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

A link to where to download the new FOIA2011.zip file is posted below the fold – This will be a top post for a few days -NEW STORIES APPEAR BELOW THIS ONE -I’ve also reversed the order of the updates to be newest at top for better visibility – Anthony

UPDATE50: 1:15 PM PST 11/30 The genesis of RealClimate.org seems to have been found. Surprisingly, the BBC’s Roger Harrabin seems to have been involved in the genesis meeting.

UPDATE49: 10:00 AM PST 11/30 While not email related, just as Climategate breaks David Suzuki commits an egregious propaganda error second only to the 10:10 video where kids are blown up for not going along with carbon reduction schemes at school. He’s targeting kids and Santa Claus at Christmas – Santa’s home is melting.

UPDATE48: 9:20 AM PST 11/30 Dr. Phil Jones on the  “lack of warming” -he may need a backup plan.

UPDATE47: 9AM PST 11/30 Fudge factor collection in the emails, or is climate modeling a social issue?

UPDATE46: A look at UEA/CRU’s email infrastructure and email systems in general suggests that the “deleted” emails to/from Phil Jones and others at CRU probably still exist and can be subject to FOIA.

UPDATE45: 1:30PM PST 11/29 If there was award for clueless timing, this would win it no contest: Penn State to lecture on “climate ethics”

UPDATE44: 9AM PST 11/29 Mike Mann reprises the role of Captain Queeg in The Cain Mutiny when seeing de Freitas being vindicated by the publisher of Climate Research (see the update in the article).

UPDATE43: 8AM PST 11/29 An Excel Spreadsheet with Climategate 1 and 2 emails ordered chronologically should be helpful in determining that supposedly missing”context”

UPDATE42:  7AM PST 11/29 The CRU crew says:  “what we really meant was…”

UPDATE41: 4AM PST 11/29 James Padget schools Steve Zwick – Guide to Defending the Indefensible. Some people just can’t handle Climategate.

UPDATE40: 12AM PST 11/29 Penn State has the same “look the other way” problem with Climategate as they did with the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

UPDATE39: It seems “vexatious” is Dr. Phil Jones favorite new feeling word after summer 2009.

UPDATE38: Severinghaus says Mike Mann didn’t give a straight answer regarding why trees don’t work as thermometers after 1950

UPDATE37: Climate sensitivity can’t be quantified with the current data according to NCAR’s Wigley, with paleo data – even less so.

UPDATE36: Dr. Chris de Freitas responds to the ugly attempt by The Team at getting him fired.

UPDATE 35: “Stroppy” Dr Roger Pielke Sr. shows just how much a “old boys network” the peer review process is.

UPDATE34: More internal dissent of the hockey stick. Mann tries to beat down the concern over “hide the decline” while not letting the dissenting scientist know there was a decline.

UPDATE33: Gobsmacking! Rob Wilson proves McIntyre and McKittrick correct in an email to colleagues at CRU, showing that when random noise time series are fed into Mike Mann’s procedure, it makes “hockey sticks”. The confirmation that M&M is right never leaves the walls of CRU.

UPDATE32: 9:30PM PST  11/27 BREAKINGCanada to pull out of Kyoto protocol. Another Climategate fallout ?

UPDATE31: 4:30PM PST 11/27 BOMBSHELL An absolutely disgusting string of communications that shows the tribal attempt at getting an editor of a journal fired on made up issues – all because he allowed a publication that didn’t agree with “the Team”. This is ugly, disturbing, and wrong on every level.

UPDATE30: 9:45 AM PST 11/27 Newsbytes. Major crack in the warming wall at the UK prime minister’s office. BBC in collusion with Climategate scientists.

UPDATE29: 9AM PST 11/27 The saga of the missing station data at CRU and the “pants on fire” defense of it as told by Willis Eschenbach. Dr. Phil Jones is between a rock and a hard place, quite.

UPDATE 28: 1:30PM PST 11/26 An email shows the UNFCCC considers activists an essential tool saying “…organized and deeply committed environmental activism has long been an important part of the UNFCCC process…”

UPDATE27: 7AM PST 11/26 Climategate 2 features prominently in WUWT’s newest feature “Hits and Misses

UPDATE26: 2:50 PM 11/25 Two separate examples show obstruction and collusion by members of “The Team” to prevent any dissenting science from being properly considered by the NRC in 2007.

UPDATE25: 2PM 11/25 Keith Briffa asks another colleague to delete email to avoid FOIA

UPDATE24: 1:30PM 11/25 New Climategate 1/2 combined search engine here

UPDATE23: 9AM PST 11/25 via bishop-hill, strange infighting:

#4101 – Edward Cook tells Phil Jones that Mike Mann is “serious enemy” and “vindictive”. Mike Mann had criticized his work.

Apparently Mann went “a little crazy” over a paper showing the MWP exists.

Details here

UPDATE22: 11AM PST 11/24 Am unsurprising admission from a BBC environmental reporter to Dr. Phil Jones that they really have no impartiality at all (ho ho) when it comes to climate issues.

UPDATE21: 9:50AM PST 11/24 “FOIA2011″ and Climategate – A Chinese-POTUS connection?

UPDATE20: 9:30AM PST 11/24 World renowned climatologist Phil Jones can’t even plot a temperature trend line in Excel. I’ve offered a solution that WUWT readers can help with.

UPDATE19: 9AM PST 11/24 Gail Combs finds some disturbing connections between the Team and The World Bank

UPDATE18: 1:45PM Scott Mandia, aka “Supermandia” wins the award for the silliest climategate rebuttal, ever. It’s like stupid on steroids.

UPDATE17: 12:55PM PST 11/23 Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has an excellent piece on “Gatekeeping” related to Trenberth and the Pielke-Landsea hurricane paper and the IPCC. You may recall Landsea resigned from the IPCC over this. Pielke says: “The gatekeeping of the IPCC process is abundantly clear, and the shadowy suggestion that they can find out who the reviewers are from another colleague is a bit unsettling as well.” Trenberth looks particularly bad here.

UPDATE16: 11:30AM PST 11/23 Insider scientist at CRU says our “reaction to Mike Mann’s errors was not particularly honest” – story here

UPDATE15: 7:50AM 11/23 Ric Werme found an email from the late John L. Daly to Mike Mann and the team – it is well worth a read here

UPDATE14: 2:45 AM PST 11/23 Willis Eschenbach offers a guest post here explaining how his FOIA requests went astray. Mr. David Palmer was the Freedom of Information Officer for the CRU at the time. In the newly released emails, he expresses his frustration with the whole procedure.

UPDATE13: 12:05AM 11/23 Craig Stone writes:

I have published a searchable database of the emails at http://foia2011.org

All email addresses and phone numbers are automatically redacted. It’s extremely rudimentary right now, but I’ll be refining the functionality and improving the search capabilities and navigation over the course of the next week.

UPDATE 12: 9:30 PM PST We’ve known for some time that Al Gore made up a bunch of claims in his AIT movie that simply weren’t true. Now this revelation in the new email batch shows that in the case of Kilimanjaro’s disappearing snows, even Phil Jones and Dr. Lonnie Thompson don’t believe global warming is the cause, even though Thompson put out a press release nearly a year ago saying just that. Told ya so. Pants on fire and all that. Anything for “the cause” right?

UPDATE11: 4:45PM PST Kevin Trenberth gets all misty eyed and sing-songy at Christmas here

UPDATE10: 4:30PM PST Some thoughts on cracking the big remaining all.7z file here

UPDATE9: 2:25PM PST Josh weighs in with the first satirical cartoon here

UPDATE8: 140PM PST Mike Mann shows his true colors:

email 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….

UPDATE7: 1:20 PM PST Phil Jones and Tom Wigley calls another scientist (The former state climatologist of California) a “jerk” for publishing his UHI results.

UPDATE6: 12:08PM PST Here’s an email that collaborates a radio interview I did in Seattle with Thomas Peterson in summer 2007, yes these are 100% real emails, no doubt whatsoever now. More here: Climategate 2.0 – NCDC: “Mr. Watts gave a well reasoned position”

UPDATE 5: 11:00AM PST In a statement, UEA doesn’t deny these emails, but posts about the whitewash investigations of the past, like they matter now.

UPDATE4: 9:45 AM PST I’ve changed the headline from Climategate 2.0 to Climategate 2.0  emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!  with a hat tip to Jerry Seinfeld. The relevance of that headline is particularly interesting in the context of where Dr. James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has his office in NYC.

UPDATE3: 9:25 AM PST – Having read a number of emails, and seeing this quote from Mike Mann in the Guardian:

When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. 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.”

I’m going to conclude they are the real deal. I’ve posted a BitTorrent link to the file below. One big difference between Climategate 1 and 2 is that in 1, it took days for the MSM to catch on, now they are on top of it.

