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
The story made it into Forbes (and Drudge:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/
“Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.”
It has just occurred to me as I dig through these emails, particularly the venomous, and often paranoid rantings of Michael Mann, that progressivism is the common “cause” to this group of pseudoscientists. The Utopia of a global, green, government controlled energy industry is where they want to go, by any means necessary.
Many of them, as I see the deterioration over time, got into this line of research with the best of intentions, though having intentions really doomed them from the start. But as the giant eat beast that is government found room to grow in the energy industry, so too did it reward those who helped it grow.
What “Global Warming” provided progressivism is the one thing that it has lacked since eugenics fell out of favor (a progressive catastrophe that forced the movement to rebrand itself “liberal” in the 1930s… a move that prompted actual liberals to rebrand themselves “libertarian”). What global warming provided progressivism can only be described as a Unified Theory of Western Depravity. In this new theory we get the postulate that all evil of the Western World flows from it’s consumption of oil and the economic system that exploits it.
Under their theory we find that only big dictatorial governments can save us from such a menace. The bigger the better. This is how we get people like Hansen bemoaning the slow crawl of the US green sector and wishing openly that the US government were more like the Chinese government who doesn’t have to deal with things like personal liberty when it sets out to change the course of it’s economy.
The MIME attachments for both the 2009 and 2011 FOIA emails are available in links in this thread (2009 download link in the comments)
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/mime-data/
barry says:
November 25, 2011 at 5:24 am
“Ultimately, my lens is the science, not the personalities. If you remove Michael Mann’s paleoclimate work from the record, the story is still the same re MWP etc.”
This is a blatant falsehood. Remove the Hockey Stick and there is no basis whatsoever for the claim that late 20 century warming is out of the ordinary.
Gail Combs says:
November 25, 2011 at 6:11 am
Your post is very important. I hope that you and Mr. Wingo pursue this topic at WUWT.
I little handfull quotes, from mail 2160-2260, enjoy!
******************************************************
Generally there appears to be quite som disagreement in the little AGW inner crowd.
Here Mann looks forward to meet with Briffa, Crowley and one more to try to find some agreement on all the disputes:
“My guess is that anything that the 4 of us all can find consensus on, is
probably a good reflection of what the consensus is within the leaders
in this field, and you could certaintly use that as ammunition in your
deliberations with Peck and Susan…”
How is that for a “scientific consensus” ?
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/1593.txt
******************************
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2166.txt
In 2001 they are talking about who to hire…
John Shepperd to Mike Hulme and Brian launder
“Like Brian I would be less nervous if it were someone from the “fraternity”, too, but
it would all depend on who it was…
”
Ha! “The Fraternity”
*************************
Anyone remember the “Harry” document from climate gate I?
Anyways, I think its clear that this “Harry” Is Ian Harris talking about the document here:
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2169.txt
(Maybe all nows already ..)
****************************
Heres a little “defeat” for the hard core GW group:
They have rejected some sceptic papers in peer review, and then (darn!) a paper is published anyway.
Then they decide that this “De Freitas” is doing things wrong.
“Inner revision” has then checked out things about how De Freitas has handled things, and they conclude:
>> Conclusions:
>>
>> 1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented
>> detailed, critical and helpful evaluations
>>
>> 2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested
>> appropriate revisions.
>>
>> 3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
>>
>> Summary:
>>
>> Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Otto Kinne
>> Director, Inter-Research
ARGH! ICE COLD thumbs down to the GW Hard core crowd.
And then Tom Wigley (old Head of CRU) goes on
”
Thanx — but not quite the end.
”
Cant take defeat?
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2185.txt
****************************************************
Phil Jones did the most incompetent attempt to analyse UHI. He used London…
This in incompetent because London was a great multi million city already in year 1900, and at the same time, the whole south central England is one big UHI zone of increasing urbanization.
Therefore there is hardly any genuine rural station near London to evaluate if London has UHI. A sick approach to use London, hardly a coincidence that he chose London.
Jones DICTATES to Jenkins from MetOffice:
”
Make sure you’re not saying anything to contradict this in the urban annex
of your report.
