‘Climategate 4’ email dump about to happen – Mann’s cohorts lose in court

Court ruling requires Regents to turn over climate emails by UA researchers

By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services

PHOENIX — An organization that questions the role of humans in climate change is going to get access to the emails and records of work done by two scientists at the University of Arizona in its bid to argue that their research is flawed.

The Arizona Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a last-ditch effort by the Arizona Board of Regents to overturn lower court rulings that ordered the documents immediately released. While the justices did not comment on their decision, they effectively rejected arguments by the Board of Regents that release would be “contrary to the best interests of the state.”

David Schnare, attorney for the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, said the only question that remains is how quickly the university will surrender the documents his organization first sought seven years ago.

At the heart of the legal battle are emails and other documents from Jonathan Overpeck and Malcolm Hughes who both specialize in research on climate change.

Schnare said E & E is particularly interested in their work since it became a crucial part of a report that linked human activity to global warming. And that report, in turn, has become the basis for policy changes that have sought to move away from the use of fossil fuels for energy generation because of the production of “greenhouse” gases like carbon dioxide.

What E & E wants to see, Schnare said, is the interaction the pair had with other scientists as the report was being prepared. He said that should reveal were comments from others “that were never included or never seriously considered.”

“How these reports are put together and how these comments are dealt with is a valid question with regards to reliance on this report,” Schnare said. “One has to ask, just because they claim they had a lot of experts involved, was it an honest piece of work or not.”

Messages left with Hughes, who is still at the UA, and Overpeck who is now with the University of Michigan, were not immediately returned.

Schnare said he is not saying that either scientists did anything wrong or even that their research is erroneous. But he said the only way questions can be answered is through full release of all the documents that were being considered.

In filing the original lawsuit, Schnare said Overpeck was prominent in the “cause” of global warming, including “activism for environmental pressure groups.”

Schnare also said the pair came to his group’s attention after a server at a British university was hacked, disclosing thousands of email exchanges between academics and others involved in climate research.

Some of what was found was labeled “climategate” and is being used by groups to show that global warming is just a conspiracy.

Full story at tucson.com

h/t to WUWT reader “Ed”

223 thoughts on “‘Climategate 4’ email dump about to happen – Mann’s cohorts lose in court

      • Don’t start celebrating to soon, as many of the players are in other states, this could become a multi state jurisdictional case and will likely need to pass through Federal appeals courts to ultimately go before the SCOTUS prior to any final adjudication and ultimate release of emails.

        • Correct. In addition being an alarmist and a leftie means you never have to admit you’re wrong and you can ignore every rule. They’ll find some way to obfuscate the court order to produce and tie up proceedings again.

      • No beer. I want to be stone cold sober while I am enjoying this after Watts and others get done analyzing. This could be at least as good as climategate. Pretty soon these guys are going to have to resort to snail mail!

    • … like the drives and back-ups haven’t been purged or destroyed already.

      What? You expect less? ROFLOL…

      • That would be criminal , look at all the trouble Clinton got into for attempting to twart legally required transparency and disclosure of emails.

        Oh, hang on.

        Well maybe if Trump sacks Sessions after the mid-terms and finds someone ready to do the job.

        • Don’t you Colonials in the Virginian Colonies have a time limitation on such things? Under terrorism regulations here in UK ISPs must keep emails/texts on “file” backed up for a couple of years at least!

          • Anyone who believes that every major intelligence agency in the world had not downloaded the contents of Hillary’s mail server is a fool. She left a trail over the internet like a clubfooted cow. No intelligence agency, even one of a friendly power, could pass it up.

          • They wouldn’t. They would likely claim that the President was tying to interfere in Mueller’s and the FBI’s investigations and would refuse to comply. Others have already made that argument in refusing to release the reasons for the original investigation into candidate Trump’s campaign and also the documents that spell out what areas Mueller is allowed to investigate. They won’t even tell us what evidence they had for a crime to justify a special council in the first place. How would national security be harmed by such transparency? It is clearly a cover up.

          • The current CIA and DOJ sewer needs to be ripped up and rebuilt from scratch, with new people that can actually be trusted and can follow the Constitution, at every position.

          • What makes you think the CIA works for Trump? At least in their eyes they are an independent Praetorian guard who are above things like the Constitution and law.

          • I suspect the hacking of her “private” server was eventually a homework assignment for Computer Science students the world over.

          • I suspect hacking her server became a classroom assignment in the computer programming field around the world.

        • Greg, Trump and Sessions have a Plan. This Plan involves smoke and mirrors. Huber is helping with much needed paperwork. Gitmo is being greatly enlarged. Trust The Plan. Pain is Coming !!!

    • I predict that the university will just ignore the court order, trusting that the media will keep any official action from being taken against them.

      • I had a loan filing at a bank that was busted for banking violations and was shut down by state authorities. They showed up unannounced and the bank was closed. Just like that.

        Serious executive response is just like that. Go and take them. Let the media complain after the fact. Of course, the demand may be more about the appearance of impropriety than about any real expectation of “smoking guns” …

        I hope the demand is sincere and that there is something worth the effort in the “hay”. The LIberals do the “seriousness of the charge” trick all the time, but ‘tu quoque’ is a lousy argument.

  1. Great news. I can’t wait to see the Saints of Prediction and data distortion getting ousted from their pews in the Unholy Church of Climate.

    • Hurry up good people! It’s long past time to take the offensive!

      Sue the warmists under Civil RICO!

      Sue the universities, with their huge endowments. Sue the green organizations and their funding foundations. Follow the money that has supported and benefited from global warming falsehoods – it is the greatest scam, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.



      I have been considering this approach for several years and I think it is now time to proceed..

      Civil RICO provides for TRIPLE DAMAGES. Global losses from the global warming scam are in the trillions, including hundreds of billions on the USA.

      We would sue the sources of warmist funding and those who have significantly profited from the global warming scam..

      The key to starting a civil RICO action is to raise several million dollars to fund the lawsuit, which will be protracted and expensive.

      If serious funders are interested, please contact me through

      Regards, Allan MacRae


      September 21, 2014 11:28 pm

      On Accountability:

      I wrote this to a friend in the USA one year ago (in 2013):

      I am an engineer, not a lawyer, but to be clear I was thinking of a class action (or similar) lawsuit, rather than an individual lawsuit from yourself or anyone else.

      I suggest that there have been many parties that have been damaged by global warming alarmism. Perhaps the most notable are people who have been forced to pay excessive rates for electricity due to CO2-mandated wind and solar power schemes. Would the people of California qualify? Any other states? I suggest the people of Great Britain, Germany and possibly even Ontario would qualify, but the USA is where this lawsuit would do the most good.

