Climategate 2.0 emails – thread #2

NOTE: Thread #1 (the original still available here) has gotten unwieldy due to size. Many browsers can’t complete the load now. So, I’m starting this second open thread on the issue and moving all updates here. It will remain a sticky post for a few days like the original. New posts will appear below this one – Anthony

UPDATE62: 12/6/11 12:01 AM  Some results from a recent survey of IT professionals lead me to speculate on a direction for a “whodunnit” for Climategate 1 and 2.

UPDATE61: 12/5/11 9AM Mann o Mann, it seems the hockey stick was based on “questionable statistics” according to email 2383. Others discussed this.

UPDATE60: Out of context comes understanding – a collection of contextual quotes from Climategate 2.0

UPDATE59: It seems that WUWT graphics have found their way into lectures at the University of East Anglia, first alluded to in a UEA Climategate 2 email where Phil Jones got it wrong.  Happy to help.

UPDATE58: 11:55PM PST 12/3 The Weekly Standard summarizes Climategate II in a cover story titled Scientists Behaving Badly Part II.  WUWT is featured prominently.

UPDATE57: 8:45 AM PST 12/2 The Team makes a call to get a PhD thesis revoked of a skeptic they disagree with. Only one problem (besides the ethics) their scientific basis is bogus.

UPDATE56: 8AM PST 12/2 Climate Science and “The Cause”

UPDATE 55: 12AM PST 12/2 Dr. Kevin Trenberth can’t seem to tolerate a dissenting idea, and suggests a scientist at the National Hurricane Center be fired.

UPDATE54: 5PM PST 12/1 Steve McIntyre talks with Andrew Bolt about Climategate 2 in this video interview

UPDATE53: 9AM PST 12/1 Apparently a kid and his science fair project can invalidate the core premise of Mike Mann’s hockey stick, according to his dad, who happens to be an NCAR scientist.

UPDATE52: 11PM PST 11/30 BOMBSHELL Steve McIntyre has discovered more evidence of “hide the decline” and it’s worse than we thought.

UPDATE51: 7PM PST Tying WWF, UEA, Fenton Communications and “commissioned research” all together

UPDATE50: 1:15 PM PST 11/30 The genesis of 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

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


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


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

50 updates in a little more than a week! CNN may not like this, but the rest of the world seems to enjoy the theater!

Alix James

Ah, thanks!
Just left this over at CA but thought it might be able to provide some insight when reading the emails, particularly on attacking skeptical scientists:
Remember the American Association for the Advancement of Scicence from last June: “AAAS Condemns Personal Attacks on Climate Scientists”?
Fun to read in the context of the smears we’ve read from the emails. And one wonders if Mann even read it. My emphasis in italic:
We are deeply concerned by the extent and nature of personal attacks on climate scientists….
…The progress of science and protection of its integrity depend on both full transparency about the details of scientific methodology and the freedom to follow the pursuit of knowledge
…the scientific community has proven and well-established methods for resolving disagreements about research results.
…Science advances through a self-correcting system in which research results are shared and critically evaluated by peers and experiments are repeated when necessary. Disagreements about the interpretation of data, the methodology, and findings are part of daily scientific discourse. Scientists should not be subjected to fraud investigations or harassment simply for providing scientific results that are controversial
…The scientific community takes seriously its responsibility for policing research misconduct, and extensive procedures exist to protect the rigor of the scientific method and to ensure the credibility of the research enterprise.

Not sure if trying to get someone fired, or banned from journals is a “proven and well-established method for resolving disagreements about research results”, but maybe that’s just the “new normal”.

Geir in Norway

The treatment is impressive and in comparison to two years ago with Climategate 1.0 the “somewhat sceptic” side of the debate has gained in seriousness to the point that the rest of the world must take Climategate 2.0 seriously however much they hate to do so. Anthony’s humble website has been the focal point of climate realists all over the world and been brought to attention to all those, politicians, researchers and activists, who wished such a blog never was taken seriously.


