the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Climategate 2.0

Posted by Jeff Id on November 22, 2011

Files can be downloaded here.

h/t – kurthbemis  Mirror up at: http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/

—-

 

UEA Responds – And it’s the expected BS.   Out of context before we put them in context.  I suppose that if you aren’t a certified UEA climatologist, you can’t read.   I guess I’m probably not welcome at climate school there.  Thanks to WUWT again for the link.

Tue, 22 Nov 2011

While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems.

If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009 to be released at a time designed to cause maximum disruption to the imminent international climate talks.

This appears to be a carefully-timed attempt to reignite controversy over the science behind climate change when that science has been vindicated by three separate independent inquiries and number of studies – including, most recently, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group.

As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context. Following the previous release of emails scientists highlighted by the controversy have been vindicated by independent review, and claims that their science cannot or should not be trusted are entirely unsupported. They, the University and the wider research community have stood by the science throughout, and continue to do so.

———

From WUWT

UPDATE3: 9:25 AM PST – Having read a number of emails, and seeing this quote from Mike Mann in the Guardian:

When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”

——-

It happened again.  I woke up to find a link from FOIA.org on a thread.   Thousands of emails unlocked with 220,000 more hidden behind a password.  Despite the smaller size of the Air Vent due to my lack of time, there were twenty five downloads before I saw it once.  As before, there are some  very nice quotes and clarifications from the consensus.  Below is a guest post in the form of a readme file from the FOIA.org group. – Jeff

/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”

“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”

“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”

Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches.  A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons.  We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
as…


/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary [...]

<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.

<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.

<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence.  What is it?

<1104> Wanner/NCCR:

In my [IPCC-TAR] review [...] I crit[i]cized [...] the Mann hockey[s]tick [...]
My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.

<0414> Coe:

Hence the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be
instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.

<2009> Briffa:

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!

<2775> Jones:

I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.

<1219> Trenberth:

[...] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. [...] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
Japanese.

<0890> Jones:

We can put a note in that something will be there in the next draft, or Kevin
or I will write something – it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.

<0170> Jones:

Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does
say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.

<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.

<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)

<4923> Stott/MetO:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement ["probably the
warmest of the last millennium"] in or whether I should remove it in the
anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn
this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.

/// Communicating Climate Change ///

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.

<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:

if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.

<4716> Adams:

Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

<1790> Lorenzoni:

I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion [...] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon

<3062> Jones:

We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
[...] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.

<1485> Mann:

the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.

<2428> Ashton/co2.org:

Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. [...] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible

<3332> Kelly:

the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[...] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable

<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy

<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[...] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” [...] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef [...]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers [...] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change [...] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media

Kjellen:

I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming

Pierrehumbert:

What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.

/// The Medieval Warm Period ///

<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.

<5039> Rahmstorf:

You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing

<5096> Cook:

A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.

/// The Settled Science ///

<0310> Warren:

The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases [...] As it stands
we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.

<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably [...]

<2267> Wilson:

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[...] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
the sun alone.

<5289> Hoskins:

If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone
up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the
warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.

<5315> Jenkins/MetO:

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

<2292> Jones:

[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.

<1788> Jones:

There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent
extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.

<4693> Crowley:

I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships

<2967> Briffa:

Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both.  Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline?  To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?

<2733> Crowley:

Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.

<2095> Steig:

He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.

<0953> Jones:

This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.

<4944> Haimberger:

It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.

<4262> Klein/LLNL:

Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
warming do this

<2461> Osborn:

This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least.  In practise, however,
it raises some interesting results [...] the analysis will not likely lie near to
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.

<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:

In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
cannot be explained in this way.

/// The Urban Heat Effect ///

<4938> Jenkins/MetO:

By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI
has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.

<0896> Jones:

I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t
think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
data that makes by their Figure 3.

<0044> Rean:

[...] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[...] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.

<4789> Wigley:

there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets –
we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].

Jones:

The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at
all Californian sites.

<1601> Jones:

I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The
paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
20th century.

<2939> Jones:

[...] every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where
the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical
means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and
GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results.
[...] Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land.
There is no urban effect there.

/// Temperature Reconstructions ///

<1583> Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.

<4165> Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

<3994> Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no

<4241> Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

<3373> Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.

<4758> Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

<0886> Esper:

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?

<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.

<5055> Cook:

One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.

/// Science and Religion ///

<2132> Wigley:

I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
skeptics have extreme religious views.

<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]

[...] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the
Earth [...] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
must pray that they pick up that message.

<0999> Hulme:

My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
God’s planet into research and action.

<3653> Hulme:

He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.

/// Climate Models ///

<3111> Watson/UEA:

I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.

<5131> Shukla/IGES:

["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.

<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:

While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.

<1982> Santer:

there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we’ve applied.

<0850> Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved.  I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer

<5066> Hegerl:

[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing [...] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.

<4443> Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.

<4085> Jones:

GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.

/// The Cause ///

<3115> Mann:

By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

<3940> Mann:

They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.

<0810> Mann:

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause

<3594> Berger:

Phil,
Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.

<0121> Jones:

[on temperature data adjustments] Upshot is that their trend will increase

<4184> Jones:

[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it’s been a mild winter in
the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the
La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!

<5294> Schneider:

Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are
forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy

/// Freedom of Information ///

<2440> Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process

<2094> Briffa:

UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.

<2459> Osborn:

Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing
“David Holland”. Everything we found was cc’d to you and/or Dave Palmer, which
you’ll already have.

<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:

As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case.  So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)

<1577> Jones:

[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data.

298 Responses to “Climategate 2.0”

  1. Thanks for a wake up call! I have only read half, will be back to read the other half after some Christmas shopping!

  2. It’s wonderful that ‘foia’ stays true to the same friends! I was download number 22 Jeff.

  3. [...] Un macro archivo comprimido en un servidor ruso anónimo, anunciado en el blog de Jeff Id, The Air Vent. Y también, “casualmente”, justo antes de la conferencia internacional de turno para [...]

  4. [...] Un macro archivo comprimido en un servidor ruso anónimo, anunciado en el blog de Jeff Id, The Air Vent. Y también, “casualmente”, justo antes de la conferencia internacional de turno para la alarma [...]

  5. Anonymous said

    I will have fun again this Thanksgiving.

  6. Matthew W said

    “there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets –”

    Priceless !!!

    Proud to be a “Nitpicky jerk” !!!!

  7. Matthew W said

    ” Jones:

    [FOI, temperature data]
    Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
    get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
    Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
    station data.”

    Of course “has to be well hidden” will be taken out of context.

    The DOE using taxpayer monies to fund these bozos and “They are happy about NOT releasing the original station data”????

  8. http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-ii-more-skeletons-in-the-closet-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

  9. Frank K. said

    I like this one…


    Thorne:

    I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
    which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

    Ya think? Heh!!

    It’s wonderful again to observe the climate scientists in the wild…

  10. Frank K. said

    By the way Jeff, based the statements above from Mike Mann, you’re NOT helping “the cause”! Heh!!

    REPLY: Glad to do my part.

  11. Jeff Id said

    #2 There were 140 by the time this post went up.

  12. Sean Houlihane said

    Now we have an opportunity to compare some of the explanations made after careful reflection against what appears to be the bulk of their discussions at the time. A good test of credibility, I guess.

  13. [...] http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ [...]

  14. hunter said

    The one thing this shows is that the climatocracy is lying.
    They are manipulating messages, not delivering straight truth.
    They are hiding data, sources of funding, and more.
    And they are openly (within their clique) arrogant about this.
    The AGW movement is just another political movement that has figured out how to find themselves by way of tax payer and NGO money, and especially greenmail of large corporations.

  15. kim said

    Jeff will never be able to go to the UP again without wondering what’s happening at his site.
    ========

  16. I assume that someone is checking for authenticity. Wouldn’t want to make make up correlations as some do, that have the trade mark behind their profession.

    For what is apparent from this small sample is that the funding and presenting it to the political “masters” is big business for not just climate scientists, but all on the government largesse.

    (Stage Cue: Iron Sun and Eisenhower entrance)

  17. [...] [...]

  18. #11 Proud to be a nitpicky jerk, 12th download.

    Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin

  19. bigcitylib said

    Pretty harmless looking stuff. Give the police more files to work with.

  20. curious said

    “Give the police more files to work with.”

    Careful what you wish for bcl.

  21. [...] Evidently, more climate related emails have been released. Jeff woke up this morning to find a link to a file called FOIA2011.zip. The host is .ru. I haven’t had a chance to look at them! Conversation about this is ongoing at The Air Vent. [...]

  22. [...] schijn van dat heden morgen climategate 2.0 is uitgebroken. Op tenminste twee klimaatblogs (hier en hier) is door ‘foia’ een link geplaatst naar een Russische server. Ik heb de 185 MB [...]

  23. Greg Laden said

    Looks like an interesting combination of out of context statements and sour grapes.

    Is this supposed to be useful in some way?

  24. [...] e-mail excerpts below are from the Air Vent, which also has a terse explanation of their [...]

  25. Jason said

    “pretty harmless”, “sour grapes”. Desperate.

  26. curious said

    23 – Greg – perhaps you are just not aware of the context(s)?:

    Steig:

    He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
    thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
    supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.

  27. Will said

    The most interesting part is the 220,000 emails reserved for future disclosure. Every climate scientist with email in the hidden 220,000, must be very careful not to publicly say anything which might be contradicted once the hidden emails are released.

  28. [...] You'll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke's website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent. [...]

  29. [...] JeffId has some initial reaction [...]

  30. bigcitylib said

    But in the end Steig did argue quite convincingly that he was wrong. So presumably he found a way.

  31. bigcitylib said

    So this batch appears to be all from 2009; probably the B rated material that the hackers didn’t release first time around because it was too weak.

  32. Don B said

    Jo Nova recently had a post about the IPCC clearing a path to the exit door when they backed away from certainty in the just released extreme events paper; perhaps some people at the IPCC assumed there would be this additional release of emails before Durban.

  33. Jason said

    “So this batch appears to be all from 2009; probably the B rated material that the hackers didn’t release first time around because it was too weak.”

    Why dont you read it and find out? Panicked much?

  34. SayNoToFearmongers said

    @Bigcitylib

    Nope. There’s material clearly implicating Ron Oxburgh as an insider in communicating ‘the message’. His appointment to lead an ‘independent’ enquiry is therefore exposed for the whitewash it appeared to be. Like getting Al Gore to investigate IPCC malfeasance?

    This isn’t B-rated – it’s political dynamite.