”
Jones certainly dont want ANY other views than comes from his London (crap) writing.
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2197.txt
*************************************************
CRU lost data when they moved… right?
But:
”
You have
> several things wrong in the email you sent to Dave. CRU has lost no
> data – if you cannot accept that then there is no point in talking to
> you. If you are going to believe what is on blog sites then again there
> is no point talking to you.
”
…
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2214.txt
*****************************************************
Phil Jones:
“Warming since 1975 to 2008 is slightly more than 1915-44.”
Sounds like a natural disaster driven by the outlet of CO2 after WW2 ?
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2234.txt
*****************************************************
Im not sure exactly what the point is here, but it does sound a little ..
”
The sondes clearly show too much cooling in the stratosphere (when compared to MSU4), and I reckon this must also affect their upper troposphere trends as well. So, John may be putting
too much faith in them wrt agreement with UAH.
Happy for you to use the figure, if you don’t pass on to anyone else.
Watch out for Science though and the Mears/Wentz paper if it ever comes out.
”
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2252.txt
And John Christy to Phil Jones:
“I’m a little nervous now that you may have a “dog in this fight” as we say in Alabama while writing up the IPCC.”
My English is not good enough to understand it…
**************************************************
Phil Jones massaging journalistts and magasines not to puplish sceptic papers:
”
Just heard that New Scientist will not be running a piece on McIntyre/McKittrick. NS
have finally been convinced the two Mc’s have an agenda and that no-one can reproduce their
work !
Also been trying to put a few people right about the von Storch et al paper. Hans
sent an email around to a few of us saying the paper looks at methodological issues re MBH98/99 but that their model run isn’t an alternate history of the past. When talking to the media he doesn’t make this clear at all – let’s the journalists think it is an alternate.
”
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2257.txt
**************************************************
K.R. Frank Lansner
[snip]
This is exactly the point I was attempting to make last night in a different thread when I said that these people had themselves become what they would hate most and how they are today doing the same things that had been done in previous times under different pretexts and that maybe it is now time for a new “Fletcher Memorial Home” to use a Pink Floyd song as a reference. It is despicable the extent to which they are manipulating policy and opinion and creating a global fear of climate change as the enabling mechanism for that manipulation. They create a boogieman and then assure you that they have the cure for it if you will only buy in to their policy decisions and if you don’t, the result will be eternal damnation of humanity to burn in the hell that the world would become as a result.
The global coordination in all of this is amazing. That they are allowed to get away with it is even more amazing. I sincerely hope that we never stop shedding light on how these people have perverted the public trust. It is trickery. And worst of all, they possibly believe in all sincerity that they are doing all of this “for your own good”. They believe we are stupid and they are the enemy of individual liberty. They get away with it only as long as their plans never see the light of day to the “outside” world and they are assisted in their mission by media whose members share their goals. It is a sort of meta-government making global policy and using a fear of climate disaster as their mechanism for getting the people to fall in line.
So completely sick.
<>
date: Tue Jan 15 12:45:58 2008
from: Phil Jones
subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: FYI: Daggers Are Drawn
to: Jean Jouzel
Jean,
There are lots of other poor papers appearing at the moment. Susan is encouraging
us all to write responses to them. I’m trying to do one, Ben Santer another and
maybe David Parker a third. All are wrong, but it just takes time to put something
useful together.
Why can’t people just accept that the IPCC is right!! In Britain we have people saying
that the evidence is accepted – we’ve won the war, now let’s act!
I’ll see if I can persuade someone to follow up on the Science editorial.
I did talk to the journalist, mostly trying to persuade him not to run with the
story.
Cheers
Phil
@Gail Combs,
Here is something that Zero Hedge did on the africa land grab.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/african-land-grab-acres-bottle-scotch
Not sure where to put this one, it relates to sites:
#3003
http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/FOIA/mail/3003.txt
“from: Thomas C Peterson
subject: Re: WWR Volumes for the 1990s
to: Phil Jones
When I talked to the NWS, they said that the CIO of NOAA decided it would violate privacy laws if they allowed the name and address of observers be made public & the same is true of photos of the station if it showed any of the observer’s house or a well-known landmark. ‘Tis rough when we’re attacked for following the law.