      There is an interesting field of US law that employs the RICO (anti-racketeering) statutes to provide treble (triple) damages in civil cases. That might be a suitable approach.


      I suggest the Climategate emails could provide the necessary evidence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public, through fraudulent misallocation of government-funded research monies, and wind and solar power schemes that were forced upon consumers and which were utterly incapable of providing significant or economic new energy to the electric power grid.

      Regards, Allan

      • I’ve pointed out that energy is connected to about everything anyone does in modern time’s. When governments used the information that CO2 is causing AGW and increased the cost of Fossil Fuels, it created price distortions that increased the cost of everything and therefore everybody’s cost of living went up. Every product, that at any point, used Fossil Fuels in it’s growing, production and transport had to increase their prices to cover the increased cost of it. As did every transport and storage to the market that got it to the consumers. Then the consumers themselves that travel to shop and back to their residents paid more to do it. Then if the product uses energy to make it work or prepared it for consumption all cost them more. This issue is nearly too big to fathom.

        • I certainly have lost faith in the Law Business in Canada, Grant. Our federally-appointed Justices are utterly corrupted, such that to merely call them “incompetent” would be a complement – nobody could be that consistently dumb and still have passed the bar.

          However, I know one gentleman in the USA who makes a lot of money launching Civil RICO lawsuits – the threat of TRIPLE DAMAGES usually makes the respondent settle.


        • More on the colossal incompetence and corruption of federally-appointed Canadian Justices below. You cannot make up this stuff – people would not believe anyone could be this utterly stupid and counter-productive.

          News Release: CALGARY, AB (August 30, 2018):
          United Conservative Leader Jason Kenney has issued the following statement in response to this morning’s Trans Mountain court ruling:

          “Today is a sad day for Canada and our ability to move major projects in the national interest forward.

          “Albertans have every right to be angry and frustrated by the apparent inability of governments across the country to build economically critical infrastructure. We cannot function as a prosperous, modern society with an ever-changing legal standard on issues like environmental impact and Indigenous consultation.

          “It is clear that the federal government engaged in good faith negotiations, and that the NEB ultimately determined it has no jurisdiction over marine traffic. Now the goal posts are moving yet again.

          “Today’s ruling makes it abundantly clear that the Federal Court of Appeal has no regard for the real-world economic impact this decision will have on ordinary Canadians’ lives and livelihoods. It is incredibly disappointing to see our judicial branch working against the best interests of the nation.

          “We urge the federal government to explore every avenue possible to get the Trans Mountain expansion back on track, including but not limited to an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, re-engagement of the consultation process, and potential legislation.

          This is especially important given that every Canadian citizen is now a shareholder in the Trans Mountain pipeline. We cannot allow this critically important project to die.

          “This is not about electoral politics. This is just bad for Canadians. Period. Having said that, this decision further proves that the NDP’s idea of punishing Albertans with a carbon tax to buy social license has been a failure from day one.”

      • Our side should start small, to build a beached, with a suit against DeSmogblog by persons libeled by it, especially our Mr. Watts.

          • Nope. Here’s what Wikipedia says about “defamation per se:”

            Defamation per se

            All states except Arizona, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.

            Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:[2]

            Allegations or imputations “injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession”
            Allegations or imputations “of loathsome disease” (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
            Allegations or imputations of “unchastity” (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
            Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)[12][13]

          • PS: The benefit of a successful suit against Desmogblog would not just be monetary: it would damage that site’s credibility. It is often cited in warmist writings (e.g., Oreskes). Its untrue and slanted / selective factoids have had a strong effect in discrediting climate contrarianism.

          • Roger – you are correct, legally and technically, but practically speaking, case law in recent years suggests otherwise.

            One of my friends, a capable climate scientist, was fired from a prominent USA university because he was a skeptic.

            I spoke with him about suing, and his response was, “I’m making more money in my new job than I was at the university – if I sue I may win, and get one dollar in damages.” I am sure he had a competent legal opinion on this matter.

            The legal process is so punishing, and the results are so fraught with uncertainty because of the incompetence and bias of the judiciary and the deceit of lawyers, that suing for the sake of principle is a fool’s game – you are as likely to lose as to win, and if you lose you will be hit with court costs and maybe a counter-suit.

          • One of my friends, a capable climate scientist, was fired from a prominent USA university because he was a skeptic.

            IOW, he was not libeled.

            I spoke with him about suing, and his response was, “I’m making more money in my new job than I was at the university – if I sue I may win, and get one dollar in damages.”

            IOW, he just happened not to have suffered economic harm. But economic harm is irrelevant. Anthony would not sue for economic harm, but for “defamation per se.”

            you are as likely to lose as to win, and if you lose you will be hit with court costs and maybe a counter-suit.

            50/50 odds are worth taking a chance. Especially if Heartland (say) will fund the suit (and absorb any court costs)—or a lawyer will take the case on a contingency basis.

            A countersuit is not likely and would just expose Desmogblog’s tactics and lower its credibility further.

          • All good points Roger, except:

            I am not sure what the grounds for dismissal of my friend were – he may have been libeled or slandered – I do know he was fired for being a skeptic – I expect the university’s legal department put some suitable false spin on it – that’s what lawyers do.

            RE the tactics of the odious left/greens – talk with Dr. Tim Ball about their dirty tactics and the lawsuits against him, intended to silence him. It was all about suing Tim, who does not have the means to fight back, to financially break him – the grounds for these lawsuits were flimsy at best.

            The leftist-greens are moral scumbags – any tactic is OK, if it serves the end game – which actually is a totalitarian dictatorship – the evidence of this fact is over one hundred sh!thole countries that fit this description.

          • Here is a WUWT comment by “Peter” that establishes the reputational damage WUWT has suffered from SourceWatch’s (not DeSmogblog’s) libel:

            “Directing the Climate true believers to an article at WUWT brings an almost instant comment that WUWT is an oil-propaganda machine . . . “

            Here are a couple of examples of such instant (and nasty) comments, on the site of the New Republic, at http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119056/why-climate-change-denier-myths-return?destination=node/119056 (but the comments section is no longer present, which is a pity because I scored some good hits on a very nasty commenter there)

            PhillipNoe wrote: “whatsup with using anthony watts’s website. He’s a well known industry man that is well paid to distribute propaganda!”

            Leslie Graham wrote: “. . . [I]t is a matter of documented record that his sordid little denierblog is part funded by both the Koch Brothers and Exxon-mobil.”