  35. curious said

    30 – I wonder if you’ll end up doing the same?

  36. gallopingcamel said

    Mann:
    “I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause……”

    Unbelievable! These guys think of themselves as scientists.

    Lucy Skywalker is right; the writing is on the wall and it will undo them.

  37. bigcitylib said

    #34 Knowing that, I find my heart not beating any faster.

  38. Beth Cooper said

    November 22, 2011, a great day for Science, a bad day for Climate Scientologists.

  39. [...] JeffId has some initial reaction [...]

  40. diogenes said

    BCL – don’t you just love the comments about how bad Mann’s work is and the post about how McIntyre’s work on the hockey-stick was right all the time

  41. [...] [...]

  42. [...] JeffId has some initial reaction [...]

  43. bigcitylib said

    That’s how scientists talk, Dio; they have arguments about stuff, and so work things out among themselves. Anyway, this still looks to be the B grade stuff the hacker didn’t use first time out, but I’m having a hard time getting the file from russian server, even after I load the security code. Maybe Jeff can host somewhere else.

  44. Jeff said

    Can someone re-host? This site isn’t working for me

  45. OPatrick said

    Jeff, I’ve had a skim through the excerpts and I know what my initial impression is, but I’d be interested in knowing what yours is. There seem to be lots of links saying “JeffID has some initial reaction” but I can’t see any significant reaction from you other than putting it up here. Are you willing to take a position on this and state it clearly?

  46. curious said

    43 “That’s how scientists talk, Dio; they have arguments about stuff, and so work things out among themselves”

    Quite.

    .0714. Jones:

    Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about the tornadoes group.

    .3205. Jones:

    Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be have to involve him ?)

  47. diogenes said

    here is a torrent url

    http://tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7

  48. glacierman said

    I particularly like the evidence of fixing the peer review process in #3500:

    “cc: “J. Salinger” , James Annan , b.mullan@niwa.co.nz, Gavin Schmidt , Mike Mann , j.renwick@niwa.co.nz
    date: Wed Aug 5 16:14:34 2009
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
    to: Kevin Trenberth , Grant Foster

    Hi all,
    Agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi
    retired and like Mike Wallace may not be responsive to requests from JGR.
    We have Ben Santer in common ! Dave Thompson is a good suggestion.
    I’d go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling.
    To get a spread, I’d go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe.
    So Neville Nicholls and David Parker.
    All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and
    the awful original, without any prompting.

    Cheers
    Phil
    At 15:50 05/08/2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    Hi all
    I went to JGR site to look for index codes, and I see that the offending article has
    been downloaded 128 times in past week (second). All the mnore reason to get on with
    it.
    see below
    Kevin
    Grant Foster wrote:

    Gentlemen,
    I’ve completed most of the submission to JGR, but there are three required entries I
    hope you can help me with.
    1) Keyword
    Please provide 1 unique keyword

    global temperatures, statistical methods, El Nino-Southern Oscillation, global warming

    2) Index Terms
    Please provide 3 unique index terms

    1600 GLOBAL CHANGE
    1616 Climate variability
    3309 Climatology
    1694 Instruments and techniques

    3) Suggested Reviewers to Include
    Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give
    an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates,
    collaborators, or family members. (this requires name, email, and institution).

    Tom Wigley [1]wigley@ucar.edu NCAR
    Ben Santer [2] Lawrence Livermore
    Mike Wallace [3] U Washington [May not be most
    responsive]
    Dave Thompson [4] Col State Univ
    Dave Easterling [5] NCDC

    Sincerely,
    Grant
    ___________________________________________________________________________________

    Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. [6]Check it out.


    ****************
    Kevin E. Trenberth e-mail: [7]trenbert@ucar.edu
    Climate Analysis Section, [8]www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/trenbert.html
    NCAR
    P. O. Box 3000, (303) 497 1318
    Boulder, CO 80307 (303) 497 1333 (fax)

    Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305

    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    NR4 7TJ
    UK
    —————————————————————————-

  49. Jeff Id said

    OPatrick,

    I’m just reading. I don’t know what else to do with this. There are tons of ugly comments if that is what you want, in the meantime maybe you can find the juicy ones.

  50. [...] Archtop provided me this link to Air Vent with a number of snippets culled from the emails. Here is the download site (in Russia of course). [...]

  51. diogenes said

    Thanks BCL, I guess I should expect scientists to front up for their comrades in public while trashing their work in private and trying to work out ways of concealing how trashy the work actually is?

    Jones:

    what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
    I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.

    Mitchell/MetO

    Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
    to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no

    Wilson:

    I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
    could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
    [...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
    precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

    Bradley:

    I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
    never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
    “reconstruction”.

  52. SayNoToFearmongers said

    #43

    Please don’t demean my profession – scientists* realise that without integrity they are nothing.

    *only those in the Feynmanian tradition qualify for the label – activists need not apply.

  53. OPatrick said

    I can see there are tons of ugly comments, I’m interested in the excerpts from the emails. It doesn’t take a moment to skim through them, read a selection and gain an impression, so what’s your impression? Or are you happy to let others set the tone?

  54. dearieme said

    ” Crowley:

    I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
    cost of damaged personal relationships”.

    Good God, he treats e-mail as a confessional.

    By the by, I do hope FOIA has got duplicates and duplicate keys for the 220,000 more e-mails well scattered. We don’t want him falling under a bus before that stuff is released.

  55. P. Solar said

    “I’m having a hard time getting the file from russian server, ”

    Firefart failed to get anything for me, Opera got it OK, good dl speed.

    Mind you my system is having a bad hair day today.

  56. JeffC said

    @Will #27

    “The most interesting part is the 220,000 emails reserved for future disclosure…”

    Yup, I think you conclusion is exactly right. FOIA says:
    “We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase.”

    The missing word is “yet”, as there’s no purpose for including them otherwise. There may be nothing there, but if any of these guys ever sent an email with more incendiary contents they’ll be sweating. The Sword of Damocles comes to mind.

  57. bigcitylib said

    #50 Vigorous discussions among scientists? Oh my!

  58. Espen said

    Wow! No popcorn nearby, I’ll get a coke and some nuts. No, wait, don’t want to spill coke on my keyboard.

    Here’s one interesting first observation: The mails seem to have been picked out of different mailboxes/mail systems. Here’s the start of the original 2009 version of the “delete any emails” mail (1212073451.txt):

    ——

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

    Mike,

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    ——

    Here’s the 2011 version (1031.txt):
    ——

    date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: IPCC & FOI
    to: “Michael E. Mann”

    Mike,

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    ——

  59. P. Solar said

    This won’t create the tsunami that the last Climategate release did but I think there’s going to be some interesting material and a salutary reminder of the mindset of AGW clique.

    Derail Durban , no, it’s already off the rails.

    But it will bring a counter-balance to the one sided orthodoxy.

  60. DaveS said

    “That’s how scientists talk, Dio; they have arguments about stuff, and so work things out among themselves.”

    Having worked in real-world R&D for 25 years, I’ve never heard real scientists or engineers talk in the way that the CGW hystericists talk. The ‘this is how they talk’ meme was used by the hopeless Russell review (or was it by the joker Oxburgh?) – it was tripe then and it’s tripe now.

  61. Anonymous said

    My download was #965. Wow! That site is really getting hit.

  62. curious said

    56 – Confirmation of sceptical analysis? Oh my!:

    Wilson:

    I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
    [...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

  63. bigcitylib said

    #59 Google the “Clad Wars”; this is a girlfight compared to that.

  64. Anonymous said

    bcl doesn’t see anything bad about trying to pack the IPCC authors team with those with “correct” views? Or insiders admitting the hockey stick stuff stinks or hide the decline is dishonest? Or if the world shows no uptick in hurricanes they’ll cherry pick Japan and get a Japanese author to write something to “prove” their case? This isn’t about criminal behavior, but about honest science. It is so hard to avoid self-deception or pushing your favorite idea–see Feynman quote about that. These guys don’t even try.

  65. curious said

    62 – Google the “scientific method”; this is a travesty compared to that.

  66. Ryan said

    “Anyway, this still looks to be the B grade stuff the hacker didn’t use first time out, ”

    Hacker? Most skeptics think that this was an inside job. Those that think it was a hacker are usually part of Team AGW. Caught red-handed BigCityLib?

    This information looks much stronger than the first batch. For instance, the first batch only mentioned how they were trying to avoid giving information to McIntyre – which was open to interpretation since an outsider might conclude that McIntyre wasn’t entitled to that information anyway. Here, however, we have Team AGW simply admitting that McIntyre’s statistical analysis was right and Mann’s tree-ring hockey sticks were fraudulent. So, if these emails are genuine then they really are dynamite.

    I would say the emails do seem to be genuine. Jones comes across in these emails as a geeky middle-class teenager with a tendency to be snide, just as he did in the first emails.

  67. [...] reading this, I just saw this in the news. I’m sure it is all just made up, falsification by the oil [...]

  68. David Tolleris said

    the problem is that STUPID people like CURIOUS actually have to Google scientific method because he doesnt know what it is….

  69. curious said

    63 – bcl doesn’t see anything. He can’t download what he is commenting on. Not that it matters.

    67 – did you manage the download ok?

  70. David Tolleris said

    what is the problem here?
    what are the ” AGW is all a commie conspiracy ” folks upset about?

    A few things however seem to be clear. Climate scientists entertain the same kinds of questions that the skeptics ask around on blogs. They have a conscience, they are human, and they are emotional. As observers and members of the lay public skeptics may freely criticize anyone, but as working professionals, scientists cannot be as free and open with their fellow colleagues. Would you run around your office or workplace loudly gossiping about your co-worker?

    But these scientists do criticize, and they do recognize the points that the skeptics have to make..

    and when they talk about these points – which the far right has argued they SHOULD be doing… the far right kooks scream more?

  71. bigcitylib said

    67 have tried chrome and IS, still won’t work.

  72. curious said

    69 -Yeah that’s right, these emails only show a bunch of far right kooks getting het up over real scientists doing real science. God how dumb am I?

  73. curious said

    70 no worries – keep the comments coming though.

  74. [...] Air vent http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ [...]

  75. elmer said

    Link is gone

    http://files.sinwt.ru/download.php?file=25FOIA2011.zip

    I hope a lot of you downloaded it.

  76. [...] internet is all over the new release, of course. Jeff Id on the Air Vent, James Delingpole in the Telegraph, Anthony Watts on Watts Up With That, Steve McIntyre at Climate [...]

  77. [...] the Air Vent: It happened again.I woke up to find a link from FOIA.org on a thread.   Thousands of emails [...]