I bet you wouldn’t have minded to have had a google ad for each troll-like-comment now though. :p
Google actually has a scheme that put the ads between comments, so it would be simple enough to place the ad code inside moderated comments. :-()

I’m a world religions scholar, following and participating in the debate for several years, now. Some may find my recent take (click on name) on AGW as a form of Buddhism, “the Four Noble Half-Truths,” an interesting exercise in paradigm-shifting.
Having interacted with some very smart AGW proponents, I always find it amazing, the degree to which the “will to believe” (and confirmation bias) can override mere objective reality.

David Marshall says: November 30, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Having interacted with some very smart AGW proponents, I always find it amazing, the degree to which the “will to believe” (and confirmation bias) can override mere objective reality.

Now, an article on “Confirmation Bias and the 12-Step Program” could be very helpful…
ps some here regard my own piece (click my name) as a kind of 12-step program for recovering warmaholics, I wouldn’t like to claim that but it might have some useful tips and ideas in that direction.

John M

Seems that Nature magazine is smuggly satisfied that Climategate 2.0 hasn’t attracted the media attention that the original did.
As even they acknowledge, part of the reason has to be that climate change is so-o-o-o last decade, but I wonder if it crossed their mind that perhaps it’s more that climate scientists behaving boorishly is no longer considered “news”.


David Marshall says:
November 30, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“I’m a world religions scholar, following and participating in the debate for several years, now. Some may find my recent take (click on name) on AGW as a form of Buddhism, “the Four Noble Half-Truths,” an interesting exercise in paradigm-shifting.
Having interacted with some very smart AGW proponents, I always find it amazing, the degree to which the “will to believe” (and confirmation bias) can override mere objective reality.”
Do you really have a definition of objective reality or did you just not eat your porridge before reaching that conclusion? :p


How to defend the indefensible
(1) ‘Out of Context’
CG-2.0 is adding TOO MUCH ‘In Context’ for all to many in the media. Just make sure that your audience doesn’t know the details and, hey presto, everything is as it says on the
tin – ‘Out of Context’
(2) ‘You shouldn’t be reading ‘stolen’ e-mails’
A double whammy here. Stops some of your audience from sinning and provides a great excuse for those who don’t want to ‘know the context’. ‘I don’t read stolen e-mails’ sounds
much more laudable than ‘La La, I can’t hear you!’
(3) ‘The latest release adds nothing new to the debate’
Another great reason not to look at the CG-2.0 messages for those who either didn’t read the CG-1.0 tranche or chose instead to read the translated/bowdlerised translations.
This leads naturally to number
(4)’Multiple investigations cleared the scientists of any fraudulent or unprofessional behaviour’
Given the background to CG1.0 that CG-2.0 has ‘partially’ added to, AND was AVAILABLE to the ‘investigators’ at the time (but not in the public domain) and the unwillingness of
official questioners to ask probing questions then ‘La La, I can’t hear you’ became unnecessary as ‘La La, I won’t ask you’ rapidly became the favoured approach of these
highly-paid and defendant-friendly inquisitors.
(5) ‘This doesn’t change the Science’
Yes, the investigations did say that sometimes these brilliant but often absent-minded scientists were guilty of less than perfect record-keeping but, nonetheless, their
conclusions are unarguable. We’re all going to hell in a hand basket.TACTIC- when caught out in a big lie- admit to a small one.
But the science has changed. It’s gone from ‘Global warming’ to ‘Climate Change’ to ‘Climate Disruption’ to whatever the PR calls it today. When the e-mails are read, at first
hand, too many of those scientists who created the science FLUNK the ‘SMELL TEST’
Maybe the science hasn’t changed but how can anyone trust the products of those whose actions, ethics and integrity are in the gutter. I unreservedly apologise to those tainted
and soured by the activities of the aforementioned.
(6) ‘and 97% of climate scientists agree. That the 97% equates to one execrably-worded, three question survey of about 10K individuals that got filtered down to 76 ‘Climate
Scientists’ says everything about the politics and zilch about the science. Forgive me for the revelation but I’m dressed more to the ‘natural variability’ side of the argument
than the ‘it was us humans wot done it governor’ extreme and I still reckon my answers would have pushed the 97% up to 99%!!!
(0) jUST ME
I’m called a Denier, far too often for my personal comfort but at least I’m now part of a growing consensus of individuals who share some of my sentiments. Here’s part of this
deniers credo
I AGREE that we’ve warmed since the ‘Little Ice Age – LIA’ of the 19th century. I’m a warmist unlike the Hockey-Stick supporters who, by supporting its findings, deny that there
was an LIA.
I AGREE that CO2 has a warming effect on our planet. Our recent 3% addition to that particular GHG over that of the natural background does seem to have had beneficial effects
such as increased Biomass, longer growing seasons and a distinct lack of ice-fairs on the Thames
I AGREE that computer models do a really good job at projecting what computer models say will happen at Longitude xx, Latitude yy in the year zzzz.
I AGREE that Man has been guilty of degrading the environment with dirty air, poisoned water, contaminated land and extermination of species but, and excuse my french dear
reader, WTF has that got to with CARBON DIOXIDE?
Let’s GET BACK to protecting the environment and tackling the REAL ISSUES rather than stuffing the bank accounts of opportunistic faux-manipulators.

