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 BREAKING – Canada 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
Ironically that episode of Seinfeld is playing as a rerun in Australia tonight (The Implant). Correlation does not prove causation of course.
This thread will definitely go over 1,000 comments.
This would be interesting to McI:
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA/mail/2274.txt
From: Hume Matthew Mr (ACAD)
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:16 PM
To: Palmer Dave Mr (LIB)
Cc: Walker Alan Dr (ACAD)
Subject: RE: FOI/EIR request [FOI_09-69]
Hi Dave,
We all just had a very good laugh at Phil’s comment “We do sometime ignore the
Registry advice”… If this is going to have the kind of publicity that you
suggest, I would prefer if you do not quote ANY of his answer to question 1.
The UEA actually has a very strict policy on entering into confidentiality
agreements, however as Phil so blithely admits, a handful of academics take it
upon themselves to foul things up!
As you will note from points 1 & 2 of our policy; no UEA employee, except
members of our office, has the right to sign anything on behalf of the
university – the problem is that funders/other parties can be sneaky by
sending the agreement in the name of the academic.
Our policy is:-
Someone from the Commercialisation & Enterprise Team should approve and sign
all Confidentiality Agreements:
only our staff have the legal authority to sign agreements on behalf of the
University
all agreements should be between the University of East Anglia and the party
requesting the agreement (not an individual academic or school)
we will negotiate with the other party on any issues within the document that
may be contentious
by doing this we will ensure you the best protection of your IP rights
(In special circumstances, authorisation may be obtained from the
Commercialisation & Enterprise Team allowing you to sign the agreement
yourself. Such authorisation must always be obtained in advance, will only be
valid for a specific instance, and the standard university agreement must be
used without amendment – unless we have authorised an amendment)
In all cases, a copy of the fully signed confidentiality agreement must be
retained in our office.
FYI – we are currently finishing off the final touches to our new intranet
pages – there will be a page on CDA’s with this info on it.
Also, I am away on holiday next week (10th -14th), so if you do any more info
on our policy regarding agreements etc, please contact Anne Donaldson, one of
our Commercialisation Managers ([3]a.donaldson@uea.ac.uk).
Thanks
Matt.
You people on WUWT may not know it, but you destroyed the third leg of the hypothetical power stool of the new world order.
TEAM AT WORK: Fri, 11 Jul 2003: http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5271
> At 07:51 04/07/REDACTEDTom Wigley wrote:
> >Mike (Mann),
> >I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what
> >would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell
> >people to avoid the journal?
> >Tom.
> >Michael E. Mann wrote:
> >>Thanks Mike
> >>It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and
> >>he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we
> >>have to go above him.
> >>I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in
> >>this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all
> >>levels–reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way
> >>into oblivion and disrepute,
> >>Thanks,
> >>mike
#4039
So, that’s how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC record on the last millennium!
> 4. Ray Bradley sent this text:
>
> I believe this graph originated in a (literally) grey piece of
> literature that Jack Eddy used to publish called “Earth Quest”. It
> was designed for, and distributed to, high school teachers. In one
> issue, he had a fold-out that showed different timelines, Cenozoic,
> Quaternary, last 100ka, Holocene, last millennium, last century etc.
> The idea was to give non-specialists a perspective on the earth’s
> climate history. I think this idea evolved from the old NRC
> publication edited by L. Gates, then further elaborated on by Tom Webb
> in the book I edited for UCAR, /Global Changes of the Past/. (This
> was an outcome of the wonderful Snowmass meeting Jack master-minded
> around 1990).
>
> I may have inadvertently had a hand in this millennium graph! I
> recall getting a fax from Jack with a hand-drawn graph, that he asked
> me to review. Where he got his version from, I don’t know. I think I
> scribbled out part of the line and amended it in some way, but have no
> recollection of exactly what I did to it. And whether he edited it
> further, I don’t know. But as it was purely schematic (& appears to
> go through ~1950) perhaps it’s not so bad. I note, however, that in
> the more colourful version of the much embellished graph that Stefan
> circulated (
> http://www.politicallyincorrect.de/2006/11/klimakatastrophe_was_ist_wirkl_1.html
> the end-point has been changed to 2000, which puts quite a different
> spin on things. They also seem to have fabricated a scale for the
> purported temperature changes. In any case, the graph has no
> objective basis whatsoever; it is purely a “visual guess” at what
> happened, like something we might sketch on a napkin at a party for
> some overly persistent inquisitor….. (so make sure you don’t leave
> such things on the table…).