  78. Elmer @74 – Lattitude over at Suyts Space posted an alternate link – http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37

  79. George said

    #27 Will: “The most interesting part is the 220,000 emails reserved for future disclosure.”

    Yes, very interesting. What is the point of releasing the encrypted data without the pass phrase. It is almost like a threat, as if it is some sort of an “or else” statement. What is it that they really want in order to not release that pass phrase?

  80. George said

    #74 “I hope a lot of you downloaded it.”

    I hope someone puts it up in a torrent.

  81. Craig Loehle said

    69 Tolleris: The point is not that the scientists disagree among themselves but that they publicly proclaim from the rooftops that the science is settled and anyone who questions them is a bone-headed denier oil-lobby funded hooligan (gee that’s fun…).

  82. Norpag said

    Can anyone quote the exact Oxburgh reference?

  83. kim said

    I like the tactic. Password not to be publicly released. That means it is privately released, ready to be used whenever the dissonance from the involved principals becomes ‘vexatious’.
    ===========

  84. [...] You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website.Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent. [...]

  85. George said

    Ok, there is apparently a torrent URL. Someone might want to get an md5sum of that zip file before opening it and compare it against the original download zip:

    http://tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7

    (Found at Anthony Watts’ blog)

  86. RedSun said

    80 Craig Loehle – Except that scientists don’t shout from the rooftops that the science is settled, do they? The only people who constantly make this claim are contrarians, not climate scientists. And a quick look at any scientific paper clearly shows that uncertainties are widely and openly discussed. It boils down to this: some aspects are highly certain – the Earth is warming, humans are the main driver – but others need a lot more work – understanding cloud feedbacks, modelling aerosols, etc.

  87. Orson said

    Very strange selection process going on here. Some mails have had private information redacted, but mails between one scientist and his stockbroker are included, as is a message of support to Tony Blair on the Gulf War, along with a few revealing a scientist’s Church activities. That’s not FoI, that’s invasion of privacy.

    Although I did smile at the email from a Christian organization with advice on how to work for Godless employers.

  88. Frank K. said

    “Some aspects are highly certain – the Earth is warming, humans are the main driver

    Really? How did you come to your “certainty”??

  89. [...] online gezet.De eerste blogs die er vandaag melding van maakten waren Tallbloke’s Talkshop en The air vent. Ik heb de 185 MB binnengehaald. Het gaat onder andere om 5349 e-mails, die als verbindende factor [...]

  90. [...] The emails are said to have been uploaded to a Russian site — though at the time of writing that link appears to be down. However, excerpts from the emails now appear to have made their way onto many climate skeptic forums, such as Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. [...]

  91. [...] The emails are said to have been uploaded to a Russian site — though at the time of writing that link appears to be down. However, excerpts from the emails now appear to have made their way onto many climate skeptic forums, such as Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. [...]

  92. david said

    A climatologist, and his view of the scientific method…

    4693> Crowley:

    I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
    cost of damaged personal relationships

    These e-mails are dynamite against CAGW, and those that try to spin them as scientist talking aa scientist do are simply propogandists at best. many studies have found no uptick in recent extreme events, yet ere is more of the “scientific method from Jones…
    1788> Jones:

    There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent
    extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.

  93. #16 Johnfpittman: Climategate history (in reverse)

    a.) Neutron repulsion in destruction and creation;
    b.) Iron Sun revealed by Apollo lunar data; and
    c.) Eisenhower’s 1961 warning;

    World leaders pretend the Sun is stable and CO2 causes climate change because they:

    1. Were frightened by the destructive force released when Hiroshima was vaporized on 6 July 1945, a product of neutron-repulsion-induced fission of U-235;

    2. Decided to end the nuclear and space races in 1971 and unite nations against “Global Climate Change – A Common Enemy” [1];

    3. Failed to see neutron repulsion’s creative role in generating our elements and giving birth to the solar system five billion years (5 Gyr) earlier [2, 3], with continuously evolving forms of life encouraged by a continuously changing global climate [4].

    4. Still cannot admit powerlessness over the forces [5] that power the stormy [6], explosive [7] Sun and sustain life as an evolving process in a climate that evolves as the Sun evolves [4].

    5. Eisenhower warned of this potential danger to our form of government in 1961 [8]: Ten years before a federal “scientific technological elite” started to take control of public policy worldwide [1].

    References:

    1. “Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)” http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    2. “Plutonium-244 fission xenon in the most primitive meteorites” http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994RadAc..64..167K

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1994Data.htm

    3. “Fall-out particles trapped in meteorites”

    http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1996Data.htm

    4. “Origin and evolution of life constrains solar models”, J Modern Physics 2, 587-594 (2011)

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/JMP20112600007_31445079.pdf

    5. “Neutron Repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

    6. “Living with the Stormy Star”, National Geographic Magazine (July 2004) http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0407/feature1/index.html

    7. “Our Explosive Sun”, in press (2011)

    http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/santafe/papers/Sun_climate_SantaFe.pdf

    8. “Eisenhower’s farewell address and warning”

  94. Craig Loehle said

    85 Redsun: Scientists don’t shout that the science is settled? How about thousands of interviews in the press with Mann and Hansen and Pachauri and Houghton etc (yes, thousands)? How about the official press releases from IPCC? How about the “dialog” on RealClimate?

  95. [...] http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ [...]

  96. steve fitzpatrick said

    #85 RedSun,
    The problem is the apparent reluctance of climate scientists to separate ‘the science’ from ‘the cause’. There is too much willingness to fetch about for excuses and explanations for obvious inconsistencies between model projections and measured data. The most relevant public policy issue is the true climate sensitivity, which remains essentially unknown, despite a large public investment in climate science. Warming of 1C over the next 100 years has very different public policy implications than warming of 4C. A sea level increase of 35 cm over the next century has very different policy implications than a 140 cm increase. It is pure folly to base public policy that will cost many trillions of dollars on science which seems to have made little or no real progress in answering the most important questions, and who’s practitioners seem unwilling and/or unable to separate their science from their political advocacy.

    Nothing of substance will come out of Durban, and that is as it should be. People simply will not accept the costs of ‘climate mitigation’ on the basis of highly doubtful projections. I suspect the big decisions on climate mitigation policy are about 2 decades away, when I hope the combination of reality (AKA better data), the departure of some of the worst offenders, and technical progress will make projections more meaningful.

  97. [...] [...]

  98. TGSG said

    oh boy, more fun with “climate science”

  99. Matthew W said

    # 86
    “That’s not FoI, that’s invasion of privacy.”

    Nope, anything done on their WORK computer has no expectation of privacy.

  100. DG said

    Re: Orson (Nov 22 12:38),

    That’s not FoI, that’s invasion of privacy.

    Ah, no. Every day I turn on my company PC a reminder pops up informing me nothing is “private”. What makes people think scientists are some sort of holy relics that are exempt from rules and laws everyone else in industry must live by?

  101. UK dissenter said

    85 Redsun “…scientists don’t shout from the rooftops that the science is settled…”
    But their creature, the IPCC certainly does, as do all environmental NGOs and most zealous governments and their environmental departments. The climate scientists, especially those, as Mann graphically puts it, supporting “the cause”, provide the ‘evidence’ .
    “The only people who constantly make this claim are contrarians”
    It is patently not true that sceptics argue for a consensus on (anthropogenic global warming) AGW
    “…And a quick look at any scientific paper clearly shows that uncertainties are widely and openly discussed”
    They, all the modellers and all the climate-related university research scientists, start with CO2 and end with CO2. It’s what they are paid for. It’s their life. It’s their belief and paradigm. It’s a made-up, political paradigm. Most climate science, is political science. Not real science. It looks like the real thing, but it isn’t. This is desperate but true.
    “… It boils down to this: some aspects are highly certain – the Earth is warming, humans are the main driver”
    This isn’t at all certain. It’s perfectly possible to accept warming over a lot of the 19th and all of the centuries, but put this down to natural factors and variation –
    “…but others need a lot more work – understanding cloud feedbacks, modelling aerosols, etc”
    If these very important factors aren’t understood, how can you claim it’s all due to us, and our evil greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions?.

  102. Jeff Id said

    Michael Mann has already declared he has been taken out of context. Quotes at WUWT.

    haha.

  103. TGSG said

    #85 “Except that scientists don’t shout from the rooftops that the science is settled, do they? The only people who constantly make this claim are contrarians, not climate scientists.”

    That isn’t even bad spin, it’s ridiculous. I have this picture in my head of a certain former tennis player “you cannot be serious!”.

  104. OPatrick said

    So Jeff, is your opinion that these quotes aren’t out of context?

  105. @TGSG #102 – You know, he will always be known for that one outburst! I remember the event and the outburst.

    Good comparison.

  106. Jeff Id said

    OPatrick,

    I suppose that you are factually accurate that the entire emial isn’t published above but the emails are in the file and you can have all the context you want. Of the few Mann emails quoted above, I believe the short version is a fairly accurate representation of the context.

  107. Eric Gisin said

    The torrent link is fast. From the lefty media:

    Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online [good]

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

    Climategate 2.0: Have Journalists Learned Their Lesson? [deranged]

    http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/22/374530/climategate-20-have-journalists-learned-their-lesson/

  108. Horatio Dunesbury said

    #85 RedSun: “It boils down to this: some aspects are highly certain – the Earth is warming, humans are the main driver – but others need a lot more work – understanding cloud feedbacks, modelling aerosols, etc.”

    Wow, you must be a super genius scienticizer.

    As it happens, Im a super genius detective and Im trying to solve a murder: some aspects are highly certain, somebody is dead, RedSun is the culprit – but there’s still alot of work to be done – understanding the cause of death, interviewing witnesses, checking alibis, etc.

  109. TomH said

    “We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase.”

    A subtle warning the may release it “privately”…to police investigators?

  110. Robert of Ottawa said

    Clearly a cabal of partisans revealed

  111. OPatrick said

    Jeff, is it the word ’cause’ that you think is important in the quotes from Mann?

    Also, what of the other excerpts? Are you concerned about the possibility that presenting these selected quotes without the full context like this might be misleading? Do you think you should state this at the start of your post? I do.

  112. [...] JeffId has some initial reaction [...]

  113. [...] http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#more-12598 [...]

  114. GeoChemist said

    OPatrick what is your hurry to push people to a conclusion. First of, unless I am reading it wrong, the quotes in Jeff’s post were from the link posted by FOIA.ORG. There are 5000 emails that have to be put in order and sorted by topic to put everything in its proper context. I am sure this is being done by numerous people and will take days to weeks. That being said what is wrong with expressing one’s initial impression as long as final conclusions are derived when appropriate?