Alix James

Good to compare Nature’s take with someone that Tamino calls a “talented blogger” (and someone who calls Tamino a “brilliant author”. Seems the back scratching isn’t limited to the Team, it also involves the water boys).
(He of the whopping 10 comments. Er, cough, cough…)
including one who perhaps indicates the frustration of the tragically inept:
as you can see from my URL, I’m running a blog Decoding SwiftHack that’s dedicated to, well, figuring out the truth behind the CRU data dumps. My main obstacle is that the .zip files themselves ( and aren’t a lot to go on, and I don’t have much information about the cyber-attack beyond what’s available to the general public — since after all I’m not ‘officially’ a policeman, researcher, or reporter working on the case.
I think if someone’s who’s actually tasked with the case can use the resources at his disposal to ask the right questions, we can get way further towards finding the truth

Maybe the UK cops should spread some of the money around? Although it seems they hired this guy’s dumber brother…


1DanydTroll says:
November 30, 2011 at 4:12 pm

….Do you really have a definition of objective reality or did you just not eat your porridge before reaching that conclusion? :p

Ah, come on… you can come up with a better ad hom attack than that, can’t you? (Or is your name sufficient evidence that it be discounted completely?)

Apparently the whitewashing of the first emails has been successful as I keep seeing more and more of these write-ups clearly showing the author does not understand the significance of these emails,
Climategate RIP (Michael Hanlon, Daily Mail, November 30, 2011)
Will someone please send him two books,
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science
Climategate: The Crutape Letters


I am appalled, I am not a scientist but interested and rely on the scientists to illuminate me, WUWT has been really informative and I thank all bloggers and authors for the hours of enjoyment I have had reading your posts. My beef is with the unethical stance of the warmist scientists, we the public (or maybe just me) don’t understand half of your models, math and graphs and rely on YOU to give us an objective view . We the public who pay some of your salaries have been mislead and if it were not for Mr Watts admirable site, would be even deeper in a pit of misinformation. I am seriously annoyed.
Now, if this was medicine and people had relied on similar scientific break throughs and research (which then turned out to be falsified) to cure or ameliorate illness, ……..what then?

Someone someplace needs to write a book only about the e-mails and what they mean to honest science. If what we read is the way science really works then we have lied to billions of school children for a century at least.

Luther Wu

1Danydtroll… you misspelled your own name this morning and there you are throwing stones.


The pharmaceutical industry is involved in the same type off science that the warmists are.
In June, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.
The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts. Drug company gifts and “consulting fees” are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 from companies whose work they judge. Isn’t that comforting?
This announcement by the New England Journal of Medicine is just the tip of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been pervasively corrupted by conflicts of interest and bias, throwing doubt on almost all scientific claims made in the biomedical field.