>
> What made the last millennium graph famous (notorious!) was that Chris
> Folland must have seen it and reproduced it in the 1995 IPCC chapter
> he was editing. I don’t think he gave a citation and it thus appeared
> to have the imprimatur of the IPCC. Having submitted a great deal of
> text for that chapter, I remember being really pissed off that Chris
> essentially ignored all the input, and wrote his own version of the
> paleoclimate record in that volume.
>
> There are other examples of how Jack Eddy’s grey literature
> publication was misused. In a paper in /Science/ by Zielinski et al.
> (1994) [v.264, p.448-452]–attached– they reproduced [in Figure 1c] a
> similarly schematic version of Holocene temperatures giving the
> following citation, “Taken from J. A. Eddy and R. S. Bradley,
> Earth-quest 5 (insertREDACTEDas modified from J. T. Houghton, G. J.
> Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Climate Change, The IPCC Scientific
> Assessment (Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeREDACTED
> But I had nothing to do with that one!
>
> So, that’s how a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the definitive IPCC
> record on the last millennium!
Hide the Decline
Richard Black’s BBC article is now open for comments. Guardianistas have been swarming all over it using terms such as “contrarians”, “neocon political activists”, “evil Murdoch Corporation”, “nutters”, “Climategate conspirators” etc. Any comment which is even mildly sceptical has been marked down.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15846886#dna-comments
Just when you were hoping to get a break (rest) Anthony …
Here’s a gem! Love the way Phil closes this email, “This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!” LOL!!!!
Mike, Ray, Caspar,
REDACTEDA couple of things – don’t pass on either.
REDACTEDHave seen you’re RC bet. Not entirely sure this is the right way to go,
but it will drum up some discussion.
Anyway Mike and Caspar have seen me present possible problems with the
SST data (in the 1940s/50s and since about 2000). The first of these will appear
in Nature on May 29. There should be a News and Views item with this article
by Dick Reynolds. The paper concludes by pointing out that SSTs now (or since
about 2000, when the effect gets larger) are likely too low. This likely won’t
get corrected quickly as it really needs more overlap to increase confidence.
Bottom line for me is that it appears SSTs now are about 0.1 deg C too cool
globally. Issue is that the preponderance of drifters now (which measure SST
better but between 0.1 and 0.2 lower than ships) mean anomalies are low
relative to the ship-basedREDACTEDbase.
This also means that the SST base the German modellers used in their runs
was likely too warm by a similar amount. This applies to all modellers, reanalyses etc.
There will be a lot of discussion of the global T series with people saying we can’t
even measure it properly now.
The 1940s/50s problem with SSTs (the May 29 paper) also means there will be
warmer SSTs for about 10 years. This will move the post-40s cooling to a little
later – more in line with higher sulphate aerosol loading in the late 50s and 1960s70s.
The paper doesn’t provide a correction. This will come, but will include the addition
of loads more British SSTs for WW2, which may very slightly cool the WW2 years.
More British SST data have also been digitized for the late 1940s. Budget
constraints mean that only about half the RN log books have been digitized. Emphasis
has been given to the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean log books.
As an aside, it is unfortunate that there are few in the Pacific. They have digitized
all the logbooks of the ships journeys from the Indian Ocean south of Australia and NZ
to Seattle for refits. Nice bit of history here – it turns out that most of the ships
are
US ones the UK got under the Churchill/Roosevelt deal in early 1940. All the RN bases
in South Africa, India and Australia didn’t have parts for these ships for a few years.
So the German group would be stupid to take your bet. There is a likely
ongoing negative volcanic event in the offing!
REDACTEDYou can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but
this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim
have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we’ve found a way
around this.
I can’t wait for the Wengen review to come out with the Appendix showing what
that 1990 IPCC Figure was really based on.
The Garnaut review appears to be an Australian version of the Stern Report.
