the passphrase is since these climate scientologists aren’t so bright that none of them would ever leave the passphrase lying around on some server in an unencrypted form – buried in an email or some such…

The password encryption scheme imposed on the FOIA2011.zip archive had not been the work of “these climate scientologists,” but rather that of the FOIA.org folk who had organized the file and released it to the ‘Net.
Doubtless there are “cracker” types out in the virtual universe who have the ability and the inclination to break the embargo, and we’ll see it accomplished soon enough. Such folk respond to these kinds of challenges with gusto.
But “these climate scientologists” are merely peculators and fraudsters, clumsy in their arrogance and positions of government-funded privilege, with all the real security consciousness of the average seven-year-old sneaking cookies out of the kitchen.
Don’t attribute to them even the kind of conscientiousness required to learn the use of TrueCrypt.

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
is there is anything left of Watts Up With That? but hollowed-out blank pages?

Ironically, it is your comment which is quite hollowed out.
Watts Up With That is chocked full of science and scientific discussions. Your claims to the contrary are strange.

A climatologist, and his view of the scientific method…
4693> Crowley:
I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships

Just wow,
2095> Steig:
He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.”
I wonder who “he} is, but thes clowns do not wish their “dirty laundry”, code for scientific doubts, to be in the open…
2733> Crowley:
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.

Well Gates, do you still wish to join hands with this man and claim the cooling 1940 to 1970 was manmade.
0953> Jones:
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary

“UPDATE: 8:20 AM PST These emails have not been verified yet, […] Until such time they are verified, tread lightly because without knowing what is behind the rest of the zip file, for all we know it’s a bunch of recipes and collection of ipsem lorem text files. I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts”
That is why I love this blog. Because you guys always strive to stick with the truth. There is enough ugly in the truth without having to revert to any bogus publication. I am waiting too see how all this goes and I am certain that also this time Antony and his team will confirm their trustworthiness.

Briffa (2967) “To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?”
A fabulous insight into AGW-think. Urgency of an issue trumps its reality.

More support for Tidale, Mosher, stop helping these people.
5131> Shukla/IGES:
[“Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.

Wondering how long until the media tries to frame it……
Stolen, criminals, thieves, crime……..etc

The encrypted file has very big files inside (several MBs).
That was not observed in ClimateGate 1.0

At 8:23 AM on 22 November, wobble writes:

The president that protected Mann is gone after a “cover-up” scandal of sorts was exposed. It’s quite possible that the university will now steer clear of new cover-up out of fear of being branded by cover-ups.
It’s time to hit Penn State about Michael Mann again and hit them hard.
Any PA State senators reading?

Gawd. You’ve never been either to State College or to Harrisburg, have you, wobble?
As in most state governments, there is in the Commonwealth a culture of corruption and thoroughly “bipartisan” concealment of corruption that dates back to Colonial times, thoroughly understood by those of us who have perforce had to waste our time and effort in dealings with these meatgrinders of political chicanery but utterly unappreciated by the average citizen, whose interface with “the Malevolent Jobholder” doesn’t rise beyond the quiet desperation of the bewildered passive victim.
The recent appointment of Louis Freeh (former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation) to figurehead “the university board of trustees’ internal investigation into the abuse allegations that ultimately led to the ouster of longtime football coach Joe Paterno and university president Graham Spanier” (i.e., yet another whitewash, this time with a putative paragon of probity to make it menthol) is nothing more than gaudy stonewalling perpetrated at honkin’ humongous cost to the pitiful sweating Pennsylvania taxpayer.
And I guaran-goddam-tee you that all the “PA State senators reading” about this are breathing sighs of relief at the fact that they can now respond to their angry constituents’ inquiries with: “Hey, we’ve got the former boss of the FBI handling this!”
Confident, of course, that absolutely nothing of real substance (or hazardous to things-as-they-are) will ever see the light of day.

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
“Poverty is a death sentence.”
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
AND THE REAL PEACE PRIZE GOES TO…Those who seek truth!