NASA’s Dr.Hathaway November prediction still going strong.
If you miss Dr. Hathaway recent broadcast (8 days ago) see link further down the post.
Note: This is not Space Admin (NASA) prediction, it is Dr. Hathaway personal view.
How did I do, hmmm ! but on the other hand I use the official NASA’s JPL ephemeris data .


1. Global Warming Hoax/Climategate 2.0 In FNC!!!
2. “All that´s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.” (Edmund Burke.)
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. No to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” (Dietrich Bonhoffer.)

A physicist

John Says “… The New England Journal of Medicine is just the tip of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been pervasively corrupted by conflicts of interest and bias.”

John, with respect, your post offers no evidence to support your conclusion, and the link you supplied offers no evidence either. As folks can easily verify, NEJM editorial policies are explicitly the opposite:

NEJM expects that authors of [review] articles not have any significant financial interest in any biomedical company relevant to the topics and products discussed in the article … None of the NEJM editors has any financial relationship with any biomedical company.

As it happens, NEJM is a leading medical journal for publishing articles that expose physician bias.

Sean Peake

Saw this on Tom Nelson’s site:
date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:18:37 +0100
from: “Palutikof, Jean”
subject: RE: Interesting thread on Climate Audit
to: “Phil Jones”
How very unpleasant.
The problem is they are like rottweilers – they never give up. So the best policy from the
TSU point of view seems to me to make it EASIER for them to access stuff, rather than try
to slow them down by stashing it at Harvard/National Met Archives. Then at least we can
get it all out in the open without having to wade through accusations of trying to prevent
them accessing stuff.
Dr Jean Palutikof
Met Office, Fitzroy Road
Exeter EX1 3PB
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1392 886212
Mobile: +44 (0)7753 880737
Fax: +44 (0)1392 885681
What does she mean when she writes “by stashing stuff at Harvard”?

Jean Bosseler

Dear Anthony,
This is marginally related to the the subject, but you might be interested:,1518,796623,00.html
and as a reminder:,1518,505095,00.html
In line with Jones, Mann et al.
Best regards


My correction to the FNC link:


@ a physicist,
The contractual/legal term ‘significant financial interest’ usually has exclusions… Here is an example from a certain university.
Significant Financial Interest. A Significant Financial Interest is anything of monetary value, including but not limited to, salary or other payments for services (e.g. consulting fees); ownership interests (e.g., stocks, stock options or other ownership interests): and intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights). Significant Financial Interests includes the interests of the employee’s Immediate Family.
Salary, royalties, or other remuneration received from or through the University;
Any ownership interest in an associated entity approved by the Board of Regents under BOR Policy #407;
Income from seminars, lectures, or teaching engagements sponsored by public or nonprofit entities;
Income from service on advisory committees or review panels for public or nonprofit entities; or
Any interest in a business that does not rise to the level of being “significant.” An employee has a significant financial or other interest in a business when the employee and the employee’s Immediate Family own more than an aggregate of 5% equity in a business (and that equity’s market value exceeds $10,000), serve as paid or unpaid officers and/or directors of a business, or receive more than an aggregate of $10,000 income from a business annually.
A financial interest arising solely from investment in a business by a mutual fund, pension or other institutional investment fund over which the employee does not exercise control.

Troll: I’m not sure what you’re getting at — reality isn’t something we define, it’s something we (hopefully) observe. And I only eat porridge 6 weeks out of the year, 3 weeks this year, since I spent the other half in China.

Roger Knights

Sean Peake says:
What does she mean when she writes “by stashing stuff at Harvard”?

The third IPCC report (TAR) was stashed in hard copy form only at a museum at Harvard that was undergoing renovation–hence was inconvenient and temporarily inaccessible.