            Here’s the libelous quote:

            “Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier* who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. … Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.”

            That in turn is based on a statement in DeSmogblog that quotes the discredited** Heartland “Strategy” document as its source (in footnote 21): Richard Littlemore, “Heartland Insider Exposes Institute’s Budget and Strategy” Heartland Institute, Feb. 14, 2012.

            That Strategy Document states:

            ”Goals of the organization [Heartland] included … funding climate change deniers [names omitted] and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge “warmist science essays that counter our own,” including funding “external networks (such as WUWT …”

            Watts’s response can be found in Wikipedia (as of four years ago) in the last paragraph (just before “References”) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger):

            ”Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute and made public in February 2012 reveal that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 to set up a website, “devoted to accessing the new temperature data from NOAA’s web site and converting them into easy-to-understand graphs that can be easily found and understood by weathermen and the general interested public.”[56][57][58] The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest.[55] Watts explained the funding by stating, “Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project having to do with presenting some new NOAA surface data in a public friendly graphical form, something NOAA themselves is not doing, but should be. I approached them in the fall of 2011 asking for help, on this project not the other way around.”[59][60] and added, “They do not regularly fund me nor my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind.”[59][61]”

            Here’s the current (8/2018) Wikipedia wording of that paragraph:

            ”Watts says that he approached Heartland in 2011 to ask for help finding a donor to set up a website devoted to presenting NOAA’s data as graphs that are easily accessible to the public.[13][65] Documents obtained from the Heartland Institute in February 2012 revealed that the Institute had agreed to help Watts raise $88,000 for his project.[66][67][68] The documents state that $44,000 had already been pledged by an anonymous donor, and the Institute would seek to raise the rest.[12] Watts has written that, aside from the help in funding this project, the Heartland Institute does not pay him a regular salary or fund his blog.[13][69]”

            Incidentally, the Wikipedia entry states:

            ”The Heartland Institute helped fund some of Watts’ projects, including publishing a report on the Surface Stations project, and has invited him to be a paid speaker at its International Conference on Climate Change from 2008 to 2014.[12][13]”

            Big deal.
            Watts denies that he has received funding from any source for his blogging at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/faqs/ ( hit page-down twice)

            in a 2014 comment on this matter I wrote (in a thread whose URL I’ve misplaced):

            ”This false claim is very damaging to the contrarian cause. Anthony should therefore have a lawyer send a cease and desist letter to Sourcewatch and DeSmogblog to get a retraction.

            “If that pair tries to hide behind the Strategy document, that would provide an opportunity to haul Gleick into court to testify about the implausible details of how he supposedly came by it. It would also provide an opening for testimony by Mosher on the numerous points of stylistic similarity between that document and Gleick’s writing style. Since Gleick wouldn’t be being sued himself, but merely being a witness, he wouldn’t be able to demand discovery of the names of Heartland donors, which is what inhibited Heartland from suing him.

            “Making Gleick squirm as he implausibly denied being the author of that phony document would incriminate the alarmist community, which has failed to expel him from his posts and has even given him new honors. It would also discredit the warmists who claim that, since Heartland hasn’t sued Gleick, their denial that the document is authentic can’t be taken seriously.

            “There’s a lot of bang for the buck here. (Too bad we have so few bucks!)”

            I further commented on this topic on WUWT here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/10/open-thread-weekend-20/#comment-1633276

            *Watts is not an “AGW denier,” as Sourcewatch alleges. He is a lukewarmer who accepts that CO2 warms the atmosphere and has had a role in the earth’s rising temperature since 1950. What he disagrees with are the claims that this warming will amount to much in the future. It is a smear to say that he “denies AGW,” because it is mostly who cranks do that.

            **Re the discrediting of the “strategy document”, here’s what I wrote (in a WUWT thread somewhere) four years ago:

            Littlemore quotes the Heartland “Strategy” document that Gleick posted and said he received in the mail from an anonymous source with the handle ““Heartland Insider” before he phished other documents from Heartland. But that claim is very dubious. Poster David Ross said of it:

            “The obvious conclusion (which other evidence supports [such as the links below]) is that Gleick did not have a copy of a “2012 Heartland Climate Strategy” when he was phishing Heartland. He did not have a copy because he (or whoever the forger was) had not written it yet.”

            See two threads critiquing the authenticity of the Strategy document and DeSmogBlog’s defense of it by Megan McArdle in the Atlantic:

            And this on the contrarian site Climate Audit: http://climateaudit.org/2012/02/20/heartland/

            In the documents that Gleick phished from Heartland, there is a mention of something different: a proposed ONE-TIME funding of Watts for a special project: to put up a user-friendly front-end on a NOAA site. Most of the money would have gone to a programmer Watts intended to hire. However, that project fell through. (NOAA has since put up its own front end.) See:

      • The people of Ontario might indeed be interested in this, Allan. The previous government was decimated…lost their party status. They need to be held accountable.

        • Sommer, the Canadian legal system is so deeply and widely incompetent and corrupted that you cannot predict the outcome of a lawsuit here. There is no Rule of Law in Canada – it is a charade, a sham.

          Dr Grant Brown is one of the top legal scholars in Canada. He wrote above:
          “Allan, have you not lost all faith in the legal system yet?”
          That reflects Grant’s view of our Canadian legal system, what I call the Law Business, and it is the dirtiest business in Canada.

          I would not let a federally-appointed Canadian Justice wash my car – I have that little faith in them.

          Regards, Allan

          • No argument here Roger. As I wrote above:

            The leftist-greens are moral scumbags – any tactic is OK, if it serves the end game …

            You have provided many excellent examples of green deceit.

            Thank you, Allan

          • “… the Canadian legal system is so deeply and widely incompetent and corrupted that you cannot predict the outcome of a lawsuit here. There is no Rule of Law in Canada – it is a charade, a sham.”
            Allan are you suggesting an international legal case held in the U.S.? We have an International Lawyer in Ontario who has a large file prepared against the Green Energy Act.

          • Also, have you seen this site recommended by Charles Ortel today on ‘Crowdsource the Truth’ with Jason Goodman?
            This person has a large body of research that might be highly relevant in an international RICO lawsuit.

          • This Corey guy is scary, Sommer. He talks about investigating child traffickers, etc. A worthy cause, but not for me.

            I think those of us who have followed the global warming scam know enough about it to pick some suitable defendants in a Civil Rico lawsuit. The main need is millions in funding for lawyers – they might work on partial contingency but probably not pro bono.

          • Allan are you suggesting an international legal case held in the U.S.?