I concur with TheOnlyPomi,
I trust you will be cautious, Anthony. Based on your excellent track record. I’m certain there are plenty of those who would deceive you.
Good look!

Does anyone have the zip file? Either the link is bad or (I suspect) so many people have tried to download it that it crashed the server.
Please send to mark@ispyonsalem if you do.

Happy days are here again! I’ve been saying since Spring that Climategate 2.0 would break this Autumn, and it’s nice to be right. I’m very much looking forward to reading all the naughty snippets that are gleaned from this latest batch, and earnestly hoping that they get considerably more MSM coverage this time.
Whilst we are urged to tread lightly for now (with good reason), if these emails are indeed verified as bona fide then I hope that not only the main culprits are finally brought to book, but that all the whitewash ‘inquiries ‘after Climategate 1.0 will be shown to be such and leave those involved with serious egg on their face.
BTW, if you’re reading this ‘FOIA 2011’, good on yer for putting these out there just at the right time once again! They should give a lot of people pause for thought, not least the droves of teat-suckers who are packing their suitcases ready for the latest taxpayer-funded knees-up in Durban next week.

Of course references here to ‘the cause’ are perfect examples of the ‘Noble Cause Corruption’ of Science, when an assumed noble ideal is allowed to force the interpretation of scientific experiments and data. In the modern world this is compounded by computer models that can be developed creating artificial realities to support this cause without recourse to ground truths.

If real, this explains what Mann et al. are hiding from the various FOIA requests. This and the Climategate 3.0 which will discuss the placement of individuals on panels, the EPAs complicity in funding this nonsense, etc.

It is interesting to get a glimpse into the motivation of FOIA 2011. He/she obviously is concerned about the impact overbearing government regulations on carbon emissions will have on those who are least able to endure higher energy costs–the poor. As Dr. Christy has so aptly stated: “Life without energy is short and brutal.” FOIA 2011 obviously shares that belief and is attempting to act accordingly.

How many people does it take to create the atmosphere that a complete change in how money is transacted should take place world wide?

BBC: New batch of emails, apparently from University of East Anglia unit involved in #Climategate affair, released online http://bbc.in/uJxd12

Interesting that Mann (in the Guardian story at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails ) asserts that the emails were released by “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry” when no one but those involved in the release knows the indentity of the leaker/whistleblower/hacker/sharer and the emails have not even yet been verified as genuine, even though he seems to suspect they are.
Even if we knew nothing of Michael Mann before, we would have to wonder about the reliability of a man who will confidently announce to a major newspaper the motives of a person or person whose identity is (presumably) unknown to him.

From a quick analysis the following words appear with the following frequency:
f**k – 22
c**p – 66
idiot – 21
fool – 39
dishonest – 51
Some are, or course, duplicates and others appear in a compound form, e.g. dishonestly.

So far, there have been 113 comments on this particular Watts Up With That? post. If we mask-out those comments that amount to mere slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting, have there been any Watts Up With That? comments (so far) that contain content of interest to serious-minded mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and CEOs?
Out of 113 comments, has there been even one that is substantively skeptical?
If we assume that the present exclusive focus of Watts Up With That? upon slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting is sustained, then the brand of skepticism that is practiced here will never be disproved — how could it be? … because shouted slogans, cherry-picked data, and witch-hunts are none of them susceptible to disproof — yet it is true too that Watts Up With That?‘s peculiar brand of skepticism will exert no lasting influence upon America, upon conservatism, or upon the world.

Here is a personal favorite:
Tolleris:
The point is not that the scientists disagree among themselves but that they publicly proclaim from the rooftops that the science is settled and anyone who questions them is a bone-headed denier oil-lobby funded hooligan.

@Gary Young says:
November 22, 2011 at 8:40 am
My mind works in mysterious ways. I wonder if the remaining emails are really damning, and the leaker just wants the principals to verify the pap stuff before lowering the boom.