This is the letter I will be sending to my Congresscritter and US Senators later today. Unfortunately, my Congresscritter doesn’t have an email address for his constituents – a real failure in this century. Feel free to copy and paste or use whatever you wish. Sorry for the length.
Dear Congressman Lamborn (R-CO District 5)
I have currently read less than ten percent of the latest “Climategate” emails, and less than 70% of the previous release. Even so, it has become blatantly obvious that climate “science” is not as settled as many would have us believe, and that the “anthropogenic signal” is neither as strong as it has been portrayed to be, nor as “dangerous” as the “true believers” espouse. The one certainty I have acquired from my readings of these emails and other information is that the Environmental Protection Agency’s ruling that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” is both scientifically wrong and politically indefensible. Any regulation based upon that ruling is also indefensible.
I know you don’t have time to keep up with all the information currently available, and the tons of additional information that is constantly being generated. I do believe, however, that this subject is something that must be dealt with, and that someone on your staff should be tasked with openly, honestly, evaluating this data. There is every indication that not only fraud but slander, libel, and the deliberate destruction or misrepresentation of data has taken place, including such acts at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU).
While it would be “nice” to have a totally reliable, pollution-free, low-cost source of electrical energy, the technology just isn’t currently available, and probably won’t be for fifty years or more. The current Administration’s attempt to force the issue has resulted in extensive fraud, graft, and outright theft, and has failed miserably. We truly do need a national energy policy, but that policy will require that we continue to use oil, coal, and natural gas for the foreseeable future – possibly for another century or more. Nuclear power, especially thorium reactors, may be one key to a carbon-free future, but obviously solar and wind will only be capable of supplying a small percentage of our needs. In the meantime, government action is only delaying our achieving any sort of energy independence and killing jobs.
I’m a disabled veteran with a chronic pain problem, so I can’t be much help with keeping track of this for you. I do recommend, however, that this is something that could be “crowd-sourced” here in Colorado, for little or no cost. I’m sure that there are many others who would be willing to devote a small portion of their time to tracking what is being written about climate science, and keeping you informed. There are also another dozen topics that could equally be crowd-sourced to your advantage, including environment, jobs, the military, infrastructure, and government over-reach. You may also wish to discuss some of these ideas with your colleagues in the House of Representatives.
In the meantime, here are a list of sources that can provide anyone interested with links to both sides of the climate debate:
Honest, open debate
Watts Up with That
Climate Audit/Steve McIntyre
CO2 Science
Bishop Hill
Bob Tisdale
The Air Vent/Jeff Id
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr
Climate Skeptic
Dr. Tim Ball
Tallbloke’s Talkshop
Jo Nova
The Chiefio – E. M. Smith
Global Warming Policy Fndn.
Dr. Roy Spencer
Dr. Judith Curry
Science & Environmental Policy Proj.
Science & Public Policy Inst.
“Consensus-driven Science”
Real Climate
Sierra Club
Union of Concerned Scientists
Science of Doom
Tamino’s Open Mind
Skeptical Science
Environmental Protection Agency
Natural Resources Defense Council
Michael A. Weatherford
MSgt, USAF, Retired
Colorado Springs, CO

A physicist

John says: This announcement by the New England Journal of Medicine is just the tip of the iceberg of a scientific establishment that has been pervasively corrupted by conflicts of interest and bias, throwing doubt on almost all scientific claims made in the biomedical field.

John, with the help of PubMed and searching for the keyword “bias” it is easy for anyone to locate no less than 361 New England Journal of Medicine articles that analyze sources of medical bias skeptically, analytically, and critically — with full disclosure of potential conflicts of interest on the part of the authors — covering every aspect of medical science and practice.
Thus, your criticisms of the NEJM appear to be poorly grounded in fact. If anything, NEJM is a major public resource for reasoned, fact-based, quantitative skepticism.


I’ve been back home since climategate 2 broke and have been reading about it on my smartphone. From what I have read so far, I think these emails are far more damaging to ‘the cause’ than the first batch. And I wonder if what’s in the encrypted file is even more informative?
I gotta believe that there’s been a lots of incidents of wadded panties the last 10 days or so at organizations like, PES, etc…

Alix James

Heh: From #4509
“date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:50:31 -0500
from: Edward Cook
subject: NINO3 SST recon
to: Keith Briffa
I have taken a quick look at that deconstruction of the MBH paper by McIntyre and
McKitrick. They claim to show a number of errors in the data Mike used. I know that you and
Tim have worked with Mike’s data as well. Did you find the same things? I’m just curious.