            HI Sommer:

            I am suggesting (probably a class action) lawsuit held in the USA suing the beneficiaries of global warming fraud under Civil RICO statues.

            That is, I believe, the best probability of success.

            I would not waste my time in Canadian courts -they are too incompetent and corrupt.

  2. So is there any information regarding the UK hacked emails mentioned in the story? I know better than to expect the lame stream media to cover such a story.

    • Where have you been the last few years? Look at the top of wuwt homepage for starters.

    • Climategate: The conspiracy to manipulate the surface temperature record to make it appear that temperatures are now the hottest in history.

      The truth is it was hotter in the 1930’s than it is today, but the Climategate conspirators have removed that warmth from the official record by changing the historical data, which was the purpose of their conspiracy.

      These fellows at the University of Arizona were involved with the Climategate conspirators, and with the release of these documents, we may see just how involved they were.

        • Anthony, search for the arbitrary “Fudge” factor used in the code to produce global temperature. In your first graphic the title says “Global Average Temperature”. Can you believe that, even the hotter one is about 0.5C. We should all be freezing by now. Those are anomalies and anomalies do not show if temperatures were higher or lower in the 30’s. Most anomalies are within the error margin of most measures. Try to see absolute temperatures. Please be careful if you want to refute things seriously.

          • As regards US temps. Yes, the 30’s were hot in the US – just not the world.
            The reason NASA’S dataset was changed was in part because of the useless (for historical climatological study) of reading a maximum temp and reseting the thermo in the evening. Just brilliantly designed to record the temp at reset as the following days max should cooler air advect in.
            You agree we should compare apples with apples?
            A suggestion then, if you don’t like the common sense approach of adjusting for that abomination
            How about the US return to that practise and take max in the evening again?
            Would make for an interesting warming in the US.

            J N:
            “Please be careful”
            A do not inhabit the conspiracy rabbit-hole. I posted 3 global temp series from the major players.
            Your definition of “careful” does not confirm to anything rational.
            The perfect conspiracy get-out.
            With one bound.
            That bound being beyond common sense.

          • The Hansen 1999 chart you provided also matches the temperature profile of this unmodified Finland chart which, like the Hansen chart, shows the 1930’s as being as warm or warmer than subsequent years:


            Finland is halfway around the world from the U.S. and shows the same temperature profile as the U.S. chart, with the 1930’s being warmer.

            There are other unmodified charts from around the world that show the same temperature profile as Hansen 1999.

            NO unmodified charts from around the world resemble the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart profile that was created by the Climategate conspirators.

            The Climategate conspirator’s aim was to erase the CAGW-theory-busting warmth of the 1930’s, and they did with their Hockey Stick charts (those which show the 1930’s as cooler than subsequent years).

          • Anthony, please understand one thing, you did not post “temperature datasets” but “temperature anomalies datasets” which is quite different!! Anomalies have values that are often bellow the absolute temperatures error range. That’s why people that want to alarm someone about climate use anomalies and not absolute temperatures. As time passed, with the different methods of measuring temperatures, the increasing of UHI effect, with the elimination or change of place of some measuring stations, no one can say for sure if the 30’s were hotter or colder than today. Using the graphs that you posted to prove that temperatures are higher today is scientifically misleading. We discuss a lot this among climate realists community and you would be amazed how many people, that realy work in climate dynamics, criticize these graphics.

          • The “temperature anomalies” graphs, if you exclude the recent el nino effect, only show us that, on average, temperatures today are about 0.5C higher than they were in the 30s. However as I said in the last message, average errors of temperature reading or related with bad station placement, etc, are about 2.5C on average. With luck are about 1C and with bad luck, the error can be as high as 5C. So how can one tell that 30s were colder or hotter in these conditions?

        • Take a gander at the shapes of the blue and red lines from about 1910 to about 1944. Then compare those shapes to the shapes from about 1977 to about 2000. Notice any similarities?

          Wadda joke: Using the data from alarmist sources, from the end of the 19th Century through the early 21st Century we get a warming trend of 0.73 C/Century. With the use of a not-unusual minor warming in the last part of the 20th Century, you obviously get political CAGW in action.

        • Anthony, if I can suggest reading the first IPCC report. The people in charge of the report had less influence than today. If you look, the entire graph has been tilted upwards since then.

          The change is even more pronounced on the America-only graph that Dan put out, as the 1930s (influenced heavily by the Dust Bowl) have been significantly cooled.


        • The truly laughable thing about such graphs is that they reflect a poor correlation with CO2, a happenstance not related to any recognizable physics. Please tell me there’s something more than a collateral coincidental correspondence commonly claimed!

          At best, it is vaguely retrospective, not predictive. The planet is not a soda bottle with heat lamps or a hotbox or a greenhouse. Indeed if Fourier’s ghost were consulted, he’d be against the idea not for it.

    • There is no evidence that the e-mails were hacked. Most experts believe that an insider leaked them.

      • It was claimed by the police that they where hacked and they knew who did it , yet oddly nothng followed . The chances are much better it was an iside job because you have to known where to look and to hack it be willing to put the effort to begin with . And who would even care about the CRU in those days when there was much better targets to be had?

        But its been a few years since then andyou can bet the others such as Mann have been ‘busy ‘ making sure it will be virtual impossible to find their e-mail relating to this for they have much to lose and little to gain from public discloser.

      • There are two different sets of emails. One set are the DNC emails, and the other Hillary Clinton’s emails while Secretary of State.

        • I’m pretty sure we were talking about the climate gate e-mails not the Hillary hidden in her bathroom e-mail server.

  3. “Schnare also said the pair came to his group’s attention after a server at a British university was hacked,”

    Is that really what Schnare said. I doubt it. There has never been any evidence it was a hack. The FOIA file was left on an publicly accessible FTP server. Carelessness, or leak we will likely never know.

    I doubt that Schnare is unaware of that. The only hack here is the journalist/activist covering the story.

  4. Were the hacked emails the climategate emails? I have to read stories several times lately before assimilating all of the information.

    • Climategate emails probably were not hacked but leaked. Read the stuff on this site.

    • crowcane, I replied to you above. Give it a little time for others to weigh in on this subject and you will probably find all the information you are seeking.

      The Climategate emails were made available to the public by sources unknown. Noone is exactly sure how it happened.

      The University of Arizona emails are a separate batch of emails that the Court has just ordered to be released to the public.

      • “The Climategate emails were made available to the public by sources unknown. Noone is exactly sure how it happened.”

        Certainly at least one person knows exactly what happened, but they’re not telling.

      • So the publication of the Climategate email wasn’t “Russia interfering in our elections”?