One Congressman has requested information about USHCN that sounds straight out of CA. He requested copies of paper metadata. Our calculation is that this would be a total of 65,000 pages of information (all of which requires us to black out the observer’s personal information prior to providing it).”
Conspiracy to commit fraud is never pretty.
Collusion and professional malfeasance are not respectable work habits.
A bar needs to be established and then quite a few people drawn up before it.
And final one before I head out the enjoy the unseasonal November:
#3579
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=3579
“Dear Phil,
We’re always on holiday here in Jersey!
Since the letter was to me, I have decided, with the concurrence of others at AGU, to ignore it and not reply.
You, Mike Mann, and Ben Santer should form a club.
Alan Robock, Professor II
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences”
The irony, it stings!
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/5090.txt
date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:48:11 -0500
from: Peczkis Jan
subject: Re: [ITRDBFOR] How to intimidate scientists
to: ITRDBFOR@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
I object to the use of this forum to promote global warming as fact.
This forum should deal directly with tree rings and nothing else.
As for politics, it works both ways. Yes, there are those who would
like global warming to be false so that they would not have to change
their ways or spend the money to make corrections. But don’t forget
that there are also those who have used environmental concerns to mask
their antipathy towards free enterprise. They would like nothing more
than to use such things as the threat of global warming to increase
their socialistic governmental power over American society in general
and American free enterprise in particular.
Jan Peczkis
barry – in your long Nov 25 5:24am comment you talked a lot about ‘the team’ when I hadn’t even mentioned it, and you talk about how its members’ opinions are not important (only when it suits?), and you seem to do a lot of beating around the bush and avoiding of issues, but maybe your key statement is this: “Bradley thinks Mann is over-sure of his own take on millennial reconstructions. To me, this is healthy criticism in the field, and evidence that there are a range of views pulling at each other, rather than a group-think exercise, as it is so often described by climate change skeptics.“.
No, Bradley does not think Mann is “over-sure”, he thinks Mann is hopelessly biased. “Mike only likes these because they seem to match his idea of what went on in the last millennium, whereas he would savage them if they did not.” and that his work is shoddy “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”“. Note the quotes around “reconstruction” – he clearly does not think it was a proper reconstruction.
In this, we are looking at just one email among many. Those emails were not written to or for us, so we can’t expect them to answer all our questions. What they can do for us, however, is to help build up a picture of the field of climate science as it really exists behind the facade. When you say “there are a range of views pulling at each other” you are correct, but a very solid public facade has been constructed which serves to hide this aspect, and only the Climategatex emails allow us to glimpse behind it. A ‘range of views’ is healthy, the facade is not. But the real take-home from this email is that Michael Mann is thought by his colleague to be alarmingly biased, and that his work is shoddy. Start adding in some of the other emails, and as the picture builds up it gets less and less pretty the further you delve.
You ask “Where did you study?“. I would prefer to stick to the issue. Where I studied is not exactly relevant, any more than your name is.
“TheGoodLocust says:
November 24, 2011 at 10:34 am
I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but wouldn’t it be logical to have the password protected file contain further password protected archives?
This would allow FOIA to release bite-sized chunks over a longer period of time.”
Of course. My immediate conclusion on reading how the archive was set up. Makes total sense, and keeps us waiting for more.
I have been searching the emails for New Zealand related content, and just posted this on my site.
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/climategatte-2-salinger-puts-the-boot-into-de-freitas/
The email is from Jim Salinger, who was a ‘scientist’ at NIWA, the organisation that created a junk science temperature record for New Zealand. In the email, he proposes that journal editors write to the dean of University of Auckland with a clear intention to try to get a skeptic, de Freitas, sacked from the university. In another email, Michael Mann approves of the action……
Shocking stuff!
G. Karst says:
November 25, 2011 at 7:45 am
beng:
Gail:
The problem is thread size, just like it is at tips and notes. It makes loading and navigating difficult and slow.
Perhaps Anthony will consider rolling this thread into a new one. 1000 comments seems to be the effective limit per thread. GK
——————————–
Typing in the reply box is getting pretty slow… but reading the thread isn’t.