I don’t plan on weighing in on this mess other than to suggest that Mike, Ray, and Malcolm
are living in glass houses when they criticize the Esper work in the way they do. One needs
to be very careful about criticizing the analyses of others because turn-around is fair
play and payback is a bitch.
That is all I have to say.”
1) why would one ask this question unless there is a greater than expected chance of a “yes”?
2) that bold bit in the last para is pretty prescient.
BTW, I did a search for naughty words, it seems that Edward Cook is pretty much the hands down winner…

Hey, how’s Arctic ice doing?

Ben M

From Mike Mann – Plausible Deniability:
Part of email 1256735067
At 16:54 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:
thanks Phil,
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t?
As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we
actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ’06 sensitivity test) in our
original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly
deniable accusations,

Ed Scott

The Bolt Report

Which email, is the smoking gun?


Somewhere in the mails must be evidence of criminal acts. PROSECUTE!!!

I’ve just been Climate Censored! :-O (new word?) The Swedish university town of Uppsala’s local newspaper UNT ”disappeared” my Monday 28/11 skeptical commment, then put it back after my complaining and has now deleted it again!
Climategate 2.0 emails are a very forbidden subject over here in Sweden. What has Tomas Lohammer got that I haven’t got ??? Here is what I wrote:
Jens and Jabob are talking politics not science, consensus not facts. Internationally and in Sweden people are righly getting bored with their doomsday scare stories. See this Newsmill article for a viewpoint opposing Jens and Jacob:
Their ”100 scientists against Einstein” argument, or ”200 polar researchers say”, does not change the fact that polar ice varies naturally in 60 year Pacific Ocean cycles, ask NASA and look at the data.
Canada has just pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, USA and China have pulled out of giving money to the Climate Fund, the Climate Circus is collapsing daily & Jens and Jacob are on Durban’s sunny beaches.
Maybe I was ”erased” because of linking to disreputable websites 🙂 or maybe it was the non-respectful skeptical tone, maybe the English or maybe I got the weather prediction at Durban wrong. But hey … who really believes they can accurately predict future weather ? … oh wait …;-)


Trenberth is the travesty.

A physicist

John points @ a physicist toward the WSJ article “Scientists’ Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results”

John, the well-written WSJ article that you provided (thanks!) is just the tip-of-the-iceberg … not an iceberg of incompetence and corruption (although these will always be with us) … but an iceberg of huge data-sets and increasingly sophisticated models for explain them.
In retrospect, one of GW Bush’s best appointments was Elias Zerhouni as NIH Director, and it’s well-worth watching Zerhouni’s Roadmap for Medical Research.
For what it’s worth, it’s my strongly held opinion is that Zerhouni’s roadmap underestimates the accelerating pace of medical science, and moreover the WSJ greatly underestimates both the challenges and the enterprise opportunities of assimilating and applying that progress. Indeed, my colleagues and I work as hard and creatively as we can to make certain that even experts like Zerhouni and the WSJ grossly underestimate the pace and scope of today’s medical research challenges and opportunities. You can count on it! 🙂
As for climate change research, it’s not all that different from medical research … in neither case should the pace of progress be underestimated, and neither should the participants be mistaken for saints. 🙂

“Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
December 1, 2011 at 3:16 am
Someone someplace needs to write a book only about the e-mails and what they mean to honest science. If what we read is the way science really works then we have lied to billions of school children for a century at least.”
No, the emails need to be digested and understood. The narrative that emerges from that understanding then has to be constructed, using the emails as reference points. And then it has to be taken out and shoved down the thoats of our lazy journalists, politicians, and science establishment who never bothered to investigate the AGW conspiracy that has wasted trillions and hurt millions (maybe billions).


