Climategate 3.0 has occurred – the password has been released

This post will be a top “sticky” post for some time, new essays will appear below this one. UPDATES as emails are noted, will appear below.  – Anthony

UPDATE8 3/19/13: Jeff Condon has received legal notice from UEA warning him not to release the password. So far, I have not seen any such notice. For those who demand it be released, take note. – Anthony

A number of climate skeptic bloggers (myself included) have received this message yesterday. While I had planned to defer announcing this until a reasonable scan could be completed, some other bloggers have let the cat out of the bag. I provide this introductory email sent by “FOIA” without editing or comment. I do have one email, which I found quite humorous, which I will add at the end so that our friends know that this is valid. Update – the first email I posted apparently was part of an earlier release (though I had not seen it, there are a number of duplicates in the all.zip file) so I have added a second one.

Update 2: Additional emails have been added – Anthony

Update 3: Delingpole weighs in.

Climategate: FOIA – The Man Who Saved The World – Telegraph Blogs

I hope one day that FOIA’s true identity can be revealed so that he can be properly applauded and rewarded for his signal service to mankind. He is a true hero, who deserves to go on the same roll of honour as Norman Borlaug, Julian Simon and Steve McIntyre: people who put truth, integrity and the human race first and ideology second. Unlike the misanthropic greenies who do exactly the opposite.

Update4: An email  showing some insight on the beginning of the use of the word “denier” along with some demonstrated coziness with media activists.

Update5: Mike Mann rages and releases the attack dogs Monbiot, Romm, Media Matters and others in response to a perfectly valid and polite inquiry from the Wall Street Journal, suggesting a smear before the reporter even write the story.

Update6: From Junkscience.com, who spotted this exchange: Wigley accuses IPCC and lead authors of ‘dishonest presentations of model results’; Accuses Mann of deception; Mann admits

Update7: From Junkscience.com, Briffa worries that manmade environmental change distorts tree-ring analysis.

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

Subject:  FOIA 2013: the password

It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.

Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time.  After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural 😉

If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).

The “all.7z” password is [redacted]

DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD.  Quote other parts if you like.

Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality.  I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.

I prepared CG1 & 2 alone.  Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.

Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort.  Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.

To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out,  I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.

Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.

I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment.  If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.

I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises.  Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them.  Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.

That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil.  The Republicans didn’t plot this.  USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK.  There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to  garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary.  I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never.  Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future.  The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen.  Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”.  The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script.  We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life.  It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc.  deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit.  No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc.  don’t have that luxury.  The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try.  I couldn’t morally afford inaction.  Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others.  My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).

Oh, one more thing.  I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.

I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project.  For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.

More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause.  The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.

Keep on the good work.  I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering.  I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.

Over and out.

Mr. FOIA

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

Here is one email that I found interesting and humorous, email addresses redacted as a courtesy. Note the bolding:

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

—–Original Message—–

From: Simon Tett

Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 1:36 PM

To: matcollins@xxx.xx.xxx

Cc: t.osborn@xxx.xx.xxx ; k.briffa@xxx.xx.xxx

Subject: Paleo-Paper

Mat,

The papers looks very good. Hope these comments aren’t too late…. I

don’t think I need to see it again.

Simon

Response to reviewers

I couldn’t read your letter — PS files as attachments seem to get

munged by our firewall/email scanner so I’ve just looked at the paper

to see if I think you’ve dealt with the reviewers comments.

Editors comments:

3) Don’t think you have dealt with the enhanced multi-decadal

variability in the paper.

Reviewer B.

1) Didn’t see a justification for use of tree-rings and not using ice

cores — the obvious one is that ice cores are no good — see Jones et

al, 1998.

2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann

   et al did (I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because

   we think it is crap!)

3) No justification in the paper for the 9 regions. I think there is

justification in the JGR Briffa paper.

4) That is a good point — I would strongly suspect that the control has

a lot less variance than the observations over the last century —

not the ALL run though!

5) No response to this in the paper. I suspect we are doing better

stats than all the rest though!

Specific Questions/comments

1) That is a good point: How about (though a bit germanic)

“Comparison of simulated northern hemisphere variability with

paleo-temperature …”

Didn’t see that you had dealt with points 5 and 6.

Ditto for point 11.

Figures.

2-4 seem to be much as submitted!

Figs 5-8 — do you want to use colour? It would cost!

Ref C.

Don’t seem to have dealt with point a) and it is quite an important

point as well!

Point b is a reasonable point which I think you go some way to dealing

with. I suggest you stress on page 20 the “exploratory” nature of our

analysis. I am just about to start such a run once I have sorted out

the orbital forcings and how to calculate their radiative forcings.

Point c — not sure what the referee is saying here!

Comments on the MS.

Page 9 “pith” means

Same sentence I think you need to add that they are grouped by

species as well (the rest of the para implies that is what is

done).

Last sentence of penultimate para: stress that decadal to century

scale variability is what we are interested mainly because of its

importance in deciding if recent climate change is anthropogenic or

natural.

First full para on page 13 — didn’t really follow this para.

2nd para, line 11 consider “in comparison” -> “when compared”

Page 14, first para — consider expanding the abbreviations i.e CAS ->

CAS (Central Asia).

Page 20, last para. insert ‘in the four simulations’ after ‘six

“negative spikes”‘.

Section 10 should be Appendix A.

Dr Simon Tett  Managing Scientist, Data development and applications.

Met Office   Hadley Centre  Climate Prediction and Research

London Road   Bracknell    Berkshire   RG12 2SY   United Kingdom

Tel: +44 xxxxxxx   Fax: +44 xxxxxx

E-mail: xxxxxxx

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

Second email (added after original post)

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

—–Original Message—–

From: Michael E. Mann

Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:14 AM

To: Edward Cook

Cc: tom crowley ; Michael E. Mann ; esper@xxxxxx ; Jonathan

Overpeck ; Keith Briffa ; mhughes@xxxxxxx ; rbradley@xxxxxx

Subject: Re: hockey stick

<x-flowed>

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your message. I’m forwarding this to Ray and Malcolm to reply to

some of your statements below,

mike

At 10:59 AM 5/2/01 -0400, Edward Cook wrote:

> >Ed,

> >

> >heard some rumor that you are involved in a non-hockey stick

> >reconstruction

> >of northern hemisphere temperatures.  I am very intrigued to learn about

> >this – are these results suggesting the so called Medieval Warm Period

> >may

> >be warmer than the early/mid 20th century?

> >

> >any enlightenment on this would be most appreciated, Tom

> >

> >

> >

> >Thomas J.  Crowley

> >Dept. of Oceanography

> >Texas A&M University

> >College Station, TX  77843-3146

> >979-xxxxxxx

> >979-xxxxxxx

> >979-xxxxxxx

>

>Hi Tom,

>

>As rumors often are, the one you heard is not entirely accurate. So, I will

>take some time here to explain for you, Mike, and others exactly what was

>done and what the motivation was, in an effort to hopefully avoid any

>misunderstanding. I especially want to avoid any suggestion that this work

>was being done to specifically counter or refute the “hockey stick”.

>However, it does suggest (as do other results from your EBM, Peck’s work,

>the borehole data, and Briffa and Jones large-scale proxy estimates) that

>there are unresolved (I think) inconsistencies in the low-frequency aspects

>of the hockey stick series compared to other results. So, any comparisons

>with the hockey stick were made with that spirit in mind.

>

>What Jan Esper and I are working on (mostly Jan with me as second author)

>is a paper that was in response to Broecker’s Science Perspectives piece on

>the Medieval Warm Period. Specifically, we took strong exception to his

>claim that tree rings are incapable of preserving century time scale

>temperature variability. Of course, if Broecker had read the literature, he

>would have known that what he claimed was inaccurate. Be that as it may,

>Jan had been working on a project, as part of his post-doc here, to look at

>large-scale, low-frequency patterns of tree growth and climate in long

>tree-ring records provided to him by Fritz Schweingruber. With the addition

>of a couple of sites from foxtail pine in California, Jan amassed a

>collection of 14 tree-ring sites scattered somewhat uniformly over the

>30-70 degree NH latitude band, with most extending back 1000-1200 years.

>All of the sites are from temperature-sensitive locations (i.e. high

>elevation or high northern latitude. It is, as far as I know, the largest,

>longest, and most spatially representative set of such

>temperature-sensitive tree-ring data yet put together for the NH

>extra-tropics.

>

>In order to preserve maximum low-frequency variance, Jan used the Regional

>Curve Standardization (RCS) method, used previously by Briffa and myself

>with great success. Only here, Jan chose to do things in a somewhat radical

>fashion. Since the replication at each site was generally insufficient to

>produce a robust RCS chronology back to, say, AD 1000, Jan pooled all of

>the original measurement series into 2 classes of growth trends: non-linear

>(~700 ring-width series) and linear (~500 ring-width series). He than

>performed independent RCS on the each of the pooled sets and produced 2 RCS

>chronologies with remarkably similar multi-decadal and centennial

>low-frequency characteristics. These chronologies are not good at

>preserving high-frquency climate information because of the scattering of

>sites and the mix of different species, but the low-frequency patterns are

>probably reflecting the same long-term changes in temperature. Jan than

>averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology

>extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm Period –

>Little Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong decadal

>fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of

>neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH. The punctuations also appear,

>in some cases, to be related to known major volcanic eruptions.

>

>Jan originally only wanted to show this NH extra-tropical RCS chronology in

>a form scaled to millimeters of growth to show how forest productivity and

>carbon sequestration may be modified by climate variability and change over

>relatively long time scales. However, I encouraged him to compare his

>series with NH instrumental temperature data and the proxy estimates

>produced by Jones, Briffa, and Mann in order bolster the claim that his

>unorthodox method of pooling the tree-ring data was producing a record that

>was indeed related to temperatures in some sense. This he did by linearly

>rescaling his RCS chronology from mm of growth to temperature anomalies. In

>so doing, Jan demonstrated that his series, on inter-decadal time scales

>only, was well correlated to the annual NH instrumental record. This result

>agreed extremely well with those of Jones and Briffa. Of course, some of

>the same data were used by them, but probably not more than 40 percent

>(Briffa in particular), so the comparison is based on mostly, but not

>fully, independent data. The similarity indicated that Jan’s approach was

>valid for producing a useful reconstruction of multi-decadal temperature

>variability (probably weighted towards the warm-season months, but it is

>impossible to know by how much) over a larger region of the NH

>extra-tropics than that produced before by Jones and Briffa. It also

>revealed somewhat more intense cooling in the Little Ice Age that is more

>consistent with what the borehole temperatures indicate back to AD 1600.

>This result also bolsters the argument for a reasonably large-scale

>Medieval Warm Period that may not be as warm as the late 20th century, but

>is of much(?) greater significance than that produced previously.

>

>Of course, Jan also had to compare his record with the hockey stick since

>that is the most prominent and oft-cited record of NH temperatures covering

>the past 1000 years. The results were consistent with the differences shown

>by others, mainly in the century-scale of variability. Again, the Esper

>series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period – Little

>Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the

>hockey stick. Yet the two series agree reasonably well on inter-decadal

>timescales, even though they may not be 1:1 expressions of the same

>temperature window (i.e. annual vs. warm-season weighted). However, the

>tree-ring series used in the hockey stick are warm-season weighted as well,

>so the difference between “annual” and “warm-season weighted” is probably

>not as large as it might seem, especially before the period of instrumental

>data (e.g. pre-1700) in the hockey stick. So, they both share a significant

>degree of common interdecal temperature information (and some, but not

>much, data), but do not co-vary well on century timescales. Again, this has

>all been shown before by others using different temperature

>reconstructions, but Jan’s result is probably the most comprehensive

>expression (I believe) of extra-tropical NH temperatures back to AD 800 on

>multi-decadal and century time scales.

>

>Now back to the Broecker perspectives piece. I felt compelled to refute

>Broecker’s erroneous claim that tree rings could not preserve long-term

>temperature information. So, I organized a “Special Wally Seminar” in which

>I introduced the topic to him and the packed audience using Samuel

>Johnson’s famous “I refute it thus” statement in the form of “Jan Esper and

>I refute Broecker thus”. Jan than presented, in a very detailed and well

>espressed fashion, his story and Broecker became an instant convert. In

>other words, Wally now believes that long tree-ring records, when properly

>selected and processed, can preserve low-frequency temperature variability

>on centennial time scales. Others in the audience came away with the same

>understanding, one that we dendrochronologists always knew to be the case.

>This was the entire purpose of Jan’s work and the presentation of it to

>Wally and others. Wally had expressed some doubts about the hockey stick

>previously to me and did so again in his perspectives article. So, Jan’s

>presentation strongly re-enforced Wally’s opinion about the hockey stick,

>which he has expressed to others including several who attended a

>subsequent NOAA meeting at Lamont. I have no control over what Wally says

>and only hope that we can work together to reconcile, in a professional,

>friendly manner, the differences between the hockey stick and other proxy

>temperature records covering the past 1000 years. This I would like to do.

>

>I do think that the Medieval Warm Period was a far more significant event

>than has been recognized previously, as much because the high-resolution

>data to evaluate it had not been available before. That is much less so the

>case now. It is even showing up strongly now in long SH tree-ring series.

>However, there is still the question of how strong this event was in the

>tropics. I maintain that we do not have the proxies to tell us that now.

>The tropical ice core data are very difficult to interpret as temperature

>proxies (far worse than tree rings for sure and maybe even unrelated to

>temperatures in any simple linear sense as is often assumed), so I do not

>believe that they can be used alone as records to test for the existence of

>a Medieval Warm Period in the tropics. That being the case, there are

>really no other high-resolution records from the tropics to use, and the

>teleconnections between long extra-tropical proxies and the tropics are, I

>believe, far too tenuous and probably unstable to use to sort out this

>issue.

>

>So, at this stage I would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was probably

>a global extra-tropical event, at the very least, with warmth that was

>persistent and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in

>the 20th century. However, I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it

>exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the

>precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do

>find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event

>to be grossly premature and probably wrong. Kind of like Mark Twain’s

>commment that accounts of his death were greatly exaggerated. If, as some

>people believe, a degree of symmetry in climate exists between the

>hemispheres, which would appear to arise from the tropics, then the

>existence of a Medieval Warm Period in the extra-tropics of the NH and SH

>argues for its existence in the tropics as well. Only time and an enlarged

>suite of proxies that extend into the tropics will tell if this is true.

>

>I hope that what I have written clarifies the rumor and expresses my views

>more completely and accurately.

>

>Cheers,

>

>Ed

>

>==================================

>Dr. Edward R. Cook

>Doherty Senior Scholar

>Tree-Ring Laboratory

>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

>Palisades, New York  10964  USA

>Phone:  1-845-xxxxxx

>Fax:    1-845-xxxxxx

>Email:  drdendro@xxxxxxx

>==================================

_______________________________________________________________________

Professor Michael E. Mann

Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA 22903

_______________________________________________________________________

e-mail: mann@xxxxxxx  Phone: (804) 924-7770   FAX: (804) 982-2137

http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

—–Original Message—–

From: Michael E. Mann

Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:14 AM

To: Edward Cook

Cc: tom crowley ; Michael E. Mann ; esper@xxxxxxxx ; Jonathan

Overpeck ; Keith Briffa ; mhughes@xxxxxx ; rbradley@xxxxxxx

Subject: Re: hockey stick

<x-flowed>

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your message. I’m forwarding this to Ray and Malcolm to reply to

some of your statements below,

mike

At 10:59 AM 5/2/01 -0400, Edward Cook wrote:

> >Ed,

> >

> >heard some rumor that you are involved in a non-hockey stick

> >reconstruction

> >of northern hemisphere temperatures.  I am very intrigued to learn about

> >this – are these results suggesting the so called Medieval Warm Period

> >may

> >be warmer than the early/mid 20th century?

> >

> >any enlightenment on this would be most appreciated, Tom

> >

> >

> >

> >Thomas J.  Crowley

> >Dept. of Oceanography

> >Texas A&M University

> >College Station, TX  77843-3146

> >979-xxxxx

> >979-xxxxx

> >979-xxxxx

>

>Hi Tom,

>

>As rumors often are, the one you heard is not entirely accurate. So, I will

>take some time here to explain for you, Mike, and others exactly what was

>done and what the motivation was, in an effort to hopefully avoid any

>misunderstanding. I especially want to avoid any suggestion that this work

>was being done to specifically counter or refute the “hockey stick”.

>However, it does suggest (as do other results from your EBM, Peck’s work,

>the borehole data, and Briffa and Jones large-scale proxy estimates) that

>there are unresolved (I think) inconsistencies in the low-frequency aspects

>of the hockey stick series compared to other results. So, any comparisons

>with the hockey stick were made with that spirit in mind.