This message will self destruct in 10 seconds!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=231
The story gets a mention in the local Norwich newspapers this morning. The same could not be said for the original leak, which barely got a mention, and even then not for several days.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/education/more_emails_posted_in_climategate_row_involving_university_of_east_anglia_in_norwich_1_1134073
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/more_emails_posted_in_climategate_row_involving_university_of_east_anglia_in_norwich_1_1134073
This gang, referred to as “The Team”, are unbelievable. I spent many years as a successful academic researcher (defined by garnering grants and publishing papers) and I guarantee you that if someone hacked mine and my colleague’s e-mails, you wouldn’t see anything like this. We did our research and published our findings. There was no threatening reviewers, stacking the review process, ousting editors, claiming one thing in the e-mails yet publishing another thing in the peer review. Having lived in that world I do understand the culture…and there are some “funny” things going on in general (relative to non-academic culture), but the “The Team” are really a gang of thugs. It’s evident in these e-mails and I don’t think there’s a context to justify it.
And now I work in Pharma where we have a records retention policy to delete various things at various times. However, if there’s legal action whole classes of e-mails and documents are not to be deleted under serious penalty. This is a private industry and our e-mails are open for search and seizure. These glorified public welfare recipients in academia think they are above all that? And they hide behing “context”???? Give me a break. Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=788
This shows how co-operative they are on reproducing data I think!
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=10362
Here is some Kiwi Cheerleaders.
Mike appears on the TV authoritive like the pope apparently.
wayne says:
November 23, 2011 at 1:32 am
“After reading through a hundred or so emails, what stands out the most is that all of IPCC’s thousands of pages is nothing but sophisticated curve-fitting on a grandiose scale, with hundreds of instigators busily filling it, and very crafty I must add.”….
I agree with you. I spent a lot of years fitting mathematical models to data. You can fit nearly unlimited numbers of mathematical models to any data set and get the same R-square. I always attempted to fit some fundamental principle or, if that was lacking, the simplest model possible. With the simplest model, this is only good for interpolating points within the fit. Unless fundamental science is known, you cannot extrapolate the trend outside the bounds of the fit. The problem is that the simple model fitting procedure is difficult or impossible to develop the sound underlying fundamental principles even though the quality of the fit looks tempting. Classic example is the ideal gas law, joining the two relationships of pressure to volume and temperature. These work on a small scale of values but break down at larger values. The fundamental physical relationships are simply not linear.
You can fit their data to a series of sines and cosines, or even an nth degree polynomial and you’ll get an excellent fit to the current data…but it will also predict that the data will oscillate up and down in the future. I don’t see them applying those types of fits. Why not, cyclic behaviour would be expected in a climate system.
The reliance of the Team’s “science” on these simple mathematic models to predict the future is grounds enough to call their science bogus. I scientifically don’t need to look any further honestly.
~/Downloads/FOIA$ ../../rarcrack all.7z –threads 12 –type 7z
RarCrack! 0.2 by David Zoltan Kedves (kedazo@gmail.com)
INFO: the specified archive type: 7z
INFO: cracking all.7z, status file: all.7z.xml
Probing: ‘2Nm’ [4880 pwds/sec]
Probing: ‘6B5’ [4871 pwds/sec]
Probing: ‘aoR’ [4872 pwds/sec]
Probing: ‘ecN’ [4876 pwds/sec]
Probing: ‘i0Z’ [4881 pwds/sec]
…
…
😉
This might take me a few trillion years, but I’ll tear this universe a new black hole if I have to find that password!
(Actually, no, I’ll run it for a wee while and stop it – just having a bit of fun – I know there’s no chance of cracking this if it’s AES256 encrypted – even running this on my AMD Phenom 4-core beastie is like trying to break the Enigma code with an abacus – it can be done, but it’ll take a LONG time to do so. And by long, I mean, like never.)
Tee hee.
They’re tellin’ me the world is warmin’ up
And my minivan’s part of the cause
And the science is settled so it’s time for big change
To our economy and our laws
Well if the science is settled then tell me why their
Computer models can’t agree
And why the world’s cooled down for the past several years
While they’re hidin’ their data from me
Despite their erudition
And academic pedigree
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me
They’d put us in the soup lines over
Parts-per-billion probabilities
The Best and the Brightest look instead
Like a box of dim bulbs to me …
… Like a box of dim bulbs to me
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=3002
Intimidation.
Could this be the holy grail.
Phil as the chairmen of alarmist selectors!
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=8447
Ill bet that BEST used this data from Jones etc to invent current data RAW data was and will never be given as it shows no warming my bet anyway
According to Jones, the raw data isn’t destroyed either. After getting an email from Ben Santer, he says still has the 1980 data from DoE reports:
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/2/FOIA/mail/1192.txt
cc: “Phil Jones” , “Ben Santer”
date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 18:03:13 +0100 (BST)
from: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
subject: Re: Your comments on the latest CEI/Michaels gambit
to: “Rick Piltz”
Rick,
What you’ve put together seems fine from a quick read. I’m in Lecce in
the heal of Italy till Tuesday. I should be back in the UK by
Wednesday.