    • John Costella has written a good piece on the Climategate emails for the Lavoisier Group.
      You can find it at lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails dot pdf

  5. If any one cared to dig a little deeper into Energy & Environment Legal Institute, their MO- nuisance suits – and their coal industry backers they might be a little more sceptical of E&E’s motives.

    • Blather. Your usual MO. I raise your ” … dig a little deeper …”

      Only a nuisance to those that scuttle under their rocks.

      Diddums. Does the big scary coalman keep you awake nights?

      Regardless, us mortals will never lay eyes on this new vein. Unless there is a hack 😉

    • It doesn’t matter what the motives are– all that matters is that we’ll see emails that have been hidden from us.

      Will the emails reveal that the consensus on climate change has been forced or coerced in any way? If so, then this shows that the new definition of science as consensus is fundamentally unreliable. This definition of science is the lifeblood of the alarmist view, for without it that view would have to rely on solid evidence that CO2 mechanisms act as the theory predicts, and we know through satellite and balloon data that they do not.

      Science isn’t consensus, and simple logic tells us that the idea of “consensus” as a grounding of scientific truth is fraught with perils. Science is theory proved by experimental confirmation. If the theory has no proof, it’s simply a theory. If the theory has been contradicted by experimental evidence, then the theory is false.

      Emails should help us sort out the fundamental question: is “consensus” a robust foundation for scientific truth?


    • RyanS

      You would rather the email dialogue wasn’t revealed?

      If they haven’t done anything wrong then they have nothing to fear.

      • If they haven’t done anything wrong then they have nothing to fear.

        How often did you use these words in your career? :=))

      • “If they haven’t done anything wrong then they have nothing to fear.”

        Wow, that coming from a former cop? So if I have nothing to hide, I wouldn’t mind the government coming into my house and going through everything I own any time they want?

        I agree that documents from publicly funded research should be made public, but your statement is chilling.

        • >>
          . . . but your statement is chilling.

          I agree. It also violates the spirit of IV Amendment to the Constitution–not that anyone seems to care anymore.


        • Jeff Alberts

          “So if I have nothing to hide, I wouldn’t mind the government coming into my house and going through everything I own any time they want?”

          Not without due process. Which is what’s happened here. The fact it has taken some 7(?) years to get to this stage suggests there is something to hide does it not?

          Indeed it’s the case in most western countries that if you are in the process of perpetrating a crime the police are able to enter your house without a warrant.

          That being the case, how many times has your house been entered by the police without a warrant? Presumably none because you have nothing to hide.

          • HotScot: Very few people truly live “crime free” so if they come in with or without a warrant there’s a good chance they’ll find evidence of some wrong doing if they are motivated enough. Heck, even if you think you are living truly crime free there are so many rules, codes and laws on the books they’ll have their pick of what to charge you with.

            Quick example is I have a cousin who got into trouble with the cops in his younger days and they started ticketing him for everything. A couple of the tickets were for not having a garbage bag in his car and for not having an insurance card in his glove box. FYI, the insurance card was in his wallet which he had in his back pocket at the time.

          • Even if you haven’t broken any laws outright, the odds are that you have come close enough to the edge that a talented prosecutor could make your life hell for years.
            (I was going to say a “good prosecutor”, but decided that “talented” fit what I wanted to say better.)

          • MarkW

            A “talented prosecutor” isn’t the police.

            The police report the circumstances of a case to the courts and, whilst professionally competent in the law, they are not experts.

            Every cop you have ever met has been faced with a situation where he has to make a judgement call which enters the ‘grey zone’ of the law. In today’s society they know they risk their livelihood if they don’t complete a dozen forms instead of tweaking a kids ear for stealing apples.

            That’s not the cops fault. That’s the Social Justice Warriors at work assuming every cop is crooked when in reality, no one joins the police as a criminal enterprise. All of us join for the right reasons, some fall by the wayside, but very few.

          • “no one joins the police as a criminal enterprise”

            Why the urge to police sexting of teenagers, if not because some people join the police to see underage pron?

            Also, at which point does some militia takes the policing in its own hands and move to capture the police forces and judges who are almost certainly pedos?

          • simple-touriste

            As usual you take the most bizarre route to provoke an argument.

            I’m not sure what you mean by the “police sexting” of teenagers other than it might act as a honey trap for identified sexual predators, who need not be teenagers, and usually aren’t.

            No one needs to join the police to see underage porn. You make an utterly bizarre accusation.

            “some militia”……specifically please. In civilised western countries I struggle to think of police forces that have turned into militia over the last generation or two. Indeed, in the UK the police force has been operating as a civilian force since it’s inception in Glasgow in 1800 or so. London shortly thereafter and the rest of the country followed. Over 200 years of policing with no hint of militia even during two world wars.

            You are displaying a persecution complex against the very people that live in your community, who understand all the complexities of your life because they live them themselves.

            The police aren’t the problem. Criminals are the problem.

            Is that such a difficult concept for you?

            Oh…..you might want to deal with the catholic church first before accusing police forces(?) and judges of being “pedos”

            Methinks your mind exists below your belt line, and judging by your emphasis on sexual predation, I would have been happy to interview you about your personal activities.

          • Not the police sexting; policing sexting.

            There are underage teens sexting. They are treated as pedos/predators just for taking pictures of themselves. Where does the urge to police the behavior of 17 years old taking illegal pictures of themselves come from?

            One likely explanation is that there are real pedos in law enforcement. Criminals in law enforcement is a problem.

          • simple-touriste

            “There are underage teens sexting.”

            Define ‘underage’, then define it in every country in the world. The age of sexual consent varies wildly across the globe. Some believe that when a female reaches her initial observable stage of sexual maturity she is ready. The civilised west doesn’t generally conform to that, and I agree that it shouldn’t, but that doesn’t make you or me any more right than other cultures.

            “Where does the urge to police the behavior of 17 years old taking illegal pictures of themselves come from?”

            Nothing whatsoever wrong with a 17 year old taking ‘pictures’ of themselves, the problem comes when they are “illegal” pictures. If they are illegal, they are, by definition an offence. There are a number of illegal ‘sexual’ practises that even by having electively viewed them render you a criminal, far less participation.

            And the problem with taking ‘legal’ pictures of themselves, is what they do with them. If a male post a ‘legal’ photograph of himself sporting an erection on Facebook, it them becomes a question of obscenity. If he sends it to girls in his class, it arguably represents a threat.

            Nor do I believe the term paedophile even exists in the legal world, at least not in the UK. Participants who engage in underage sexual activities are charged as such. The term ‘paedophile’ is as convenient and lazy a description of an offender as ‘climate change denier’ is to describe, and by association amongst the greens and the left, criminalise scientific sceptics.