Psst … Dr, Mann … not a good idea to be using the old “out of context” pitch. Sets alarm bells to ringing, don’t you know.

If this genuine then it is explosive.
1680.txt
date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:03:05 -0400
from: “Michael E. Mann”
subject: Re: Something not to pass on
to: Phil Jones
Phil,
I would not respond to this. They will misrepresent and take out of
context anything you give them. This is a set up. They will certainly
publish this, and will ignore any evidence to the contrary that you
provide. s They are going after Wei-Chyung because he’s U.S. and there
is a higher threshold for establishing libel. Nonetheless, he should
consider filing a defamation lawsuit, perhaps you too.
I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an
investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the
same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.
I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and
discrediting them.
Do you mind if I send this on to Gavin Schmidt (w/ a request to respect
the confidentiality with which you have provided it) for his additional
advice/thoughts? He usually has thoughtful insights wiith respect to
such matters,
mike

Amy Ridenour says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:06 am
Interesting that Mann (in the Guardian story at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails ) asserts that the emails were released by “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry” when no one but those …………………………….
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
WELL SAID!

Mark, says:
“Does anyone have the zip file? Either the link is bad or (I suspect) so many people have tried to download it that it crashed the server.”
Try the torrent: tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7

0755
“FYI, the radio interview seemed to go well. I must say in fairness
that, considering the photographs of how not to observe temperature on
Anthony Watts’ blog, http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/
, Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position. For example, when asked if
the stations with poor siting were removed from the analysis would it
show less warming, Mr. Watts said we won’t know until the analysis is
complete.”

When will these charlatans get behind bars?

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
If we mask-out from this Watts Up With That? post those claims that amount to:
(1) slogan-shouting,
(2) cherry-picking, and
(3) witch-hunting,
is there is anything left of Watts Up With That? but hollowed-out blank pages?

Here is the list of recent stories: * Climategate 2.0
* Hurricane Kenneth forms southwest of Baja
* Oyster crisis: Yale 360 eco-activist author Elizabeth Grossman wrong again about ocean acidification
* GMU on climate scientists: we are the 97%
* NOAA’s Susan Solomon, still pushing that 2 degrees in spite of limited options
* Carbon, on the uptake
* Don’t mock the Monck
* Duking It Out With Foreign Investors
* Shades of Foster Grant
* Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup
* The Odd Omission in IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers for SREX on Extreme Weather and Climatic Events
* Santer’s “17 years needed for a sign of climate change” compared against the IPCC models
* The dehydration and bottled water debacle
* On the anniversary of Climategate, RealClimate’s Ray Pierrehumbert sings the CO2 blues, Chicago style
* Dr. James Hansen’s growing financial scandal, now over a million dollars of outside income
What I find there is mostly substantial. You may be right about the readers’ comments*. AFAICT, Watts mostly isn’t trying to present new science. His contribution there is the station siting stuff. That, in itself, is an important contribution to our understanding about the reliability of climate data.
What Watts purports to do on his mast head is: “Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology and recent news.” He does that. In fact, he does it well. If he is going to criticize science, he criticizes the science by presenting well supported logical arguments and data. That is not what I would characterize as ‘hollowing out’.
Your post is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black. If you were a real scientist, you would supply examples and statistics to back up your argument. Look at all the stories and see how many are ‘hollowed out’. Tell us why they are ‘hollowed out’. Use whatever criteria you choose but tell us what those criteria are so we can have a reasoned discussion. Your criteria seem to be:
(1) slogan-shouting,
(2) cherry-picking, and
(3) witch-hunting,
We aren’t going to let you get away with those unless you can tell us the difference between a substantial piece of news and ‘slogan-shouting’ for instance. You have to tell us what it is about a story that makes it ‘slogan-shouting’. The mere fact that you assert something does not make it so.
If you can’t supply the rudiments of a reasoned argument, we’ll think you are just another troll.
p.s. Perhaps you will deduce from my sig that I am not precisely the model of the rednecked neanderthal Republican you seem to think frequents these pages.
*That may not matter because blog comments are what they are. In fact, the comments on Wattsupwiththat seem to me to be somewhat more informed and reasoned on most blogs. YMMV.