UPDATE2: 8:45AM PST The Guardian has a story up by Leo Hickman, and this excerpt suggests they may be the real deal:

Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages.

UPDATE1: 8:20 AM PST These emails have not been verified yet, and this story was posted by one of my moderating staff while I was asleep. 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  lorem ipsum text files. I’m working to authenticate these now and will report when I know more – Anthony Watts

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

Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.

The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there.

Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:

<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year

“reconstruction”.

<3115> 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.

<3940> Mann:  They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic

example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted

upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a

bit.

<0810> 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

<2440> 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

<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC

task.

JeffId has some initial reaction

From the ReadMe file:

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

“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.

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.

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such

as…

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

Here’s one about UHI that is convincing:

cc: liqx@cma.xxx

date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:16:37 +0800

from: =?gb2312?B?JUQ1JUM1JUMwJUYyJUMzJUY0IA==?= <limmy@xxx>

subject: Re:Re: thank you

to: p.jones@xxx

Dear Phil,

Again I find that the emails from my CMA mail boxes can not get to you.

From attaches please find the data of 42 urban stations and 42 rural stations (by your

list) and a reference of homogenization of the data. we have tested and adjusted the abrupt

discontinuities of the data during 1951-2001, but the following years (2002-2004) has only

been quality controled and added to the end of the series, but we found the relocation

during these 3 years have minor effects on the whole series in most of the stations.

I  partly agree with what Prof. Ren said. and we have done some analysis on the urban heat

island effect in China during past years. The results are differnt with Ren’s. But I think

different methods, data, and selection of the urban and rural stations would be the most

important causes of this. So I think it is high time to give some new studies and graw some

conclusion in this topic.  I hope we can make some new achives on this both on global scale

and in China.

Best

Qingxiang

—– Original Message —–

From: “Phil Jones” < p.jones@xxxx >

To: “Rean Guoyoo” < guoyoo@xxxx >

Cc: “%D5%C5%C0%F2%C3%F4” < limmy@xxx>, < liqx@cma.xxx >

Sent: 2007-09-24 16:25:59 +0800

Subject: Re: thank you

Dear Guoyu,

I think I emailed you from America last week. I am away again next week,

but here this week.

I do think that understanding urban influences are important.  I will

wait for Dr Li Qingxiang to send some data, but there is no rush, as I am

quite busy the next few weeks.

Best Regards

Phil

At 00:59 20/09/2007, you wrote:

The following message was returned back when I sent via cma site. I send it again via

this site. I also forwarded this message to Dr, Li Qingxiang.

Regards,

Guoyu

Dear Phil,

Thank you for your message of Sept 11, 2007. I have just been back from the US. Sorry

for the delayed response.

I noted the discussion on blog sites. This is indeed a big issue in the studies of

climate change.

In the past years, we did some analyses of the urban warming effect on surface air

temperature trends in China, and we found the effect is pretty big in the areas we

analyzed. This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990. I think there

might be at least three reasons for the difference: (1) the areas chosen in the analyses

are different; (2) the time periods analyzed are obviously varied, and the aft-1990

period is seeing a more rapid warming in most areas of China; (3) the rural stations

used for the analyses are different, and we used some stations which we think could be

more representative for the baseline change.

We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately, when we sent

our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.

It is my opinion that we need to re-assess the urbanization effect on surface air

temperature records for at least some regions of the continents. I am glad that you are

going to redo it using the updated dataset. I expect you to obtain the new outcome.

As for the dataset, I believe that Dr. Li Qingxiang could give you a hand. He and his

group conducted a lot work of detection and adjustment of the inhomogeneities in the

past years, and the adjusted and the raw datasets are all stored and managed in his

center. The datasets we used are also from his center.

I’d be happy to discuss some issues with you late, but I would not necessarily be as a

co-author because my contribution would be rather minor.

Best regards,

Guoyu

NCC, Beijing

Shape Yahoo! in your own image. [1]Join our Network Research Panel today!

Prof. Phil Jones

Climatic Research Unit        Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx

School of Environmental Sciences    Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxxx

University of East Anglia

Norwich                          Email    p.jones@xxxxx

NR4 7TJ

UK

—————————————————————————-

=======================263ÌìÏÂÓÊ£ÐÅÀµÓÊ×Ôרҵ=======================

Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\Detecting and Adjusting Temporal Inhomogeneity in

Chinese Mean Surface Air Temperature Data.pdf” Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\To

Jones.rar”

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

Here’s a bit torrent link to the FOIA2011.zip file

You’ll need a bit torrent client

BETTER LINK:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37

Documentation Of A Cozy Interaction Between An AMS BAMS Editor And Phil Jones

0 0 votes
Article Rating
1.3K Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lance
November 22, 2011 6:36 am

Interesting times we live in….

Rick Bradford
November 22, 2011 6:38 am

The e-mails are hilarious — the sequel is better than the original.
It shows that Jones et al don’t and didn’t have a clue what they were doing, and desperately didn’t want anyone to find out about it, to protect their funding stream.
In any sane world, that would be the ballgame.

November 22, 2011 6:43 am

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.

Steeptown
November 22, 2011 6:44 am

Here we go again. Just in time for Durban we learn of more climate science corruption, fraudulent science, FOI illegal activities and cover-ups. Pass the popcorn.

Frank K.
November 22, 2011 6:47 am

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!).

Ray
November 22, 2011 6:47 am

We see that the insider is still active…

Patrik
November 22, 2011 6:48 am

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

Bloke down the pub
November 22, 2011 6:49 am

It’s beginning to feel a lot like Christmas…..

P. Berkin
November 22, 2011 6:50 am

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

Patrik
November 22, 2011 6:50 am

Rick Bradford>> I agree. Better than 1.0 – if they are genuine! 🙂

PaulH
November 22, 2011 6:51 am

The gift that keeps on giving.

Shevva
November 22, 2011 6:51 am

The read me file in MY opinion shows that Mr FOIA is not an environmentalist, conservationist, kill-all-humans(excepttheonesIlike)ist.
But a humanitarian, very rare these days.

November 22, 2011 6:52 am

0021.txt
date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:51:44 +0200
from: Manola Brunet
subject: Re: Omar’s email
to: P.Jones@xxx.xx.xx
Hola Phil,
…snip…
P.Jones@xxx.xx.xx escribió:
> Hola Manola,
> I’ve saved emails at CRU and then deleted them from the server. Now
> I’m at home I just have some hard copies. I also don’t

Steeptown
November 22, 2011 6:53 am

And he has retained 220,000 emails for future release/insurance. Sleep well climatologers.

Editor
November 22, 2011 6:53 am

Climategate 2.0 – see if the MSM can get it right this time.

Bloke down the pub
November 22, 2011 6:55 am

Wasn’t climategate 1.0 released just before a UN climate shindig?

JJ
November 22, 2011 6:55 am

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?

paul
November 22, 2011 6:55 am

Anyone cracked the PW on the 7zip file yet?

Frank K.
November 22, 2011 6:57 am

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.

FerdinandAkin
November 22, 2011 6:57 am

Note there are 220000 more emails ‘hidden’ behind a password. This implies that the password will be used at a later time to reveal them.
I am willing to speculate that the holder of the password is waiting to see if the advocates of CAGW will take some preemptive action to protect their position, and make their situation orders of magnitude worse.
It will be interesting to watch the core members of the hockey team in the coming weeks to see which one breaks for the tall grass first.

Wucash
November 22, 2011 6:57 am

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

November 22, 2011 6:58 am

More explosive revelations of climate fraud [SNIP: a word too far. -REP]? Bring it on!

Kaboom
November 22, 2011 6:58 am

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.

Steeptown
November 22, 2011 6:59 am

What a coincidence. Oxburgh of inquiry fame just happens to be mentioned in the emails about which his inquiry dealt. No conflict of interest there then.

D. Patterson
November 22, 2011 7:00 am

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.

Theo Goodwin
November 22, 2011 7:00 am

Donna was prescient when she choose the book title “The Delinquent Teenager…” All of them are delinquent teenagers.

Anonymous
November 22, 2011 7:00 am

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]

Ray
November 22, 2011 7:01 am

It would seem that we have the reason why Mann doesn’t want those emails released.

November 22, 2011 7:01 am

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

Andrew
November 22, 2011 7:03 am

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

Tucci78
November 22, 2011 7:04 am

I’m still in “wait” mode for the .ru server to respond to my download request.
This archive file really ought to be mirrored in multiple locations elsewhere.

Jeff
November 22, 2011 7:04 am

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

Tom
November 22, 2011 7:06 am

If there is an encrypted zipped version called ‘all.7z’ and a selection of unencrypted files, then it seems rather likely that we have several cleartext and encrypted pairs. Shouldn’t take some clever people very long to break that…

stanj
November 22, 2011 7:07 am

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.