            Frankly, I’m amazed at the ignorance of people on this forum who blithely discuss this subject without first understanding it.

            I’m also amazed at the ignorance of (a few) people on this forum as to the purposes and intents of policing.

            And whilst I wholly support the contention that ‘if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, I object to the belief that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Thankfully, however, that belief is dying.

          • When the police insist on making a photo of such erect penis of an under age guy suspect of sexting, everyone but the judges agree there is problem.

            This is where the armed citizens should get ready to take over.

          • The police aren’t prosecutors. However they do gather information for prosecutors. I’ve never yet heard of a prosecutor serving warrants.

          • MarkW

            And on whose authority are those warrants executed.

            Not the police, not even the prosecutors, it’s yours!

            If you don’t want due process, fine, you stop it, see what happens.

          • quite so.
            judges talk. prosecutors talk. ppl on forums talk.
            talk isn’t magic.
            sticks and stones. for more info consult kindergarten teacher.

            in all cases some individual person is responsible for any action.
            an individual is directly and solely responsible for his use of force.
            in a police action, it is he who threatens death, who clicks the cuffs, who slams the cage door.

          • A “talented” Deep State prosecutor will “mine” information about your associates to dig up crimes, with which they will strong-arm them into turning on you.

            King George had nothing on the Obama Administration.

          • Darrin

            Alleged persecution is not the same as entering a home without a warrant. Almost everyone I have ever spoken to has known someone who was ‘persecuted’ by the police. From personal experience, I know cops don’t have the time to indulge in persecution as they have better things to do with their time. What I usually find is that the one claiming persecution has been provoking the police then claiming themselves a victim.

            The qualification to enter a house must be relative to the seriousness of the crime. No cop’s going to break down the door because a kid broke a window. On the other hand, would you rather the police didn’t have the ability to raid a bomb making factory in a house or protect a victim from domestic violence without a warrant?

          • I must call “bunk” on the idea that cops do not have the time to persecute individuals. My brother was the victim of such a persecution.

            He was approached by a county sheriff deputy in a “protection” scheme. He wanted my brother to pay him $5K per week to leave his licensed business alone. My brother refused. My brother called the FBI and reported it. Within 3 days my brother was charged with solicitation of capital murder of a policeman. Not shockingly, the policeman named was the sheriff deputy that tried to shake my brother down. Their “witness” was a drug dealer facing his third strike felony conviction.

            The FBI, instead of investigating in secret, called the sheriff’s office. The sheriff told the FBI that my brother was a known criminal despite his squeaky clean record. The FBI dropped it and my brother was arrested and jailed.

            My brother spent 6 months in jail because bond was refused. And why was bond refused? He supposedly tried to hire the drug dealer to kill this cop.

            Eventually the prosecutors started negotiating since they knew there was little chance of conviction since the drug dealer had fled to Mexico once he gave his statement against my brother. The final result was the DA demanding a $15K fine. Once the fine was paid, my brother was magically released.

            He supposedly pleaded to a felony as well, but nothing shows up on his record. Weird how the paperwork was never filed with the state…….

          • Weylan McAnally

            Like I said, everyone I talk to has a story about someone they know who was a police victim.

          • HotScot,

            In almost every case I can agree with you, the perp asked for trouble by provoking the cops. But, cops are human too and provocation can lead to persecution. In the case I mentioned earlier, he was raising hell and so already well known to the cops. He got hit one night by an off duty police officer in an intersection. Witnesses said it was the cops fault but the responding officers wrote it up as his fault. He went to court to fight the tickets and lost even with witnesses. The cops then made sure he got enough tickets that he couldn’t afford to pay them and lost his license. Persecution, provocation or a combination of both?

            As for qualification to enter a house, in a perfect world you are right but again we don’t live in a perfect world. With enough motivation and a friendly judge, yes you can get a warrant because a kid broke a window. Not saying it’s done every day or that they are going after innocent people all the time but I’ve read plenty of cases in the news where part of the process was to get a warrant on very flimsy evidence.

          • Darrin

            “Not saying it’s done every day or that they are going after innocent people all the time”

            So why present the minority to represent the majority. I already said there are bad apples but they are in the tiniest of minorities within the police.

          • What’s the evidence of a “bomb making factory”? Many times it’s a neighbor with a grudge.
            Ditto domestic violence, police can only break down doors if they have evidence that such violence is occurring, right now. Such as screams, gunshots or something like that.

          • MarkW

            A neighbour with a grudge doesn’t constitute sufficient reason to break down a door. Jeez, for a normally scientific rational man, you somehow imagine that the police don’t conform to any disciplined code, which is what science is. Cops just wander round dispensing their personal justice like climate change scientists? Is that what you’re saying?

            Somehow, everyone knows someone who has been a victim of police injustice, yet when I offer to help, all of a sudden, they don’t want my help, despite my inside knowledge of the job. All these supposed victims simply evaporate. Why is that?

            And who’s at fault? I’ll tell you; I was a victim of road rage myself several years ago, when three guys with custom made batons tried to beat the shit out of me after ramming my car. It was at rush hour on a Friday evening and I was literally fighting on a slip road from a major trunk route with these guys. Around 100 cars passed us and only one stopped, a young woman with the guts to scream at them to stop because she thought they would kill me.

            I fought them off stripped the shirt from one, and disarmed them all but they made off in their van. The lady that stopped and I had the registration number and description of the vehicle and detailed descriptions of the thugs. A week or two later, I saw the van again and trailed it to the owners house. But the police did nothing, despite my background and all the evidence the woman and I collated.

            Guess who I blame? Yep, the 100 cowards who drove by me getting beaten on the head and back. The 100 cowards with no civic pride, sense of justice or with balls enough to intervene to stop a potential murder. Only a single woman, and an utterly terrified one at that, had the courage to stop and help, and I ended up reassuring her. And if I had the photographs of my back and head taken by the police after the event, I would post them here as evidence of a communities cowardice. Every one of you would be horrified at my injuries.

            It’s not the cops that bear the responsibility for a deteriorating justice system, it’s all you out there prepared to do nothing. Cops act on your behalf, they are not required to shoulder your responsibility. They are a very small part of a community desperately attempting to stop it from falling apart at the seams, with scant support from the big mouths who condemn their efforts but who are too cowardly to step up and accept the responsibility themselves.

            Would I do it again? Damn right I would!