  115. [...] Watts and Jeff Id — and I don’t know how many others — got links this morning to a new bundle of 170 megabytes [...]

  116. diogenes said

    Tallbloke gets J Bowers
    Bishop Hill gets ZedsDeadBeat
    Jeff gets OPatrick.

    The reaction team is at work, a dedicated troll for each site

  117. Mark F said

    And where’s ford, now that he’s been outed?

  118. Scott B said

    Whomever the anon is that’s releasing this info, my heartfelt thanks.

  119. OPatrick said

    There’s nothing wrong with expressing one’s initial opinion, which is why I asked Jeff to do so, as I felt he hadn’t. What I think is wrong is to publish these out of context excerpts without comment knowing what others will make of them. It diminishes my trust in Jeff Id. I have been thinking that I need to broaden my reading and thought that maybe Jeff would provide somewhere that I could bear to do that. I am less sure of that now.

  120. GeoChemist said

    Jeff just posted what was in the link! As have numerous other websites. It isn’t his responsibility to withhold information because someone else might jump to conclusions. Conversely, it is those who comment extensively without even going through the files that diminish my trust. I think you are just trying to get Jeff ID to make unsubstantiated comments so you can blast him for it.

  121. TGSG said

    #119 I am less sure of that now.

    You’re disappointed?? gee that’s a shame. Here all this time I thought my kids were going to die in a fiery Hell of “Climate Catastrophe” and I find out that the people pushing it are nothing less than carny barkers. I can relate.

  122. OPatrick said

    I’m not asking Jeff to ‘withhold information’, I’m asking him to comment on what he has posted, which doesn’t seem an unjustifiable request. I want to know whether he has any concerns about these quotes being presented out of context like this.

  123. Anonymous said

    #119 OPatrick at 2:19 pm said: “It diminishes my trust in Jeff Id.”

    You do realize, I suppose, that everyone reading this site has you fingered as a troll, and that the above is clearly an outright lie. So what’s the point?

  124. steveta_uk said

    #119 OPatrick at 2:19 pm said: “It diminishes my trust in Jeff Id.”

    You do realize, I suppose, that everyone reading this site has you fingered as a troll, and that the above is clearly an outright lie. So what’s the point?

  125. Anonymous said

    What is out of context? If you have knowledge that an e-mail is being quoted in a way that is misleading, point it out. Otherwise, you are just waving your hands and trying to be a distraction.

  126. clivere said

    If BCL has got the file can he confirm if 1610.txt is authentic?

  127. Josualdo said

    119 OPatrick ” What I think is wrong is to publish these out of context excerpts without comment knowing what others will make of them. ”

    Enough chanting “It’s out of context”. The e-mails are complete in the file. If these guys can’t provide the context in a single e-mail, they’re nincompoops. But maybe you can’t notice that.

  128. Frank K. said

    OPatrick said
    November 22, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    “I’m not asking Jeff to ‘withhold information’, I’m asking him to comment on what he has posted, which doesn’t seem an unjustifiable request. I want to know whether he has any concerns about these quotes being presented out of context like this.”

    As you know, OPatrick, highly paid journalists and mainstream newspapers, magazines etc. NEVER, EVER quote someone out of context. Especially movies stars and politicians. NEVER! EVER!

    In any case, it hardly matters. None of the quotes I’ve seen surprise me and are entirely consistent with the first batch of climategate e-mails – even Mike Mann’s inane calls to defend “THE CAUSE”(tm). [LOL!!]

  129. [...] but various others have been sorting through them, and some preliminary findings are posted here, here and elsewhere. Early returns suggest that these materials may be dynamite. For example: Thorne: [...]

  130. Jeff Id said

    #122,

    I’ll comment on what I’ve posted. I have posted an article calling attention to some people who dropped a link to climate scientist emails on my blog.

    Now I’ll predict the future for you.

    We will find several emails with interestingly damning quotes which we will discuss. The bad guys will claim out of context, the good guys will provide the context. Steve McIntyre will expand on some of the efforts he’s put forth and how these relate to those.

    Most of these emails appear to be normal discussions but there is a ton of infighting, plenty of unflattering comments and there is new evidence of how the consensus is aggressively maintained. If you are disappointed in me, I don’t blame me. Your disappointment arises because you haven’t learned to learn for yourself.

  131. bigcitylib said

    #126. Still haven’t got file. Megaupload version kept saying I’d exceeded download limit. What’s it say?

  132. [...] JeffId has some initial reaction [...]

  133. [...] The IPCC Process /// Jo Nova e Jeff ID stanno già pubblicando le mail, pur premettendo che potrebbero non essere autentiche, ma a questo [...]

  134. clivere said

    date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:36:11 -0300
    from: BigCity Lib
    subject: The McIntyre Silliness

  135. bigcitylib said

    I sent various folks at CRU a couple of brief emails on that topic (MCI’s smear against Briffa). I think Mr. Osborn eventually responded to one.

  136. plazaeme said

    Probably the best confession, so far. From UEA, no less:

    As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context.

    http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/statement

    If they are as “out of context” as in 2009, Climategate II is going to be as much a non issue as version 1, ha, ha.

  137. Frank K. said

    Jeff Id said
    November 22, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    “…plenty of unflattering comments…”

    You know, I’ve thought about this and, at least in my own professional correspondence with clients and colleagues in my company, I have never used anything NEAR what these climate “scientists” have used to deride and criticize other scientists. Even if I know I’m e-mailing a close friend who is a colleague or client, I would never wish someone would “get fired”, use other openly hostile language against someone. There is so much really UNPROFESSIONAL correspondence by Mann, Trenberth, Jones, Wigley, Santer etc. in these e-mails – that’s what really floors me. And they appear to be unrepentant about it. Quite stunning, actually.

  138. kurthbemis said

    Mirror up at: http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/

  139. jorgekafkazar said

    This is of major importance, as evidenced by the horde of little troll-flies sent to buzz about in a pathetic attempt to distract or deflect.

  140. [...] Climategate 2.0 http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/  [...]

  141. kL said

    Downloaded from the .ru site @ 1252Z…

    MD5 (FOIA2011.zip) = 9004930ea2e316e5774cf3691ed6b2dc

  142. kuhnkat said

    So that’s why you went walk-a-bout!! 8>)

  143. [...] can check it out at Jeff Id’s too, or just follow the link from Anthony’s. Rate this: Share this:Like this:LikeBe the [...]

  144. Jeff Id said

    @141 It doesn’t work for me.

  145. Ruhroh said

    @kurthbemis;
    Thanks, that is working well. Megaupload was a dud for me.
    Happy to say I was not awake for the FOIA2, unlike the prior.

    Thanx to JeffId for keeping the doors open.
    RR

  146. Ted said

    ” Mann:

    the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
    the site [Real Climate] is about.”

    Lurker here just had to make a comment on this one. One of my operating assumptions on the Internet is that this particular error in spelling was restricted to English learners, children of junior high school age and lower and non-literate persons. I am by no means a stickler for spelling or grammar, but this specific error really does raise suspicions for me.

  147. trubba man said

    Jeff – please check your gmail

    Done

  148. Lars52 said

    IPCC should not allow people to be employeed for more than 2 years, otherwise they will drive the Global warming issue to stay in their current position to retirement. Let fresh people in to run the show.

  149. RedSun said

    Craig Loehle – that’s right, scientists don’t claim the science is settled. You only need to read their articles to see that. The IPCC report is full of caveats and discusses all uncertainties. As I said, some aspects are well understood, others aren’t. To claim that scientists are not discussing these issues is rubbish – they do it openly in the scientific literature, and I’ve yet to see any of the thousands of interviews you claim say that everything is settled.

  150. [...] that appears damning at all.” Yet an e-mail quoted by the climate-change-skeptic blog Air Vent, and attributed to an official at a British meteorological group, said that “I also think the [...]

  151. RedSun said

    UK Dissenter – I’m not talking about consensus but the false assertion that climate scientists claim the science is settled. That is absolute rubbish.

    And climate science is basically physics. The theory has made predictions which have been verified, and is supported by a huge body of evidence. Contrarians may claim this is wrong but they’ve yet to provide any evidence to show the physical principles on which the theory is based are wrong. In other words, there’s no evidence the science is wrong. That’s why contrarians have to resort to phenomenal mental gymnastics to reach their incorrect conclusions.

    You say the warming’s down to natural variation – based on what evidence? On what data analysis? Do these natural variations explain all the observed phenomena such as stratospheric cooling, ocean warming, energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation? You’re entitled to your beliefs, not to your facts. The theory of anthropogenic climate change is consistent will all these observations. You need to do the same thing with whatever natural variation you consider to be the cause of recent warming before you can claim it’s a valid proposal.

    You can say that CO2 emissions are responsible because of physics and observations of real-world phenomena in response to increases in CO2. Put plainly, more heat is being retained in the system. This has been observed in satellites looking at outgoing radiation and in surface measurements of longwave radiation returning to the Earth’s surface. Again, stratospheric cooling, patterns of ocean warming, nights warming faster than days and other observations are all consistent with what you’d expect from an enhanced greenhouse effect. No other mechanism explains all of this.

  152. RedSun said

    Horatio Dunesbury – well put all your evidence forward then and let’s see if you have a case. Because all you have is empty rhetoric really.

  153. [...] e-mail excerpts below are from the Air Vent, which also has a terse explanation of their [...]

  154. Ruhroh said

    Apologies if already noted,
    but I can’t help but smile at the supreme irony,
    of this major buttload being dropped
    on Jeff’s lovely thread about his quiet time in the snow, ‘away from it all’.

    What, ‘foia’ gave you 2 full comments before the biggest possible thread hijack???

    I mean, C’mon, Jeff’s prose is as close to
    ” Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
    And sorry I could not travel both
    And be one traveler, long I stood
    And looked down one as far as I could
    To where it bent in the undergrowth.

    Then took the other, as just as fair,
    And having perhaps the better claim,
    Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
    Though as for that the passing there
    Had worn them really about the same.

    And both that morning equally lay
    In leaves no step had trodden black.
    Oh, I kept the first for another day!
    Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
    I doubted if I should ever come back.

    I shall be telling this with a sigh
    Somewhere ages and ages hence:
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I–
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference. ”

    As it gets for engineers…

    Let’s not forget to spend at least a few milliseconds,
    to pause and reflect, nay, revel in the beauty of Jeff’s “GWH” post…

    OK, now that we’ve had a spiritually uplifting experience,
    back to the salacious gossip.
    Like ‘Sam’ on “Burn Notice” TV teaser;
    ~”You know spies, they’re just like a bunch of bitchy teenage girls…”

    RR

    REPLY: Ah yes. Nice post.