Another Hide The Decline?
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0018.txt
>>P.S. Ricardo, here is the Oroko temperature reconstruction.
>>
>>JANUARY-MARCH TEMPERATURES RECONSTRUCTED FROM
>>OROKO SWAMP, NEW ZEALAND SILVER PINE TREE RINGS
>>BE ADVISED THAT THE DATA AFTER 1958 ARE INSTRUMENTAL
>>TEMPERATURES
And this gang of lying, perverted climate thugs (at least one of them) has the gall to sue Tim Ball?! Seems as though Penn State fosters disgusting behavior by immoral low lifes like Mann.
I think the “passphrase” is something along the lines of:-
“you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well do ya, punk?”
Something odd here. I posted a link to the following earlier today, and it has disappeared:
I have been searching the emails for New Zealand related content, and just posted this on my site.
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/climategatte-2-salinger-puts-the-boot-into-de-freitas/
The email is from Jim Salinger, who was a ‘scientist’ at NIWA, the organisation that created a junk science temperature record for New Zealand. In the email, he proposes that journal editors write to the dean of University of Auckland with a clear intention to try to get a skeptic, de Freitas, sacked from the university. In another email, Michael Mann approves of the action……most interestingly the head of the IPCC is copied in on the emails of the hatchet job.
Shocking stuff!
The best search term I’ve come up with: “confidence”
(2535)
“Can we treat Holland’s follow-up letter as a separate request? As
Phil mentioned, Caspar Ammann can be rather slow at replying, so we
haven’t yet heard whether any emails that he sent us were sent in
confidence on his part. Can we respond to the initial FOI request,
and leave the follow-up till we hear back from Ammann?”
(4272)
“Hi Phil:
Sorry to hear this, but as you mention, it is no surprise. I’ve been
purposefully demure in my comments about MM. In complete confidence
(please share with no one), I will now mention that they formally
petitioned NCAR and its parent organization UCAR to have them force
Caspar and me to alter the Wahl-Ammann paper in fall 2005, based on a
series of charges related in spirit to those you mention below . They
also made complaint at this time about some comments Kevin Trenberth had
made. There was an implied threat of legal action to UCAR.”
(2624)
” I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can do. He promises to do
everything he can to achieve a quick turn-around time (he didn’t quantify this) and he
will also “ask (the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online asap
after the authors have received proofs”. He genuinely seems keen to correct the
scientific record as quickly as possible.
He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I emailed to you and
Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version)
appearance of Douglass et al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could
appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process.”
Crazy stuff!
barry says:
November 24, 2011 at 2:11 pm
“More Soylent Green
So, will Mann stop his legal action to halt the release of his emails now?
If the action is a matter of principle, he won’t.”
That’s funny!
The principle in play is access to public documents. Mann does not own the emails. Since they were done for a public agency using public money for another public agency, the public owns the research, the data, and all relevant communications and documents. Whether the emails were produced on a public agency system, or in Mann’s private email system, the issue is that public funds were used in the production of those emails. Therefore, the public owns them.
1000 plus thread comments and counting so i doubt anybody will read this!
CG1 was greeted with surprise, disbelief and bemusement mixed with some anger that the top climate scientists could stoop so low and be seen to be so vengeful and even incompetent but the anger was muted as we all hoped for a change of heart by those who were the architects of the whole Great Global Warming Scam.
CG2 is confirming in an even more definite way what CG1 first revealed but CG2, as bloggers delve ever deeper into the mails, has and is triggering a rapidly rising tide of anger and contempt right across the blog world for “climate warming science”, “climate warming scientists” and the institutions that house them and signs of that anger and contempt are even now starting to appear in some of the media as well.,
The full repercussions for climate science may not appear for quite a long time but a solid foundation for an eventual savage public backlash and reprisals against the perpetrators of this fraudulent scam are now being set firmly in place.
How many emails mention people like Jones, Briffa, Mann either about to leave to go someplace or having just returned? It seems to me that many of these emails mention such trips. They would seem to be paid for from grants by various governments. I would imagine they would rack up quite a bill with just all the travel involved to far off places in the world.