Dr Phil to Peter Thorne in 4460.txt

Probably worth doing. Start something off at you end. This issue should die down soon. I’m coming down for June 1. David was going to check availabilities for discussions of HadCRUT4 (and HadSST3). We could decide to make the station data available that will go into CRUTEM4 (and hence HadCRUT4). My issue about not doing it is when will it stop. They will then want programs. As you know there are two key files (the 61-90 normals and the SD file). The station headers within the station data aren’t that well documented. If MOHC does release the station data, I’ll let MOHC deal with all the flak. You don’t know what some of the header info is, for example. There are codes that cause some series to only get used from certain dates. I can barely remember some of it. There will also be questions as to why some series don’t come to the present date – the US ones for example.


Get me a skeptic, any skeptic, maybe one from Texas!

This was probably my fault! I suggested you and Peter as Alexey here is quite new and hasn’t been to the media course here yet – yes we do have a course for talking to the media. I am off tomorrow to Spain, and was looking forward to a nice long and late Spanish conference meal. I didn’t want to chase around Barcelona trying to find a studio – see below.
Not heard of this guy Rickin. Google is a waste of time. First it thinks I meant Rockin and then Ph.Rickin – so useless. It does sound as though it isn’t worth doing – especially if they have to ask Bob Watson or Martin Parry to find a skeptic. The press office here said it was a US climate skeptic – as though like Texas, they are bigger and better than UK skeptics.
Glad I’ll be in Spain
Hasta Luego Amigos

SimonAt 15:45 28/10/2008, Gabi Hegerl wrote:
Hi guys, the BBC just called and tried to talk me into a debate with some sceptic (any sceptic the guy that called seems VERY clueless was thinking of calling Bob Watson or Martin Parry to
get in a sceptic – I should NOT have enlightened him in retrospect,…..) about if this paper now proofs for good that humans are changing climate. this seems like a really strange tack. any recomms? heard between lines that you turned him down Peter! maybe should just do the same thing. stupid idea. dont want to debate a professional debater on air. do you know this guy, Rickin?

Jones sure loves to brag about his travels and extravagant meals, doesn’t he?


Jones to Wigley and Santer 2308.txt Now that Pielke has resigned they will be able to ignore him?

Ben and Tom,
Congratulations on the paper coming out on Aug 12. I did talk to Nature about the three papers.
Last week seems to have been a good one to have had off. I did this because of the IPCC submission deadline of Aug 12. As you said Tom, there were some stupid messages going around. If only these people would try and write peer-review papers, provided they get proper reviews. The one from Sonia should be kept as it proves that E&E is not a proper journal. I almost missed the one with Pielke’s resignation in. Is this going to make your CCSP task easier or harder? Presumably now you’ll get all his comments to officially deal with. Maybe you’ll be able to ignore them?

So what defines a “proper” journal is apparently who it gets to do its reviews.


1180.txt According to Dr. Clare Goodess, the definition if “astroturfing” in the US is anyone who opposes climate change action through apparent grassroots activity!

In the US, the attempt by large organisations to oppose climate change action via apparent grassroots activity is called ‘astroturfing’. Grist is quite a good site to learn about these kind of things. See, for example,


1214.txt (love this one) Tim Osborn to Briffa:

Apparently we owe Mike Mann an apology!
B*ll*cks to that!

Also includes a zinger from von Storch to Ritson in the quoted text:
“I am actually not that stupid as you indicate.”


Some of these might have already been pointed out, I can’t keep track of what has been posted about in this and the earlier thread. I hope it is ok to post the emails I happen to find interesting as I filter them with various searches.
Jones to David Parker and Thorne 2117.txt

1. UEA has denied access to the data to McIntyre (and at least two others in the past) – in 2007. One of the three appealed and that appeal was rejected. We would look stupid if you released the data now. I can put your FOI person in touch with the one at UEA. I think they already know each other!

So once you refuse to release data to one person, I guess that becomes your justification for releasing it to anyone else in the future. Otherwise, “we” would look stupid.

Gail Combs

pauline says:
December 1, 2011 at 1:43 am
I am appalled,….
Now, if this was medicine and people had relied on similar scientific break throughs and research (which then turned out to be falsified) to cure or ameliorate illness, ……..what then?
I hate to tell you Pauline but the rot has gone all the way through the science community. The fact that societies like the American Chemical Society et al have “officially” agreed to support these buffoons is the outward sign of the rot. Now we are starting to see the nastier side.
Scientists’ Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results
“This is one of medicine’s dirty secrets: Most results, including those that appear in top-flight peer-reviewed journals, can’t be reproduced….
There is also a more insidious and pervasive problem: a preference for positive results….
Adds Atlas’ Mr. Booth: “Nobody gets a promotion from publishing a negative study.” or
”The FDA has found “widespread falsification” and “manipulation of equilibration samples” at Cetero research from 2005 to 2010. The fallout could affect dozens of drugs and companies…”
Dutch psychologist falsified dozens of papers; suspended from university
”A Dutch psychologist has admitted making up data and faking research over many years in studies which were then published in peer-reviewed scientific journals….
This university psychologist has admitted that he falsified numerous studies in an effort to meet the academic demand to “publish” and to “perform” and was subsequently suspended from his position at the university. While this is worthwhile news in and of itself, it raises a question regarding the validity of the subject of psychology. If a psychologist must falsify dozens of studies to either prove his hypothoses or to make his studies more impressive or publishable, the implication is that there is something not quite right with the subject of psychology. 
This raises a second concern: How many other university/research psychologists are presenting falsified research?”
Part of the underlying cause:
The Shadow Scholar

…..In the past year, I’ve written roughly 5,000 pages of scholarly literature, most on very tight deadlines. But you won’t find my name on a single paper.
I’ve written toward a master’s degree in cognitive psychology, a Ph.D. in sociology, and a handful of postgraduate credits in international diplomacy. I’ve worked on bachelor’s degrees in hospitality, business administration, and accounting….. I’ve attended three dozen online universities. I’ve completed 12 graduate theses of 50 pages or more. All for someone else.
You’ve never heard of me, but there’s a good chance that you’ve read some of my work…. My customers are your students. I promise you that. Somebody in your classroom uses a service that you can’t detect, that you can’t defend against, that you may not even know exists.
I work at an online company that generates tens of thousands of dollars a month by creating original essays based on specific instructions provided by cheating students…..

I wonder if some of the crappy papers critiqued here at WUWT were written by this guy???

Gail Combs

Mark Stoval (@MarkStoval) says:
December 1, 2011 at 3:16 am
Someone someplace needs to write a book only about the e-mails and what they mean to honest science. If what we read is the way science really works then we have lied to billions of school children for a century at least.
Book on Climategate 1.0
Climategate: The Crutape Letters [Paperback]
The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Co… by A.W MONTFORD
The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nat… by Roy W Spencer
The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the world’s top Climate Scientist by Donna Laframboise

A physicist

There is a saying in medicine “The plural of anecdote is not data”, and to my knowledge (and I would be happy to be corrected) there has been no systematic study of whether positive-outcome climate-change research fares better in peer review than negative-outcome.
It would surprise no-one, however, if such a study were to find appreciable climate-change reviewer bias, for the simple and sobering reason that reviewer bias is commonplace in mathematics, science, engineering, and medicine as a whole. The following two high-quality studies of peer review bias are readily found on PubMed: “Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial” (Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), 2007) and “Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not” (Archives of Internal Medicine 2010).
Paradoxically, the deplorable prevalence of bias throughout mathematics, science, and medicine ensures that cherry-picking instances of bias in climate research uncovers little or no useful information, since similar instances will be found similarly often by similar cherry-picking in every scientific enterprise examined.
How then do mathematics, science, and medicine progress? Surely not article-by-article, since it has been evident for several centuries that every field of math, science, engineering and medicine is afflicted by innumerable articles that are boring and/or and/or badly reviewed and/or simply wrong and/or fraudulent. The four keys to progress instead are replication, prediction, inspiration, and consilience. For example, one climate-change article with a hockey-stick graph means relatively little, but the progressive accumulation of climate-change hockey-sticks accretes confidence.

Climate Science, regarding the ClimateGate II e-mail collection and the actions and correspondence they self-reveal, this vid’s for you:


The gift that just keeps giving 🙂