  155. Ged said

    146. Ted, no one said it’s a spelling mistake (that is, he thought it was spelled “loose” for a moment instead of “lose”), but could very easily be a typing mistake. I make plenty of those myself all the time, and somehow manage to not catch them. That on in particular is a very easy one to mistype!

    And trust me when I say: I’ve seen a -lot- worst from professors, typographically.

  156. kim said

    Ted, ‘loose’ for ‘lose’ is gaining usage. I suspect the doubling of the ‘o’ accentuates the idea of loss, but, like you, the usage distresses me.
    ============

  157. I do not think these emails can be dismissed so easily, as some are doing. Their PR impact will be worse than last time, and some of them make me think those who accept the science of AGW (as I do, and still do) are too easily overlooking what is in them, especially in terms of how the science is being presented.

    http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/11/sorting-through-stolen-uae-emails.html

    Such as:

    Bradley:
    I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.

    Thorne:
    I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

    Carter:
    It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

  158. Phil said

    Re: RedSun (Nov 22 15:53),

    Your logic is clouded. ;)

  159. Manfred said

    I can’t see how Jones may be held even at an institution like UEA.

    While climategate 1 showed prima facie evidence of violation of FIOA laws (according to Norfolk police), climategate 2 looks like a confession. And even FIOA officer Palmer may have a VERY difficult task to defend his role.

  160. rghj said

    I just trying to think how my dissertation advisor would have responded had I said something like “Oh BTW I’m gonna conduct a “study” to make UHI and MWP go away. Any thoughts how I can get data to do that?”

    Yet this is how the team does “science” routinely.

    Amazing.

  161. Craig Loehle said

    re RedSun: you make it out to be simple yes/no but the science is complex, the data are noisy, and the predictions of the models do not obviously match the data except in the vaguest way. In the following paper, I document difficulties with the models and with attempts to estimate impacts:
    Loehle, C. 2011. Criteria for Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Ecosystems. Ecology and Evolution doi: 10.1002/ece3.7
    In the next paper I put forward a theory linking solar activity with recent history (and yes, I do detect a human impact):
    Loehle, C. and N. Scafetta. 2011. Climate Change Attribution Using Empirical Decomposition of Historical Time Series. Open Atmospheric Science Journal 5:74-86

  162. S. Weasel said

    [...] Watts Up With That Tall Bloke Climate Audit Air Vent [...]

  163. [...] You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent. [...]

  164. John Blake said

    The Green Gang is to science what Leninism is to peace-and-prosperity. Beneath a bulging academic figleaf lurk sociopathic Luddite thanatists– death-eaters intent on exterminating 95% of Earth’s humanity, regressing to pre-medieval Dark Age times when Lords and Masters did bestride demesnes and immiserated peasants knew their place.

  165. drcrinum said

    And to think that all of these e-mails are still seqestered in the UEA server that Muir Russell & Company decided not to examine during its whitewash inquiry, such server currently being held off limits to FOIA. Tsk, tsk. FOIA indeed!

  166. Norpag said

    There is currently a difference in approach to climate science between the sceptical Baconian – empirical appraoch solidly based on data and the Platonic IPCC – UEA approach – based on theoretical assumptions built into climate models designed to produce the desired outcome that CO2 is the main driver.The question arises from the recent Muller – BEST furore -What is the best metric for a global measure of and for discussion of global warming or cooling. For some years I have suggested in various web comments and on my blog that the Hadley Sea Surface Temperature data is the best metric for the following reasons . (Anyone can check this data for themselves – Google Hadley Cru — scroll down to SST GL and check the annual numbers.)
    1. Oceans cover about 70% of the surface.
    2. Because of the thermal inertia of water – short term noise is smoothed out.
    3. All the questions re UHI, changes in land use local topographic effects etc are simply sidestepped.
    4. Perhaps most importantly – what we really need to measure is the enthalpy of the system – the land measurements do not capture this aspect because the relative humidity at the time of temperature measurement is ignored. In water the temperature changes are a good measure of relative enthalpy changes.
    5. It is very clear that the most direct means to short term and decadal length predictions is through the study of the interactions of the atmospheric sytems ,ocean currents and temperature regimes – PDO ,ENSO. SOI AMO AO etc etc. and the SST is a major measure of these systems.Certainly the SST data has its own problems but these are much less than those of the land data.

    What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 – 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 – 14 years with CO2 up 7% and no net warming. Anthropogenic CO2 has some effect but our knowledge of the natural drivers is still so poor that we cannot accurately estimate what the anthropogenic CO2 contribution is. Since 2003 CO2 has risen further and yet the global temperature trend is negative. This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.

    It is clear that the IPCC models , on which AL Gore based his entire anti CO2 scare campaign ,have been wrongly framed. and their predictions have failed completely.This paradigm was never well founded ,but ,in recent years, the entire basis for the Climate and Temperature trends and predictions of dangerous warming in the 2007 IPCC Ar4 Summary for Policy Makers has been destroyed. First – this Summary is inconsistent with the AR4 WG1 Science section. It should be noted that the Summary was published before the WG1 report and the editors of the Summary , incredibly ,asked the authors of the Science report to make their reports conform to the Summary rather than the other way around. When this was not done the Science section was simply ignored..
    I give one egregious example – there are many others.Most of the predicted disasters are based on climate models.Even the Modelers themselves say that they do not make predictions . The models produce projections or scenarios which are no more accurate than the assumptions,algorithms and data , often of poor quality,which were put into them. In reality they are no more than expensive drafting tools to produce power point slides to illustrate the ideas and prejudices of their creators. The IPCC science section AR4 WG1 section 8.6.4 deals with the reliability of the climate models .This IPCC science section on models itself concludes:

    “Moreover it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining the future projections,consequently a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed”

    What could be clearer. The IPCC itself says that we don’t even know what metrics to put into the models to test their reliability.- i.e. we don’t know what future temperatures will be and we can’t yet calculate the climate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2.This also begs a further question of what mere assumptions went into the “plausible” models to be tested anyway. Nevertheless this statement was ignored by the editors who produced the Summary. Here predictions of disaster were illegitimately given “with high confidence.” in complete contradiction to several sections of the WG1 science section where uncertainties and error bars were discussed.

    A key part of the AGW paradigm is that recent warming is unprecedented and can only be explained by anthropogenic CO2. This is the basic message of the iconic “hockey stick ” However hundreds of published papers show that the Medieval warming period and the Roman climatic optimum were warmer than the present. The infamous “hide the decline ” quote from the Climategate Emails is so important. not so much because of its effect on one graph but because it shows that the entire basis if dendrothermometry is highly suspect. A complete referenced discussion of the issues involved can be found in “The Hockey Stick Illusion – Climategate and the Corruption of science ” by AW Montford.

    Temperature reconstructions based on tree ring proxies are a total waste of time and money and cannot be relied on.
    There is no evident empirical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, In all cases CO2 changes follow temperature changes not vice versa.It has always been clear that the sun is the main climate driver. One new paper ” Empirical Evidence for a Celestial origin of the Climate Oscillations and its implications “by Scafetta from Duke University casts new light on this. http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf Humidity, and natural CO2 levels are solar feedback effects not prime drivers. Recent experiments at CERN have shown the possible powerful influence of cosmic rays on clouds and climate.
    Solar Cycle 24 will peak in a year or two thus masking the cooling to some extent, but from 2014 on, the cooling trend will become so obvious that the IPCC will be unable to continue ignoring the real world – even now Hansen and Trenberth are desperately seeking ad hoc fixes to locate the missing heat

  167. Frank K. said

    Many online news/commentary sites, including Drudge and Instapunit, are carrying this story now. It’s going to get BIG! Count on it.

  168. OPatrick said

    Jeff, I don’t understand how you complain about UEA pointing out that the extracts from the e-mails are out of context. They self evidently are.

    If you think there are likely to be legitimate issues arising from the e-mails then why present these indiscriminate excerpts. The same thing happened last time, when any legitimate criticism was swamped by just the sort of exaggerations that are already evident here.

  169. kim said

    Good stuff by Norpag. I think he’s got it.
    =================

  170. John said

    Hmmmm…seems like a petty person did this. Old emails, previously stolen, and released only to cause a political stir while accusing the “other side” of being political.
    Frankly, as I read these, I was disappointed. If this is Climategate 2.0, someone needs to get a life. Because there is VERY little that is damaging in this. Even the “damaging snippets” read a lot more like people who are discussing data rather than trying to “cover up” something.
    Of course, you all seem quite confident in your own precious knowledge which can never be disputed. So, have a nice day. I am sure you all will be long gone before my grandchildren and great-grandchildren are forced to live with the consequences of your knowledge.

  171. Jon P said

    Hmmm… releasing emails to cause a political stir is petty, but trying to find reporters to investigate someone you do not like is “nothing”. Got it John, so sorry you procreated.

  172. Jeff Id said

    OPatrick,

    Just give me some time big dog. I’m running a company today. There are no exaggerations by me here. The excerpts seem more valid than last time to me with a couple of exceptions. I will explain them to you later.

  173. John said

    Jon P witty… LOL. I LOVE how people like you know what is “right” and justify whatever you do. I hope you did not procreate. If you did, she must be ugly AND stupid.

  174. [...] Excerpts of the e-mails are posted on Watt’s Up With That? and The Air Vent. [...]

  175. [...] have already declared that extracts of the emails are being taken out of context.  As Jeff Id of the Air Vent puts it: Out of context before we put them in context.  I suppose that if you aren’t a certified [...]

  176. Utterly utterly devastating…

    Curious also that in confidential discussions the warmists raise all the same concerns as the ‘global warming deniers’, yet disparage them publicly.

  177. Ted said

    I just did a search at Climate Audit for the “word loosing” and came up with two instances: one was from McIntyre quoting comments from Cook/Briffa and someone commenting on said usage of “loosing”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Real Climate had many more returns in the search for “loosing”

    I am sorry, but spelling the word “losing” as “loosing” would be the equivalent of someone verbalizing “axe” in place of “ask”. As someone who has probably read over 100,000 comments on message boards over my lifetime, that specific mis-spelling has a deeper meaning.

  178. OPatrick said

    But Jeff surely you have to take some responsibility for what you put up on your blog? It doesn’t take a moment to skim through these extracts and see that many of them are transparently selected to suggest the worst possible interpretation, yet you posted them without even any comment to this effect. I’ll be interested to see the more detailed analysis you promise, but I’ll be more sceptical of it as a result of this initial posting.