The pro AGW scientists and their useful idiotic bureaucrats should continue to host big climate meetings…. this way we can have more emails leaked to embarrass them.

Saving more billions from being wasted on data manipulation via this release may indeed save lives – by reducing the inevitable cutbacks in budgets worldwide that will hit the poorest of the poor either domestic or abroad. I have an idea who to give that Peace Nobel Prize to after Gore and the IPCC will have to return theirs …

“Prof Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University,” — You are a grubby little man who will get his comeuppance.
I find it quite offensive that a ‘scientist’ takes such a political / activist approach. Using terms like ‘denier’ and his phraseology used to describe anyone who disagrees with him makes his agenda clear.

Im wanting to write a cSi story/
Profile the person “FoIR”
Humanitarian does state urgency in energy poverty and the blaming of greenhouse gasses,
Next.
As just in time for durban/Copenhargen this time with a password- and scrit code that as yet is unchallengable.
He shows unique stealth and patience.
Q. guess his age-
Q. sexual orientation-
Q. who manifest a cause for a competative minority meaning has the person a reason to have a cultural dissconect from work?
Q. Push towards fair play-exceptionally consciencious neat orderly.
Etc.

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:08 am
“So far, there have been 113 comments on this particular Watts Up With That? post. If we mask-out those comments that amount to mere slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, ”
Ah, so pointing to an e-mail in which the climate “scientists” call for deletion of e-mails is cherry-picking because in the other 99% of e-mails they talk about something different. That’s a stupid argument, physicist. You’re stupid.

A PHYSICIST… and everyone understands too that this slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting has become utterly irrelevant to the serious concerns of America’s mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and CEOs.
What is irrelevant about trillions of dollars we will have to absorb? Get a brain. WUWT is the messenger, not the crooks of Mann et al.

Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
Kjellen:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming
Pierrehumbert:
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

I shall, in honor of a great mind and a terrific entrepreneur, quote the last words of Steve Jobs:
“Oh, wow! Oh, wow!”

I want a large Popcorn with Extra Butter please!
Me thinks the backroom discussion topic at Durban is not going to be what was on the agenda.

Seems like all copies of these are being torn down fast – none of the links I can find are still active and my ISP doesn’t like torrents 🙁

I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.
Mann, you will note in his statement in The Grauniad, manages to make it all about him again. He appears to have an ego the size of Belgium. And what, exactly, is “the cause”? Sounds reminiscent of the Crusades…

I thought “commieBob’s” post (above) was one of the most sensible on this whole thread … not a trace of slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting in it.
Life being too short to waste on slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting, I’ve taken to reading more-and-more from climate-change analyses written by CEOs and/or military strategists and/or folks who work in nature (farmers, fishers, and hunters) … because these folks too have no time for slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, or witch-hunting.
So that’s my answer to commieBob’s question “Use whatever criteria you choose but tell us what those criteria are so we can have a reasoned discussion.”
It seems to me that conservative groups like Republicans for Environmental Protection (and other groups like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership) called it right way back in the early 1990s, and since then the accelerating trend among CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers and hunters has been to embrace the REP’s foresighted science-driven point-of-view.
Skepticism of course is valuable: when that skepticism is driven by solid physical theory and high-quality data analysis — and not driven by cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting. Here on Watt’s Up With That, especially in recent months, there’s getting to be far too little of the former, and far too much of the latter.
That’s the practical reason why CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, are rejecting the peculiar brand of skepticism that is increasingly practiced here on Watt’s Up With That.

So, will Mann stop his legal action to halt the release of his emails now?