            Shitty job, shitty wages, shitty conditions, then we have to deal with shitty pseudo intellectuals online who tell us we’re the bad ones when they themselves are kiddy fiddling, robbing, tax dodging, wife beating, traffic violating, unfaithful…..you name it. Every single vice you can imagine present on this blog, but I’m bad because I volunteered to join the police force to do some good.


          • “That being the case, how many times has your house been entered by the police without a warrant? Presumably none because you have nothing to hide.”

            None, so far. But with your logic of having nothing to hide, it’s a short trip down the slippery slope.

          • Jeff Alberts

            So far, it’s continued for several generations so you’re pretty safe if you have survived this long without having your house raided.

        • We’re not talking about people’s personal homes and privacy being invaded here. We’re talking about scientific inquiry, which is supposed to be open and subject to scrutiny, but which the purveyors of the AGW faith fight tooth and nail to keep secret lest their shenanigans which are used to prop up the AGW religion are revealed so that the public gets a look at the “man behind the curtain.”

        • Jeff Alberts
          HotScot had just applied a good portion of UK/British/Scottish/Police humour to it and didn’t care about the /sarc tag that is recommended for use in the Colonies. /sarc

          • If you weren’t, I apologize for this case of mistaken sarcasm. But you certainly have noticed that my remark was tagged as well. Would you mind if I put a /sarc tag at the end of this posting⸮

          • Non Nomen

            Do what you wish. But I suspect sarc tags are best used sparingly. Indeed there are other ways to express sarcasm that illuminate the comment as clearly sarcastic without having to use a sark tag. Not that I think a sark tag is much use, why not just say you’re being sarcastic? Why does everything have to be associated with a ‘tag’?

            Get my drift? (no sarcasm intended)……Ahem.

          • Yep. Gotcha. :=)) And what you see here: is the “no tag” tag. I just can’t stop it. It’s like a bout of infectuous tag fever. May be UNTAG can help.

      • A salient point: this is not their home, but their government-paid office and their government-paid work. That’s why FOIA applies. When your boss, in this case, the taxpayers and voters, provide a request for information through proper channels, you have to give it to them.

        • Ben of Houston

          Not to be awkward, but why the need for FOIA? Government is a publicly funded body, we shouldn’t need to request information, it should be freely available.

          Jobs for the boys.

          • “Not to be awkward, but why the need for FOIA?”

            Totally agree with you there, HotScot. I simply disagree with the whole concept of “if you have nothing to hide…”

    • In what way are motives relevant here?

      Either the emails contain embarrassing information that implicates the researchers in a conspiracy to confect a consensus and hide contrary opinion, or it doesn’t. E&E doesn’t get to edit the emails.

      As usual, the RyanBot is spewing nonsense.

    • ryans. every single piece of publicly funded research bar those concerning matters of national security should be available to the public from the day it is published. that it is not is an utter disgrace.

      • According to the U.S. Defense Department, the government (EPA and, presumably, other agencies) should be able to use secret scientific studies to make all sorts of outrageous regulations.

    • …and their coal industry backers…

      Nothing wrong with coal at all. Nothing wrong with fossile energy. These are not drugs, these are things our well-being and the structures of our society depend on. We ought to be grateful to those who deliver. Else we’d be on cold turkey in a tick.

    • The bot weighs in again with total nonsense.
      1) A totally unsubstantiated claim regarding who is backing the group.
      2) Followed by a claim that anyone who receives money from a group you disapprove up must be ignored.

      Is that really the best you can do?
      Back to the lab for an upgrade for you.

  6. Would you believe it…..All the hard drives will have to be accidentally destroyed with a hammer….

    What bad luck that is going to be……

    Move along……

  7. I’ll be amazed if anything incriminating or enlightening is released. Plenty of dirty tricks still to be played.

    • Yes, I’m not expecting much and it is quite possible that they’ve been so obstructive to lead people on a wild goose chase just for the hell of it, out of spite. I’m sure that in their eyes anyone who needs to ask is probably someone who shouldn’t be allowed to know.

      • Agreed Michael. The main problem is the precedent. I think there are other caches that will see the light of day because of this upholding of the law.

  8. Within a seven year time frame, there’s a good chance that a number of e-mails were deleted, either by fortuitous accident or malicious purpose. Whats left is akin to “Cantor Dust” – lots of text but little information.

    • Along the lines of not asking a question when you do not know the answer, you might not be so dogged in a 7 year search if you did not know some of the email contents and that the subject of the search knew that you knew some of what was in the emails. Good way to avoid jail is not to destroy them? Geoff

  9. It’s just incredible that after 3 Climatgates – One wheel left on the wagon and the scam is still rollin’ along.

      • Well, Obama was two of the wheels with all federal agencies pushing at once and the EU was another one. It’s a bumpy ride now but the media are attempting to inflate one of the Obama wheels again with lots more hot air and duct tape. Jerry Brown’s wheel is the wrong size and sits on the side of the road with tire shine on it. Al Gore’s wheel is virtual and only his course graduates see it.

    • When was #3? I know 1 and 2, bur must have missed 3, and I have visited this site every day since well before CG1.

    • Nah, with literally billions of US dollars already flowing in solely because of this scam, a little problem like no firm scientific supporting data and collusion by “scientists” is not going to stop this train. With the amount of money already flowing, that wagon doesn’t need wheels to keep rolling, it will slide down the road greased with tax dollars and higher electric rates.

  10. Arizona became a propaganda institute. Former Oxford Environmental Change Institute head and proponent of global governance, Diana Liverman, joined Overpeck in setting up a new climate institute at Arizona. https://www.environment.arizona.edu/diana-liverman
    She was a co-author of the recent “Hothouse Earth” nonsense from Stockholm and Potsdam.

    Also an influence at Arizona, is long time UK bureaucrat Sir Crispin Tickell, a colleague of the late Maurice Strong, https://sustainability.asu.edu/person/sir-crispin-tickell/

    He has many years of involvement at Oxford, where Liverman was ECI Director. ECI is also the home of Myles Allen, author of “Towards the Trillionth Tonne” and a major player in the recent Exxon litigation attempt.

    This is how the system works, the players move around and take the music with them, so that yet another institute can be added to the “world’s leading institutes that agree with global warming from anthropogenic CO2”.

    Australia is heavily infiltrated, with Potsdam at Melbourne University, http://climatecollege.unimelb.edu.au/our-people?type%5B%5D=4. Director, Meinshausen was also at Oxford before Potsdam, he has co-authored with Allen on the “Carbon Budget” idea and is a former advisor to Greenpeace and WWF. Former CRU director Jean Palutikof is at Griffiths University on the Gold Coast campus, https://www.nccarf.edu.au/content/professor-jean-palutikof.

    Tom Wigley at NCAR was also a former CRU Director. The network is endless.

    • Interested that Melbourne University is mentioned here. I did a climate course on the internet there some time back and got the impression I was considered somewhat of a maverick with my awkward questions in the forums. All very polite; but eventually was advised to go away to get myself re-educated.

    • And there you will find an amendment (the full quote) by Anthony after a poster put it up in the comments …..

      “I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature.”

      Notice the words “misuse of” ?

      • The only “misuse” was pointing out that they exist and that refutes the claim that CO2 controls the climate.

        • My comment was merely to correct the entirely misleading quote as stated in the post I replied to – Mr Macrae’s….

          “… and getting rid of the Medieval Warm Period”

          Sorry if my clarifing and correcting one of the usual naysayer myths upsets.

      • mods, can we check the I.P. for this Anthony Banton? shadow puppet?
        I’m seeing continued influx of dissenters that offer nothing but empty words to sow opposition.

        • We could write out our questions and answers for suspected bots and take a picture of them to post. They have great difficulty reading jpeg hand written information.

        • Honesty liberty:
          Thank you for your concern, and so sorry that it is discomforting to have your views challenged here on this nearly 100% echo-chamber.
          However I have posted intermittently on here for many years, formerly under the username “Toneb”.
          But I thought it better that I no longer remain anonymous, as it’s frowned on here.
          Now then Honest liberty, how about you be “honest” too with your real name?
          We wouldn’t want peeps on here to be hypocrites now would we?

          • In other words, he was right to suspect that you’d spent time here under a different name.

            What’s funny is that you’d been posting on other sites as “Tony Banton” for years.

          • “he was right to suspect that you’d spent time here under a different name.”

            In the mind of the anointed, being right just proves how wrong you are.

          • It really is fascinating how a site like WUWT that has dozens of naysayers, such as Anthony here is always being called an echo-chamber.

            I guess the way to be not an echo-chamber is to ban anyone who disagrees with the global warming religion, the way his preferred sites do.

  11. “global warming is just a conspiracy”

    Oh come on. The globe is definitely warmer than it was in the last Ice Age. Don’t be so sloppy.

    • Geologically speaking, we are in an ice age right now, given that substantial portions of the Earth’s surface is covered in perennial ice. We are in an interglacial period within the ice age. Parts of the globe have gotten warmer now compared to the depths of the Little Ice Age, parts are cooler and parts are about the same. That the average has increased tells you very little about the whole, especially when measures of dispersion are not included with the average. But wait, there’s more. The kind of average makes a difference, too; since some averages are less affected by the range extremes than others.

    • Quite right, Mr Locock. But we are still in the Ice Age – so be a little less sloppy yourself.

  12. Now reform the university system that thinks it needs to stonewall on vital expert witness work for the whole planet and all humanity via global policy formation and environmental threat. Do they not see the irony of that? I know one thing. FDA does not sit around for years if it suspects faulty science went into a new drug development for potential mass use.

  13. It’s not in the interest of the state government.
    Which is in the best interests of the people of the state.

  14. Sigh…California just approved a 100% intermittent energy supply by 2045. Justice delayed is justice denied.

  15. Happiness just came in, it touched my skin, insights are xmas lights right now. Perhaps Mr. Manns nature trick is available.

  16. FOIA is the reason Hillary set up her home brew email server as Sec State.

    I suspect most of the climate alarmist perps masquerading as academic climate scientists now use aliases to email each other under GMail or some NGO email system

    • Joel — just so. Also to be able to destroy things quickly if the situation got hot. Like it did. In college she studied the Nixon Watergate affair, and didn’t think Nixon did anything wrong other than getting caught. Then she spent a career perfecting just HOW to get away w/things (w/Bill tagging along). Later, Obama was an ardent student of her methods.

  17. Let’s use an analogy here. Suppose a few planetary scientists at the UA, UK, and Australia claimed the world had nine months to live because a major asteroid strike was modeled and published online as part of an April fools joke. Before governments went into high gear to stop the threat they would want to quickly check the prediction with other sources and see the details. Upon initial push back from the authors and their universities on releasing more information in the face of contradictory information the level of governmental and independent investigation would ratchet up given the short timeline and the extreme cost involved. As unplausible as that sounds from the perspective of nonprofessional behavior and institutional conduct it does provide a good contrast to the global warming expert witnesses and their promoters in the current world……..prior to the real asteroid strike.

  18. Unfortunately, the full story cannot be accessed “for legal reasons”:
    451: Unavailable due to legal reasons
    “We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact jspitz@tucson.com or call 800-695-4492. ”

    Any suggestions to get this info? Is the whole EU being kept in the dark about this? Another good reason for Brexit 😉

  19. The link to the full story begged me to turn off my ad blocker or pay money before I could read it. My reaction, which is my customary reaction, was “F you!”, and I immediately clicked out of the site, adding another increment to their (I suspect) ample bounce rate.

    I should be used to this by now, but it still seems to get me.


  20. Anybody care to make a bet on what’s in ’em?

    And anybody care to make a bet on how the press will spin it?

  21. Seven years? Goodness. Surely there has been a hard drive crash at some point in this time interval.

  22. Finally decided in seven years? The Arizona courts are a model of efficiency. Mark Steyn has been waiting over six years to even get his case heard in the DC courts. Maybe he should petition for a change of venue so the case could could be finished before rising sea levels submerge the District Court building and all those distinguished justices have to be evacuated to the Climate Change Refugee Redoubt in Pikes Peak, CO.

  23. RE: “He said that should reveal were comments from others “that were never included or never seriously considered.”
    Who are these scientists?
    Without knowing exactly who we’re talking about here how can any of you have any idea whether or not their comments should have been included or seriously considered?

    Odds are they’re as full of poop as the general ilk here at WUWT. In that case, their input wouldn’t be helpful in any way.

  24. Coming from a state where we have a Sunshine law such behavior by government, and universities are government, is one reason I became a skeptic. If indeed the “scientists” involved truly believe that CAGW is as bad as they claimed then one might believe in an honest world that they would happily want to demonstrate they were part of clear and unambiguous debate and discussion. Yet we have seen time again that is not the case. Instead they protect all their research, data and methdology as if they were working on the Manhattan Project. That is not how good science is done.

    • Leftist always mention how Hollywood abused copyright law. (They are right.)
      They say the DMCA contains an abusive anti free speech clause to protect DRM. (They are right.)

      What do they say about abuses of “copyright” claims by climate scientists?

Comments are closed.