Sean Peake
November 22, 2011 7:07 am

Moderators, I guess you’ll need to call in reinforcements to handle the coming tsunami of comments. To quote Flounder in the epic Animal House,”Oh boy, is this great!”

JonasM
November 22, 2011 7:08 am

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.

TheBigYinJames
November 22, 2011 7:11 am

You won’t break AES-256 (the encryption used by 7-zip) in a zillion years, but no matter, have fun trying 🙂
I do love the way that we all now have all of the emails, but we can’t read them until the key is released – this makes further revelations very easy to do without any more uploading of files to dodgy servers. Just the key posted on a blog and the whole lot is out.
Clever.

Grant
November 22, 2011 7:14 am

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

November 22, 2011 7:14 am

Golly this is gonna be fun.

Michael R
November 22, 2011 7:15 am

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

diogenes
November 22, 2011 7:15 am

there’s a torrent url
http://tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7

Tobias Ostien
November 22, 2011 7:15 am

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

dave ward
November 22, 2011 7:16 am

As huge amounts of computer processing power are now readily available (via the “Cloud” for example), I imagine attempts are already being made to brute force the password…
The US Air Force linked up 1760 Sony PS3’s and got themselves a cheap but extremely capable super computer: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/31784/US_Air_Force_Creates_Powerful_Supercomputer_Out_Of_PS3s.php

wfrumkin
November 22, 2011 7:17 am

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.

Editor
November 22, 2011 7:21 am

If Jones really said “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”

He should be suspended immediately.

Tucci78
November 22, 2011 7:22 am

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.”

November 22, 2011 7:26 am

@TheBigYinJames
And if it’s structured correctly, each archive could contain another encrypted archive to allow the mail to be released in tranches. A bit like an electronic onion, but perhaps with more crying.

ChE
November 22, 2011 7:26 am

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. 😆 😆

November 22, 2011 7:28 am

If it talks like a conspiracy, and walks like a conspiracy, it just might be a – conspiracy…

November 22, 2011 7:29 am

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!

Kev-in-Uk
November 22, 2011 7:29 am

Paul Homewood says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:21 am
He should have been sacked two years ago! The manipulative little twonk. I had some sympathy for him originally, thinking he may just be a misguided scapegoat – but he is clearly in the thick of it. Worse still, as I have said for all of the miscreant self protecting sycophantic members of the ‘Team’ – the day one of them has the guts and decency to become a scientist again, admit mistakes and retract their pre-fabricated BS – is the day that science can hold its head up high again. But I’m not holding my breath.
In respect of the this new release, I can only hope the politicos realise that they are the also ones who have been duped and immediately decide to cut ALL AGW related funding dead in its tracks, at least until the truth is out.

Editor
November 22, 2011 7:30 am

I don’t think we should get too excited about the 220,000 emails behind the password. My guess is these are non relevant and personal emails that would only strengthen the argument that “scientists’ personal emails should not be released” if they were put online.

Gary
November 22, 2011 7:35 am

November – the month of miracles.
FOIA – who are those guys?

dearieme
November 22, 2011 7:37 am

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?

November 22, 2011 7:38 am

Yet this will once again be swept under the rug. It is interesting to see how the media has already chosen sides in this.

ChE
November 22, 2011 7:38 am

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.

November 22, 2011 7:39 am

Probably the same guy that did Climategate 1.0.
No new emails from 2010 & 2011
Ecotretas

Don Monfort
November 22, 2011 7:41 am

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

November 22, 2011 7:42 am

Well, we all knew they were fooling us.
Despite COP 17 being held here, I am finding the knowledge on the subject at the universities here in South Africa so appalling that it reminds me of the situation 35 years ago when we had these scores of white people and (white) universities who actually believed that black people were animals.
There are no papers and there has not been any research here on the subject of man induced global warming. So the whole world is relying on these fraudsters like Mann.
In the meantime I have done my own research.
An important finding that I made is that a correlation can be picked up if you compare the results in my tables with that of the leaf area index, shown in the world chart below:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
In the red areas, which shows the areas on earth where life is blooming and where it is getting greener, you will note from the results in my tables that the increase in maxima is picked up and trapped by the increasing vegetation as exhibited by higher means and minima. In the blue ares, where substantial de-forestation has been going on, you will find mean temperatures staying largely unchanged or even declining, even though maxima are rising.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

November 22, 2011 7:42 am

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

DaveS
November 22, 2011 7:43 am

If genuine, then Acton and Davies at the UEA are going to look pretty stupid too, given the lengths they have gone to to defend dear little Phil.

1DandyTroll
November 22, 2011 7:45 am

” 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

mikef2
November 22, 2011 7:45 am

..yippee…I’m the first toi say “its worse than we thought”………

MikeEE
November 22, 2011 7:46 am

“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

November 22, 2011 7:47 am

http://files.sinwt.ru/download.php?file=25FOIA2011.zip
Link is gone I hope a lot of you downloaded it.

J Brunemeier
November 22, 2011 7:47 am

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

Shevva
November 22, 2011 7:47 am

It’s already up at the BBC, check Bishop Hills blog about the play that won the award for a link (Credit where credits due) ->

Alan the Brit
November 22, 2011 7:48 am

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! 🙂

A physicist
November 22, 2011 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.

November 22, 2011 7:53 am

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

November 22, 2011 7:53 am

Here is an example of the science presented at the
Santa Fe conference (November 2011)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SantaFe2011.htm
Was this taken seriously ?
I hope not !
Pal Brekke , H. Abdussamatov, Lockwood any comments ?

David
November 22, 2011 7:56 am

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?

November 22, 2011 7:57 am

OK folks be prepared for these defences:
i) “I won’t touch stolen emails”
ii) “these are out of context”
Then check to see what these people are on the record as saying with regards to Wikileaks….

November 22, 2011 7:57 am

‘foia’ left a comment on the talkshop at 9.28GMT. We’ve been looking through some of the mails and found some juicy bits.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/
There’s a torrent link there now too.

November 22, 2011 7:59 am

Best email till now, from Phil:
Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days,
these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from
looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original
unadjusted data (which we don’t have) and then move onto the software used
to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release).
CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t
have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past
is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve
discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are
happy about not releasing the original station data.

(…)
Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office
to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I’ve ascertained it most
likely came from there, as I’m the only one who knows where the files are here.

David
November 22, 2011 8:00 am

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.

G. Karst
November 22, 2011 8:01 am

This is beginning to have the elements of an extortion play. Mann you must do this and that or the password gets released. I hope someone cracks the zip and any criminal intent thwarted.
I wonder if Mann, Jones, and the others have already picked out nice condo(s) in China. I heard Maurice Strong has been feeling lonely lately. I worked under Maurice, for a time, and I know how he loved having an entourage around himself. Most dangerous men do! GK

maz2
November 22, 2011 8:02 am

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

David
November 22, 2011 8:05 am

Did Jones really say, “we’re choosing the periods to show warming” Does anybody have some blink charts available?
2775> Jones:
I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming

Ryan
November 22, 2011 8:05 am

“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?).

November 22, 2011 8:06 am

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…

Jonas N
November 22, 2011 8:06 am

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

Latitude
November 22, 2011 8:07 am

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
====================================
The preceding public service announcement was brought to you by Pfizer pharmaceuticals, the makers of Aricept…….

Greg Holmes
November 22, 2011 8:08 am

“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.

Harriet Harridan
November 22, 2011 8:08 am

Torrent link:
tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7
[Supplied via Tallbloke’s Blog]
It’s slow at the moment, but as more people join it’ll get exponentially faster. Please keep seeding

Tucci78
November 22, 2011 8:08 am

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.”

Ken Hall
November 22, 2011 8:10 am

” Crowley:
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.”
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! I <3 FOIA!

ChE
November 22, 2011 8:10 am

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.

motsatt
November 22, 2011 8:12 am

P. Berkin says:
November 22, 2011 at 6:50 am
Admit it, WUWT, you’re funded by Big Popcorn!
Spot on. This should be fun 🙂

TRM
November 22, 2011 8:14 am

Don’t worry I’m sure Penn State and CRU will do another thorough investigation (HA!). The BBC article on this ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562 ) mentions the previous investigations and clearance of those involved constantly. Me thinks they do protest too much 🙂
Ah my Christmas present came early this year. Happy reading all.

ujagoff
November 22, 2011 8:14 am

It’s better than we thought…. Indeed.

November 22, 2011 8:15 am

I burned a few to DVDs to drop off on CapHill – just in case their firewall block some of those dodgy file sites. Whoever does have the password, an “in confidence” letter to Issa’s office would be appropriate – at a minimum to establish your whistleblower status.

David
November 22, 2011 8:16 am

A clear will to repress results, even from models tuned for desired results, if they do not match your CAGW senario.
0310> Warren:
The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases […] As it stands
we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.”
Be warned, the feel their life is threatened by posts like Bob Tisdales, showing ocean caused multidecadal trends. (Mosher, stop supporting these guys)
Wils:
[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably […]
No Wils, but prison is posssible.

Editor
November 22, 2011 8:16 am

“Climategate” I feel was the turning point for AGW. Most people don’t believe AGW because it goes against common sense, Climategate actually provided the evidence to say that it is a big hoax. Like all things of this nature, Climategate was a seven day wonder and AGW proponents are at it again with their ridiculous statements. Now we have “Climategate 2” which should reaffirm the original Climategate. The person who has these e-mails is being very clever, he/she knows that if they were released all at the same time then the effect on public opinion would not be as great than if they were released twice or preferably on several more occasions.
We have had “The Cause” I am now looking forward to the effect!

Martin Clauss
November 22, 2011 8:16 am

Dang, I missed this when it first came out, and I should have loaded up on stocks in POPCORN companies . . . maybe I still have chance . . .?
Just fascinating the whole thing. I might guess that the recent spate of papers and articles trying to push CAGW hard again, just before Durban, this was a ‘response’ to that.
Enormous thanks to the person(s) who allowed access to the e-mails ! And thanks to you, Anthony, and to Jeff ID, and Tallbloke, and Steve M. . . and ALL other I have missed!

JJ
November 22, 2011 8:17 am

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 …

Nick Shaw
November 22, 2011 8:17 am

I absolutely LOVE this one
Cook:
A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.
LMFAO! Take it Mikey! Take it deep!

Tucci78
November 22, 2011 8:18 am

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.

David
November 22, 2011 8:19 am

Jones just never stops, yuck.
1788> Jones:
There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent
extreme weather is due to global warming”] – at least not a climatologist.

wobble
November 22, 2011 8:19 am

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.

Ken Hall
November 22, 2011 8:20 am

“A physicist says: ….”
What you posted was such a classical example of projection that psychology students could use it as a case study.
Most of the people here at WUWT are interested in truth. The alarmists are the ones who indulge in cherry picking and slogan shouting and avoiding the real science and attacking the messenger. Just as you are doing, hiding behind the name “A physicist”….

David
November 22, 2011 8:20 am

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

wobble
November 22, 2011 8:23 am

Andrew says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:03 am
Penn [State] would do well to fire Mann immediately (re new emails) considering their extremely fragile position at this time.

Concur. 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?

David
November 22, 2011 8:24 am

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.

Ryan
November 22, 2011 8:26 am

@A physicist: Nice straw man you’ve created there! I guess Entergy is hoping to get a slice of that $37trillion that would need to be spent on “renewables” to meet Team AGW targets. Where do physicists get a job these days? Wouldn’t be in carbon-free electricity generation in your case would it?

David
November 22, 2011 8:26 am

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

Steve Oregon
November 22, 2011 8:27 am

I want to read “cause for prosecution”

November 22, 2011 8:27 am

a physicist says:
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)
Henry says
We have to get rid of this idea that we “have” to vote for people (who vote for us on issues)
We have to vote in the idea that people have the right to vote for issues
especially in the modern world where people can vote with a click.
( I bank on-line, so why cannot we all vote on-line?, for issues I mean)
Now if we were all to ask our parliaments that we want to be able to vote like they do,
why would we still need parliamentarians?
The money saved can be used for elderly coming to schools to be able to vote on issues, rather than vote for people
Anyway, for those interested in my earlier comment, see here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#comment-804548

Ken Hall
November 22, 2011 8:29 am

Mann Should be toast after this, as should Jones, Briffa et all, and all the other usual suspects involved in perverting peer review and locking real science out of the IPCC.
We need a bunch of real scientists to replace them at the IPCC and then the next IPCC report might actually be honest, for once.

john
November 22, 2011 8:29 am

I hope that the good folks at http://cryptome.org/ take a good hard look at this new development.

November 22, 2011 8:31 am

Wow, it didn’t take long for the link to disappear! Both these look good.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37
torrent url
http://tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7

November 22, 2011 8:32 am

“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.

Steeptown
November 22, 2011 8:32 am

“A physicist” is clearly not a physicist. It takes one to know one.

Kaboom
November 22, 2011 8:33 am

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.

F. Ross
November 22, 2011 8:33 am

Does this mean that all the investigations that “cleared” the various actors in this whole travesty were NOT really cleared? /sarc.
“Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is.”
Now if we just had some model DDT to spray on all the model cockroaches …

David
November 22, 2011 8:33 am

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.

David Falkner
November 22, 2011 8:34 am

The celebrations are a bit premature, I think. Are they actual emails? How will we know for sure? If they are, I am personally beginning to wonder if the leaks aren’t coming from a foreign governmental entity. China and Russia have been doing quite a bit of hacking recently.

Latitude
November 22, 2011 8:35 am

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

G. Karst
November 22, 2011 8:36 am

Now we know why climatologists are picking up musical instruments and forming bands. It may soon be their only way to finally earn a living. GK

November 22, 2011 8:36 am

“the cause” will make a nice synonym for “conspiracy to commit …”

stephan
November 22, 2011 8:39 am

AW I dont think this stuff could be made up ie there genuine

November 22, 2011 8:39 am

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

Gary
November 22, 2011 8:40 am

From the UK Guardian, this quote:

Prof Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, who is quoted in the batch of released emails described the release as “truly pathetic”.
When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. 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.”
He said, the people behind the release were “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial.”

Sticking to his story…

Tucci78
November 22, 2011 8:42 am

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.

David Falkner
November 22, 2011 8:43 am

Oh, whoops! Now I see the update by Anthony. Should have known you’d be on that.

November 22, 2011 8:43 am

“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!

November 22, 2011 8:43 am

Picked from the stuff at AirVent:
Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well well well – all models are wrong, Professor Phil Jones?
But we still must pay trillions to alleviate something based on wrong models …
How dare they!

John
November 22, 2011 8:44 am

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!

kwik
November 22, 2011 8:45 am

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

November 22, 2011 8:50 am

I’m not a scientist, and certainly not a climate scientist. What I know is mostly self taught and many of the discussions on this blog, frankly, go a bit over my head.
However, one thing I know a tremendous amount about is electronic discovery. Any suggestion that only these 5,000 emails have anything worth reading is ~WAY~ off base. While keyword searching is a great way to find what you’re thinking about – at the moment – it is limited by the scope and imagination of the one crafting the search terms. One of many limitations, but probably the most important.
There’s a treasure trove of information somewhere in those other 220k emails. Much could well be exculpatory. There is no longer any advantage to the team to continue to resist FOIA and not just go ahead and make all documentation public. That password is going to be released one day anyway. Pulling the bandaid slowly won’t really make it hurt less.
I also find myself thinking that the Michael Mann whitewash should be part of the investigation going on at Penn State. The CYA climate fostered at that institution now has some true victims of crime. The odor of cover-up from the Board of Trustees on down is fetid. It points to a knee-jerk response that has become their automatic modus operandi. One that is not in the long term best interests of an institution they purport to love.

November 22, 2011 8:50 am

When the first Climategate emails came out they really ringed true to me. Something seems off about this – like they are too incriminating? Could they really be this stupid and fanatical?
I don’t know.
I need to read through them more; I’m going to reserve judgement.
If these do turn out to be true then the defense will be, “It is only a small segment of climate scientists. 97% of 1000’s of scientists agree on man-made climate change.”

November 22, 2011 8:50 am

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.

danj
November 22, 2011 8:51 am

The BBC uses the release to continue its defense of Jones, Mann, et al.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562

Dreadnought
November 22, 2011 8:52 am

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.

November 22, 2011 8:55 am

Right before a long weekend, so we all have time to pick thru this — nice timing foia.

Spector
November 22, 2011 8:56 am

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.

mikef2
November 22, 2011 8:57 am

grrrr..I see Don Montfort beat me to it after all…I did not see your comment earlier Don I promise, maybe it was while we were in moderation I think, damn.
Can we call it a draw?
Ohhhh….idea…lets go see if anyone has said it yet on Bish’s site.
I know…little things, but it is a rather happy day wot!
More seriously…lets get it all guaranteed its genuine first, then send it to everyone who doubted the orig climagate meme. I cannot see how anyone of the original ‘nothing to see here’ brigade can get away with it this time.
If its all true of course.

pat
November 22, 2011 8:57 am

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.

November 22, 2011 8:58 am

If it’s a zip, and the password is done with the zip system, it might be amenable to cryptanalysis. Anyone? It almost seems an invitation.

danj
November 22, 2011 8:58 am

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.

jeff
November 22, 2011 9:02 am

Interesting claim in the BBC article by Richard Black,
“A hacker entered a backup server at the university and downloaded a file containing administrative passwords, which were subsequently used to access a vast number of files and emails dating back to 1997.”

jeff 5778
November 22, 2011 9:02 am

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

Alberta Slim
November 22, 2011 9:03 am

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
====================================
Time for you to get back to looking for the Higgs Boson.
WUWT is the best site on the planet.

Mauibrad
November 22, 2011 9:03 am

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

Dagobert
November 22, 2011 9:05 am

My gut feeling is that this is a fake. Let’s take it with a (large) grain of salt. I wouldn’t put stuff like this beyond people like that but… it doesn’t sound genuine, somehow.

November 22, 2011 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 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.

stephan
November 22, 2011 9:06 am

From the Guardian
“The emails appear to be genuine, but this has yet to be confirmed by the University of East Anglia. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday”
There genuine enough…..

November 22, 2011 9:08 am

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.

Jeremy Poynton
November 22, 2011 9:08 am

Hiding the decline,
Hiding the decline,
We will go together,
Hiding the decline.
I’ve been recovering from a nasty bout of Pleurisy, and still feel bloody rough. I can’t tell you how much this has cheered me up. Have just sent richard.black@bbc.co.uk the following subject only email
‎”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”

A physicist
November 22, 2011 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, 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.

Rich
November 22, 2011 9:08 am

Email 0071 From M. Mann I believe.
I pointed out to him that we certainly don’t know the GLOBAL mean temperature anomaly very well, and nobody has ever claimed we do (this is the question he asked everyone). There is very little information at all in the Southern Hemisphere on which to base any conclusion.
So I told him that of course the answer to that question is *no* and it would be surprising if anyone answered otherwise. But, as I proceeded to point out, that’s the wrong question. I pointed out that a far more sensible question is, “do we know the relative temperature anomaly for the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE to within that accuracy, and that we almost certainly do know that.
So is it global warming or hemispheric? Doesn’t he belittle the MWA down to it not being global?

November 22, 2011 9:08 am

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.

November 22, 2011 9:09 am

[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get – and has to be well hidden.>>>
Haven’t read them all, but of the ones I have, that one is just priceless. It was my number one but has now dropped into a three way tie with :
I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[…] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.>>>
and this gem:
[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing […] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.>>>
They’ve declared their own guilt repeatedly! I’m a fraction of the way through and there’s enough in here to drop kick these guys into jail!

November 22, 2011 9:09 am

@Gary 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.

EternalOptimist
November 22, 2011 9:10 am

FOIA2011, next time you’re up in Manchester, give us a shout, I’ll get you a beer in

Leon Brozyna
November 22, 2011 9:11 am

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.

Enneagram
November 22, 2011 9:13 am

“The Cause” and its “illuminati” will not fail: http://www.earthsummit2012.org/

mac
November 22, 2011 9:13 am

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

November 22, 2011 9:14 am

mrsean2k says: November 22, 2011 at 7:26 am
@TheBigYinJames
And if it’s structured correctly, each archive could contain another encrypted archive to allow the mail to be released in tranches.

Right. Wikipedia on AES-256 says there are now approaches for it, but it’s all ahem cryptic to me.

November 22, 2011 9:14 am

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!

Wil
November 22, 2011 9:14 am

To this point in time I see nothing those guys (Mann el al) can’t and won’t be able to explain away. There is no there THERE yet – so I urge you all to be skeptical – we only have POSSIBLE emails from these guys with no password. I ask why would anyone release this junk with no password to back up anything of value? This seems rather suspicious to me. You either have the goods or someone’s playing big time with us with INTERNET promises and we all know internet promises are worth squat until and unless the goods are delivered in full we have NOTHING! As the movie said – SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Harriet Harridan
November 22, 2011 9:14 am

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

Enneagram
November 22, 2011 9:15 am

…Times of a “revelation from above” (Apo-kalypse)

DGH
November 22, 2011 9:15 am

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.”

November 22, 2011 9:16 am

UPDATE2: 8:45AM PST The Guardian has a story up be Leo Hickman, and this excerpt suggests they may be the real deal:
The Guardian article selectively edits README.txt to create a misleading impression about the motives of foia.org. The Guardian edits the text to remove any suggestion that $37 trillion might possibly be a death sentence for 2.5 billion of the world’s poor. Or for the elderly in the UK living in fuel poverty..
Here is the full version:
README.txt
/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///
“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.

the_Butcher
November 22, 2011 9:17 am

When will these charlatans get behind bars?

November 22, 2011 9:20 am

Wigley:
I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
skeptics have extreme religious views.
Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IMO helps explain the Pontifical Academy of Science Paper

commieBob
November 22, 2011 9:20 am

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.

November 22, 2011 9:21 am

I remain … sceptical.
It’ll take a while to analyse. Not having the resources of No Such Agency at one’s beck an call can be a major inconvenience.
Still worrisome that the MSM such as the Guardian consider emails sent between professionals in the conduct of their work to be “private”. They might be commercially-sensitive if they worked in private industry (but still not private – they belong to the corporation) but as the emails are ostensibly being produced by the use of public funds, the public has a right to see them; except for the bits that are private.

Richard deSousa
November 22, 2011 9:21 am

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.

Andrew
November 22, 2011 9:21 am

Maybe Mann released them.. he’s become a masochist hahahaha.

Kaboom
November 22, 2011 9:22 am

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 …

Chuck
November 22, 2011 9:23 am

The entire file needs to be released to put an end to the “taking out of context” charges by The Team.

November 22, 2011 9:25 am

dagobert – are you talking about the files or the AGW hypothesis?

sceptical
November 22, 2011 9:25 am

It will be interesting to see how partial quotes taken out of context will be spun this time. Last time, those who did the spinning were left with egg on their face after numerous investigations.

Scott
November 22, 2011 9:29 am

“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.

Jason
November 22, 2011 9:29 am

“My gut feeling is that this is a fake.”.
The reality is of course that its NOT fake. If it was why would Mann be on twitter right now saying how good it is the UEA CRA has already published a piece condemning the theft.
Mann has flicked through them already, that is obvious. If they were fake he would have said so.

Will Gray
November 22, 2011 9:29 am

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.

Jostein
November 22, 2011 9:30 am

Here is another link to the FOIA2011.zip.
https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a6e638f5f62757d6b9b

DirkH
November 22, 2011 9:31 am

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.

Taphonomic
November 22, 2011 9:32 am

The cause…
Yes, much has been done “For the Good of the Cause”. Solzhenitsyn lives.

highflight56433
November 22, 2011 9:35 am

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.

coldlynx
November 22, 2011 9:40 am

I guess this is “the original unadjusted data ” about the AGW fraud.

November 22, 2011 9:41 am

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.

Jason
November 22, 2011 9:41 am

“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.”
So Michael Mann is part of a Mafia then.

RockyRoad
November 22, 2011 9:42 am

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

Michael Larkin
November 22, 2011 9:44 am

Check out 0452.txt. It contains this bit:
> At 02:45 14/10/2009, Tom Wigley wrote:
>> Dear folks,
>>
>> You may be interesting in this snippet of information about
>> Pat Michaels. Perhaps the University of Wisconsin ought to
>> open up a public comment period to decide whether Pat Michaels,
>> PhD needs re-assessing?
>>
>> Michaels’ PhD was, I believe, supervised by Reid Bryson. It dealt
>> with statistical (regression-based) modeling of crop-climate
>> relationships. In his thesis, Michaels claims that his statistical
>> model showed that weather/climate variations could explain 95%
>> of the inter-annual variability in crop yields. Had this been
>> correct, it would have been a remarkable results. Certainly, it
>> was at odds with all previous studies of crop-climate relationships,
>> which generally showed that weather/climate could only explain about
>> 50% of inter-annual yield variability.
>>
>> How did result come about? The answer is simple. In Michaels’
>> regressions he included a trend term. This was at the time a common
>> way to account for the effects of changing technology on yield. It
>> turns out that the trend term accounts for 90% of the variability,
>> so that, in Michaels’ regressions, weather/climate explains just 5
>> of the remaining 10%. In other words, Michaels’ claim that
>> weather/climate explains 95% of the variability is completely
>> bogus.
>>
>> Apparently, none of Michaels’ thesis examiners noticed this. We
>> are left with wondering whether this was deliberate misrepresentation
>> by Michaels, or whether it was simply ignorance.

Jeff D
November 22, 2011 9:44 am

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.

November 22, 2011 9:47 am

What is the catch phrase for my next video? Is their anything as quotable as “Hide the Decline”?

Joe Horner
November 22, 2011 9:47 am

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 🙁

Elftone
November 22, 2011 9:50 am

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…

November 22, 2011 9:50 am

“A physicist” says November 22, 2011 at 9:08 am

Sorry fella, but at this point you’re being just plain booring
.

A physicist
November 22, 2011 9:53 am

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.

wmsc
November 22, 2011 9:54 am

The file on the Russian site is 404’d.

November 22, 2011 9:54 am

Henry@a physicist
Why don’t you actually talke the time to read the comments?
Henry@Rich
I can confirm that my average increase in the mean temps on the SH is exactly 0.000 degrees C /annum over the past 4 decades. In the NH it is different as more heat is trapped there by the blooming earth, spurting more green (due to the increase in max. temps and carbon dioxide)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

the_Butcher
November 22, 2011 9:54 am

@elmer,
yes, “the cause”

More Soylent Green!
November 22, 2011 9:56 am

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

James Sexton
November 22, 2011 9:56 am

I haven’t seen this one posted yet, so ……..

Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published.
I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
Osborn:
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

Esper:
Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. […] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?
Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.

Jeff
November 22, 2011 9:58 am

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.

November 22, 2011 9:59 am

Best headline ever!

jaypan
November 22, 2011 9:59 am

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.

Robert of Ottawa
November 22, 2011 10:02 am

I like Phil Jones admitting he deleted his e-mails and keeps printed copies at home. Where’s the Norwich plod when you need them!

More Soylent Green!
November 22, 2011 10:04 am

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.

UK dissenter
November 22, 2011 10:04 am

I am Michael Mann, as pure as the driven snow. A disinterested, objective scientist only concerned to discover the truth. So it must be a different Michael Mann who wrote:
“3115 It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction …”
and
“0810 I don’t know what she (Judith Curry) think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause”
and, on 29th August 2007 to Phil Jones (CRU, East Anglia University, England),
“I (Mann) have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his thus far unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests”
And the response of the second Michael Mann, to the Guardian today (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails) is textbook paranoia. He describes the person/people who released the latest batch of CRU emails as:
“agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial.”
I think the purely scientific Michael Mann needs to contact his paranoid doppelganger, and ask him to calm down, and get some treatment. He’s clearly not well.

Jeremy
November 22, 2011 10:04 am

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.

Dave N
November 22, 2011 10:08 am

From the snippets in this post, I don’t see anything “damning”. Arrogance, yes, however that’s hardly damning; just unbecoming of those purporting to be engaged in science.

Bill Thomson
November 22, 2011 10:08 am

Does this show the foibles of some climate scientists?

Jeff
November 22, 2011 10:09 am

2211 has a long discussion by Mann on M&M’s critique of his reconstruction

Rod Everson
November 22, 2011 10:09 am

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?

November 22, 2011 10:10 am

“Chuck says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:23 am
The entire file needs to be released to put an end to the “taking out of context” charges by The Team.”
No, they’ll always say it was “out of context.” This is a very typical tactic since their defenders will believe them because they want to believe them.
For example, Obama’s pastor preached that white people invented HIV to kill blacks. The response? It was out of context.
And that worked until the pastor opened his nutty mouth again – then he just disowned him.
That’s why I think the ultimate defense of this, assuming these turn out to be unaltered/true, is that they’ll simply disown Mann and Friends, while still claiming the “vast majority of climate scientists” agree with AGW.

Latitude
November 22, 2011 10:11 am

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
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.
===========================
You are a hoot!
…the whole time you are claiming that you are jumping to a conclusion that “move along, there’s nothing to see here”
Take a good dose of your own hypocritical advise…..and wait and see
=====
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?
======
Jones:
I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
=======
…and just to lighten the mood
Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing (sic) the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.

Jeff
November 22, 2011 10:11 am

2212, Phil Jones: “Don’t put too much faith in the models”
though not clear to me which models he is discussing, perhaps someone more familiar with this stuff can help

Jeff
November 22, 2011 10:13 am

2213
“I happen to agree with him and I actually think our statement is too
strong. It almost seems that we are suggesting physical models should be
thought of as empirical ones, which, despite the tuning, I think is an
overstatement. ”
Empirical models, you know, as opposed to made up projections

Spector
November 22, 2011 10:13 am

RE: the_Butcher: (November 22, 2011 at 9:17 am)
“When will these charlatans get behind bars?”
That may prove difficult for self-elected ‘heroes’ of the green revolution who honestly believed they were acting for the good of all mankind. Only those who can be proved to have knowingly corrupted science for personal gain run that risk. Note that all juries are likely to include people sympathetic to the ideals of the green revolution.

More Soylent Green!
November 22, 2011 10:14 am

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:51 am
… 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”

Since you didn’t, I’ll provide the link: http://www.entergy.com/our_community/environment/ceo_letter.aspx
There is nothing in the letter you reference that has anything to do with conservatism. Do you mistaken believe that because Mr. Leonard is CEO of a corporation, that he’s a conservative?
Having read the letter in question and some other pages on the site, I found nothing there that is not a rehashing of the IPCC “consensus view” of climate change, including the call for various federal programs. There is no science there at all.
Either you’re a poor excuse for a physicist or just another troll. You’re not even clever enough to direct people to a website that supports your contentions.

LamontT
November 22, 2011 10:14 am

It’s sad “a physicist”, really apparently nothing more than a propagandist, doesn’t offer any actual arguments for her position but instead does nothing but spout empty psychobabble rhetoric that means nothing as if if were somehow a profound criticism.
Really Miz “a propagandist” needs to present coherent logical arguments not just the empty disenfranchised language that they have used for this is the practical reason why CEO’s, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters not to mention most mathematicians, scientist, and engineers are rejecting the peculiar brand of religion that states that man is causing catastrophic climate damage and instead embracing the skepticism that is seen in much of the world.

A Lovell
November 22, 2011 10:15 am

I can remember reading an interview with Phil Jones. It was when he came out of hiding after the first climategate. In it, he said he was just ‘waiting for the other shoe to drop’.
I have often wondered since then exactly what he meant. I guess this is it!
PS ‘A physicist’……….do put a sock in it. You sound inebriated.

November 22, 2011 10:17 am

I think he [Chris Landsea] has behaved irresponsibly and ought to be fired by NOAA for not have an open enough mind to even consider that climate change might be affecting hurricanes.” – Kevin Trenberth

More Soylent Green!
November 22, 2011 10:18 am

Was the file created with 7zip? Just Google 7 zip password cracker and go from there. Be sure to carefully check all downloads for malware@

November 22, 2011 10:18 am

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
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. blah, blah, blah..
Wordy troll is troll.

Stephen Richards
November 22, 2011 10:19 am

My guess is that this person is very patient and totally dedicated to his cause. Listen up Warming loonies. I suspect that he has sorted these mails into good, very good and EXPLOSIVE!! Bang. You stop lying or the next load is going to go boom. he he he !!!

James Sexton
November 22, 2011 10:20 am

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
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.
==============================================================
Interesting….. I live in a decidedly conservative part of the country, where farmers, fishers, and hunters appear in this location. I’m not sure which of those you think are rejecting this “brand of skepticism”, but I think your a bit off. While its been a while since I personally spoke to any military strategists, and CEO’s but the dynamics are completely different. But, all of that aside, what do you say about this?
Blockquote>Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
Osborn:
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
Esper:
Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. […] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?
Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.

November 22, 2011 10:21 am

@the_Butcher says:
yes, “the cause”
I like it.. I like it a lot

Some European
November 22, 2011 10:21 am

Wow! That’s spectacular!
I will stop believing in the religion of Al Gore now.
Such amazing revelations!
Give me a break! Give the world a break! Get a life!
REPLY: get a clue Arne

LamontT
November 22, 2011 10:22 am

Actually A Lovell the psychobabble from “a physicist” sounds very much like the random posts you can get from one of the various rant generators online. This particular one is odd and seems designed to generate fake psychobabble nonsense for the troll that sounds profound but doesn’t actually mean anything. Probably set it a few keywords and away it goes generating the text that is then posted. Note the uniformity and emptiness of all of the posts there is no soul in any of them which tends to lend credence to the thought that they are just random computer generated babble.

November 22, 2011 10:24 am

A physicist:
The onus is not on scientific skeptics to prove a negative. The onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd to show convincingly, per the scientific method, that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate disruption.
They have failed spectacularly. The planet itself is falsifying their wild-eyed predictions of doom. You’re just getting folks stirred up here by blaming skeptics for being skeptical of the repeatedly failed CAGW predictions. We have nothing to prove; it is the alarmist crowd that must defend their demonization of “carbon”, and so far they have completely failed.

Sean Peake
November 22, 2011 10:24 am

I wonder if the protected emails are the ones that Phil Jones et al “never” deleted?

Steve In S.C.
November 22, 2011 10:26 am

Stock tip of the day:
ConAgra Foods, Inc. Common Stoc(NYSE: CAG )
providers of ActII and Orville Redenbacher brands of popcorn.

Jeff
November 22, 2011 10:27 am

2226, Phil Jones suggests going “over the top” to encourage acceptance at Nature:
Dave,
Rather than go through the doc file, I’ll make a few points directly by email.
1. I’ll reckon you’ll have to go over the top to get Nature to send this out for
review.
One way of doing this would be to add in some quick analyses of the
residual global mean series. for recent years. Only a few sentences.
Basically to show that years like 2005 and others in the period 2002-2007 are
after extraction warmer than 1998. Maybe also over 1997/8 to 2007 show
the trend. I know this is somewhat silly, but there is a lot of rubbish on
web sites about global warming stopping. Maybe just rank the top ten
years in the residual series. This might give it more appeal, but not detract
from the main 1945 message.

A Lovell
November 22, 2011 10:32 am

LamontT says:
November 22, 2011 at 10:22 am
Thanks for that information. It was the odd, meaningless babble that led me to think he was under the influence of something. Even drunks have a soul!!

November 22, 2011 10:35 am

So, Dr mann, if the emails seem to be “taken out of context”, then maybe you’d be willing to provide the entire email so we can see the full statements.
That is, if you haven’t deleted them already…

SunderlandSteve
November 22, 2011 10:35 am

And so there we have it, science, from the teams’ point of veiw is not about finding the truth, its all about “THE CAUSE”.
How unremittingly pathetic!

Stephen Richards
November 22, 2011 10:35 am

Dagobert says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:05 am
My gut feeling is that this is a fake. Let’s take it with a (large) grain of salt. I wouldn’t put stuff like this beyond people like that but… it doesn’t sound genuine, somehow.
DAGOBERT is a cartoon character in france. Need I say more!!

November 22, 2011 10:36 am

As with last time, here is a free program to format and make the emails easier to read,
GetDiz

A physicist
November 22, 2011 10:38 am

James Sexton asks:

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.

Interesting….. I live in a decidedly conservative part of the country, where farmers, fishers, and hunters appear in this location. I’m not sure which of those you think are rejecting this “brand of skepticism.”

That would be the alliance of fishers and hunters at “Seasons End” whose members include:
• Ducks Unlimited
• Trout Unlimited
• BASS/ESPN Outdoors
• Izaak Walton League of America
• Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
• Coastal Conservation Association
• American Sportfishing Association
• Pheasants Forever
• Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
• Wildlife Management Institute
• Delta Waterfowl
• Boone and Crockett Club
Prominent non-skeptic farming organizations include 4H and FFA (if you’re from a farm-family, you won’t have to ask what those are).
The plain fact is, almost every serious professional organization nowadays is rejecting those brands of climate-change skepticism that express themselves mainly in cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting.
Good. 🙂

John
November 22, 2011 10:38 am

YAWNNNN.

Frank K.
November 22, 2011 10:39 am

It is very interesting to see truckloads of trolls showing up here to defend “the cause” [LOL!].
(I must give the trolls their due, however. They recognize these new climategate e-mails as yet another torpedo ripping into the hull of the sinking S.S. GlobalWarming…)

November 22, 2011 10:40 am

Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.

Hilarious

November 22, 2011 10:41 am

Jones:
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.

Hah, even better !

cui bono
November 22, 2011 10:41 am

In other news today:
“180 pensioners died every day as a result of cold conditions during the 2010-11 winter months in England and Wales. The annual ‘Excess winter mortality’ report found that an estimated 21,800 people over the age of 65 died as a result of adverse conditions, on top of the average mortality rate for the same period of time (4 months from December 2010 to March 2011). Over-65s accounted for 84% of the overall 25,700 ‘excess’ deaths during the winter months.”
These liars think they’re saints. My 97 year old mother has dementia and I care for her in my house. That means keeping her warm, and not dreading bills going through the roof because we’ve been stuck with useless ugly windmills and stupid solar panels.
They aren’t saints and perhaps a new special circle of hell could be constructed for them. One where it’s very, very COLD.
Meanwhile, for grim humour, check out Trenberth’s ‘song’ on the IPCCs winning the Nobel prize with Al Gore. Yeesh!

Gail Combs
November 22, 2011 10:41 am

HenryP says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:42 am
Well, we all knew they were fooling us.
Despite COP 17 being held here, I am finding the knowledge on the subject at the universities here in South Africa so appalling ……..
There are no papers and there has not been any research here on the subject of man induced global warming. So the whole world is relying on these fraudsters like Mann.
In the meantime I have done my own research………

___________________
HenerP, I know you have a blog but how about either writing an article for WUWT or cross posting some of your articles here I read the one you used to answer R Gates with and I had not seen that point of view before.

Ray
November 22, 2011 10:42 am

It looks like the Climategate email poster is using the old 1-2-3-YOU’RRRRRE OUT!

November 22, 2011 10:42 am

Can you post the IP address or full web server logs? I’d like to see if the hacker was using proxies like last time:
http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-hack-used-open-proxies.html

strawbale
November 22, 2011 10:48 am

date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:40:47 +0000
from: Phil Jones
subject: Dave – in confidence
to: k.briffa@xxxx
Keith,
Chris was pretty positive with Dave. Dave is going to make a business
case for the MSc with additional modules. Try and have a look
through it later this week. Chris has given Dave a few ideas
for the plan. There is likely to be a demand for more people
to get Climate Change training in the future. If Chris is successful it
might be
possible to get Dave a Senior Lecturer post. He won’t get a Reader
though as he’s not got the publications for the RAE.
Any post would have to be advertised and it may not all be able to
be done in time for the end of March.
You could raise the issue at the next Strategy Comm. which
Chris says you’ll have next week.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

strawbale
November 22, 2011 10:55 am

emails in document 0333 are worth a read for entertainment. Too long to post here but gives an insight into behind the scenes at Realclimate.

November 22, 2011 10:56 am

Looks like the FOIA.org link is broken?

strawbale
November 22, 2011 10:56 am

Sorry, correction, that should be document 0330, not 0333.

G. Karst
November 22, 2011 10:57 am

A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:53 am
CEOs, military strategists, farmers, fishers, and hunters
I (and others) have performed these roles (and more) through more years than I want to contemplate, as well as the duties of a physicist. Your world is not THE world. GK

November 22, 2011 10:58 am

LamontT says November 22, 2011 at 10:14 am
It’s sad “a physicist”, really apparently nothing more than a propagandist, doesn’t offer any actual arguments for her position but instead does nothing but spout empty psychobabble rhetoric that means nothing …

Perhaps an exemplification of the Peter Principle? Or maybe the final product of ‘state schooling’ from K through to BS, MS or PhD?
I would like to see, purely from an entertainment perspective, a good line of argumentation put forwards, but, alas, not forthcoming from this ‘specimen’ …
.

strawbale
November 22, 2011 10:59 am

Jeez what have I been smoking tonight! Correction again, the correct document IS 0333!
Apologies

Mike
November 22, 2011 10:59 am

As a fisher, hunter, farmer, and CEO, I must be one of those who was overlooked by a “Physicist” (heh) during his less than extensive survey. The house of cards is collapsing, and I am sure you and yours are in a panic. My doubts harken back to my early training in the method where an old prof inculcated the most basic principles of scientific inquiry- skepticism itself. The moment those associated with the AGW enterprise (and it is an enterprise) began to viciously attack those who presented any data or theory counter to the narrative, I knew. These emails, part 1 and 2 prove one thing for certain. These people committed to “the cause”, regardless of their credentials, are not scientists.

Pete in Cumbria UK
November 22, 2011 11:02 am

am I alone in thinking that our ‘physicist’ friend is being just a bit naive.
He talks about reading what CEOs, militarists etc etc (incl. farmers (that’s me)) are saying about catastrophic climate change and apparently how they all believe it to be true.
No.
What is true is that our elected leaders believe it to be true and it is their actions that all these people are talking about- especially that huge and very dangerous thing that will impact on everyone – Carbon Tax. That is the catastrophe, not the climate.
And if, 37 trillion is going to be spent, who in their right mind would not be hankering after a share of that – not at all of course thinking of anybody/thing called Solyndra for example.
Is it yet another sad reflection of our education systems that modern physicists can be so ‘green’ in every sense of the word?

Kay
November 22, 2011 11:02 am

@ “sceptical says:
November 22, 2011 at 9:25 am
[quote]It will be interesting to see how partial quotes taken out of context will be spun this time. Last time, those who did the spinning were left with egg on their face after numerous investigations.[/quote]
Oh, you mean like how Penn State handled its knowledge of a child predator in their midst? If they managed to whitewash that for 33 years, whitewashing a little climate investigation would be a piece of cake.