2203
from: “Keiller, Donald”
subject: Yamal and paleoclimatology
to: <K BRIFFA
As an environmental plant physiologist, I have followed the long debate
starting with Mann et al (1998) and through to Kaufman et al (2009).
As time has progressed I have found myself more concerned with the whole
scientific basis of dendroclimatology. In particular;
1) The appropriateness of the statistical analyses employed
2) The reliance on the same small datasets in these multiple studies
3) The concept of "teleconnection" by which certain trees respond to the
"Global Temperature Field", rather than local climate
4) The assumption that tree ring width and density are related to temperature
in a linear manner.
Whilst I would not describe myself as an expert statistician, I do use
inferential statistics routinely for both research and teaching and find
difficulty in understanding the statistical rationale in these papers.
As a plant physiologist I can say without hesitation that points 3 and 4 do
not agree with the accepted science.

This all is so telling. A small group, impressed by their own importance, acts in the interest of a “cause”. Hiding, tricking, deceiving, pushing … everything included, going from science to crime, but almost nobody of them really cares.
Politicians, as they have to save other things than climate now, should realize finally how they are being played like puppets on a string. Ridiculous, but not funny at all. As the intro text rightfully reminds everybody: Starving children are murdered this way by a green mafia.

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
If we mask-out from this Watts Up With That? post those claims that amount to:
(1) slogan-shouting,
(2) cherry-picking, and
(3) witch-hunting,
is there is anything left of Watts Up With That? but hollowed-out blank pages?
That hollowing-out is the common-sense reason why the perception of a “Conservative War on Science” is becoming the consensus view of America’s mathematicians, scientists, and engineers … and even more seriously for all who hope that American conservatism has any future, is becoming the consensus view too of America’s serious-minded CEOs.
Fortunately, those hollowed-out brands of conservatism that are grounded in slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting are unlikely to survive the coming decade — and will not deserve to survive. Whereas the robust brand of conservatism espoused (for example) by J. Wayne Leonard, Chairman and CEO of the Entergy Corporation, in his letter “Entergy and the Environment” (Google it!) has excellent changes to provide solid foundations for 21st century American conservatism.
Everyone understands that slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting is going to continue unceasingly here on Watts Up With That and other ideology-first sites (both far-left and far-right) … and everyone understands too that this slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting has become utterly irrelevant to the serious concerns of America’s mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and CEOs.

Personally, I’m waging a war for science. I support the scientific method and seek open, fair and honest debate. That’s why I’m a skeptic.
I know science is not performed by consensus or proclamation. I know the truth of any scientific question can never be determined when one side attempts to block honest and fair inquiry. I know computer models do not output facts nor do computer models output data.
I know the difference between science and activism. That is why I’m a skeptic.

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:08 am
If we assume that the present exclusive focus of Watts Up With That? upon slogan-shouting, cherry-picking, and witch-hunting is sustained, then the brand of skepticism that is practiced here will never be disproved…

You know how I know you’re not a physicist? You display no curiosity at all.
A physicist is a generally a person who demonstrates curiosity and does not cringe at learning something new, regardless of subject matter. I know this, I am one and I’ve spent lots of time around them. Go find a physicist and talk to them about sports, they’ll be interested. Go talk to them about art, they’ll be interested. Go talk to them about anything, they’ll generally find something of interest in it. They are true generalists that could find something interesting or something worthy of skeptical inquiry from anything in existence.
As far as “brand of skepticism”… “never be disproved”… what on earth are you talking about? Skepticism is defined as a state of mind, how can you disprove a state of mind?
You are displaying yourself as little more than a blogosphere troll. It is you who is repeating yourself accusing others of things they have not done. This thread is not a scientific thread, it is a thread about a leak of e-mails from scientists who have been abusing their positions. Coming onto this thread and trying to demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor is like jumping into a congressional debate and demanding people start kissing and hugging.

Does this show the foibles of some climate scientists?

In my opinion, first prize so far should go to this one:
” Haimberger:
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.”
Hmmm…I wonder how many of the plots that are supportive of his position get a similar level of scrutiny? Conclusion (belief) first, evidence (adjusted data) to be manufactured later?