  179. John said

    Wil…Seriously, what do you find “devastating” about these emails? I read them and I honestly see the type of back and forth I would HOPE people would have when evaluating evidence and discussing protocol for release and consideration of data. Calling someone’s paper “worthless” in an email is something which regularly happens, I would think. And, most of the time, I would suspect, it means something akin to “my paper is better” even if the results are the same. I know this is beating a dead horse with you folks, but…I really wish there were some anti-GW people who didn’t fall into this petty little game. If there really are serious concerns, those should be discussed. The notion that there is a massive conspiracy comprised of some of the most socially backward people in the world is a bit silly.

  180. Jon P said

    John,

    An emotional response, wow big surprise there, your instability speaks volumes about your future, try not to hurt anyone this time when you explode with anger.

  181. John said

    Jon P…LOL. Nice to see someone who can’t recognize their own “emotional response.” That is another thing I love about people like you. Keep up the good work!

  182. Jon P said

    John,

    Yawn.

  183. Jeff Id said

    #178 I’m already familiar with the issues. That’s why I’m comfortable with what was written. In my onion you need to take some responsibility and point out which emails highlighted above are not in the correct context rather than pretend to be annoyed that I didn’t do your legwork.

  184. John said

    Jeff Id…Ummm…it is kind of difficult to point out the context problems when one of the moves used is to attempt to strip all context from the quotes. The question I have is why was the context stripped when posted? If the emails are so damaging, why were the emails not posted in their entirety?

  185. Earle Williams said

    John and Jon P,

    It’s a free internet, and you’re both free to make utter fools of yourselves. Just please try to do it with a bit more class. It’s hard, I know, to reach an Oscar Wilde level of gentlemanliness, but it’s worth the effort.

  186. Jon P said

    Earle,

    Thanks for passing “down” your wisdom. Does it make you feel better or just superior? Shall I look up to you now? Please park yourself in front of a mirror to see the fool.

  187. John said

    Earle,

    Well put. I have a bit of a short fuse with utter fools and basketball referees. :)

  188. Jon P said

    John,

    So I was right, you were/are getting angry. Thank you for confirmation. Please attack and insult my wife some more we are all waiting to hear it.

  189. OPatrick said

    Well, of the first ten I’d say 1611, 4755 and 2755 look particularly obviously shorn of any context, but any of them could mean something entirely different from the impression that they have been selected to make.

    I’ve made a vague attempt to download the full e-mails, but haven’t got very far and I doubt that many who read this will do either. Realistically for the moment what is presented here is all that we have to go on. Why not wait until you’ve done the work you promise and can focus on those that have merit? Why undermine the serious points you want to make by presenting this obviously scattergun approach?

  190. #166 Norpag
    “What does the SST data show? The 5 year moving SST temperature average shows that the warming trend peaked in 2003 and a simple regression analysis shows an eight year global SST cooling trend since then .The data shows warming from 1900 – 1940 ,cooling from 1940 to about 1975 and warming from 1975 – 2003. CO2 levels rose monotonically during this entire period.There has been no net warming since 1997 – 14 years with CO2 up 7% and no net warming.”

    You can go looking for short term trends that will show whatever you like. There is a more complete picture here (scroll down). Yes, if you go back from present, there’s a range of about 7-11 years where you can find a cooling trend. Shorter or longer, it’s warming.

    But it’s not statistically significant. What that means is that there is a lot of noise in short-term trend. You can, with care, find a significant short-term trend ending in about 2008. But that doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t warming. It just means that something unusual was happening. A big La Nina, in this case.

  191. Jeff Id said

    Gentlemen,

    The full emails are available in links in the thread as well as the very first link at the top of the page. The one which says the files can be downloaded here. The quotes were from the FOIA guys themselves and contain numbers referencing the exact complete emails.

    I’m sorry if that was confusing.

  192. Jeff Id said

    There were over 140 downloads of the full file in the first 20 minutes.

  193. OPatrick said

    My computer’s not downloading them – I think I probably don’t have a very broad band, I don’t know – I don’t really pay attention to it.

  194. [...] old news now, but this one will run and run (we all hope).  Who got the link? WUWT, Climate Audit, the Air Vent as before and this time too Tallbloke’s Talkshop and JoNova. Anyone [...]

  195. RomanM said

    What is this, the three stooges night on tAV: Redsun, Jon P and OPatrick?

    LOL. Jeff publishes the full Readme file from FOIA.zip download and gets castigated for for picking quotes out of context? I guess that the more “competent” trolls are out on the tougher sites so they sent the beginners here. ;)

    OPatrick says:

    Realistically for the moment what is presented here is all that we have to go on. Why not wait until you’ve done the work you promise and can focus on those that have merit? Why undermine the serious points you want to make by presenting this obviously scattergun approach?

    So everyone else is supposed to postpone the discussion until some spoon feeds him the emails. I would suggest that he learn thre elementary procedures for downloading them, read some and then come back IF he ever has something to offer to the discussion (which I sincerely doubt is a genuine possibility).

  196. hro001 said

    [From CRUspin central:]

    While we have had only a limited opportunity to look at this latest post of 5,000 emails, we have no evidence of a recent breach of our systems.

    If genuine, (the sheer volume of material makes it impossible to confirm at present that they are all genuine) these emails have the appearance of having been held back after the theft of data and emails in 2009

    Limited opportunity?! Gimme a break! They’ve had two years … and if they had 2 brain-cells to share between them, someone really should have figured out that the release in 2009 did not contain all the files available. In fact, “poor Phil” himself alluded to an expectation of further releases when he was interviewed by David Adam in Nature about a year ago:

    Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed.And other climate-research organizations are believed to have told police that their systems survived hack attempts at the same time.

    Jones and others connected to the CRU fear the hackers may be sitting on more stolen e-mails, but Jones feels confident the worst is behind him. “It really is not somewhere I would like to go through again. But having been through it once, I think I am a bit hardened to it. [emphasis added -hro]

    Source: Climate: The hottest year

    This might explain why Norfolk’s finest still had no comment when they were recently asked. They’ve been waiting for this “second tranche” in order to “pick up the trail” Jeff, have they contacted you, recently?!

    Time for CRU to re-engage Wallis and others from the Outside Organization, methinks!

  197. Norpag said

    @190 Nick
    Note what I said was
    “This is obviously a short term on which to base predictions but all statistical analyses of particular time series must be interpreted in conjunction with other ongoing events and in the context of declining solar magnetic field strength and activity – to the extent of a possible Dalton or Maunder minimum and the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal a global 20 – 30 year cooling spell is more likely than a warming trend.”

    All time series statistical analyses have to be interpreted in context with other synchronous variables – in that light the idea that a cooling spell is at hand is very reasonable and in fact is more or less what the latest IPCC SREX summary says but in an obscure manner.

    “Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.

    Note uncertainty in the “sign” means they think the earth may even be cooling- but they still shy away from using the c word.

  198. hro001 said

    Sorry, messed up the blockquotes on that last post. Latter part of 196 should read as follows:

    Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed.And other climate-research organizations are believed to have told police that their systems survived hack attempts at the same time.

    Jones and others connected to the CRU fear the hackers may be sitting on more stolen e-mails, but Jones feels confident the worst is behind him. “It really is not somewhere I would like to go through again. But having been through it once, I think I am a bit hardened to it. [emphasis added -hro]

    Source: Climate: The hottest year

    This might explain why Norfolk’s finest still had no comment when they were recently asked. They’ve been waiting for this “second tranche” in order to “pick up the trail” Jeff, have they contacted you, recently?!

    Time for CRU to re-engage Wallis and others from the Outside Organization, methinks!

  199. diogenes said

    well sasid RomanM…at least the team fielded Colose on Climate Audit and we had the amusing spectacle of J Bowers on Tallbloke…Bishop Hill got the usual dunderheads and BigCityn Liberal triued to pout up a fight on here earlier…they just seem to like stoking the fire under themselves

  200. OPatrick said

    The links to download the e-mails were added after the original post. As you can see there were people discussing how to get them well down in the comments.

  201. BobN said

    OPatrick – I will agree that many of the quotes in the readme file seem to have been lifted for maximum impact and don’t necessarily reflect the context in which they were stated. For example, having looked at the complete text of 1611 and 4755, the selected text looks much worse on its own than when put in the context of the entire email. However, I am still most disturbed by and can’t find a reasonalbe context for the efforts of Jones and a few others to avoid FOI disclosures, and for Jones to even admit that he spent a day deleting emails AFTER he had received a FOI request. As Romm might say… “head exploding” or as MT likes to say “Gobsmacked”

  202. Three of the 5000+ emails are by me. (I of course forgot to write down the numbers.) These three are genuine.

  203. Anonymous said

    I think someone needs to learn what out of context means. Don’t scream “out of context” as if it is a problem when all you really mean is that the e-mails were published without a book explaining every nuance.

    I don’t give a rip if the quotes are limited to sentence fragments. Unless someone can show how the fragment conveys a message that is not an accurate reflection of the one intended by the author of the e-mail, nobody cares how often or how loudly you scream ‘out-of-context!’

  204. trubba man said

    to: “Keith Briffa”

    2) Your essential job is to “prove” to Paul that what we’re experiencing now is NOT just another of those natural fluctuations we’ve seen in the past. The hockey stick curve is a crucial piece of evidence because it shows how abnormal the present period is – the present warming is unprecedented in speed and amplitude, something like that. This is a very big moment in the film when Paul is finally convinced of the reality of man made global warming.

    Jonathan Renouf
    Series Producer
    Science Department

  205. trubba man said

    That was #1683, sorry.

  206. #183
    “In my onion you need to take some responsibility and point out which emails highlighted above are not in the correct context rather than pretend to be annoyed that I didn’t do your legwork.”
    Well, to take #2884 as one example.
    “Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of
    dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]“

    The full quote is:

    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.

    First, obviously stripped is Wigley’s acknowledgement that his words may be too harsh.

    Secondly, his explanation of why the Fig is deceptive – he thinks the match is a fluke. A perfectly normal scientific criticism.

    Thirdly, no mention in the extract that the Fig was not from a published paper, but a proposed figure (for an RC post) that MM had circulated for comment. And he got it. And AFAIK, the fig was never published.

  207. Jeff Id said

    I agree Nick. The only thing which you left out was the point that I didn’t leave anything out and that you were perfectly able to find the context.

    The ‘context’ in this case isn’t far off though is it?