Venkman
November 22, 2011 11:04 am

2368
Dave,
Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond?
With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have
virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.
There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time
going through these.
Cheers
Phil

Spector
November 22, 2011 11:04 am

RE: Smokey: (November 22, 2011 at 10:24 am)
“The onus is entirely on the alarmist crowd to show convincingly, per the scientific method, that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate disruption.”
That is exactly the condition that Fear-Forced (Post-Normal) Science is meant to lay aside, as the presumed consequences of inaction are supposed to be so dire that there is no time to debate the issue.

Jackal
November 22, 2011 11:05 am

Thanks, Prof. Mann for screwing more people from Penn State than Jerry Sandusky.

November 22, 2011 11:06 am

Henry@Gail Combs
I assume you are referring to the fact that I said that
“a correlation can be picked up if you compare the results in my tables with that of the leaf area index, shown in the world chart below:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
In the red areas, which shows the area on earth where life is blooming and where it is getting greener, you will note from the results in my tables that the increase in maxima is picked up and trapped by the increasing vegetation as exhibited by higher means and minima.. In the blue ares, where substantial de-forestation has been going on, you will find mean temperatures staying largely unchanged or even declining, even though maxima are rising”.
However, I am still working on that,
I think I do need to do more statistical analyses of weather stations before I can make an historical claim.
This is just a “hobby” and I don’t have a lot of time for it.
I sure wish I had the universities here working with me (especially the stats classes) instead of being so completely naive and pathetic.

Flask
November 22, 2011 11:08 am

“farmers, fishers, and hunters, not to mention most mathematicians, scientists, and engineers”
“fishers”
That tells me that A physicist is more likely “A journOlist”, probably in the employ of the CBC. But who knows, maybe they use that stupid emasculated name for fishermen in certain hyperpolitica parts of the USA, too.
LOL

Bernie
November 22, 2011 11:08 am

My guess is that “a physicist” is that well known heavyweight, Scott Mandia. Who else would name himself in such a pretentious manner.

Martin Brumby
November 22, 2011 11:13 am

@A physicist says: November 22, 2011 at 10:38 am
“The plain fact is, almost every serious professional organization nowadays is rejecting those brands of climate-change skepticism that express themselves mainly in cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting.”
I wouldn’t expect a cowardly, anonymous troll to even recognise a “serious professional organization” if one was to bite his ass. And your boring and tendentious posts prove the point.
Whilst you clearly excite yourself with your endlessly repeated “cherry-picking, witch-hunting, and slogan-shouting.” chant, most rational people are more concerned about the dogma, incompetence, greed & malice which has been the hallmark of the Thermogeddonists for years and which is abundently here on display in the latest Climategate 2 emails. This concern is greatly amplified by being mindful of the Trillion Dollar expenditure on non-solutions to the CO2 non-problem.
The outcome?
Just read
@cui bono says: November 22, 2011 at 10:41 am.
And contemplate for once in your selfish, miserable little life, the effects of the cAGW scam on the poor and dispossessed in countries far poorer than the UK. The education, clean water & medicine that a tiny fraction of “decarbonisation” would pay for. The destruction of hope. And (with obvious implications for future peace and stability) the claim that their misfortune is down to the First World’s unpaid “Carbon Debt”.

Nik
November 22, 2011 11:15 am

Exceptions to the hearsay rule include “informal admissions” and evidence that tends to show a state of mind. This is what these emails do.
The timing is intriguing. Just as the first block was released a few days before the Copenhagen shindig, these predate the Durban upcoming fiasco.
There is another important factor. We are in the midst of a growing global financial crisis. The crisis will affect both the appetite for funding and policies which might affect the exit from financial stagnation. There are not many economists around who in these circumstances would support “green economies” as a serious means of getting back on the right economic track.
Because of the above this second batch of emails will have a much harder impact than the first. Which shows that the person(s) doing the leaking have a strategic mind.
Nik

November 22, 2011 11:15 am

Any Josh cartoons on the horizon ? 🙂

SteveSadlov
November 22, 2011 11:17 am

Let us raise our fists and red flags … for THE CAUSE!!!!!

strawbale
November 22, 2011 11:17 am

0339- Discusses Mann and his bristle cones + McIntyre

Barbara Munsey
November 22, 2011 11:18 am

In some quarters I have seen it offered that the reason the President of Penn State was sacked in the pedophilia scandal is because the non-investigation into something that could have jeopardized a revenue stream is a pattern there (at the university under his watch)—because of the non-investigation into Mann, and other more minor issues.
If so, while it may not gain massive “media” attention, it may gain some university attention.
Write to the board of governors; they have the sacking power, and with fewer places to hide, Mann will be easier to corner, won’t he?

November 22, 2011 11:18 am

2333 — “This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please !” Ooops

November 22, 2011 11:18 am

Scientists welcome sceptical viewpoints because such viewpoints give them an opportunity to show why their hypothesis is to be preferred.
It didn’t happen quite like that did it?

John-X
November 22, 2011 11:20 am

Is the “perpetrator” (as described by the crack [smoking?] Norfolk police) really saying we need to find USD37,000,000,ooo,000 to spend on bird choppers, solar panels, lunar panels, perpetual motion machines, and other “sustainable” energy, so we can “stabilize” (American spelling) our emmissions at “sustainable levels” (whatever that means) ???
Great. No problem.
Someone please call China and tell them we need to borrow enough for 74,000 more Solyndras.
We’ll pay them back with, um, stabilised, …sustainable, …um, levels. Of something.

Jeff
November 22, 2011 11:24 am

From Raymond Bradley to Keith Briffa (2560)
re Mike’s last missive, I have responded to Julie directly. Forget about
it…too much acrimony on all of this. One day, (perhaps) Mike will grow
up…
Ray

Alan
November 22, 2011 11:28 am

One of my favorites (and note, put it in context with Mann’s angry reaction reported today in the media):
Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead

More Soylent Green!
November 22, 2011 11:28 am

@A physicist says:
November 22, 2011 at 10:38 am
You’re obvious new to this trolling thing, aren’t you?
Consensus does not determine science, nor does appeal to authority. I find the progressive mind, like that of children, to be very susceptible to peer-pressure. That’s why progressives have such uniformity of opinion and so little original thought. Conformity is very important to progressives and they inhabit a shame sub-culture.
Me, I’m from Missouri (which a often pronounce as Mizzura, just to annoy my spouse) and you have to show me. Give me some real facts.

Jeff
November 22, 2011 11:28 am

2563, from Barrie Pitock
“>(b) Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the
>offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to
>refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not
>matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the
>journals, but that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation.
>To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and
>proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might
>work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.
>(c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and
>embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of being
>embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for Science or Nature.
>Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue editors”, in line with current
>international practice? Or is that defamatory?”

November 22, 2011 11:29 am

In light of all this it is clearly time to rapidly extract as much fossil fuel as we need in order to educate and empower the world so that every nation reaches the stage where its population voluntarily limits its fertility as happens and has happened in every nation that has achieved sufficient wealth, education and freedom.
Then the world will all the sooner reach peak population and begin a population decline towards long term sustainability with the wealth derived from fossil fuels (or any genuinely economic alternative) providing a buffer against the economic effects of a global population contraction.
That is the way forward. Not a Luddite type regression to the politics and economics of the Middle Ages when life for all was nasty brutish and short.
Not only do wealthy, free and educated nations limit their fertility, they also care for the environment.
The so called ’cause’ is evil incarnate.

TomRude
November 22, 2011 11:32 am

Funny how the ramping up number of Op-ed and alarmist news articles by Seth Borenstein, immediately peddled around the globe by the MSM is journalism, information … LOL

Gail Combs
November 22, 2011 11:32 am

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?
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…..
__________________________
Give it a break. The days when a scientist could take on the mantel of a “priest” are now long gone. At this point after all the fecal material that has hit the news lately I would not even want to admit I was a chemist!
Especially after “The FDA has found “widespread falsification” and “manipulation of equilibration samples” at Cetero research from 2005 to 2010.” (Cetero is based only a couple towns over. ) Followed by Diederik Stapel: “A well known Dutch psychologist falsified data in dozens of studies in one of the biggest cases of scientific fraud on record, an investigative committee has found.”
If Scientists do not get their act together and clean house SOON they are going to find the reputation of science very badly tarnished. That is the true tragedy of this whole mess.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-42849261/fda-finds-falsification-of-drug-trial-results-affecting-dozens-of-companies/
http://www.clinicalresearchsociety.org/2011/07/28/fda-says-cro-cetero-faked-trial-data-pharmas-may-need-to-redo-tests/
http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d7201

Mike
November 22, 2011 11:33 am

Wow, you guys proved it again! Emails!111!11 That’s what is important! No, really, look over here, I have comments, taken out of context! They prove…uhh…it! That’s right, they prove it, can’t you see? Atmospheric chemistry, time series analysis, isotopes, all crap!!! Here…look at these emails!!!
Sells on Faux News, so whatever.
Jeezus on a cracker, help us.