The original raw data are not lost either. I could reconstruct what we
had from some DoE reports we published in the mid-1980s. I would start
with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete wate of
time though. I may get around to it some time. As you’ve said, the
documentation of what we’ve done is all in the literature.
I think if it hadn’t been this issue, the CEI would have dreamt up
something else!
Cheers
Phil
> Phil and Ben–
>
> Thanks for writing. I appreciate very much what you’re saying.
>
> I’m going to be posting some entries on this matter on the Climate
> Science Watch Web site. I’m sure others will weigh in on it in
> various venues (Steve Schneider has supplied me with an on-the-record
> quote), and I suppose that a more formal response by the relevant
> scientists is likely eventually to become part of the EPA docket as
> part of their rejection of the CEI petition. But that will drag on,
> and meanwhile CEI and Michaels will demagogue their allegations, as
> they do with everything. No way to prevent that. But I would like to
> expedite documenting some immediate pushback, helping to set the
> record straight and put what CEI and Michaels are up to in perspective.
>
> I have taken the liberty of editing what you wrote just a bit (and
> adding some possible URL links and writing-out of acronyms), in the
> hope that, with your permission and with any revisions or additions
> you might care to make, we could post your comments. This requires
> no clearance other than you and me. I would draft appropriate text to
> provide context. Please take a look at this and RSVP:
>
> Ben’s comment:
>
> As I see it, there are two key issues here.
>
> First, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Pat Michaels
> are arguing that Phil Jones and colleagues at the CRU [Climatic
> Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK ] willfully,
> intentionally, and suspiciously “destroyed” some of the raw surface
> temperature data used in the construction of the gridded surface
> temperature datasets.
>
> Second, the CEI and Pat Michaels contend that the CRU surface
> temperature datasets provided the sole basis for IPCC “discernible
> human influence” conclusions.
>
> Both of these arguments are incorrect. First, there was no
> intentional destruction of the primary source data. I am sure that,
> over 20 years ago, the CRU could not have foreseen that the raw
> station data might be the subject of legal proceedings by the CEI and
> Pat Michaels. Raw data were NOT secretly destroyed to avoid efforts
> by other scientists to replicate the CRU and Hadley Centre-based
> estimates of global-scale changes in near-surface temperature.
Over at dot.earth
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/a-new-batch-of-climate-e-mail-surfaces-ahead-of-treaty-talks/
100 to 1 against Revkin article gave up and changed subject .To his credit he appeared to start to admit that perhaps the skeptics were right in this case anyway
CLIMATEGATE – ACT 2
Please be seated for our stageshow
We are about to start act two,
Of the greatest farce in history
Showing the corruption of the Cru;
Let’s reprise the cast of actors
For those who do not know the plot,
The setting is East Anglia
Where they have hit the grants jackpot.
Here’s Professors Jones and Briffa
Who helped invent the Hockey Stick,
By manipulating data
For Mike Manns Nature Trick;
The Freedom of Information
Was just a doddle to avoid,
With connivance in high places
And all the Fourth Estate on-side.
But it does not stop in England
We must now cross the ‘Warming’ pond,
For this Hydra-headed monster
Has spread its tentacles beyond;
The accepted bounds of decency
Upon which science once was found,
Now it’s dependant on the dollar
The worthless euro and the pound.
Enter Trenbet and John Holdren
Obama’s esteemed science Czar,
The former – a well known boxer
The latter holding views bizarre;
Jonnie is a Malthusian
Who would decide just who should breed,
He’s also an Algorian
Who spreads the Global Warming Creed.
It’s just Act Two of Climategate
There will be two more acts to see,
We await the leading actor
The Chairman of IPCC;
He is cooking books in Durban
Watts Up With That – for it is true?
Our new Saviour of the Planet-
From that vile poison Co2.
Pat Healy
Take this as a comment.
How come when you post something on the Skeptical Science Blog that isn’t warmist, even if it is a balanced statement gets deleted, but on this blog all sides of the argument are aired?
Exhibit A as to why the Original unedited Data is needed:
~ “I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. ”
~ “I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have”
#3998