>

>What Jan Esper and I are working on (mostly Jan with me as second author)

>is a paper that was in response to Broecker’s Science Perspectives piece on

>the Medieval Warm Period. Specifically, we took strong exception to his

>claim that tree rings are incapable of preserving century time scale

>temperature variability. Of course, if Broecker had read the literature, he

>would have known that what he claimed was inaccurate. Be that as it may,

>Jan had been working on a project, as part of his post-doc here, to look at

>large-scale, low-frequency patterns of tree growth and climate in long

>tree-ring records provided to him by Fritz Schweingruber. With the addition

>of a couple of sites from foxtail pine in California, Jan amassed a

>collection of 14 tree-ring sites scattered somewhat uniformly over the

>30-70 degree NH latitude band, with most extending back 1000-1200 years.

>All of the sites are from temperature-sensitive locations (i.e. high

>elevation or high northern latitude. It is, as far as I know, the largest,

>longest, and most spatially representative set of such

>temperature-sensitive tree-ring data yet put together for the NH

>extra-tropics.

>

>In order to preserve maximum low-frequency variance, Jan used the Regional

>Curve Standardization (RCS) method, used previously by Briffa and myself

>with great success. Only here, Jan chose to do things in a somewhat radical

>fashion. Since the replication at each site was generally insufficient to

>produce a robust RCS chronology back to, say, AD 1000, Jan pooled all of

>the original measurement series into 2 classes of growth trends: non-linear

>(~700 ring-width series) and linear (~500 ring-width series). He than

>performed independent RCS on the each of the pooled sets and produced 2 RCS

>chronologies with remarkably similar multi-decadal and centennial

>low-frequency characteristics. These chronologies are not good at

>preserving high-frquency climate information because of the scattering of

>sites and the mix of different species, but the low-frequency patterns are

>probably reflecting the same long-term changes in temperature. Jan than

>averaged the 2 RCS chronologies together to produce a single chronology

>extending back to AD 800. It has a very well defined Medieval Warm Period –

>Little Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, punctuated by strong decadal

>fluctuations of inferred cold that correspond well with known histories of

>neo-glacial advance in some parts of the NH. The punctuations also appear,

>in some cases, to be related to known major volcanic eruptions.

>

>Jan originally only wanted to show this NH extra-tropical RCS chronology in

>a form scaled to millimeters of growth to show how forest productivity and

>carbon sequestration may be modified by climate variability and change over

>relatively long time scales. However, I encouraged him to compare his

>series with NH instrumental temperature data and the proxy estimates

>produced by Jones, Briffa, and Mann in order bolster the claim that his

>unorthodox method of pooling the tree-ring data was producing a record that

>was indeed related to temperatures in some sense. This he did by linearly

>rescaling his RCS chronology from mm of growth to temperature anomalies. In

>so doing, Jan demonstrated that his series, on inter-decadal time scales

>only, was well correlated to the annual NH instrumental record. This result

>agreed extremely well with those of Jones and Briffa. Of course, some of

>the same data were used by them, but probably not more than 40 percent

>(Briffa in particular), so the comparison is based on mostly, but not

>fully, independent data. The similarity indicated that Jan’s approach was

>valid for producing a useful reconstruction of multi-decadal temperature

>variability (probably weighted towards the warm-season months, but it is

>impossible to know by how much) over a larger region of the NH

>extra-tropics than that produced before by Jones and Briffa. It also

>revealed somewhat more intense cooling in the Little Ice Age that is more

>consistent with what the borehole temperatures indicate back to AD 1600.

>This result also bolsters the argument for a reasonably large-scale

>Medieval Warm Period that may not be as warm as the late 20th century, but

>is of much(?) greater significance than that produced previously.

>

>Of course, Jan also had to compare his record with the hockey stick since

>that is the most prominent and oft-cited record of NH temperatures covering

>the past 1000 years. The results were consistent with the differences shown

>by others, mainly in the century-scale of variability. Again, the Esper

>series shows a very strong, even canonical, Medieval Warm Period – Little

>Ice Age – 20th Century Warming pattern, which is largely missing from the

>hockey stick. Yet the two series agree reasonably well on inter-decadal

>timescales, even though they may not be 1:1 expressions of the same

>temperature window (i.e. annual vs. warm-season weighted). However, the

>tree-ring series used in the hockey stick are warm-season weighted as well,

>so the difference between “annual” and “warm-season weighted” is probably

>not as large as it might seem, especially before the period of instrumental

>data (e.g. pre-1700) in the hockey stick. So, they both share a significant

>degree of common interdecal temperature information (and some, but not

>much, data), but do not co-vary well on century timescales. Again, this has

>all been shown before by others using different temperature

>reconstructions, but Jan’s result is probably the most comprehensive

>expression (I believe) of extra-tropical NH temperatures back to AD 800 on

>multi-decadal and century time scales.

>

>Now back to the Broecker perspectives piece. I felt compelled to refute

>Broecker’s erroneous claim that tree rings could not preserve long-term

>temperature information. So, I organized a “Special Wally Seminar” in which

>I introduced the topic to him and the packed audience using Samuel

>Johnson’s famous “I refute it thus” statement in the form of “Jan Esper and

>I refute Broecker thus”. Jan than presented, in a very detailed and well

>espressed fashion, his story and Broecker became an instant convert. In

>other words, Wally now believes that long tree-ring records, when properly

>selected and processed, can preserve low-frequency temperature variability

>on centennial time scales. Others in the audience came away with the same

>understanding, one that we dendrochronologists always knew to be the case.

>This was the entire purpose of Jan’s work and the presentation of it to

>Wally and others. Wally had expressed some doubts about the hockey stick

>previously to me and did so again in his perspectives article. So, Jan’s

>presentation strongly re-enforced Wally’s opinion about the hockey stick,

>which he has expressed to others including several who attended a

>subsequent NOAA meeting at Lamont. I have no control over what Wally says

>and only hope that we can work together to reconcile, in a professional,

>friendly manner, the differences between the hockey stick and other proxy

>temperature records covering the past 1000 years. This I would like to do.

>

>I do think that the Medieval Warm Period was a far more significant event

>than has been recognized previously, as much because the high-resolution

>data to evaluate it had not been available before. That is much less so the

>case now. It is even showing up strongly now in long SH tree-ring series.

>However, there is still the question of how strong this event was in the

>tropics. I maintain that we do not have the proxies to tell us that now.

>The tropical ice core data are very difficult to interpret as temperature

>proxies (far worse than tree rings for sure and maybe even unrelated to

>temperatures in any simple linear sense as is often assumed), so I do not

>believe that they can be used alone as records to test for the existence of

>a Medieval Warm Period in the tropics. That being the case, there are

>really no other high-resolution records from the tropics to use, and the

>teleconnections between long extra-tropical proxies and the tropics are, I

>believe, far too tenuous and probably unstable to use to sort out this

>issue.

>

>So, at this stage I would argue that the Medieval Warm Period was probably

>a global extra-tropical event, at the very least, with warmth that was

>persistent and probably comparable to much of what we have experienced in

>the 20th century. However, I would not claim (and nor would Jan) that it

>exceeded the warmth of the late 20th century. We simply do not have the

>precision or the proxy replication to say that yet. This being said, I do

>find the dismissal of the Medieval Warm Period as a meaningful global event

>to be grossly premature and probably wrong. Kind of like Mark Twain’s

>commment that accounts of his death were greatly exaggerated. If, as some

>people believe, a degree of symmetry in climate exists between the

>hemispheres, which would appear to arise from the tropics, then the

>existence of a Medieval Warm Period in the extra-tropics of the NH and SH

>argues for its existence in the tropics as well. Only time and an enlarged

>suite of proxies that extend into the tropics will tell if this is true.

>

>I hope that what I have written clarifies the rumor and expresses my views

>more completely and accurately.

>

>Cheers,

>

>Ed

>

>==================================

>Dr. Edward R. Cook

>Doherty Senior Scholar

>Tree-Ring Laboratory

>Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

>Palisades, New York  10964  USA

>Phone:  1-845-xxxxx

>Fax:    1-845-xxxxx

>Email:  drdendro@xxxxx.xxxxx.xxx

>==================================

_______________________________________________________________________

Professor Michael E. Mann

Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall

University of Virginia

Charlottesville, VA 22903

_______________________________________________________________________

e-mail: mann@virginia.edu   Phone: (804) 924-7770   FAX: (804) 982-2137

http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

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

Here is an email from Tom Wigley on Naomi Oreskes. Bold mine. (h/t to Junkscience.com)

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

date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:16:40 -0700

from: Tom Wigley

subject: Re: [Fwd: Your Submission]

to: Phil Jones

Phil,

This is weird. I used Web of Knowledge, “create citation report”, and

added 1999 thru 2009 numbers. Can’t do you becoz of the too many PDJs

problem.

Here are 3 results …

Kevin Trenberth, 9049

Me, 5523

Ben, 2407

The max on their list has only 3365 cites over this period.

Analyses like these by people who don’t know the field are useless.

A good example is Naomi Oreskes work.

Tom.

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

UPDATE 4:

Barry Woods writes via email:

The social network is of interest..

In the earlier emails, when Mann wanted to contact Monbiot, he got Monbiot’s email address from George Marshall

(Marshall is a veteran greenpeace campaigner, founder of Rising Tide, COIN –) and creator of a – Deniers Hall of Shame.. and very active at grass roots

Perhaps scientists a bit too close to activists, picking up their thinking about ‘deniers’  and fossil fuel companies ? Marshall had been battling Chevron, in the 90’s  about rainforest destruction (Rainforest Foundation)

And of course Monbiot – published a Deniers photo Hall of Shame in the Guardian (including Booker) and ‘fights’ Booker on climate change

———————–

cc: Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@giss.xxxx>, k.briffa@xxxxxxx

date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:29:39 -0400

from: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxx>

subject: Re: More of the same from Booker

to: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxx>

Hi Phil,

Might want to see if George Monbiot wants to *review* the book.

That would be both amusing and satisfying,

mike

On Oct 26, 2009, at 5:21 AM, Phil Jones wrote:

Gavin, Mike,

[1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html

Apparently he has a book out

[2]http://www.amazon.com/Real-Global-Warming-Disaster-Scientific/dp/1441110526

———————–

Remember the earlier email –

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=1377

– that when Mann wanted to get hold of Monbiot, about Durkin and Great Global Warming Scandal..

Mann got Monbiots email address from none other than George Marshall (Rising Tide – COIN) Some scientists perhaps been influenced a bit too much by activist rhetoric,.. and  picked up the rhetoric and language of activists/environmentalistsie

I.e. when did Mann start using the phrase ‘climate denier’?

George Marshall and Mark Lynas writing about it in 2003, – New Statesman – including a whose who of climate change deniers – (lindzen one of them)

Marshall had a Deniers Hall of Shame in 2001-2002 (Rising Tide) – Lindzen included

And if you look at Wayback machine – Lynas and Marshall were very early entries to Realclimate’s blog roll.

Barry

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

UPDATE 5:

From Junkscience.com

In response to a polite media inquiry from Wall Street journal editorial writer Anne Jolis, Mann rages, in part, “Misrepresenting the work of scientists is a serious offense” — and then cc’s his response to Media Matters, Joe Romm and other allies in the warmest-media industrial complex.

The e-mail exchange is below.

###

from: Michael Mann

subject: Re: From the Wall Street Journal:

to: Anne Jolis , Joe Romm , Media Matters Erikka Knuti , DarkSydOTheMoon@aol.com,

Dan Vergano , Bud Ward , george@monbiot.info, AJ Walzer , “Paul D. Thacker”, Chris Mooney

Ms. Jolis,

I’ve taken the liberty of copying this exchange to a few others who might be

interested in it, within the broader context of issues related to the history of biased

reporting on climate change at the Wall Street Journal Europe,

Yours,

Mike Mann

On Oct 23, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Michael Mann wrote:

Ms. Jolis,

I am traveling through this weekend and have only brief email access, so can

only respond w/ a very short email to your inquiry. I’m sad to report that the tone of your questions suggests a highly distorted, contrarian-driven view of the entirety of our science. The premise of essentially everyone of your questions is wrong, and is contradicted by assessments such as the IPCC report, reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, etc. The National Academy of Science report (more info below) reported in 2006 that “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence…”. The conclusions in the most recent 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment report have been significantly strengthened relative to what was originally concluded in our work from the 1990s or in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report, something that of course should have been expected given the numerous additional studies that have since been

done that all point in the same direction. The conclusion that large-scale

recent warmth likely exceeds the range seen in past centuries has been extended from the

past 1000 years in the TAR, to the past 1300 years in the current report, and the confidence in this conclusion has been upped from likely in the Third Assessment Report to very likely in the current report for the past half millennium.

Since then, the conclusions have been further strengthened by other work,

including work by us. Please see e.g. the reporting by the BBC:

[1]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8236797.stm

[2]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7592575.stm

You don’t seem to be aware of the fact that our original “Hockey Stick”

reconstruction didn’t even use the “Yamal” data. It seems you have uncritically accepted

nearly every specious contrarian claim and innuendo against me, my colleagues, and the

science of climate change itself. Furthermore, I doubt that the various authors you cite

as critics, such as Pollack and Smerdon, would in any way agree w/ your assessment of

this work.

Misrepresenting the work of scientists is a serious offense, and would work

to further besmirch the reputation of the Wall Street Journal, which is strongly been

called into question in the past with regard to the treatment of climate change.

I’ve copied my response to a number of others who might wish to comment

further, as I will be unavailable to speak with you until next week.

I’ve pasted below various summaries by mainstream news venues which reported

a couple years ago that the National Academy of Sciences, in the words of Nature “Affirmed The Hockey Stick” below this message.

In addition, here are a few links you might want to read to better

familiarize yourself with what the science actually states with regard to the issues raised in

your inquiry below:

[3]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

[4]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/the-ipcc-fourthassessment-

summary

-for-policy-makers/

[5]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academiessynthesis-

repor

t/

[6]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/hockey-sticks-round-

27/

[7]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/new-analysisreproduces-

graph-of-l

ate-20th-century-temperature-rise/

[8]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-tothe-

latest-hockey

-stick-controversy/

[9]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/a-new-take-on-anold-

millennium/

Finally, let me suggest, under the assumption that your intent is indeed to

report the reality of our current scientific understanding, rather than contrarian

politically-motivated spin, that any legitimate journalistic inquiry into

the current state of the science, and the extent to which uncertainties and controversy

have been overstated and misrepresented in the public discourse, would probably choose

to focus on the issues raised here:

[10]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-abrief-

review/

Yours,

Mike Mann

___________________NEWS CLIPS ON ACADEMY REPORT_____________________

from BBC (6/23/06 “Backing for ‘Hockey Stick’ graph”)

The Earth was hotter in the late 20th Century than it had been in the last

400 or possibly 1,000 years, a report requested by the US Congress concludes. It backs some of the key findings of the original study that gave rise to the iconic “hockey stick”

graph.) from New York Times (Andy Revkin, 6/22/06 “Science Panel Packs Study on

Warming Climate”):

At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several

members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had

intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result.

“I saw nothing that spoke to me of any manipulation,” said one member, Peter

Bloomfield, a statistics professor at [11]North Carolina State University. He added that

his impression was the study was “an honest attempt to construct a data analysis procedure.

Boston Globe (Beth Daley, 6/22/06 “Report backs global warming claims”):

Our conclusion is that this recent period of warming is likely the warmest in

a (millennium), said John Wallace, one of the 12 members on the panel and

professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington.

Los Angeles Times (Thomas H. Maugh II and Karen Kaplan, “U.S. Panel Backs

Data on Global Warming”):

After a comprehensive review of climate change data, the nation’s preeminent

scientific body found that average temperatures on Earth had risen by about 1 degree

over the last century, a development that “is unprecedented for the last 400 years and

potentially the last several millennia.”

and

The panel affirmed that proxy measurements made over the last 150 years

correlated well with actual measurements during that period, lending credence to the proxy data for earlier times. It concluded that, “with a high level of confidence,” global temperatures during the last century were higher than at any time since 1600.

Although the report did not place numerical values on that confidence level,

committee member and statistician Peter Bloomfield of North Carolina State University

said the panel was about 95% sure of the conclusion.

The committee supported Mann’s other conclusions, but said they were not as

definitive. For example, the report said the panel was “less confident” that the 20th century was the warmest century since 1000, largely because of the scarcity of data from

before 1600. Bloomfield said the committee was about 67% confident of the validity of that

finding the same degree of confidence Mann and his colleagues had placed in their initial

report.

Associated Press (syndicate with 100s of newspapers accross the U.S. (John

Heilprin, 6/22/06 “The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, perhaps

even longer”):

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes

research from the late 1990s was “likely” to be true, said John “Mike” Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the ’90s research “are very close to being right” and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.

and

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the

20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a “Little Ice Age” from about 1500 to 1850.

Washington Post (Juliet Eilperin, 6/23/06 “Study Confirms Past Few Decades

Warmest on Record”):

Panel member Kurt M. Cuffey, a geography professor at the University of

California at Berkeley, said at a news briefing that the report “essentially validated” the

conclusions Mann reported in 1998 and 1999 using temperature records. The panel also

estimated there is a roughly 67 percent chance that Mann is right in saying the past 25 years were the warmest in a 1,000 years.