  208. Chris in Ga said

    Hro001 – excellent recall on Jones’ interview

    RomanM – Nicely put as always

  209. The fuller text Nick Stokes cites makes the quote stronger, not weaker, by explaining in more technical detail *why* there is a deception. I’m not sure this is what Nick intended.

  210. “Wil…Seriously, what do you find “devastating” about these emails?”

    John,

    Because it doesn’t fit the political narrative that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus, etc. You know and I know there is a lot of uncertainty. But the public and the media doesn’t really understand this. When those most strongly advocating for political action, are shown to be arguing among themselves as the sceptics do… well this creates a game changing environment. A further theme that comes out of this correspondence is the desire to mine the literature to find papers that fit into preconceived positions.

  211. unakite said

    Jon P said
    November 22, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    ….. Got it John, so sorry you procreated.

    ROTFLMAO. Glad my wine was on the table before I saw this!

  212. Frank K. said

    All Mike Mann wants to know is…

    ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST “THE CAUSE”(tm)!!!

    All hail “THE CAUSE”…all hail “THE CAUSE”…all hail “THE CAUSE”…

  213. [...] There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist. [...]

  214. unakite said

    John said
    November 22, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Jon P witty… LOL. I LOVE how people like you know what is “right” and justify whatever you do. I hope you did not procreate. If you did, she must be ugly AND stupid.

    What an intelligent response. Losers tend to lash out in the end.

  215. [...] Climategate 2.0 [...]

  216. [...] We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such as… UPDATE The lack of warming seems to bother the Climategate scientists…(1939) Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical [...]

  217. [...] Climategate 2.0 [...]

  218. [...] You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent. [...]

  219. [...] You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent. [...]

  220. [...] More background is available from Pajamas Media and the links they provide. But the good stuff is in the emails themselves. [...]

  221. [...] The lack of warming seems to bother the Climategate scientists…  (1939) Thorne/MetO: [...]

  222. [...] http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ [...]

  223. Nick said

    Norpag @197,you’re misinterpreting the comment on ‘sign’…the specific wording is “uncertainty in the sign of predicted changes in climate extremes” not the sign of average global temperature. The ‘climate extremes’ discussed are the frequency of intense weather events.

  224. [...] Nya e-mails släpptes uppenbarligen igår. De tycks komma ifrån samma bunt av mail som släpptes förra gången.  Se exempelvis : http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ [...]

  225. [...] Here is a selection of the revealed emails. [...]

  226. Sonicfrog said

    @ 179 John said
    November 22, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Wil…Seriously, what do you find “devastating” about these emails? I read them and I honestly see the type of back and forth I would HOPE people would have when evaluating evidence and discussing protocol for release and consideration of data. Calling someone’s paper “worthless” in an email is something which regularly happens, I would think. And, most of the time, I would suspect, it means something akin to “my paper is better” even if the results are the same…

    Really??? That’s the line you’re going to run with?

    “Worthless” – as defined

    1. Lacking worth; of no use or value.
    2. Low; despicable.

    carries a bit more weight than “you’re paper is inferior to mine”.

  227. [...] You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent. [...]

  228. [...] like exactly two years and two days ago, when Climategate erupted, Jeff Id received an URL pointing to a Russian server, containing a FOIA2011.zip file (173 MB), a verified [...]

  229. TonyN said

    Forgive me it this isn’t new.

    The email files are numbered 001-5349, but I can only un-zip 5292, leaving 57 numbers or files missing. Has anyone else managed to get all 5349?

    And has anyone produced a chronological set yet?

  230. [...] är några få axplock med översatta citat från de 5000 breven Avsändarna är CRU-chefen Phil Jones och klimatforskaren Michael Mann. De [...]

  231. [...] lifted some of the emails from the list of 500.  To get a look at these, check out these sites.  Here, here and here LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", "other"); [...]

  232. [...] that in mind, here are some of the faux-diamonds in an email treasure trove littered with [...]

  233. [...] that in mind, here are some of the faux-diamonds in an email treasure trove littered with [...]

  234. [...] http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#more-12598 1939> Thorne/MetO: [...]

  235. Norpag said

    Nick @ 223
    The bit you quote needs to be understood on conjunction with the later “because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”
    The climate change signal on which the whole IPCC UN anti CO2 campaign is based is global temperature. All their emissions cap proposals depend on the temperature sensitivity to CO2.
    Their statement is deliberately obscurantist and meant to change the focus from general warming to frequency of extreme events.
    This latest Climategate release further shows how much the “group” was concerned with the presentation of the data to influence policy.
    They saw early on that their warming predictions were very questionable and so reframed the argument from global warming to climate change
    The importance of the new IPCC SREX report is that finally the IPCC has been forced to recognise that the uncertainties of climate prediction are much greater than they previously acknowledged. They are now in the embarassing position of having to acknowledge that the whole UN CO2 scare is built on very uncertain foundations and they somehow need to as quietly as possible change their emphasis to extreme events.
    The first thing they do is to change the definition of climate change (Global Warming was abandoned years ago.)
    They say :
    “several of the definitions used in this Special Report differ inbreadth or focus from those used in the AR4 and other IPCC reports.]

    Climate Change:
    A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.

    2[INSERT FOOTNOTE 2: This definition differs from that in the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed overcomparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.]

    In other words where previously climate change meant change due to human activity now it means change due to human and natural causes . They now say that they can’t distinguish these causes for the next 30 years.The rest of their predictions re extreme events are simply trivial and tautologous speculation – they simply say that if warming continues, certain extreme events are more likely to occur. But this is all they now have left to try to drive policy.
    They don’t know what is happening in the next 30 years, so they certainly don’t know what will happen in the next hundred.

  236. Jon P said

    RomanM,

    You got your “Johns” mixed up.

  237. kim said

    235, Norpag. Once again, very nice. How is it that you can write what I think, but I can’t?
    ===========

  238. #235
    “The first thing they do is to change the definition of climate change”

    No, they simply give a straightforward definition of what the words “climate change” mean. The definition you quoted from the UNFCCC was preceded by the words “For the purposes of this convention”. They are defining a shorthand there.

  239. Jeff, just posting a comment to check your blog time setting relative to GMT. Trying to work out the time line for the postings over the various blogs. Is your blog on Central time?

  240. kim said

    Have you read in the emails, Nick, the plotting to use the term ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’. Do you defend the rationale of the writers?
    ================

  241. OK I see it’s not – now I’ve got the timeline sorted: WUWT/CA/JoNova/tAV then hit WUWT moderators’ sites to make sure. http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/the-chosen-few-climategate-2-0/

  242. #241
    Plotting? They can use any term they like – they don’t have to plot.

    There was plenty of public discussion about the reasons for characterising the issue as climate change.

    And, FWIW, I prefer “global warming”. It’s a balance between being specific and trying to cover everything.

  243. [...] Nya e-mails släpptes uppenbarligen igår. De tycks komma ifrån samma bunt av mail som släpptes förra gången.  Se exempelvis :http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ [...]

  244. Gabby said

    Krikey! #3998

    ~ “I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. ”

    ~ “I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have”

  245. Chris in Ga said

    Nick – would you comment on (235) Norpag’s last paragraph?

    There was also “plenty of public discussion about the reason for characterizing” Vietnam as ” a police action” but that does not mean it was not political or for the public’s best interest. That argument is too vague

    And sure let’s call it Global Warming … 2.0 that is – Now with natural variation added!

  246. #245
    Nick – would you comment on (235) Norpag’s last paragraph?
    Confusingly, there are 2 Nicks; I’m not the one 235 was replying to. But I assume you mean me here.

    Or maybe not. I did comment on the stuff about climate change. SREX is using the simple meaning, with no attribution implied. The inference Norpag makes is wrong.

    But the argument about policy being based on this is also wrong. Firstly his facts are off. I don’t believe anyone is saying it will be impossible to attribute change over 30 years. But in any case, the basis for policy is that CO2 is a GHG, and pumping it into the atmosphere will cause warming. It isn’t based on the observation and attribution of change. We are indeed observing warming consistent with the expected effect of CO2, but that isn’t the proof.

  247. Love 70 – first, equivocate, then cry “far right kooks”! Which way we having it, pal? Are the AGW dogmatists having the same kind of legitimate debates as the skeptics, or is it all a bunch of “far right” (basically, anyone who opposes the totalitarian left) kookery?

  248. Buffy Minton said

    Don’t know if this has already been done before:

    Here’s the freshly decoded Mime attachments to the Climategate 2011 emails

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IQEKC5SR

  249. kurthbemis said

    Great. Thank you for sharing. :]

    Mirror (uncompressed): http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/CG-2-Attachments/

  250. kurthbemis said

    Any thoughts on this document?

    http://dump.kurthbemis.com/climategate2/CG-2-Attachments/Guide%235.pdf

  251. Norpag said

    Nick @ 246 You say
    ‘We are indeed seeing warming consistent with the expected effects of CO2 ” – this is simply untrue.
    Even the leaders of the “cause ‘ are desperately looking for the missing heat see Trenberth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=868nr1Pgxw0
    and Hansen says re aerosols

    “Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to
    understand future climate change. ”

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1105/1105.1140.pdf

    Yet in this same paper he illogically claims that he knows the forcing due to CO2 when this large aerosol effect is not quantified.

    Note also that there has been no net SST warming since 1997 with CO2 up 7%. and that for the last couple of years sea levels are falling.

  252. Ed Darrell said

    Biggest excitement in the quarters of climate skeptics in two years: Somebody released more stolen e-mails!

    If your biggest scientific achievement is that someone else stole the e-mails of the people whose work you question, you’re not standing on solid scientific ground, you know?

  253. kuhnkat said

    Ed Darrell,

    actually, if those same people, whose work you question, have been stonewalling your investigations for almost a decade while insulting you and lying about your actions, it actually is pretty exciting to get a glimpse under the covers.

    Thanks for pigeonholing yourself.

    • Ed Darrell said

      Scientists working on solving problems that face mankind neither have the time nor the need for titillation that a glimpse under the covers gives. Ask not for whom the pigeon coos, it coos for thee.

  254. kim said

    Hi, Ed. Ever figure out what a fraud Hansen’s 1988 testimony was?
    ================

  255. Ed Darrell said

    No, Kim, I didn’t find fraud. Perhaps you could help me out by listing exactly what you consider the fraud to be, please.