Nature (Geoff Brumfield, 6/28/06 “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph”)

“We roughly agree with the substance of their findings,” says Gerald North,

the committee’s chair and a climate scientist at Texas A&M University in College Station. In particular, he says, the committee has a “high level of confidence” that the second half of the twentieth century was warmer than any other period in the past four centuries. But, he adds, claims for the earlier period covered by the study, from AD 900 to 1600, are less

certain. This earlier period is particularly important because global-warming sceptics

claim that the current warming trend is a rebound from a ‘little ice age’ around 1600.

Overall, the committee thought the temperature reconstructions from that era had only a

two-to-one chance of being right.

and

says Peter Bloomfield, a statistician at North Carolina State University in

Raleigh, who was involved in the latest report. “This study was the first of its kind, and

they had to make choices at various stages about how the data were processed,” he says,

adding that he “would not be embarrassed” to have been involved in the work.

New Scientist (Roxanne Khamsi, 6/23/06, “US report backs study on global

warming”):

It was really the first analysis of its type, panel member Kurt Cuffey of the

University of California, Berkeley, US, said at a news conference on Thursday.

He added that it was the first time anyone has done such a large-scale and

continual analysis of temperature over time. So its not surprising that they could have

probably done some detailed aspects of it better.

But it was a remarkable contribution and gave birth to a debate thats

ongoing, thats teaching us a lot about how climate has changed.

Science (Richard Kerr, June 30, 2006, “Yes, Its been Getting Warmer in Here

Since the CO2 Begain to Rise”): In addition, none of the three committee members at the press briefing– North, Bloomfield, and paleoclimatologist Kurt Cuffey of the University of California, Berkeley- -had found any hint of scientific impropriety. “I certainly did not see anything inappropriate,” said North. “Maybe things could have been done better, but after all, it was the first analysis of its kind.”

On Oct 23, 2009, at 10:41 AM, Jolis, Anne wrote:

Dear Dr. Mann,

My name is Anne Jolis, and I’m with the Wall Street Journal Europe, based in

London. I’m working on a piece about climate change, and specifically the growing

questions that people outside the field have about the methods and processes used by climatologists and other climate-change scientists – and, necessarily, about the conclusions that result. The idea came from the recent controversy that has arisen once again over Steve McIntyre, the publication of the full Yamal data used in Keith Briffa’s work. This of course raises questions among climate scientistis, and observers, about whether the socalled “hockey stick” graph of global temperatures , as produced by Dr. Briffa and originally by yourself, was drawn from narrow data which, and then when broadened to include a wider range of available dendroclimatological data, seems to show no important spike in global temperatures in the last 100 year .

I realize this is not exactly the silverbullet to anthropogenic global warming that some would like to read into it, but it seems to me that it does underscore some of the issues in climate science. Specifically, the publication of the data, and the earlier controversy over your work, seems to illustrate that best practices and reliable methods of data collection remain far from established, and that much of what is presented as scientific fact is really more of a value judgment based on select data. Would you agree?

I’d love to get some insight from you for my article. I’ll be filing this

weekend, but I can call you any time it’s convenient for you on Friday – just let me know

the best time and number. Please note that if we do speak on the phone, I will email you

with any quotes or paraphrases that I would like to attribute to you, before publication, so

as to secure your approval and confirm the accuracy of what I’m attributing to you.

Additionally, if you’d like to correspond via email, that’s fine too. I’ve listed below some

of the questions and assumptions I’m working on – if, in lieu of a phone call, you’d

like to answer and/or respond to these, as well as share any other thoughts you have

on these issues, I’d be most grateful. Feel welcome to reply at length!

I thank you in advance for your time and attention, and look forward to any of your comments.

All the best,

Anne Jolis

Mobile: +44 xxxxxx

– Given that methods in climate science are still being refined, do you

agree with policy makers’ and advocates’ use of data such as your own? Do you feel it is

accurately represented to laymans, and that the inherent uncertainties present in the

data are appropriately underscored? As a citizen, do you feel there is enough

certainty in the conclusions of, for instance, the latest IPCC report, to introduce new

economic regulations? Why or why not?

-What methods do you feel are the most accurate for predicting future climate

change, for evaluatinag the causes of climate change and for predicting whether or what

man can do to try to control or mitigate climate change in the future in the future? Why

do you feel these methods are the most accurate? Do you feel they’re given enough weight

in the current debate?

-What is your opinion of the value of Steve McIntyre’s work? Clearly he is

not a professional scientist, but do you feel there is nonetheless a place for his

“auditing” in the climate science community? Why or why not?

-Do you think McIntyre’s work and findings are likely to change the way

leading climate scientists operate? Do you think his recent campaign to get Dr. Keith Briffa

to publish the Yamal data he used is likely to make climate scientists more forthcoming

with their data? Do you think his work will make scientists, policymakers and advocates

any more exacting about the uncertainties in their procedures, methods and conclusions

when they present scientific data?

-How would you respond to the critique that, as a key part of the review

processes of publications in the field of climate science, as something of a “gatekeeper,”

you have rejected and otherwise sought to suppress work that contradicted your work.

Is this fair?

Why or why not? How would you characterize your selection process for work

that is worthy

of publication?

-Do you stand by your original “hockey stick” graf, even after the

publication of borehole

data from Henry Pollack and Jason Smerdon that seems to contradict your

conclusions? Or

work published in 2005 by Hans von Storch that seems to indicate that the

predictive

capabilities of the method you used in your original “hockey stick” would not

be able to

predict current temperatures?

Michael E. Mann

Professor

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)

Department of Meteorology Phone: (814) xxxxx

503 Walker Building FAX: (814) xxxxx

The Pennsylvania State University email: [12]mann@psu.edu

University Park, PA 16802-5013

website: [13]http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/index.html

“Dire Predictions” book site:

[14]http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/news/DirePredictions/index.html

Update6:

Wigley accuses IPCC and lead authors of ‘dishonest presentations of model results’; Accuses Mann of deception; Mann admits

Mann: “Its (sic) hard to imagine what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive.”

The e-mails are below.

###

On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 18:06, Michael Mann wrote:

> Hi Tom,

>

> thanks for the comments. well, ok. but this is the full CMIP3

> ensemble, so at least the plot is sampling the range of choices

> regarding if and how indirect effects are represented, what the cloud

> radiative feedback & sensitivity is, etc. across the modeling

> community. I’m not saying that these things necessarily cancel out

> (after all, there is an interesting and perhaps somewhat disturbing

> compensation between indirect aerosol forcing and sensitivity across

> the CMIP3 models that defies the assumption of independence), but if

> showing the full spread from CMIP3 is deceptive, its hard to imagine

> what sort of comparison wouldn’t be deceptive (your point re MAGICC

> notwithstanding),

>

> perhaps Gavin has some further comments on this (it is his plot after

> all),

>

> mike

>

> On Oct 14, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Tom Wigley wrote:

> > Mike,

> >

> > The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical

> > runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the

> > match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low

> > climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too

> > harsh)

> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model

> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use

> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least

> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and

> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

> >

> > Tom.

> > +++++++++++++++++++

> >

> > Michael Mann wrote:

> > > thanks Tom,

> > > I’ve taken the liberty of attaching a figure that Gavin put

> > > together the other day (its an update from a similar figure he

> > > prepared for an earlier RealClimate post. see:

> > > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktonsdeliberate-

manipulation/). It is indeed worth a thousand words, and drives home

Tom’s point below. We’re planning on doing a post on this shortly, but would be

nice to see the Sep. HadCRU numbers first,

> > > mike

> > > On Oct 14, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Tom Wigley wrote:

> > > > Dear all,

> > > > At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the

> > > > recent

> > > > lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to

> > > > look at

> > > > the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic

> > > > trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second

> > > > is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the

> > > > observed data.

> > > > Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The

> > > > second

> > > > method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.

> > > > These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.

> > > > Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack

> > > > of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I

> > > > do not

> > > > agree with this.

> > > > Tom.

> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++

> > > > Kevin Trenberth wrote:

> > > > > Hi all

> > > > > Well I have my own article on where the heck is global

> > > > > warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have

> > > > > broken records the past two days for the coldest days on

> > > > > record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days

> > > > > was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the

> > > > > previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F

> > > > > and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

> > > > > This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game

> > > > > was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below

> > > > > freezing weather).

> > > > > Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change

> > > > > planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in

> > > > > Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,

> > > > > doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]

> > > > >

(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

> > > > > The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at

> > > > > the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data

> > > > > published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there

> > > > > should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.

> > > > > Our observing system is inadequate.

> > > > > That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People

> > > > > like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly

> > > > > correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the

> > > > > change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The

> > > > > PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO

> > > > > index became positive in September for first time since Sept

> > > > > 2007.

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

UPDATE7:

In October 1996, Keith Briffa frets that the calibration for tree-ring analysis may be off due to manmade changes in the environment.

“I spoke to you about the problem of anthropogenic influences ( i.e. increased CO2, nitrate fallout , increased UV radiation) possibly having an influence on recent tree growth and so complicating our efforts to use these recent data to define how we interpret past tree growth. Is it possible to put in some reference to me worrying about this?”

The full e-mail is below.

###

date: Tue Oct 15 17:01:05 1996

from: Keith Briffa

subject: New Scientist article

to: Fred Pearce

Dear Fred

I have done a redraft of the article. I know you said not to

rewrite it (preferably) but rather to correct, make notes suggestins etc.

I thought about this for some time and realized that it woulld be far more

difficult to indicate the precise places,the precise problems and the

suggested corrections at all of the places I considered were subtle

misinterpretations of what I said, or meant, or feel. It therefore seemed

easier FOR BOTH OF US if I went through one attempt at what amounts to a

simple rewording. This lets me change the inference , correct minor errors

and fill in all your questions without having to explain the myriad details

of where and why.

Do not , please, grimace and get pissed off at my apparent cheek!

Hopefully, you can see when you go through this draft that most of it is

entirely yours and my changes are meant to be efficient and constructive.

I hope you will be able to accept this version pretty much as it stands now.

Incidentally, a pedantic point, but where you refer to a tree with rings

about 30 microns wide being equivelent to a tree increasing its GIRTH by one

centimetre in 100 years, should this not be 2 cms? Assuming the tree has a

starting diameter of about 15 cm , after 100 years its diameter will be 15.6 cm

(the rings occur on both sides of the tree) so that the cicumference change over

this period will be 1.9 cm.

There remain a couple of points for your consideration. Is it possible,

somehow, to get the ADVANCE-10K name in and explained( i.e. the project

title)? This is important to us as publicity in the context of our funding.

Also, I spoke to you about the problem of anthropogenic influences ( i.e.

increased CO2, nitrate fallout , increased UV radiation) possibly having

an influence on recent tree growth and so complicating our efforts to use

these recent data to define how we interpret past tree growth. Is it possible

to put in some reference to me worrying about this?

Finally, can you suggest to the editor that we put a footnote in to

flag our home page which details all the objectives and participants ?

(perhaps with the reference to the ADVANCE-10K acronym,title and grant

number)

I look forward to hearing from you and can send the text as ASCII,

WORD or WORDPERFECT files – for now should I fax it and if so to where?

cheers

Keith

0 0 votes
Article Rating
1.1K Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joseph E Postma
March 13, 2013 7:46 am

Congrats to Tim Ball for his article requesting this to be done, and if it created this outcome! Wonderful!

Espen
March 13, 2013 7:49 am

Wow!
(Maybe you should have redacted out the e-mail address of Dr. Tett in his signature as well?)
REPLY: Fixed thanks

normalnew
March 13, 2013 7:51 am

Hallelujah! All hail FOIA. Truckloads of popcorn to all! 😀

tallbloke
March 13, 2013 7:53 am

Heh. Here we go again.

Jimmy Haigh
March 13, 2013 7:54 am

Wow. This should be fun…

Jimbo
March 13, 2013 7:55 am

I saw it on Bishophill, then Tom Nelson and I knew you had to be on it.
Get ready, 3,2,1 GO…………..

JiminyBob
March 13, 2013 7:55 am

No password but a bitcoin address? Mr FOIA can go f*ck himself. What’s the point of those emails being out there if there is a campaign to have only selected people see them? Are you going to be the high and mighty ones to release the truth to us great unwashed?

FerdinandAkin
March 13, 2013 7:55 am

So what was the password?
I kept trying different combinations of Superman’s “Mr Mxyzptlk”, but never got anywhere.

Green Sand
March 13, 2013 7:55 am

“Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.”
….but it does require integrity.

David Harrington
March 13, 2013 7:56 am

Can’t wait for the edited highlights special edition 🙂

Dario from NW Italy
March 13, 2013 7:57 am

God bless you, Mr. FOIA!!!!

Paul Matthews
March 13, 2013 7:59 am

That’s an old one Anthony! It was 0562.txt in CG2.
REPLY: Ah, well, hadn’t seen that one, but this one was in the “all.zip” file. There were some duplications. I do have another I’ll post then. – Anthony

March 13, 2013 8:00 am

Let the Games begin!
Much of the bad behavior began with “We must find a way to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”
No amount of spin, cherry-picking, or statistical sleight-of-hand will make it go away.
Ditto Roman Warm Period, Holocene Optimum – all warmer than today. CO2 game over.

Editor
March 13, 2013 8:00 am

Anthony: You’ve still got a few email addresses at the end of the post.
REPLY: Fixed earlier, refresh -A

MangoChutney
March 13, 2013 8:02 am

Leo Hickman already suggesting FOIA’s motivation is money
https://twitter.com/LeoHickman/status/311849818710491137

knr
March 13, 2013 8:02 am

Its going to take a lot of work to go through this pile , there mat not be any ‘world changing ‘ bits in it but even in the personal stuff there may be the odd nugget of gold .
But the example was good
‘I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)
But in public we endless praised it and attacked any who suggested it was ‘crap ‘ .
I can hear the buzzing of an angry Mann from all this distance , so Simon better get ready to go down on their knees for a bit of public contrition., as Mann never forgives nor forgets those that fail to show due difference to his ‘mightiness’

Manniac
March 13, 2013 8:04 am

As the ‘team’ says, “reality has a well known skeptical bias.”
Apologies to Stephen Colbertz

March 13, 2013 8:04 am

Well, if the password has been released, it will eventually get out in the open. It is a good idea, but might be difficult, to be a bit careful about ‘sensitive or socially damaging’ emails, although it isn’t clear what FOIA has in mind by that. If things that are truly personal, I would be in favor of keeping them private. If things that are “socially damaging” because they show the individuals in question don’t know what they are doing, I would be in favor of opening them up.
Kudos to FOIA for all the efforts. I’ve got my fingers cautiously crossed on how this last batch will shake out . . .

March 13, 2013 8:04 am

I am really disappointed about the “no cheques from Big Oil policy” I retired with no pension while waiting for those cheques… I may have to work again.

Rob Honeycutt
March 13, 2013 8:06 am

Nothing sandwich #3.
REPLY: You assume you know what’s in that sandwich. – Anthony

Ed Moran.
March 13, 2013 8:06 am

Sounds ethical. Hope there are no repercussions heading his way.

Latimer Alder
March 13, 2013 8:06 am

Simon Tett is now a professor at Edinburgh. Something tells me he’ll not be on Mikey;s Xmas card list this year…..
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/geosciences/people?cw_xml=person.html&indv=1592

Bloke down the pub
March 13, 2013 8:07 am

One day Foia will get the official recognition he deserves.

Roehamster
March 13, 2013 8:07 am

April 1st seems to come round sooner every year.

Lance
March 13, 2013 8:08 am

Now if Penn State and the EPA would release their information….

geran
March 13, 2013 8:11 am

FOIA deserves a solid-gold WUWT coffee mug!

March 13, 2013 8:13 am

Popcorn futures are limit up…

Jimbo
March 13, 2013 8:14 am

God bless FOIA. He/she is a lover of mankind.

We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.
………………………………
It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.
Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

john robertson
March 13, 2013 8:16 am

Is the password for real?
Do we now wait while people of integrity sort the remnants? To avoid accidental damage to the innocent ?
Is FOIA looking for donations?
Or is the bitcoin a low piece of humour?
How does bitcoin work?

mrsean2k
March 13, 2013 8:18 am

Dangerous to let *anyone* see it, @JiminyBob. After all, not everyone is as dispassionate and even tempered as you appear to be.
Personally I’ll donate, reasonable excuse to get all that Bitcoin stuff sorted out.

March 13, 2013 8:19 am

What new information will be discerned?
How much worse will the “CAGW by CO2” cause look?
Will something be revealed that will make the earth shake?
*makes a batch of popcorn*

Mark Bofill
March 13, 2013 8:19 am

Not going to take long to reach a million comments now. 🙂

March 13, 2013 8:20 am

Tellingly the first item to grep for ought be ‘crap’ 🙂

March 13, 2013 8:20 am

JiminyBob says:
March 13, 2013 at 7:55 am
No password but a bitcoin address? Mr FOIA can go f*ck himself. What’s the point of those emails being out there if there is a campaign to have only selected people see them? Are you going to be the high and mighty ones to release the truth to us great unwashed?
========================================================================
Grow up. Do.

Jimbo
March 13, 2013 8:20 am

Anthony,
You forgot to make it a ‘STICKY’. If not then you should. 🙂

March 13, 2013 8:23 am

MangoChutney says:
March 13, 2013 at 8:02 am
Leo Hickman already suggesting FOIA’s motivation is money

Many would suggest that the folks who support CAGW by CO2’s motivation is money.
Just sayin’…

3x2
March 13, 2013 8:23 am

JiminyBob says:
No password but a bitcoin address? Mr FOIA can go f*ck himself. What’s the point of those emails being out there if there is a campaign to have only selected people see them? Are you going to be the high and mighty ones to release the truth to us great unwashed?

And your plan would be?
IIRC Briffa was seriously ill around 2009 – should such private correspondence with Phil Jones (his boss) be splattered all over the net? What purpose would that serve?
Seems to me that you haven’t thought this out too well (or at all).

Skiphil
March 13, 2013 8:26 am

re MBH98/99: “we think it is crap!”
It is good to know the candid judgments of scientists when they are not intimidated and browbeaten by the Manniacs of the IPCC/climate science world.
It turns out that was already a CG2 email but I don’t think it received adequate attention previoiusly (at least I hadn’t seen it discussed).
One can dismiss one phrase but this is uttered in reference to why a certain study was not done in that way, yet the public and even the “climate science community” was not allowed to know the actual candid judgments of these scientists! Instead, when McIntyre & McKittrick arrived on the scene the wagons were circled against outsiders and it was pretended that only ignorant outsiders could question the august majesty of the Mann et al. recon.

Ulrich Elkmann
March 13, 2013 8:27 am

You et al. beat the Vatican for the Story of the year.
As the English say, wunderbar. Congrats to all.

Crispin in Waterloo but actually in Yogyakarta
March 13, 2013 8:28 am

Dear Mr FOIA
I appreciate the risks you took and thanks for mentioning that you were not compensated, and that are you are not ‘working’ for anyone other than the billions members of humankind who are being taxed, even now, to feed the vain imaginings of the deceitful.
As you can imagine, it will take other pairs of eyes to see significances in what may seem to us individuals to be innocuous communications. There was so much coordination of the perfidy, the misrepresentation of science and in the bumbling efforts to pervert the meaning of ‘scientific conclusion’ it is inevitable that further conspiracies will emerge from a close reading of the full text.
What has been important in CG2 was the ‘context’ which you provided, showing that the abuses and conspiracies described in CG1 were real. Implications in CG3 will take quite some time to solidify, but will do so.
A question that always emerges from scandal is ‘What did he know and when did he know it?” The full index will provide many insights into that question. I suspect there is a lot of file-burning taking place right now in certain quarters.
I need never know who you are. Your commitment to staying the hands of the oppressors and revealing their criminal intent can serve eternally as a great lesson for all students of science and social morality.
Much appreciated
Crispin

Stefan
March 13, 2013 8:31 am

So it is about stopping the developing world from developing, or in Orwellian, “sustainable development”.

MrV
March 13, 2013 8:33 am

Looks like somebody won’t be getting much sleep …

MikeN
March 13, 2013 8:33 am

Jiminy, the previous e-mail releases have already been filtered by FOIA.
Any complaints about that?
So, I think the post by Tim Ball put the heat on FOIA, so they did a premature early release with a fake cover story to throw off the wolves. I wonder if I added to it by revealing that FOIA’s birthday can be gleaned from the releases.

Don B
March 13, 2013 8:33 am

Ed Cook’s portion of the second email is great. He deserves respect.

ralfellis
March 13, 2013 8:34 am

.
Spasiba Svetlana for releasing the key. Paka.

TomRude
March 13, 2013 8:34 am

IMO, rather than Tim Ball’s plea, I think that the Mascott, Shakun stuff, just in time for rigging AR5 may have pushed him to finally go for it and squash what’s left of this pseudo science.

MikeN
March 13, 2013 8:36 am

To anyone who is decrypting, I advise you to do so on a fresh computer, to avoid any possible hacking.

NoAstronomer
March 13, 2013 8:37 am

[redacted]
Hey! You stole my password!

Eliza
March 13, 2013 8:40 am

This is obviously going to be top post for some time?

Jimbo
March 13, 2013 8:40 am

Which country does FOIA come from?
Clue 1
“Even skimming through all 220.000 emails….”

Jake
March 13, 2013 8:45 am

Why won’t you post the password? But you’re given permission to quote anything you like? What’s the point in that. It should be open to all to view and see.

Tom J
March 13, 2013 8:49 am

May I elicit a personal ‘Thank You’. To Mr. FOIA and, perhaps most of all, to you Mr. Watts.
Again, Thank You!

DirkH
March 13, 2013 8:52 am

“Leo Hickman @LeoHickman
Climategate hacker tries to paint themselves as a superhero saving the poor. But in reality is touting for money..”
Somebody tell Leo Hickman about TIDES. He can then go on an investigative journalism journey trying to find out which donation finances which organisation.

jaypan
March 13, 2013 8:54 am

Good man. Respect.

Phil Ford
March 13, 2013 8:54 am

Personally, I’d be happy to see the password restricted to those within the sceptic community who have done the most up to now to disseminate the CAGW narrative and provide honest, informed commentary and analysis. I just don’t think this should be a ‘free-for-all’ – we need educated, scientific eyes scanning these emails, identifying what is relevant, what is not, what is public domain and what should remain respectfully personal.
Don’t misunderstand me – I am no fan of censoring information, but I really do think this is a prime example of an occasion when we, the sceptic community, should be seen to be acting responsibly and with due diligence – let us ask the most qualified amongst us to undertake the long business of extracting only the most salient and appropriate information for public disclosure and discussion.

pokerguy
March 13, 2013 8:59 am

The big story it seems to me is that it sounds like MR FOIA is an insider…i.e. a whistleblower. Others agree? Just got here, so haven’t had a chance to digest all. Excited enough though that I wanted to chime in, even if prematurely.

March 13, 2013 9:00 am

Take away algore’s Nobel Prize and re-gift it to Mr FOIA!

Reed Coray
March 13, 2013 9:01 am

I don’t know who FOIA is; but if he/she composed the “FOIA 2013: the password” document without help, he/she has excellent command of the English language. Based on his/her statement “USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK“, I infer he/she is not from the UK and likely not from the USA. However, my gut feeling tells me he/she is from an English speaking environment.

Latimer Alder
March 13, 2013 9:03 am

@cRR Kampen
‘ So Peter Gleick is more than absolutely in the right, then’
Gleick’s offence was forgery.
Are you suggesting that FOIA has forged 220,000 e-mails? That’d be quite a feat and would make even the Hitler Diaries look trivial.

MattN
March 13, 2013 9:04 am

Just….wow!!!!

Espen
March 13, 2013 9:07 am

Jimbo says:
March 13, 2013 at 8:40 am
Which country does FOIA come from?
Clue 1
“Even skimming through all 220.000 emails….”

Clue 2: The text lacks the definite article before some nouns where there should have been one. I’m not a native English speaker myself, but I couldn’t help noticing that, especially since the English otherwise is very good (or looks good to me, at least). If the speaker is European (Clue 1) this, I think, restricts the possible native language to one of the slavic languages (except Bulgarian), the baltic languages or the Finno-Permic languages (Finnish, Saami, Estonian).

DirkH
March 13, 2013 9:09 am

cRR Kampen says:
March 13, 2013 at 8:52 am
“Stealing private emails, that’s great. So Peter Gleick is more than absolutely in the right, then.”
Does the left not usually endorse whistleblowers when it serves their purposes? (Yes, I’m conflating warmism and leftism. Both movements want an absolute state; preferrably a world state. Example from warmism: Schellnhuber and his Grand Transformation; example from leftism: H: G. Welles.)
As for Gleick: He is not a whistleblower but a wire fraudster, impersonator and forger; which is something different.

Mark Bofill
March 13, 2013 9:09 am

cRR Kampen says:
March 13, 2013 at 8:52 am
Stealing private emails, that’s great. So Peter Gleick is more than absolutely in the right, then.
————-
private emails?

Jimbo
March 13, 2013 9:09 am

cRR Kampen says:
March 13, 2013 at 8:52 am
Stealing private emails, that’s great. So Peter Gleick is more than absolutely in the right, then.

Publicly funded V privately funded.
FOIA request for emails V no FOIA request for emails.
Gleick was head of AGU taskforce on Ethics.

Bill Parsons
March 13, 2013 9:10 am

220.000 emails
Is the period – rather than comma – a solely British numeric convention? Or is it used elsewhere?

Terry
March 13, 2013 9:11 am

It’s like Christmas all over again.

March 13, 2013 9:12 am

At 8:04 am ON 13 March, climatereflections had posted:

Well, if the password has been released, it will eventually get out in the open. It is a good idea, but might be difficult, to be a bit careful about ‘sensitive or socially damaging’ emails, although it isn’t clear what FOIA has in mind by that. If things that are truly personal, I would be in favor of keeping them private. If things that are “socially damaging” because they show the individuals in question don’t know what they are doing, I would be in favor of opening them up.

I agree that the effort to keep the allegedly “personal” an potentially “sensitive or socially damaging” contents of the all.7z file closely held will prove futile, in spite of whatever good intentions prevail among the skeptical blogger community.
But good intentions notwithstanding, why should those “dirty laundry” communications be withheld from public scrutiny at all?
The confabulators of the climate catastrophe caterwaul were using their “business” e-mail accounts for these communications, all such accounts paid for – directly or indirectly – by public monies mulcted from the citizenry of their respective countries. That’s why these messages were all subject to the Freedom of Information laws prevailing in the United Kingdom (and similarly in these United States, for the scheming sons-of-dogs prevaricating on their grant funding applications to suck fraudulently at the taxpayer teat over here).
If the closed-shop “consensus” clowns were stupid enough to bounce around e-mail of potentially “sensitive or socially damaging” nature using their official business accounts, it’s as much subject to discovery in both civil and criminal actions-at-law as any other evidence, and all the more legitimately actionable for their having made improper use of resources specifically purpose’d to facilitate the work for which government funds had been allocated.
Open it all up, and fiat justitia ruat caelum.

JEM
March 13, 2013 9:12 am

I’m sure FOIA understands the password’s gonna get out sooner or later.
But…
Doing it this way maximizes the probability that serious material will get out first, before someone less fastidious decides to post someone’s bitchy post-conference remarks about flatulence or coming down with the clap, at which point the alarmist megaphone brigade will start their usual projection-driven prattling about ‘personal attacks’ and ‘character assassination’.

Ken Harvey
March 13, 2013 9:12 am

“Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.”.
Quite, but there are 220,000 of them. Volunteers to do the filtering/redacting in a properly exacting manner might be a little thin on the ground.

March 13, 2013 9:13 am

Is it possible that the original culprit was found after Climategate 1 and somebody else released the lacklustre Climategate 2 with the Climategate 3 zipped files just as a way of stopping people thinking there is a conspiracy?

March 13, 2013 9:14 am

@Jake
“Why won’t you post the password? But you’re given permission to quote anything you like? What’s the point in that. It should be open to all to view and see.”
My guess is the email addresses haven’t been redacted out, and they need to be before wide release.

Craig Loehle
March 13, 2013 9:14 am

1) I notice what an extensive justification is made in the email to defend why they are deviating from the hockey stick, as if to keep from being expelled from the church of hockey holiness. I have never heard of such a thing. How does Mann hold such power over these people? Aren’t scientists supposed to be independent-minded?
2) While it is great fun to speculate about FOIA identity, it seems best to me to confine this to conversation so as not to ruin this noble person’s career or endanger them.
3) The quiet was killing me, but we are back to excitement!

John W. Garrett
March 13, 2013 9:16 am

If anybody involved in “climate change” deserves a Nobel, it’s Mr. FOIA, Steve McIntyre, Ross, McKittrick, Anthony Watts, Richard Lindzen, Judy Curry, Will Happer, Freeman Dyson, Tim Ball, Hal Lewis, Ivar Giaever, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Joanna Nova, Burt Rutan, Andrew Montford (“Bishop Hill”) and the rest of the skeptics who, at considerable personal expense, reputational and professional risk, took on the ginormous climate racket.
They are living proof that “Truth Will Out.”
Nullius In Verba

Duke C.
March 13, 2013 9:17 am

I agree with the decision not to make the password public. The result would be a feeding frenzy, where innocent (and not so innocent) email participants may be needlessly harmed.

March 13, 2013 9:19 am

At 8:59 AM on 13 March, pokerguy had observed:

The big story it seems to me is that it sounds like MR FOIA is an insider…i.e. a whistleblower. Others agree?

Emphatically. All the “Liberal” fascist warmista noise about a “hacker” had been preposterous from the beginning, but this supporting information – proved by the provision of the password – gives their sweating weaselishness an even more musteline reek.
I suspect that they don’t want to admit (even among themselves) that their ranks are even more rotten with disloyalty than they are stewed in criminal conspiracy.

DirkH
March 13, 2013 9:20 am

Craig Loehle says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:14 am
“1) I notice what an extensive justification is made in the email to defend why they are deviating from the hockey stick, as if to keep from being expelled from the church of hockey holiness. I have never heard of such a thing. How does Mann hold such power over these people? Aren’t scientists supposed to be independent-minded?”
Warmism is a Degenerative Research Program. It creates protective hypotheses to shield the core theory, not to acquire new knowledge as a Non-degenerative Research Program would. So all acolytes of the theory will coordinate their actions like seen in this e-mail to not endanger the central theory. They all know where their bread is buttered.

DirkH
March 13, 2013 9:21 am

Bill Parsons says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:10 am
“220.000 emails
Is the period – rather than comma – a solely British numeric convention? Or is it used elsewhere?”
It is used in the Germanic countries as well.

SandyInLimousin
March 13, 2013 9:22 am

@Espen,
can you discount any by the 1000s delimiter? The point instead of a comma?

March 13, 2013 9:24 am

At 9:14 AM on 13 March, Craig Loehle had written:

I notice what an extensive justification is made in the email to defend why they are deviating from the hockey stick, as if to keep from being expelled from the church of hockey holiness. I have never heard of such a thing. How does Mann hold such power over these people? Aren’t scientists supposed to be independent-minded?

What in the world gives you to assume that these CAGW charlatans were ever scientists?

Reed Coray
March 13, 2013 9:25 am

Note to Dr. Michael Mann: “If not already done, remove Simon Tett from your Christmas card list.”

March 13, 2013 9:26 am

I spent yesterday outlining Oberlin prof David Orr’s book trying to change education globally to create what he calls biophilia and then a Pew Foundation financed book insisting that a global authoritarian government would be necessary to force humanity to make changes to avoid global warming catastrophe. Then I went back and cross-referenced what the UN is pushing under Agenda 21 on the West as Education for Sustainability so I could write it up.
And I thought this would be a good time for the rest of those emails. And then left to take one of my kids to the doctor. Unbelievably great timing if the extent to which CAGW and sustainability were being made the center of K-12 under Common Core and those Next Generation Science Standards and the C3 Social Studies Framework were better known.
This is being used as the excuse to change everything in the West. Including transforming the economy to a “needs economy” misnamed distributed capitalism. This will need lots of publicity. We have whole degree programs now being created to get discredited theories and models implemented as public policy anyway. K-12 was next in the US and this should make it harder.
Hooray!

Bill Parsons
March 13, 2013 9:27 am

220.000 emails
Commas in place of decimals apparently broadly used in Europe – but that has to be a typo.

View from the Solent
March 13, 2013 9:27 am

DirkH says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:21 am
Bill Parsons says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:10 am
“220.000 emails
Is the period – rather than comma – a solely British numeric convention? Or is it used elsewhere?”
It is used in the Germanic countries as well.
=============================
Common usage in Britain is the comma. Mainland Europe, and points east, use the period as a delimiter.

March 13, 2013 9:30 am

I smell another video, need a new catch phrase though.
REPLY: I don’t think anything will ever top your original “Hide the Decline”. I get chuckles just thinking about it. – Anthony

March 13, 2013 9:31 am

Does anyone have info on who else ‘FOIA’ sent his “all.7z” password email to?
BH says he wasn’t a direct recipient.
John

March 13, 2013 9:32 am

This is the scene in the movie where the mad scientist finally snaps and yells “Of course it was all a hoax you idiot!”

Paul Matthews
March 13, 2013 9:32 am

Anthony, sorry, but your second example is also an old one!
go to the foia2011 site and search to check (eg search for “grossly premature”)
REPLY: Well, this illustrates perfectly the problem of sorting through all this. Many of these still haven been discussed/noted. I went with what was in the all.zip file, and while FOIA noted some duplicates, without doing cross reference, hard to tell. Had Tom Nelson not published the note, we would have had time to make a better announcement. As it stands it was the best I could do in my morning routine while getting ready for work. – Anthony

March 13, 2013 9:33 am

Craig Loehle says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:14 am
1) I notice what an extensive justification is made in the email to defend why they are deviating from the hockey stick, as if to keep from being expelled from the church of hockey holiness. I have never heard of such a thing. How does Mann hold such power over these people? Aren’t scientists supposed to be independent-minded?

Mann is like the Steve Jobs of climate science… Except he’s a bad apple!

March 13, 2013 9:34 am

Is Simon Tett now a denier?

jayhd
March 13, 2013 9:35 am

The email detailing the work done by Jan Esper and Edward Cook is very interesting. It shows the MWP and LIA, therefore calling into question the methodology and data used by Mann in his hockey stick paper. Why haven’t we heard of this research in the hockey stick debates?

James at 48
March 13, 2013 9:39 am

Money shot: “The tropical ice core data are very difficult to interpret as temperature proxies”

wws
March 13, 2013 9:39 am

I don’t care if anyone ever learns FOIA’s “truename”, in fact I hope for his sake we never do. But having taken part in the secret identity sweepstakes in the past, it’s still fun to speculate on some of the tidbits he dropped in the letter. (assuming he was being truthful in all details, and we have no reason to suspect otherwise, but also no proof of that)
Insider of some sort – definitely. “The first glimpses I got behind the scenes…”
Only people who had some official capacity at some institution related to the work were allowed “glimpses behind the scenes”. Also “Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future.” appears to favor the theory that these things were temporarily left unguarded on some server FOIA had open access too, no hacking required. He seems to regard his ability to do this as a fluke caused by a temporary mistake on someone’s part that no one else could ever exploit. No pure hacker would ever characterize his work that way, so that appears to rule out the hacking theory. (much beloved by “The Team”)
one last thing; the phrase “It’s easy for many of us in the western world” to me rules out Russia, since it’s a point of pride to almost all Russians to point out that they are NOT part of the “western world”. As previously stated, the English is excellent but scattered here and there are some sentence structures that suggest a non-native speaker. Interesting clues, all of them. But over all, we can say with confidence, this is a man whom Diogenes would have been proud to have found.

Anthony Hanwell
March 13, 2013 9:40 am

Bill Parsons says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:10 am
“220.000 emails
Is the period – rather than comma – a solely British numeric convention? Or is it used elsewhere?”
It is not a British convention, we use the comma but it is widespread on continental Europe.

Duke C.
March 13, 2013 9:40 am

This is an odd coincidence.
I just completed reverse-engineering the 6365 CG1-CG2 .txt files to their original email mbox format which makes them compatible with Mozilla Thunderbird, and tagging them with the all.7z duplicate file names.
Screencap:
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/2041/tbcg1cg2.png
Thunderbird is an extremely powerful tool, as it allows advanced sorting, keyword searching and reading in a native email environment with a more intuitive interface. Far superior to culling through individual text files.
the Thunderbird compatible file is 70 megs, and there are a few careful steps that need to be followed when importing it to your installed version.
Anthony, I’d like to add the all.7z files as they’re redacted/released and make the mbox archive public, if your are interested.

MangoChutney
March 13, 2013 9:41 am

Brits use a comma when writing 200,000 (two hundred thousand) and a period when writing 200.001 (two hundred plus one hundredth)
Europe uses a period when writing 200.000 (two hundred thousand) and a comma when writing 200,001 (two hundred plus one hundredth)

Mike Smith
March 13, 2013 9:43 am

Random thoughts:
1. That pesky Medieval Warm Period is damned inconvenient.
2. FOIA’s tone is definitely consistent with that of an insider/whistleblower.
3. Tough call on how to release the info and whether to publish the password to all. Personally, I think FOIA’s choice was a very reasonable one considering all of the circumstances.
4. The popcorn is ready and I’m just waiting for some juicy bits to emerge.

Gary Pearse
March 13, 2013 9:44 am

From Ed’s email: “It (MWP) is even showing up strongly now in long SH tree-ring series.
>However, there is still the question of how strong this event was in the
>tropics”
Ed, read Willis’s tropical refrigerator piece. The sea temps were around 29-30C tops during the MWP. Wouldn’t it be grand to get some tropical proxies that showed a fairly flat temperature record for a thousand years? Willis, there is a natural piece of research for you to couple with your adventures.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/air-conditioning-nairobi-refrigerating-the-planet/
.

Sun Spot
March 13, 2013 9:46 am

Due to the complicity of the M.S.M. in the cAGW media meme they will NOT report on this. Censorship by guilt association and left wing anti-science bias.

Hugh K
March 13, 2013 9:47 am

“(I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)”
Translation – We can’t say Mann et al is crap because Mike will file a suit against us!

MangoChutney
March 13, 2013 9:48 am

oops thousandths not hundredths

March 13, 2013 9:48 am

Wow indeed.
Let the games begin, I agree, but not “The Hunger Games”
Thank you Mr FOIA.
Thank you Anthony Watts.
JD.
🙂

pottereaton
March 13, 2013 9:50 am

I posted the at Bishop HIll although I’ve edited it slightly:
Re FOIA: He gives a lot away here. Says his message may be “disjointed” because of his “linguistic background.”
Says he’s not from the UK, but only that “American politics is alien to him.” Does not deny being an American or a resident-American.
Speculation: he’s either a naturalized or the offspring of naturalized Americans, bi-lingual, who had fleeting contact with the powers that be in Climate Science that resulted in dis-respectful treatment. Perhaps in matters dealing with the IPCC. Speaks of his first “glimpses behind the scenes’ as the beginning of his loss of trust in Climate Science. Could have been an unpleasant dust-up with someone of influence in that sphere.
Another clue: “We are dealing with $trillions . . . ” Note dollar sign.
Could be a Canadian but I don’t think so. Uses phrases like “game-changer” and “over and out” that while not exclusively American are probably used here more often than elsewhere.
Further: uses the word “progressive” disdainfully, which is characteristic of American discourse, although again, not exclusively.
Also: “The price of ‘climate protection’ . . ., ” could refer to Al Gore’s “Alliance for Climate Protection.” When I googled the phrase, it mentioned Gore’s group, but most of the other citations were from California cities who have set up committees for “climate protection.” Again more evidence of an American connection.
I think he’s American, but possibly Canadian.
But again, it’s all speculation.
I apologize in advance if it appears I may be exposing him, but, if I may speculate further, it appears to me that he is being reckless and may not mind being identified, although it will change his life dramatically. He knows he’s a major player in history now and may someday want the attention and rewards that could bring him. After all, and I mean this sincerely, he’s doing this for the poor, the downtrodden, the starving masses world-wide and the children, and may appreciate being celebrated for that. And yet, I still believe there is an element of revenge for shoddy personal treatment involved.
theduke

March 13, 2013 9:50 am

At 9:09 AM on 13 March, DirkH had written:

Does the left not usually endorse whistleblowers when it serves their purposes? (Yes, I’m conflating warmism and leftism. Both movements want an absolute state; preferrably a world state.

It’s a safely valid conflation. Consider the colloquial description of the political Watermelon, “Green on the outside, but Red to the core.”
Biopsy the warmist (without anesthetic, please, and using a dull scalpel if you will) and you’ll find precisely the same malignant pathology as you’ll get in carving a slice off any other “Liberal” fascist.

Keith W.
March 13, 2013 9:54 am

Going to be an interesting month.

Jeff Alberts
March 13, 2013 9:54 am

“Over and out.”
Clearly he/she was never in the military.

Duke C.
March 13, 2013 9:57 am

Here are the CG1-all.7z matches. Listed file names and dates occur in both CG1 and all.7z.
CG2-all.7z matches are a bit more problematic, since the .txt filenames are different. There are emails that are present in all 3 caches.
NAME DATE
837197800 Fri Jul 12 1996 18:56:40
841418825 Fri Aug 30 1996 15:27:05
842992948 Tue Sep 17 1996 20:42:28
842996314 Tue Sep 17 1996 21:38:34
846715553 Wed Oct 30 1996 22:45:53
846781264 Thu Oct 31 1996 17:01:04
847838200 Tue Nov 12 1996 22:36:40
850162662 Mon Dec 9 1996 20:17:42
860182002 Fri Apr 4 1997 19:26:42
878654527 Tue Nov 4 1997 14:42:07
881356379 Fri Dec 5 1997 21:12:59
884964368 Fri Jan 16 1998 15:26:08
888609364 Fri Feb 27 1998 19:56:04
897669409 Fri Jun 12 1998 16:36:49
906136579 Fri Sep 18 1998 16:36:19
906137836 Fri Sep 18 1998 16:57:16
907339897 Fri Oct 2 1998 14:51:37
907695513 Tue Oct 6 1998 17:38:33
911405082 Wed Nov 18 1998 16:04:42
912095517 Thu Nov 26 1998 15:51:57
919980501 Thu Feb 25 1999 22:08:21
923937760 Mon Apr 12 1999 17:22:40
927817076 Thu May 27 1999 14:57:56
929392417 Mon Jun 14 1999 20:33:37
929719270 Fri Jun 18 1999 15:21:10
932158667 Fri Jul 16 1999 20:57:47
933254004 Thu Jul 29 1999 13:13:24
936728245 Tue Sep 7 1999 18:17:25
938031546 Wed Sep 22 1999 20:19:06
938125745 Thu Sep 23 1999 22:29:05
939154709 Tue Oct 5 1999 20:18:29
942448792 Fri Nov 12 1999 23:19:52
947541692 Mon Jan 10 2000 22:01:32
947802707 Thu Jan 13 2000 22:31:47
951763817 Mon Feb 28 2000 18:50:17
951977522 Thu Mar 2 2000 06:12:02
955699514 Fri Apr 14 2000 08:05:14
957536665 Fri May 5 2000 14:24:25
962366892 Fri Jun 30 2000 12:08:12
965139790 Tue Aug 1 2000 14:23:10
965416206 Fri Aug 4 2000 19:10:06
965671134 Mon Aug 7 2000 17:58:54
966015630 Fri Aug 11 2000 17:40:30
966633586 Fri Aug 18 2000 21:19:46
967231160 Fri Aug 25 2000 19:19:20
969308584 Mon Sep 18 2000 20:23:04
969891412 Mon Sep 25 2000 14:16:52
970664328 Wed Oct 4 2000 12:58:48
970842624 Fri Oct 6 2000 14:30:24
971992541 Thu Oct 19 2000 21:55:41
972415204 Tue Oct 24 2000 19:20:04
972499087 Wed Oct 25 2000 18:38:07
972649870 Fri Oct 27 2000 12:31:10
973374325 Sat Nov 4 2000 21:45:25
974731263 Mon Nov 20 2000 14:41:03
984692311 Thu Mar 15 2001 21:38:31
986486371 Thu Apr 5 2001 15:59:31
992021888 Fri Jun 8 2001 17:38:08
993841811 Fri Jun 29 2001 19:10:11
994083845 Mon Jul 2 2001 14:24:05
998401270 Tue Aug 21 2001 13:41:10
999293834 Fri Aug 31 2001 21:37:14
1000168453 Tue Sep 11 2001 00:34:13
1001695888 Fri Sep 28 2001 16:51:28
1008167369 Wed Dec 12 2001 14:29:29
1008619994 Mon Dec 17 2001 20:13:14
1011732147 Tue Jan 22 2002 20:42:27
1014240346 Wed Feb 20 2002 21:25:46
1018045075 Fri Apr 5 2002 22:17:55
1018893474 Mon Apr 15 2002 17:57:54
1019513684 Mon Apr 22 2002 22:14:44
1021757151 Sat May 18 2002 21:25:51
1031762366 Wed Sep 11 2002 16:39:26
1034341705 Fri Oct 11 2002 13:08:25
1036591086 Wed Nov 6 2002 13:58:06
1042941949 Sun Jan 19 2003 02:05:49
1045082703 Wed Feb 12 2003 20:45:03
1047503776 Wed Mar 12 2003 21:16:16
1051638938 Tue Apr 29 2003 17:55:38
1052774789 Mon May 12 2003 21:26:29
1053457075 Tue May 20 2003 18:57:55
1053461261 Tue May 20 2003 20:07:41
1053610494 Thu May 22 2003 13:34:54
1053616711 Thu May 22 2003 15:18:31
1054576147 Mon Jun 2 2003 17:49:07
1054748574 Wed Jun 4 2003 17:42:54
1054756929 Wed Jun 4 2003 20:02:09
1055273033 Tue Jun 10 2003 19:23:53
1056654269 Thu Jun 26 2003 19:04:29
1057944829 Fri Jul 11 2003 17:33:49
1059674663 Thu Jul 31 2003 18:04:23
1059762275 Fri Aug 1 2003 18:24:35
1062189235 Fri Aug 29 2003 20:33:55
1062618881 Wed Sep 3 2003 19:54:41
1065189366 Fri Oct 3 2003 13:56:06
1065206624 Fri Oct 3 2003 18:43:44
1066073000 Mon Oct 13 2003 19:23:20
1066075033 Mon Oct 13 2003 19:57:13
1066077412 Mon Oct 13 2003 20:36:52
1067005233 Fri Oct 24 2003 14:20:33
1068239573 Fri Nov 7 2003 21:12:53
1074277559 Fri Jan 16 2004 18:25:59
1074609944 Tue Jan 20 2004 14:45:44
1075297872 Wed Jan 28 2004 13:51:12
1075403821 Thu Jan 29 2004 19:17:01
1075750656 Mon Feb 2 2004 19:37:36
1075836638 Tue Feb 3 2004 19:30:38
1076083097 Fri Feb 6 2004 15:58:17
1076336623 Mon Feb 9 2004 14:23:43
1076359809 Mon Feb 9 2004 20:50:09
1077200902 Thu Feb 19 2004 14:28:22
1077829152 Thu Feb 26 2004 20:59:12
1078236401 Tue Mar 2 2004 14:06:41
1079384474 Mon Mar 15 2004 21:01:14
1080257046 Thu Mar 25 2004 23:24:06
1080742144 Wed Mar 31 2004 14:09:04
1083962092 Fri May 7 2004 20:34:52
1083962601 Fri May 7 2004 20:43:21
1086722406 Tue Jun 8 2004 19:20:06
1087589697 Fri Jun 18 2004 20:14:57
1089318616 Thu Jul 8 2004 20:30:16
1090436791 Wed Jul 21 2004 19:06:31
1090610951 Fri Jul 23 2004 19:29:11
1091798809 Fri Aug 6 2004 13:26:49
1092167224 Tue Aug 10 2004 19:47:04
1092418712 Fri Aug 13 2004 17:38:32
1092433030 Fri Aug 13 2004 21:37:10
1092581797 Sun Aug 15 2004 14:56:37
1093294138 Mon Aug 23 2004 20:48:58
1094483447 Mon Sep 6 2004 15:10:47
1094495798 Mon Sep 6 2004 18:36:38
1094752345 Thu Sep 9 2004 17:52:25
1097159316 Thu Oct 7 2004 14:28:36
1097785771 Thu Oct 14 2004 20:29:31
1098294574 Wed Oct 20 2004 17:49:34
1098472400 Fri Oct 22 2004 19:13:20
1101133749 Mon Nov 22 2004 14:29:09
1101243716 Tue Nov 23 2004 21:01:56
1101850440 Tue Nov 30 2004 21:34:00
1101999700 Thu Dec 2 2004 15:01:40
1102524151 Wed Dec 8 2004 16:42:31
1102948164 Mon Dec 13 2004 14:29:24
1103583356 Mon Dec 20 2004 22:55:56
1103647149 Tue Dec 21 2004 16:39:09
1104855751 Tue Jan 4 2005 16:22:31
1105019698 Thu Jan 6 2005 13:54:58
1105024270 Thu Jan 6 2005 15:11:10
1105042411 Thu Jan 6 2005 20:13:31
1105556495 Wed Jan 12 2005 19:01:35
1105661016 Fri Jan 14 2005 00:03:36
1106338806 Fri Jan 21 2005 20:20:06
1106946949 Fri Jan 28 2005 21:15:49
1107454306 Thu Feb 3 2005 18:11:46
1107555812 Fri Feb 4 2005 22:23:32
1107899057 Tue Feb 8 2005 21:44:17
1109014030 Mon Feb 21 2005 19:27:10
1109018144 Mon Feb 21 2005 20:35:44
1109021312 Mon Feb 21 2005 21:28:32
1109684442 Tue Mar 1 2005 13:40:42
1111085657 Thu Mar 17 2005 18:54:17
1111417712 Mon Mar 21 2005 15:08:32
1112622624 Mon Apr 4 2005 13:50:24
1113941558 Tue Apr 19 2005 20:12:38
1114008578 Wed Apr 20 2005 14:49:38
1114088225 Thu Apr 21 2005 12:57:05
1114607213 Wed Apr 27 2005 13:06:53
1114785020 Fri Apr 29 2005 14:30:20
1115294935 Thu May 5 2005 12:08:55
1115297153 Thu May 5 2005 12:45:53
1116017259 Fri May 13 2005 20:47:39
1116363805 Tue May 17 2005 21:03:25
1116365074 Tue May 17 2005 21:24:34
1116426671 Wed May 18 2005 14:31:11
1116611126 Fri May 20 2005 17:45:26
1117120511 Thu May 26 2005 15:15:11
1117134760 Thu May 26 2005 19:12:40
1118866416 Wed Jun 15 2005 20:13:36
1118949061 Thu Jun 16 2005 19:11:01
1119534778 Thu Jun 23 2005 13:52:58
1120593115 Tue Jul 5 2005 19:51:55
1120676865 Wed Jul 6 2005 19:07:45
1121103374 Mon Jul 11 2005 17:36:14
1121439991 Fri Jul 15 2005 15:06:31
1121721126 Mon Jul 18 2005 21:12:06
1121869083 Wed Jul 20 2005 14:18:03
1121871795 Wed Jul 20 2005 15:03:15
1121876302 Wed Jul 20 2005 16:18:22
1121893120 Wed Jul 20 2005 20:58:40
1121950297 Thu Jul 21 2005 12:51:37
1121950401 Thu Jul 21 2005 12:53:21
1121974981 Thu Jul 21 2005 19:43:01
1122557838 Thu Jul 28 2005 13:37:18
1122669035 Fri Jul 29 2005 20:30:35
1123163394 Thu Aug 4 2005 13:49:54
1123529413 Mon Aug 8 2005 19:30:13
1123611283 Tue Aug 9 2005 18:14:43
1123612499 Tue Aug 9 2005 18:34:59
1123622471 Tue Aug 9 2005 21:21:11
1123685358 Wed Aug 10 2005 14:49:18
1123708417 Wed Aug 10 2005 21:13:37
1123881502 Fri Aug 12 2005 21:18:22
1124742148 Mon Aug 22 2005 20:22:28
1124994521 Thu Aug 25 2005 18:28:41
1127491287 Fri Sep 23 2005 16:01:27
1132094873 Tue Nov 15 2005 22:47:53
1134497252 Tue Dec 13 2005 18:07:32
1134572247 Wed Dec 14 2005 14:57:27
1135197791 Wed Dec 21 2005 20:43:11
1136298918 Tue Jan 3 2006 14:35:18
1137184681 Fri Jan 13 2006 20:38:01
1138995069 Fri Feb 3 2006 19:31:09
1139006752 Fri Feb 3 2006 22:45:52
1139331621 Tue Feb 7 2006 17:00:21
1140130198 Thu Feb 16 2006 22:49:58
1140209561 Fri Feb 17 2006 20:52:41
1140453339 Mon Feb 20 2006 16:35:39
1140616435 Wed Feb 22 2006 13:53:55
1140707670 Thu Feb 23 2006 15:14:30
1141164645 Tue Feb 28 2006 22:10:45
1141250377 Wed Mar 1 2006 21:59:37
1141267802 Thu Mar 2 2006 02:50:02
1143227779 Fri Mar 24 2006 19:16:19
1146252894 Fri Apr 28 2006 19:34:54
1148592899 Thu May 25 2006 21:34:59
1151094928 Fri Jun 23 2006 20:35:28
1153163328 Mon Jul 17 2006 19:08:48
1153167959 Mon Jul 17 2006 20:25:59
1153339440 Wed Jul 19 2006 20:04:00
1153424011 Thu Jul 20 2006 19:33:31
1153482869 Fri Jul 21 2006 11:54:29
1153520622 Fri Jul 21 2006 22:23:42
1153771098 Mon Jul 24 2006 19:58:18
1153772456 Mon Jul 24 2006 20:20:56
1153866449 Tue Jul 25 2006 22:27:29
1154370684 Mon Jul 31 2006 18:31:24
1154461714 Tue Aug 1 2006 19:48:34
1155150358 Wed Aug 9 2006 19:05:58
1155333435 Fri Aug 11 2006 21:57:15
1158336060 Fri Sep 15 2006 16:01:00
1160771811 Fri Oct 13 2006 20:36:51
1163715685 Thu Nov 16 2006 22:21:25
1164120712 Tue Nov 21 2006 14:51:52
1168353155 Tue Jan 9 2007 14:32:35
1169238969 Fri Jan 19 2007 20:36:09
1171550268 Thu Feb 15 2007 14:37:48
1177890796 Sun Apr 29 2007 23:53:16
1199466465 Fri Jan 4 2008 17:07:45
1199999668 Thu Jan 10 2008 21:14:28
1200003656 Thu Jan 10 2008 22:20:56
1200076878 Fri Jan 11 2008 18:41:18
1200090166 Fri Jan 11 2008 22:22:46
1200421039 Tue Jan 15 2008 18:17:19
1200425298 Tue Jan 15 2008 19:28:18
1200426564 Tue Jan 15 2008 19:49:24
1200493432 Wed Jan 16 2008 14:23:52
1203693276 Fri Feb 22 2008 15:14:36
1206628118 Thu Mar 27 2008 14:28:38
1208278112 Tue Apr 15 2008 16:48:32
1209474516 Tue Apr 29 2008 13:08:36
1210079946 Tue May 6 2008 13:19:06
1210178552 Wed May 7 2008 16:42:32
1210341221 Fri May 9 2008 13:53:41
1210367056 Fri May 9 2008 21:04:16
1211215007 Mon May 19 2008 16:36:47
1211225754 Mon May 19 2008 19:35:54
1211462932 Thu May 22 2008 13:28:52
1211491089 Thu May 22 2008 21:18:09
1212009215 Wed May 28 2008 21:13:35
1212009927 Wed May 28 2008 21:25:27
1212073451 Thu May 29 2008 15:04:11
1212088415 Thu May 29 2008 19:13:35
1212166714 Fri May 30 2008 16:58:34
1212686327 Thu Jun 5 2008 17:18:47
1214228874 Mon Jun 23 2008 13:47:54
1214229243 Mon Jun 23 2008 13:54:03
1216753979 Tue Jul 22 2008 19:12:59
1219078495 Mon Aug 18 2008 16:54:55
1219239172 Wed Aug 20 2008 13:32:52
1219861908 Wed Aug 27 2008 18:31:48
1221851501 Fri Sep 19 2008 19:11:41
1223915581 Mon Oct 13 2008 16:33:01
1225140121 Mon Oct 27 2008 20:42:01
1226500291 Wed Nov 12 2008 14:31:31
1226959467 Mon Nov 17 2008 22:04:27
1228330629 Wed Dec 3 2008 18:57:09
1228412429 Thu Dec 4 2008 17:40:29
1228922050 Wed Dec 10 2008 15:14:10
1229712795 Fri Dec 19 2008 18:53:15
1231190304 Mon Jan 5 2009 21:18:24
1231350711 Wed Jan 7 2009 17:51:51
1234302123 Tue Feb 10 2009 21:42:03
1234821995 Mon Feb 16 2009 22:06:35
1236958090 Fri Mar 13 2009 15:28:10
1237474374 Thu Mar 19 2009 14:52:54
1237480766 Thu Mar 19 2009 16:39:26
1237496573 Thu Mar 19 2009 21:02:53
1245773909 Tue Jun 23 2009 16:18:29
1246458696 Wed Jul 1 2009 14:31:36
1246479448 Wed Jul 1 2009 20:17:28
1246479579 Wed Jul 1 2009 20:19:39
1248790545 Tue Jul 28 2009 14:15:45
1248902393 Wed Jul 29 2009 21:19:53
1249045162 Fri Jul 31 2009 12:59:22
1249503274 Wed Aug 5 2009 20:14:34
1250169233 Thu Aug 13 2009 13:13:53
1250174764 Thu Aug 13 2009 14:46:04
1254147614 Mon Sep 28 2009 14:20:14
1254230232 Tue Sep 29 2009 13:17:12
1254232855 Tue Sep 29 2009 14:00:55
1254345174 Wed Sep 30 2009 21:12:54
1254345329 Wed Sep 30 2009 21:15:29
1254409004 Thu Oct 1 2009 14:56:44
1254517566 Fri Oct 2 2009 21:06:06
1254751382 Mon Oct 5 2009 14:03:02
1254754536 Mon Oct 5 2009 14:55:36
1254756944 Mon Oct 5 2009 15:35:44
1254760537 Mon Oct 5 2009 16:35:37
1254832684 Tue Oct 6 2009 12:38:04
1254850534 Tue Oct 6 2009 17:35:34
1255538481 Wed Oct 14 2009 16:41:21
1256735067 Wed Oct 28 2009 13:04:27
1256747199 Wed Oct 28 2009 16:26:39
1256760240 Wed Oct 28 2009 20:04:00
1257874826 Tue Nov 10 2009 17:40:26
1257888920 Tue Nov 10 2009 21:35:20
1258039134 Thu Nov 12 2009 15:18:54

Clark
March 13, 2013 9:57 am

My guess is that FOIA was an outside scientist that had an account at CRU. When I worked at an astronomical institute, there were many scientists from around the world that had accounts on our machines. To get this data, the user would need access to privileged areas. But this is not hard to believe as all that requires is poor management of the computer systems. But from what I have seen at academic research institutions, that is not hard to believe. Security is something that is normally added after a problem and for most admins think that if they have the latest patches, they are fine. Configuration and monitoring are the only way to really lower the risk of security issues. Sorry to ramble.

March 13, 2013 9:57 am

JiminyBob says March 13, 2013 at 7:55 am
No password but a bitcoin address? Mr FOIA can go …

Wow … missed the irony huh?
Good job JiminyBob!

Fred Hubler
March 13, 2013 9:57 am

Much of the Siberian Larch tree ring data from the Yamal peninsula were provided to Keith Briffa by Russian dendrochronologists Stephan Shiyatov and Rashit Hantemirov. In a climategate email from October 1998 Hantemirov writes that there is no evidence of movement of polar timberline in the last century.
However, in 2005 the Canadian Journal of Forest Research published an article based on Shiyatov’s work which stated that a large number of well preserved tree remains can be found 60 to 80 meters above the current tree line, and that the earliest distinct maximum in stand density occurred in the 11th to 13th centuries coincident with the MWP.
See http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/x05-111

March 13, 2013 9:58 am

Foo-bar’d the prev post … _Jim

JiminyBob says March 13, 2013 at 7:55 am
No password but a bitcoin address? Mr FOIA can go …

Wow … missed the irony huh?
Good job JiminyBob!

Bob B.
March 13, 2013 9:59 am

Maybe some one could do a keyword search to look for Senator, Congressman, Lord, BBC, or other keywords to see if there are any gvernment or media ties that weren’t found in climategate I&II?

Rob Ricket
March 13, 2013 10:00 am

Yes…yes…yes! Was it Dr. Ball’s article, or the release of yet another hockey stick paper that forced FOIA to break cover? Three cheers for Dr. Esper as well. His most recent paper is a compelling (albiet somewhat difficult) read. It would seem that Diogenes has finally located an honest man.

pokerguy
March 13, 2013 10:03 am

ANyone else ever get the fleeting feeling that this could end in some sort of organized violence? I know, I know, it sounds insane. It likely is insane. But the level of anger is such that under the right, repressive circumstances, it seems to me it could happen. I know I’d fight if necessary. And I’m 62 years old.

March 13, 2013 10:05 am

So interesting to see fighting amongst the ranks, well done on those 2 guys for investigating the tree rings

DocMartyn
March 13, 2013 10:05 am

I must agree with Craig about the defensive attitude to their heresy. Typically even the nicest researchers have a ‘Na, na, de, na, na’ attitude when they get data which refutes an earlier understanding.

March 13, 2013 10:05 am

Here is how I would approach the thing:
First thing I would do is using perl or python or some other scripting language, attempt to filter the larger file against what has already been released and create a new output file with just the delta.
I would see if I could import a copy of the resulting file into a mail reader’s mailbox and see if it would break the messages properly into individual emails. If it can, I would delete the obvious social emails.
Failing that, do it manually but the process I would use would be on the first pass, cull out those that are obviously social emails. The “honey, will you pick up a head of lettuce and a dozen eggs on your way home” or the setting up of a tryst while on a far away conference can probably be culled. Those should be relatively easy to remove and would account for a large number of the emails. The file that results after this pass should be candidates for further scrutiny.

bernie
March 13, 2013 10:08 am

This is tough. Despite the inherent interest in the rest of the CRU emails, I would prefer to see the continued dissection of the Marcott et al paper.

March 13, 2013 10:11 am

I’m stocking up on popcorn, but have little hope anything will be found that can wake the sleeping. I mean, Climategate 1 and 2 should have woken the dead. It amazes me people are so willing to believe the lame excuses and drink the whitewash.
I can only suppose some people just want to be fooled. In the end, however, Truth will triumph because, after all, it is real, and the alternative isn’t.

cui bono
March 13, 2013 10:12 am

If FOIA (to whom salutations and eternal gratitude!) has given up the search for ‘juicy bits’, it sounds like these are pretty much the scrag ends of the mails. So won’t get too excited.

pat
March 13, 2013 10:14 am

Throughout the course of the climategates, I get the distinct impression that the writers involved believe in AGW, but simply cannot assemble data that in fact unequivocally supports it. They appear to be often dealing with data and methods that detract from their set belief. It reminds me very much of the way many Catholic church officials dealt with Copernicus.

Bruckner8
March 13, 2013 10:15 am

Nothing was changed by CG1 or CG2, so who cares?

C.W. Schoneveld
March 13, 2013 10:15 am

The spelling “endeavor” suggests a non-Brtish educational background

March 13, 2013 10:16 am

The climategate zip archive when uncompressed contains 21 worms and viruses. Please be careful if you open it. Here is a screenshot of ClamXav: http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2184/clamxavscreenshot.jpg
REPLY: This was scanned checked by many people, no such virii has been seen. Must be an issue local to you – Anthony

David L.
March 13, 2013 10:17 am

MangoChutney says:
March 13, 2013 at 8:02 am
Leo Hickman already suggesting FOIA’s motivation is money”
Mr FOIA violated the first rule: only the AGW crowd can whore themselves out for money. Just go ask Al Jazzera Gore

Clive
March 13, 2013 10:17 am

This is great!
As others have noted, if there are emails in which details of personal lives are revealed (possibly lurid or illegal things…it happens), they MUST be withheld. It is one thing to lay waste to a person’s professional credibility, but it would be immoral make personal lives public whether stored/issued on publicly funded server space or not.
So with that proviso, let the Hunger Games begin.
CAS, Alberta

Theo Goodwin
March 13, 2013 10:21 am

My guess is that FOIA is media savvy and gave us this third release because of the scientifically dubious “NSF hockey stick” from Marcott and because the media acted as water carriers for Marcott. FOIA saw this attempt at resurrecting the hockey stick as the perfect occasion for completing the tale of the hockey stick.

March 13, 2013 10:27 am

Sounds like the files unlocked by the password are from UEA CRU. I await more independent confirmation to consider it fact.
The most interesting question to me is whether the author of the password revealing email is from the same person who released GC1 & CG2 or is the author someone who cracked the password?
I do not see hard evidence either way on authorship.
John

G. Karst
March 13, 2013 10:29 am

Best to release password. Was this not why FOIA released the password?
To allow inspection by a select group of skeptics, will only increase suspicions of manipulations. The greatest safety, for all those involved, is to make it all common knowledge. We need the entire climate community (skeptic and warmist alike) scrutinizing these E-mails. Warmist need to know what they bought into, more than we do. Hope you reconsider and let the chips fall as they may. GK

Dodgy Geezer
March 13, 2013 10:29 am

“…I don’t care if anyone ever learns FOIA’s “truename”, in fact I hope for his sake we never do. But having taken part in the secret identity sweepstakes in the past, it’s still fun to speculate on some of the tidbits he dropped in the letter. …
He needs to cut down on the chat a bit. Stylistic analysis is capable of pinning him down. The Unabomber was caught that way.
If he had an intelligence training he would recognise the need for a good code officer. But, I suppose, he is only up against the Norwich police….

Nik Marsall-Blank
March 13, 2013 10:34 am

I must thank Peter Gleick. Because if anyone says that getting this information by non legal means invalidates any arguments then we can throw Peter Gleick at them.
Thank you Mr Peter Gleick.

Wamron
March 13, 2013 10:39 am

Pokerguy…..Im sure the economic collapse of Western Europe will lead to very nasty violence before very long and Eco issues will evaporate when this happens.
Also bear in mind that the eco obsession reflects only one narrow culture and that, along with its broader culural host is liable to be replaced in a few decades by burgeoning Islamic culture within Western polities. Its hard to estimate what time they will have for eco preoccupations as their main focus tends to be on social, ritual and metaphysical issues.

TRM
March 13, 2013 10:41 am

Mr FOIA you will be reincarnated as a much higher life form. You have passed the biggest test humanity could put in your way. Congratulations on your promotion. There is nothing left here for you to learn.
Thanks

Copner
March 13, 2013 10:42 am

> I must thank Peter Gleick. Because if anyone says that getting this information by non legal means invalidates any arguments then we can throw Peter Gleick at them.
What if Peter Gleick was FOIA? Now that would be a twist!
Has anybody checked the ZIP’s timezone, is it Pacific?
Just kidding, Peter Gleick is clearly not FOIA, because
(a) none of FOIA’s emails use the word “subset”,
and (b) there don’t appear to be any suspicious-looking documents mixed in the archive which clearly have a different provenance, but coincidentally identify Peter Gleick as a super-hero.

Duke C.
March 13, 2013 10:43 am

crosspatch says:
March 13, 2013 at 10:05 am
“I would see if I could import a copy of the resulting file into a mail reader’s mailbox and see if it would break the messages properly into individual emails.”
————————————————————————————–
crosspatch, see may post at March 13, 2013 at 9:40 am. I’ve already converted CG1-CG2 to Thunderbird format, will add others as they are released.

Big D in TX
March 13, 2013 10:47 am

Awesome. The results can not come soon enough.
Though I always imagined Mr FOIA as one of those super secret super high level Chinese hackers, who had exposed to his government how it was all a bunch of crap, and that’s why they just go right on ahead building coal plants like mad, and undercutting wind & solar businesses in America and elsewhere.
Of course I have zero evidence for such a claim, it was just a fantasy that made me laugh…

chinook
March 13, 2013 10:48 am

Bruckner8 says:
March 13, 2013 at 10:15 am
“Nothing was changed by CG1 or CG2, so who cares?”
_____________
It should be evident by the many comments and general discourse pertaining to rampant climate fraud worldwide, that some do care and anyone paying attention should also note that CG1&2 did change matters, although not as much as should have changed. That, sadly, characterizes the morbid lack of integrity existing in some divisions of science, politicians and major media.
I have a sneaking suspicion that some people involved in this fraud are now feeling slightly more anxious, which means on the outside, they’ll behave more arrogantly than ever.

Wayne2
March 13, 2013 10:48 am

“He needs to cut down on the chat a bit. Stylistic analysis is capable of pinning him down. The Unabomber was caught that way.”
I agree. But I also see all kinds of misdirects in his rambling posting. European punctuation and a few non-native-speaker English phrases, plus a few (political, conservative) Americanisms. It’s a bit of a hodgepodge and might’ve even been passed through some kind of filter. On the other hand, my feeling is that he’s U.S. and tried to throw in a few odd things to make it appear that he’s European. Or perhaps he followed the whole Gleick affair and covered his stylistic trail. Heck, the message may be rambling because it’s literally cut-n-pasted from articles on the web.

March 13, 2013 10:50 am

“The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen.”
Dansk??

kramer
March 13, 2013 10:50 am

Finally!
I hope there’s enough information in this last batch to permanently damage this political movement.

wikeroy
March 13, 2013 10:50 am

crosspatch says:
March 13, 2013 at 10:05 am
“First thing I would do is using perl or python or some other scripting language, attempt to filter the larger file against what has already been released and create a new output file with just the delta.”
Perl or Python? Good grief what a stoneage approach.
Install Microsoft Develepor Studio Express Edition, it is free. Write a CSharp program.
You will go through a hockeystick-like personal development with a day or two.

Richard111
March 13, 2013 10:51 am

wws says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:39 am
Agree with your analysis. Any thoughts on “papal plural”?

TRM
March 13, 2013 10:54 am

” At 9:09 AM on 13 March, DirkH had written: Does the left not usually endorse whistleblowers when it serves their purposes? (Yes, I’m conflating warmism and leftism. Both movements want an absolute state; preferrably a world state. ”
Not when it costs them billions. Neither democrat or republican is going to help this guy out because he offended very wealthy people (ie. their owners).
http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=934&Itemid=108
FOIA knows what they are up against and has taken precautions. A smarter move than going public and hoping you will be protected. There is no protection like nobody knowing who you are.

David L. Hagen
March 13, 2013 10:56 am

I strongly endorse his observation that:

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.
It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.
Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

This foundational care for the poor is emphasized by The Cornwall Alliance

1) We call on our fellow Christians to practice creation stewardship out of Biblical conviction, adoration for our Creator, and love for our fellow man—especially the poor.
2) We call on Christian leaders to understand the truth about climate change and embrace Biblical thinking, sound science, and careful economic analysis in creation stewardship.
3) We call on political leaders to adopt policies that protect human liberty, make energy more affordable, and free the poor to rise out of poverty, while abandoning fruitless, indeed harmful policies to control global temperature.

For further detail see: A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming

Luther Wu
March 13, 2013 10:56 am

i started to post in the weekend’s open thread that it was about time for the third release… I thank my lucky stars that I didn’t post that guess… ‘they’ would have been on me like they were Roger (Tall Bloke).

Mark Bofill
March 13, 2013 10:59 am

Anthony,
FOIA writes:

To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.

I’m guessing you already have a goodly list of ‘motivated and responsible individuals’ and aren’t looking for further volunteers? If this is not the case and you’re short handed, I’d be glad to volunteer to help. Not that you have any basis to know I’m a responsible individual though. ~shrug~

3x2
March 13, 2013 11:01 am

Climate Change Dispatch
The climategate zip archive when uncompressed contains 21 worms and viruses. Please be careful if you open it. Here is a screenshot of ClamXav: http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2184/clamxavscreenshot.jpg
You are one desperate MoFo. So, we will all get ‘worms’ if we open ‘the box’?
Sad. Sad. Sad. What sad Gore (never invested in Thorium) propaganda site do you “cut and paste from”?

Wyguy
March 13, 2013 11:02 am

Very interesting!

March 13, 2013 11:05 am

You Sir, have given great service and you’ve done it uncommonly well. Look after yourself, time to rest now.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/climategate-a-crisis-of-conscience/
Pointman

Bill Parsons
March 13, 2013 11:13 am

RE:
Theo Goodwin says:
March 13, 2013 at 10:21 am
It may be a response to the Marcott paper, but also a number of other things. Obama’z Inaugural, in which he promised renewed efforts, seemed tailored for the young. There have been new appointments to Energy and EPA. And (strictly based on observation), I foresee a second-generation – a catastrophist “echo” – of young folks exploiting the administration’s numerous educational grants, taking positions in newly-created fields of environmental (AGW) science, writing curriculum for or teaching the new global economy, or mouthing the latest platitudes favoring anti-western, new-world order based on the concept of a liberal leviathan. The drumbeat for renewables will continue, but they will continue to hamper the oil and gas industry at their own peril. A lot of senate seats are in the air in 2014.

just some guy
March 13, 2013 11:14 am

Well now the CRU knows they still have a mole and to be uber careful to avoid putting incriminating evidence in thier emails.

March 13, 2013 11:17 am

Good work Mr. FOIA, thank you.
Facts count up.
Yet, these ones you see the need to protect from their own shallow lives re: private e-mails with bad habits shown. They are holding themselves out a smart people of great knowledge. They all should know e-mails are never secure.
In fact the whole sorry world they live in should be seen by all.
They come to the court of public opinion with dirty hands, thus should be treated as such.
Do tell your family just in case the/some goverment gets on you and you do not come home from work one day.

DaveF
March 13, 2013 11:18 am

elmer 9:30:
“I smell another video, need a new catchphrase though.”
Elmer, if you are familiar with the song “Days” by the Kinks (and Kirsty McColl) you could start it off:
“Thank you F O I A,
You’ve really made all of our days, believe me.”

JM VanWinkle
March 13, 2013 11:19 am

Sun Spot says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:46 am
Due to the complicity of the M.S.M. in the cAGW media meme they will NOT report on this. Censorship by guilt association and left wing anti-science bias.
Actually, the “Ministry of Truth” is all inclusive. Fauxnews is not covering this, as an example. It looks like the net is our only salvation as all media sources sing the from the same hymn book, and in MoT hymn book you won’t even get “Move along, nothing to see here….” for this seismic story.
Now which pill was it? Red or blue?

March 13, 2013 11:22 am

Anthony Watts said,
I provide this introductory email sent by “FOIA” without editing or comment.

– – – – – – – –
Anthony,
If the message you got from FOIA was an email then why did you entirely edit out the email header info? By ’email header info’ I mean info like: To; From; CC; time/date stamp; etc.
What is your reasoning for editing it out?
I noticed Steve McIntyre, BH and Tom Nelson also did not include the email header info in their posts.
John

G. Karst
March 13, 2013 11:23 am

M. Mann prolonged paradox, of having to: publicly promote and BELIEVE in his own hockey stick, when the scientist part, of himself, knows it to be nonsense… has caused his mind to form a psychological schism. When he goes to sleep at night, his alter-ego rises and commences his internet activities. M. Mann IS FOIA… He just doesn’t know it. /snark GK

Dave
March 13, 2013 11:28 am

Bravo Mr. FOIA, Bravo!

mkelly
March 13, 2013 11:32 am

Theo Goodwin says:
March 13, 2013 at 10:21 am
My guess is that FOIA is media savvy and gave us this third release because of the scientifically dubious “NSF hockey stick” from Marcott and because the media acted as water carriers for Marcott.
Good guess Theo, but maybe he saw “Greedy Lying Bastards” and knew he wasn’t one and had to prove it. ; )

vigilantfish
March 13, 2013 11:38 am

Dr. FOIA, thank you! I can only express my deepest respect for your motivations. I hope this release has the effects you intend – time for the climate zombie to be burned into the final state of annihilation.
I am entirely convinced that Climategate 1.0 had an instant chilling effect on the warmist pseudoscientific rhetoric. Its effects reverberated around Copenhagen and finally put the alarmists on the defensive. Unfortunately, modern intellectual and political elites have scant regard for the truth. They continue to swaddle themselves in carbon dioxide fear-mongering, convinced this will keep them warm, whilst those of us on the outside can see they are naked. But the media look the other way, and too many who see the truth are still afraid to speak up.

MarkW
March 13, 2013 11:42 am

“He needs to cut down on the chat a bit. Stylistic analysis is capable of pinning him down. The Unabomber was caught that way.”
I thought the Unabomber was caught after the manifesto was printed in several papers and the Unabombers brother recognized the writting style.

F. Ross
March 13, 2013 11:43 am

Greta news! Thank you Mr. FOIA, thank you Anthony, and everyone esle involved in this release.
Regarding the identity of Mr FOIA, I conclude that “… although he may have studied with an expert dialectitian and grammarian, I can tell that he was born – Hungarian! Not only Hungarian, but of royal blood.” -with apologies to G.B. Shaw and Lerner

Bart
March 13, 2013 11:46 am

FOIA is a true, modern hero, a trait which becomes rarer each passing year. Thank you, Sir!
To those speculating on his identity based on periods, commas, and English/American idioms – if I were he, I would have adopted some other region’s forms for the express purpose of leading the hounds up a blind alley.

Kaboom
March 13, 2013 11:46 am

The usual suspects will most likely howl about how anything posted from the stash is cherry picked or even fabricated unless the password is released and the material becomes “open source”. So protecting the guilty from the consequences of their own ill deeds will not cut it in the long run.

March 13, 2013 11:46 am

I fully support the redaction of the password, but I am curious. Was it a long random string? Or something less intriguing?

Ken Harvey
March 13, 2013 11:48 am

Bill Parsons says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:10 am
220.000 emails
Is the period – rather than comma – a solely British numeric convention? Or is it used elsewhere?
The positional swap of the point and comma was a continental Europe practice back in the day of typewritten documents. It was considered easier to read, and in long columns of figures, not necessarily accurately aligned, it actually was.. From memory about the beginning of the ‘sixties British Banks and others started to adopt the practice for convenience rather than by diktat but only for typewritten documents. Somewhere around the mid ‘sixties South Africa decimalised its currency and their decision makers assumed that banking practice was the accepted way of doing things. They advised people to write their cheques with a comma separating rands from cents. At the same time their schoolchildren were instructed to pronounce the word ‘comma’ where one would otherwise say ‘point’. In Rhodesia at the time we thought it was hilarious to hear a South African say that he lived ‘four comma six kilometers from the post office”.
We laughed too soon. When Rhodesia decimalised its currency in February 1970 they followed the excruciating example of their southern neighbours. I had to explain to my kids at the time that in our house we spoke English and that within its confines the pronunciation of ‘comma’ was banned. To this day I mentally cringe when I hear someone announce a measurement as ‘nine comma eight’ or some such. .. .

March 13, 2013 11:49 am

Install Microsoft Develepor Studio Express Edition, it is free. Write a CSharp program.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA no.

Joe
March 13, 2013 11:49 am

For everyone speculating about clues to FOIA’s identity, bear in mind that he’s had plenty of time to write that covering email and is clearly a pretty smart cookie. Assuming he’d rather remain anonymous, any clues are quite likely to have been planted, like the dinosaur bones, to fool the archeaologists 😉
As for not putting the password in the wild, that’s absolutely right. The previous releases gave unintentional access to some scientists’ accounts with journals (thanks to the journals’ lax security). Fortunately those who noticed first alerted the scientists involved rather than making it public knowledge. If we’d like to maintain the moral high ground, vetting any released emails to avoid similar mistakes is absolutely essential!

Matthew R Marler
March 13, 2013 11:52 am

Thank you, FOIA.

Snotrocket
March 13, 2013 11:52 am

C.W. Schoneveld says, March 13, 2013 at 10:15 am

“The spelling “endeavor” suggests a non-Brtish educational background”

No, Morse is very much British! (UK TV Detective, for those who need a prompt!)

Steve Richards
March 13, 2013 11:54 am

believes that long tree-ring records, when properly
selected and processed, can ……
Still at it I see

Mark Bofill
March 13, 2013 11:56 am

philjourdan says:
March 13, 2013 at 11:46 am
I fully support the redaction of the password, but I am curious. Was it a long random string? Or something less intriguing?
————-
Over at The Reference Frame ( http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/03/climategate-2013-is-here-foia.html#more ) Lubos Motl says

I guess that many of the climate-oriented TRF readers have spent a long time – perhaps many hours – by attempts to guess the password. That was hopeless, we know today, because the password is an extremely long sequence of gibberish characters.

Reply to  Mark Bofill
March 13, 2013 12:18 pm

Bofill – thank you. It just goes to bolster what little we know about FOIA. He is no one’s fool.

Schrodinger's Cat
March 13, 2013 11:56 am

Thank you, FOIA.
It is up to the recipients of the password to take this forward. I hope FOIA has chosen wisely, because with the password goes the responsibility to redact and delete all of the stuff that is personal and irrelevant to the climate issue. There must be some way to coordinate a systematic assessment and filtering of all the emails but that is a massive task.
Indiscriminate publication of emails containing information about personal/family matters would be devastating to the people concerned and would be siezed upon by critics to damage the heroic actions of FOIA.
Having said that, I hope that the emails do expose the wrongdoings of people in governments, NGOs, alarmist organisations and cheerleaders such as the BBC.

Pat Frank
March 13, 2013 11:57 am

Well, Mr. FOIA isn’t Keith Briffa. F writes English with a completely American idiom. His syntax also has none of the subtle errors that betray a foreign first language. All-in-all, he’s a native American speaker.

David L. Hagen
March 13, 2013 11:57 am

FTC: Advertisers can’t post deceptive tweets mobile ads
Shouldn’t that apply to climate change announcements as well?

Craig Loehle
March 13, 2013 12:08 pm

An interesting set of search terms would be the key journalists that were in their pockets at the time to show how “objective” their reporting was (not). ie, they were acting as pr agents for alarm. also for emails to/from people in greenpeace etc re IPCC.

Gunga Din
March 13, 2013 12:08 pm

Duke C. says:
March 13, 2013 at 9:57 am
Here are the CG1-all.7z matches. Listed file names and dates occur in both CG1 and all.7z.
CG2-all.7z matches are a bit more problematic, since the .txt filenames are different. There are emails that are present in all 3 caches.
NAME DATE
837197800 Fri Jul 12 1996 18:56:40
841418825 Fri Aug 30 1996 15:27:05 … etc.

================================================================
Perhaps this should go to “tips”, but maybe it would be a good idea to set up a sticky post or even another blog site where those who have the password can put up their discoveries/insights and comments from those who don’t have the password (such as myself) are blocked but those (such as myself) can see still what’s going on? Sort of a “central hub” for the sorting and sifting.
PS Thank you, FOIA whoever you are.

Dub
March 13, 2013 12:09 pm

I would suggest that FOIA’s native language might be revealed in his expression, “hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor.” This awkwardness of this expression in English indicates it is a literal translation from a different language. (I live in a Spanish speaking country and am frequently guilty of literal translations!) Does anyone recognize FOIA’s expression, but used in a different language?

James Ard
March 13, 2013 12:12 pm

I figure if I don’t comment soon, I’ll have no shot at the mug. So I’ll take this opportunity to say I have never seen this kind of uncommon valor for the good of so many ever in my forty plus years on this planet. Good show, FOIA. May you stay safe and reap the rewards you so deserve for your actions.

Don
March 13, 2013 12:14 pm

Untwittered tweet from Dr. Mann:
“Curses, FOIA’d again!”
Thank you, FOIA. Be safe.

Hot under the collar
March 13, 2013 12:16 pm

But I thought “Hide the Decline” and all the other comments were taken out of context, does this include the other 220,000 emails?

Don
March 13, 2013 12:18 pm

[let’s not go there – no worries – Anthony]

3x2
March 13, 2013 12:19 pm

Pointman
You Sir, have given great service and you’ve done it uncommonly well. Look after yourself, time to rest now.
Indeed (FOIA). Get yourself out of ‘Dodge’ and enjoy your ‘retirement’. Wipe the drives, those that might possibly hold an unencrypted copy of ‘all’, and dump them in the ln the local river/canal. Chill out and talk to nobody about it.
Others can now take the weight.

Rick K
March 13, 2013 12:20 pm

Thank you and Godspeed, Mr. FOIA.
You too, Anthony (et al). In some way, even if it’s just by providing “inspiration,” you are a big part of this.
Uh… that’s a compliment!

Joe Public
March 13, 2013 12:23 pm

To join in the “Identity Speculation”:-
Maybe FOIA is an Honours Graduate from that other University of East Anglia academic facility.
Besides CRU, UEA also runs the award-winning “School of Literature, Drama and Creative Writing
http://www.uea.ac.uk/literature/creative-writing
So he/she could actually be a local Norfolk Carrot-Cruncher.

otsar
March 13, 2013 12:24 pm

Tak! FOIA
I see you amongst those who risked all to keep the forces of tyranny in check: Von Kleist, Von Fresckow.
Hopefuly your present problems will be resolved to your benefit.

Don
March 13, 2013 12:29 pm

Good to hear, Anthony. You be safe too!

Hot under the collar
March 13, 2013 12:30 pm

Re the name – FOIA, didn’t the climategate leak occur after climate scientists at UEA subverted the Freedom Of Information Act – in the UK?

March 13, 2013 12:33 pm

Someone is going to have to do the dirty work of encorporating all three files, eliminating the duplication, and going through the resulting mess line for line to find the necessary parts to end this charade posing as “science”. That’s going to be a long, drawn-out, time-consuming process. I hope someone is up to it.

OssQss
March 13, 2013 12:35 pm

Ha! I just knew it must be the new pope that released the password. He does not have time to finish the review now 😉
Whoever it is, the free world thanks you!

rogerknights
March 13, 2013 12:35 pm

C.W. Schoneveld says:
March 13, 2013 at 10:15 am
The spelling “endeavor” suggests a non-Brtish educational background.

Canadians and Australians often use US spelling. The tone seems culturally British.
IF this missive was not written as camouflage–which it would be if the hacker were Chinese, for instance–then it suggests FOIA was someone conversant in climatology, at least to the extent of having taken courses in it. That would have been necessary to sort out the first release. Perhaps a worker in the IT department.

March 13, 2013 12:38 pm

Exciting times ahead.
Mr FOIA, we are all indebted to you. Many in the position you found yourself in would not have acted with moral fortitude you displayed. You are a rare individual and a truly great. I also think you have achieved much more than you realize. Climategate 1 ripped open a hole that could not be mended and really turned things around. The scam would have come apart anyway, but much slower and with greater suffering everywhere. You are a hero. The whole world owes you so much.
Thank you.

bb37cc
March 13, 2013 12:41 pm

Mann’s libel suits in tatters. Hairshirts on order.

MikeP
March 13, 2013 12:43 pm

Otsar, Do you think FOIA is Ukrainian?

Hot under the collar
March 13, 2013 12:43 pm

Mark Bofill says: “..the password is an extremely long sequence of gibberish characters…”
So the password was “…….MannGoreHansen…….”?

Scott Basinger
March 13, 2013 12:44 pm

For some reason, he sounds Canadian.

Dave
March 13, 2013 12:47 pm

Now if only someone would follow FOIA’s lead and get Hansen and company’s emails from NASA GISS (or wherever they hide them). Unredacted emails from the EPA (or wherever they hide them)would be nice too.
I can dream, can’t I?

wikeroy
March 13, 2013 12:48 pm

Dub says:
March 13, 2013 at 12:09 pm
“I would suggest that FOIA’s native language might be revealed in his expression, “hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor.””
Looks like Norwenglish to me. ( A Norwegian speaking english. ) We use 220.000.

MikeP
March 13, 2013 12:50 pm

Dub,
I believe Napoleon espoused and used the tactic of digging holes and filling them in to give people employment, but whether or not it has a more ancient origin, I don’t know.

mrmethane
March 13, 2013 12:51 pm

Vaclav Klaus is my vote

Mark Hladik
March 13, 2013 12:52 pm

Sorry I didn’t have time to read through all of the responses, so if this is redundant, my apologies:
I was going to write: “Nothing to see here! Move along! Move along!” with a /sarc tag. Then I saw elmer’s 0930 AM (13 March 2013 post) trolling for another video, and it hit me:
Use “Nothing to see here! Move along!” to the main theme of “Oklahoma” (you know — — the very beginning where Gordan McRae is singing, “Oh what a beautiful morning! Oh what a beautiful day … ”
Mark H.

Jimbo
March 13, 2013 12:54 pm

Thank you FOIA for all your efforts. Your duty is now complete. (Unless you have other emails from other universities).

Hot under the collar
March 13, 2013 12:55 pm

Re wikeroy says:
Norwegian? I agree, but may still be a planted red herring.

Mpaul
March 13, 2013 12:58 pm

I think it’s important that someone release the password so that people can focus energy on the emails rather that the identity of FOIA

AnonyMoose
March 13, 2013 1:00 pm

Umm….. Release all the data?

rogerknights
March 13, 2013 1:04 pm

Keep on the good work.

Hardly any American would use “on” there.

We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.

The omission of “taken” before “away” is not idiomatic American. Maybe it was written in haste.

The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers,

Americans rarely use “debilitate.”
“… in great numbers” has a non-American sound.
The double-barreled alliteration seems somewhat non-American.

To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out,

“scientifically (or otherwise)” sounds British. Maybe he picked up such locutions from studying in the UK.
Use of the backslash in place of the slash might indicate a computer background.
No quotation was followed by a period or comma, possibly to avoid the giveaway of using or not using the UK’s logical comma style.
US-style double quotation marks were used, along with several Americanisms.

Beth Cooper
March 13, 2013 1:07 pm

The open society owes you a debt of gratitude, FOIA
I do not think we should speculate on your background.
Keep safe.

Brian G Valentine
March 13, 2013 1:08 pm

From the language used in the original message, I believe I do recognize he author, and it is not a surprise to me

Beta Blocker
March 13, 2013 1:09 pm

Might FOIA be Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous founder of Bitcoin? He/she certainly would have had the technical expertise needed to hack into the CRU server from the Internet.

Jeff
March 13, 2013 1:11 pm

elmer 9:30:
“I smell another video, need a new catchphrase though.”
How about something along the lines of
Don’t stop adjusting the temps tomorrow

Hockeystick’s gone, hockeystick’s gone…
(tune = don’t stop…..)
some watermelon irony there…

Sean
March 13, 2013 1:11 pm

Sounds like FOIA might be an insider. If he was a hacker he would be unconcerned about “sensitive personal” emails. As an outsider, I don’t think Mann et. al. deserve any such protection, as shame is likely all the punishment that they will receive for their horrendous misconduct and scientific fraud..

Robert of Ottawa
March 13, 2013 1:12 pm

Just before another IPCC pack o lies. I guess they are not the only ones who can press release

Steve from Rockwood
March 13, 2013 1:14 pm

My 2 cents worth…it’s a man in his late 50s or early 60s who has a scientific background and was fed up with the current state of climate science. The carefully worded and final release is to be done with it on one hand and cover his tracks on the other. Could easily be American, British or Canadian. Note the correct use of whom.

Sean
March 13, 2013 1:15 pm

Sounds like FOIA might be an insider. If he was just some hacker he would not be at all concerned about emails that were ‘personally sensitive’.
Personally, as an outsider, I am unconcerned with protecting Mann et al, as I fell confident that any fallout from these emails is likely the only punishment that they will receive for their horrendous behavior and scientific misconduct.

NW
March 13, 2013 1:18 pm

A very funny attribution by a commenter at Bishop Hill:
“Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural”
So! It was Josef Ratzinger; well – noone expected that.

moia
March 13, 2013 1:18 pm

Dub says:
March 13, 2013 at 12:09 pm
“I would suggest that FOIA’s native language might be revealed in his expression, “hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor.””
FOIA is John Maynard Keynes.

Simon
March 13, 2013 1:21 pm

This basically confirms the UK police view that it was a single overseas hacker operating through a Russian server. The covering note has clearly been machine translated from some other language. Let’s see if anything more damning can be found than the semantics of the word “trick”.

Mark Bofill
March 13, 2013 1:23 pm

Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural 😉

——
I’ve got it! The answer was staring us in the face! FOIA was Pope Benedict XVI!

or, hmm…

maybe not. :>

Stephen Richards
March 13, 2013 1:24 pm

to be a bit careful about ‘sensitive or socially damaging’ emails, although it isn’t clear what FOIA has in mind by that. If things that are truly personal, I would be in favor of keeping them private
I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it here. These theiving, cheating a$$oles have no right to privacy, mercy or any other human sympathetic emotion. You are foregetting the number of people that have DIED as a result of enrgy policy predicated on their crap science. 30000 in the UK alone this winter an many more to come as coal stations switch to wood and windmills suck in ever more funding subsidies. EXSPOSE EVERYTHING they are criminals.

Konrad
March 13, 2013 1:26 pm

Springtime! For freedom and democracy!
Winter! For liars and cheats….

Mark Bofill
March 13, 2013 1:26 pm

Aww, somebody beat me to the joke at BH. Nevermind. 🙁

March 13, 2013 1:29 pm

I like all the suggestions, keep them coming.
I found this email that seems pretty damning is this an old one?
Phil to Mike
“Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.
http://di2.nu/foia/1107454306.txt

Ken Harvey
March 13, 2013 1:32 pm

“If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background”
That looks like a planted red herring to me. Where there is any awkwardness such as ‘decided yet on’ it looks to be a deliberate contrivance rather than a mental translation slip.
The only thing that I can take for certain is from ‘Over and out’. Pure television nonsense that certifies that he has never been a member of a NATO linked force. ‘Out’ is the soldier’s sign off.
Whatever his nationality there are millions of us who will forever be in his debt. Thank you FOIA. .

Jeff
March 13, 2013 1:33 pm

Could the “papal plural” be either a reference to the “royal we” or
perhaps the fact that once the new pope is elected, there will be two for a while?
As regards the “hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor”, maybe it’s a reference to
that book titlled “Holes” where kids were given the busywork task of digging
and filling holes (as punishment, if I recall correctly).
In any case, many thanks to FOIA for bringing the truth out, and to those
who will be likely working long hours and days sifting through that output.
Good to see that integrity is still around in this day and age! (and yes,
whistleblowers show not only integrity, but bravery as well).

Ray
March 13, 2013 1:33 pm

FOIA,
Respect.

Chuck Nolan
March 13, 2013 1:34 pm

Looking forward to sifting.
cn

March 13, 2013 1:37 pm

I would use “hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor” myself, I’ve used the concept in my book Fundanomics regarding make-work projects (it’s not about jobs, per se). I don’t think it’s a clue to who Mr. FOIA is.
Oh, and it’s not me.
Really.

DavidG
March 13, 2013 1:37 pm

Well at least we know global warming is Mann-made! I for one, am relieved!:]

Duster
March 13, 2013 1:38 pm

JiminyBob says:
March 13, 2013 at 7:55 am
No password but a bitcoin address? Mr FOIA can go f*ck himself. What’s the point of those emails being out there if there is a campaign to have only selected people see them? Are you going to be the high and mighty ones to release the truth to us great unwashed?

You really, really, really need to learn to read. The passage is a tongue-in-cheek joke about where Big Oil can send Mr. FOIA’s share of the conspiracy money.
The close-held nature of the password is simply because there is considerable potential for accidental damage that is inappropriate. Anthony and others are actually more careful than Mr. FOIA. They actually redact the email addresses, even though those addresses may be potential evidence of missuse of public (computers) facilities. FOIA’s concerns are directed at considerably more personal issues. Possibly Briffa’s illness is discussed in detail that would never should be public for instance. Social problems to be avoided suggest that he might not want to trigger divorces, inadvertently out married gays, etc. There’s no reason at all that sort of information should come out.
It seems more clear that FOIA is effectively a whistle blower. He (actually “they”) clearly had access to the emails. It is notable that the crew has apparently broken up since he says that he’s now just one person and can no longer employ the papal “I”. Also the use of a comma as a decimal separator excludes all Anglophone countries but South Africa, so unless he’s dissembling, he really isn’t British or American. There was evidence in some of the earlier communications with CG1 and CG2 that a mixed group – both Anglophone and non-Anglophone were involved. Apparently this no longer the case.

Robert of Ottawa
March 13, 2013 1:40 pm

The comma used as a deliminator in a number is strictly Anglo-Saxon. The dot is used for the decimal poit.

Mark Bofill
March 13, 2013 1:43 pm

Roy Spencer says:
March 13, 2013 at 1:37 pm
I would use “hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor” myself, I’ve used the concept in my book Fundanomics regarding make-work projects (it’s not about jobs, per se). I don’t think it’s a clue to who Mr. FOIA is.
Oh, and it’s not me.
Really.
—————
~suspicious stare~

well, you said me and not us, so. I guess you’re off the hook.
Don’t leave town though Dr. Spencer, we might have more questions for you.
/sarc :p

Mycroft
March 13, 2013 1:45 pm

Sounds to me as all of the emails were leaked,perhaps we won’t have to hear warmists saying the were hacked now?

OldWeirdHarold
March 13, 2013 1:47 pm

‘Over and out.’
10-4, good buddy. Duck out.

otsar
March 13, 2013 1:47 pm

MikeP
Not Ukrainian.
My guess is originally East coast USA, with later overseas education, most probably a Scandinavian country (some of the word order.) Embassy brat? Military brat?
He/She has mastered the mysteries of the possessive contraction that Americans use that are avoided by non native speakers.
Having said that, the language is probably very obfuscated for good reason.

Robert of Ottawa
March 13, 2013 1:51 pm

Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future
apart from the dropping of articles, this is sophisticated English … Rather improbable. …smacks of English understatement. How many Russians know the word “prerquisite”?

son of mulder
March 13, 2013 1:52 pm

Many thanks Mr. FOIA

philincalifornia
March 13, 2013 1:53 pm

Joseph E Postma says:
March 13, 2013 at 7:46 am
Congrats to Tim Ball for his article requesting this to be done, and if it created this outcome! Wonderful!
____________________________________________________
I’m guessing it was the ludicrous graph in Marcott et al. that was the tipping point.

Gary D.
March 13, 2013 1:53 pm

Maybe FOIA is also an expert linguist and threw in a bunch of red herrings to disguise him/herself.

Joe
March 13, 2013 1:57 pm

Stephen Richards says:
March 13, 2013 at 1:24 pm
I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it here. These theiving, cheating a$$oles have no right to privacy, mercy or any other human sympathetic emotion. You are foregetting the number of people that have DIED as a result of enrgy policy predicated on their crap science. 30000 in the UK alone this winter an many more to come as coal stations switch to wood and windmills suck in ever more funding subsidies. EXSPOSE EVERYTHING they are criminals.
——————————————————————————————————————–
What of possible harm to people NOT involved who happen to be mentioned? In 220k emails there’s a good chance there will be some; Does your need for blood extend to colateral damage that might be avoided by releasing it this way?

Robert of Ottawa
March 13, 2013 1:57 pm

Rogerknights, it was written in great haste. He refers toa new Pope, nly just announced a couple of hours ago … But he at least didn’t mention the score of Arsenal against Munich

phodges
March 13, 2013 1:57 pm

Dub says:
March 13, 2013 at 12:09 pm
I would suggest that FOIA’s native language might be revealed in his expression, “hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor.”

Not necessarily, but we now know that he was in someone’s ARMY 😉

March 13, 2013 1:58 pm

Bart says:
March 13, 2013 at 11:46 am
FOIA is a true, modern hero, a trait which becomes rarer each passing year. Thank you, Sir!
==================================================================
Thank you Sir or Ma’am

moia
March 13, 2013 1:59 pm

I’ve nothing to do with FOIA, but if anybody wants to send me some bitcoin, here’s my address
1FEbR2HNh469mYtZjrV4tAQBed8jdpA8TT
TIDES money accepted too.
Ta!
REPLY: Why would anyone want to send money to you? -A

Apoxonbothyourhouses
March 13, 2013 2:03 pm

“USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.”
Written by someone who was at length or totally educated in an English speaking country. It FLOWS far too well for it to be otherwise. Knowing the email would be analysed to death he / she has had plenty of time to throw in red herrings and probably had fun doing so.
Use US spell-check in part and for numbers use points rather then commas – i can hear the chuckles. I for one appreciate the humour or should that be humor and wish him / her a long, happy and anonymous life.