  256. kim said

    We went over all this on your blog years ago. How about a link to it?
    ==============

  257. harry said

    CRU Source Code Explained http://youtu.be/Gp4sMasX-_8

  258. Ed Darrell said

    This one, Kim?

    https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/climate-science-cranks-wrong-in-small-things-wrong-in-all-things/#comments

  259. Ed Darrell said

    Or do you mean this one, in which a group of denialists were shocked — SHOCKED! — that it’s cold in July in Argentina? http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/warming-deniers-surprised-by-winter/

  260. Ed Darrell said

    Either way, Kim — I’m still puzzled at what you think Hansen said that was “fraud.” Clearly he didn’t commit fraud by saying it’s warm in Argentina in July — since he didn’t say that at all. I think you’re assuming things in evidence that you’ve not put in evidence, perhaps.

  261. [...] Daily Telegraph, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Telegraph, Minnesotans for Global Warming, The Air Vent, The New York Times, [...]

  262. [...] You’ll find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air Vent. [...]

  263. kuhnkat said

    Ed Darrell,

    nope, the fact that Client Scientists actually WERE knowingly hiding their shoddy work from us.

    From above:

    Thorne/MetO:

    Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
    troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
    wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
    uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
    further if necessary [...]

    Just this one email shows that the basis for AGW alarmism is unsupported. Would you like me to explain the how the models predicted that this would NOT be the case and CANNOT predict AGW without it or are you at least informed enough about the science to understand this?

  264. Ed Darrell said

    Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]

    Quite to the contrary, that doesn’t show anyone hiding anything. It shows a robust discussion of the issues and the research — and here’s a guy who dissented quite vociferously.

    How is that hiding anything? Which studies were they talking about? Which ones ended up being the studies relied on most heavily?

    For your claim to be accurate, I’d expect to see a claim in the IPCC report that there were absolutely no contrary data, and the conclusions were absolutely unassailable. Of course, as y’all have been happy to point out in the past, such statements do not appear.

    There there is the issue of just what the effect of rising temperatures in the tropical troposphere means — rising temperatures overall can mean decreasing temperatures at some levels of the atmosphere, differing levels at differing times.

    Oddly, you don’t discuss the issue, how it played out on this discussion, how it played out overall, or what are the effects of the atmospheric phenomena this study group discussed.

    You’re looking with a jaundiced eye, and all is jaundiced that you do spy. Your case won’t hold up in court. Your case didn’t hold up in IPCC discussions. Actually your case probably wouldn’t do well in a high school debate, either.

    E-mails don’t affect climate. Not even stolen e-mails affect climate.

  265. “the fact that Client Scientists actually WERE knowingly hiding”
    Here’s the intro to the troposphere section of The AR4 (3.4.1):

    Within the community that constructs and actively analyses satellite- and radiosonde-based temperature records there is agreement that the uncertainties about long-term change are substantial. Changes in instrumentation and protocols pervade both sonde and satellite records, obfuscating the modest long-term trends. Historically there is no reference network to anchor the record and establish the uncertainties arising from these changes – many of which are both barely documented and poorly understood. Therefore, investigators have to make seemingly reasonable choices of how to handle these sometimes known but often unknown influences. It is difficult to make quantitatively defensible judgments as to which, if any, of the multiple, independently derived estimates is closer to the true climate evolution. This reflects almost entirely upon the inadequacies of the historical observing network and points to the need for future network design that provides the reference sonde-based ground truth. Karl et al. (2006) provide a comprehensive review of this issue.

    Does this sound different from what you are reading in the emails?

  266. Mark T said

    DNFTT.

    Mark

  267. kuhnkat said

    Ed Darrel,

    thank you for side stepping the actual argument I made. you and Nick Stokes and Fred over at JC’s all have the same problem. The models that this whole mess is based upon shows a particular response to ANY warming but stronger for GHG warming. That response includes a water vapor feedback in the upper troposphere that increases the warming there faster than at the surface. That is what this paragraph is discussing. You can talk about a robust conversation all you want. The claims are that we have had record warming over the last 30 years and that this warming is dangerous. The fact that the models are shown to be incorrect by the ROBUST lack of observations including a stratosphere that is NOT cooling for 16 years shows just how disingenous y’all are.

    Disingenous?? No, you are LIARS!! The claims were made that this was happening. The observations do not support the claims and y’all still keep whiningg that we are going to ruin the earth due to GHG warming. y’all are pathetic money grubbers just like the slimey politicians and corporate fascists that collaborate with them to scam our money and sweat.

  268. kuhnkat said

    Ed Darrel,

    you asked about what James “coal trains of death” Hansen, recent millionaire, misrepresented in his 1988 testimony before congress?

    http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

    The misrepresentations by Hansen in 1988:

    1) The earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.
    2) The global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.
    3) Our computer simulations indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect (sic) he probability of extreme events such as heat waves.

    I won’t even call his talking about his model a misrepresenation. It was blatan fabrication.

    Number one is a simple lie. Looking back at the records being used at that time the 30’s were hotter than 1988.

    Number two is another blatant lie. Even now there are arguments among the experts as to the cause and effect of what is causing the warming and even how much warming there has been.

    Number 3 is also a blatant lie. Virtually most climate scientists now deny that specific extreme events can be attributed to Goreball Warming.

    He goes on to claim that the rate of warming in the last 25 years (1963-1988) is the highest on record. Again a lie. The highest would have been the ~1920-1940 as it is very close to 1980-2000 which is higher.

    He discusses causation and claims the warming is larger than possible for natural variability. Again in the record is faster warming that is natural, another lie.

    Then he goes into his poor model. We know that there have been numerous changes to the models since he first designed his. What can we say about what he was using then other than it was more confirmation bias than science?? His projections haven’t been close and his warmings that 20 years would be too late is provably false at this point also.

    The man got up and lied his ass off for his agenda and it worked for a while until the warming STOPPED after the 1998 La Nina that had them thinking they were home free!!! We are now watching normal variability of our sun and our climate system drop us into a cooling period and you MORONS continue to whine about this nonexistant problem becuase it will hurt your income. Tell that to the children dying of cold, disease and hunger in third world countries and elderly adults in the UK where y’all helped the Political MORONS to waste 100’s of billions on green energy scams enriching the fascist corporations and your buddies!!! You are pathetic immoral losers.

  269. [...] Se señala que los correos electrónicos subieron a un portal ruso (http://files.sinwt.ru/download.php?file=25FOIA2011.zip)- aunque al momento de este escrito el enlace al portal no operaba. Sin embargo, fragmentos de los correos electrónicos que ahora parecen haber encontrado su camino a muchos foros y portales de escépticos en el tema climático, tales como Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke y The Air Vent. [...]

  270. kim said

    Ed Darrell @ #260. Yes, Ed, that’s the link I meant. Thank you for preserving that conversation. I even impress myself. I don’t think I can do work that good anymore.
    ================

  271. Sonicfrog said

    266… Nick. Yes, that is very different. That is intentionally vague. They needed to point out each instance where the uncertainty occurred with specificity. The statement you posted is much like the “This Is A Dramatization” warning posted at the beginning of vid depicting, say, a murder. Sure, that little blurb protects the production company from getting sued if there is a glaring inaccuracy or a completely made up factoid included to ad drama and suspense in the telling of the story. But note how they never tell you exactly which parts of their presentation are based purely on actual fact, or which parts are stretched to make the story more engrossing and dramatic.

    The IPCC has acted in the same way. That is not science. That is information manipulation.

  272. kuhnkat said

    Ed Darrell,

    I see you don’t want to discuss the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Oh well, not unexpected.

  273. _Jim said

    Ed Darrell said November 25, 2011 at 10:14 pm:

    “E-mails don’t affect climate. Not even stolen e-mails affect climate.”

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    His bio states: A ‘ teacher of law, economics, history …’

    God help us.

  274. Ed Darrell said

    God help us.

    At least he got the law, economics and history right. Whether you are correct that most scientists are wrong, is not proven. He’s probably right about that, too.

  275. [...] Nova e Jeff ID hanno già pubblicato alcune email, di cui vi mostriamo alcuni [...]

  276. [...] JeffId has some initial reaction [...]

  277. [...] round of leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climatic Research Unit have surfaced, once again [...]

  278. [...] Climategate 2.0 should prove (again). For more, refer to the work of Anthony Watts, Steven Hayward, Jeff Id, and Dr. Tim Ball, who makes the following point: Few, including skeptics, want to confront the [...]

  279. [...] if(!document.referrer || document.referrer == '') { document.write(''); } else { document.write(''); } 2012, Reptilians, & BluebeamAsshole Hippies From Outer SpaceDemir DruidQuote of the Day – November 30 2011Top Key WordsDr Clark’s book-chartDr McDougall on Steve JobsClimategate 2.0 [...]

  280. [...] Databázi si také můžete stáhnout například z blogu Air Vent:http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ [...]

  281. [...] the pathetic, disgusting attempt to derail the climate talks in Durban, just a few days ago?  The “climate skeptics”™ dumped a bunch more private e-mails from the scientists who work on climate. (Stolen e-mails, here; be prepared to be bored, with no [...]

  282. [...] the pathetic, disgusting attempt to derail the climate talks in Durban, just a few days ago?  The “climate skeptics”™ dumped a bunch more private e-mails from the scientists who work on climate. (Stolen e-mails, here; be prepared to be bored, with no [...]

  283. covering furniture…

    [...]Climategate 2.0 « the Air Vent[...]…

  284. [...] unidentified person who left the link to the zip file at McIntyre’s blog also left it at Jeff’s Id’s blog – and at Tallbloke’s. Since the latter resides in a timezone [...]

  285. [...] Databázi si také můžete stáhnout například z blogu Air Vent:http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ [...]

  286. Forex Online Trading Systems….

    [...]Climategate 2.0 « the Air Vent[...]…

  287. dota 2 download…

    [...]Climategate 2.0 « the Air Vent[...]…

  288. assured Return Properties…

    [...]Climategate 2.0 « the Air Vent[...]…

  289. Monetizing King!…

    [...]Climategate 2.0 « the Air Vent[...]…

  290. Cheap Materials…

    [...]Climategate 2.0 « the Air Vent[...]…

  291. Cuisinart DGB-900BC…

    [...]Climategate 2.0 « the Air Vent[...]…

  292. best movie streaming site…

    [...]Climategate 2.0 « the Air Vent[...]…

  293. hackshackshackshacksogplanethackshackshacksmaplestorymaplestoryserverdragonhackscarathacks…

    [...]Climategate 2.0 « the Air Vent[...]…

  294. [...] Some Interesting ClimateGate E-Mail Comments: [...]

  295. I read this paragraph completely on the topic of the resemblance of hottest and preceding technologies, it’s
    amazing article.

  296. […] blog articles at Air Vent, and Watts up with that for […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 142 other followers

%d bloggers like this: