Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold

This is the biggest news ever broken here. The first thing I have to say is that I have no connection to the source of these files. It was left as a link on my blog while I was hunting for cloaked deers (fruitlessly) in the Upper Penninsula. These files are real IMO but they cannot be one hundred percent verified as such. How can we be certain but IMO, real. They were potentially scraped from multiple computers in my opinion by a hacker or an insider involved in some of the endless FOIA requests.

I’ll say this delicately – this person risked one f..k of a lot to show us this data.

I need some legal advice regarding the files received today. I’ve verified that the data seems to be true, simply due to the volume of it and knowing the issues – currently the link is offline, I took it down the minute I realized what it contained. I need to understand the legal ramifications of making some of the emails public. In the meantime, a summary of the 62 MB of data is – personal email correspondences between some of the major players Santer, Briffa, Mann, Osborne, Wahl. Data and code, the data SteveM and I will enjoy but I can’t load CA now. The code or a version of it for HadCRUT was released also. The tone of the emails is quite interesting Steve McIntyre is the focus of much of them but there are quite a few references to obstruction and making things difficult for the ‘skeptics’. There are also budgetary items and grant monies- you wouldn’t believe how much money these boys play with.

There are several comments about scientists wanting to hide their environmentalist views to promote the best results. Also, some about people being happy with the death of skeptics as well as a lot of rubbish about the latest Yamal results at CA.

What I need to know is what are my legal obligations as to posting a link to this file and what is allowed to be shown from it. In the meantime I see Anthony at WUWT who has more experience than me with media has posted several emails, so in this case there is one particular letter which deserves to see the light of day because of it’s amazing nature.

One of the biggest criticisms of skeptics is non-publication. I think we can put an end to that charade here and now. If someone can find me a lawyer to let this loose I’ll add the rest of the names but let’s just say it’s our favorite ends justify the means group.

From: P
To: “M
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. [snip out of kindness] be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing A over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.

The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! [names removed because I’m giving quarter until legal advice arrives]
[Snipped again out of kindness. This section had to do with personal feelings and friendships regarding a paper which probably didn’t tow the line.]

I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.

Prof. P

So if we can describe who M, P, K and I really are, this should be pretty interesting. This is one of thousands of emails which IMO seem genuine although there’s no ‘absolute’ proof. Let’s call it a glove too small.

321 thoughts on “Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold

  1. Jeff,
    of all the sites I’ve been skimming tonight, you have provided the most appropriately measured response and the juciest tidbit. Well done.

  2. Left this on Lucia’s Jeff. Nice one from Mann to Andy Revkin that relates to us (email 1254259645.txt):

    if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our ‘98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won’t submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism “published” it will be in the discredited contrarian home journal “Energy and Environment”. I’m sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn’t submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review.

  3. Steve M confirms on CA that those are real emails from him. He has the link up in the comments of this thread:

  4. #2 nice, from the conservative himself – he’s like a deer in the headlights. Hey Mikie – incoming!!

    Let’s try to leave names out until we get some advice though.

  5. Jeff, are you able to do (or have you already done) a domain/geography/whois look-up on the ip address of the original poster to the link? Just curious. And wow… Lots and lots of reading material in that thing!

  6. On second thought, I have just returned from a short perusal of blogs. This puppy’s blown wide open. It would have been better to release it a bit at a time to keep it in the mainstream but whatever.

    In a cruel twist of fate, the data is very interesting and should provide fodder for a few more technical blogs to gradually release the implications of 😉

  7. Dude, there are some real whoppers in there about “adjustments” to SSTs. Like really big ones. My hope (and suspicion) is that they appear much worse than they are since the emails don’t provide the full context . . . but still . . . they’re whoppers.

  8. How about this?

    Michael E. Mann wrote:

    Dear Phil and Gabi,
    I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for
    doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are
    likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so
    best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want
    to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but
    don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

    In 1092167224.

  9. Sorry Jeff, didn’t see your request to leave out names and don’t know how to edit a post here. Please edit accordingly.

  10. No need. It’s not my responsibility. After all there have been under 20 edits in 10,000 comments here. Don’t worry, this will be going on for months. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, WSJ… it’s big..

    I wonder if it’s too late to get out from under this falling rock.

    Ya really have to wonder why they chose this blog.

  11. Damn. In spite of myself, I can’t stop reading the emails. I should be writing the SI . . . but the emails are too interesting. 😀

  12. Alright… I can’t stop reading either, but I want the people who posted that damn thing to come forward. I’ve been reading a lot about how this was just too big too fabricate, how it would be too big…. I’ve got a one word reply: SOROS. Whether real or not, this needs to get in front of a congressional inquiry.

  13. # 2, me thinks the Mann doth protest too much. Peer review on the ‘net is far more brutal than any other review process I have ever seen.

    Do you think Revkin will verify it?

  14. Jeff, good job so far–I think you’re on the right track on how to deal with this. My only comment regards the attachments–I’m afraid to even open them. They’re somebody’s work product and should be treated accordingly.

    Examiner.com’s legal department is advising me to go very slowly on this. I think they’d prefer it if somebody else published it all. I’m not going to leave it alone, but I am going to be conservative about my approach–much as you are doing now.

  15. Well, it should be able to be verified by UEA’s IT department. Not sure how to make that happen, though. All of these emails went through UEA’s servers, so they should all be there if they are, indeed, legit.

    The question is . . . how do we force that verification to happen (publicly)?

  16. #21, It makes me nervous in this climate– no pun. I’m hosting nothing so if there were copies everywhere it would be no problem. People were downloading this constantly when I was in the UP and when I removed the link people were still downloading from somewhere else.

    Ya just can’t shove the heat back in the engine – 2nd law.

  17. Ryan O:

    The question is . . . how do we force that verification to happen (publicly)?

    File an FOIA complaint against Phil Jones and cite the emails.

  18. The link to the zip file was posted to more blogs than just yours Jeff. It was on mine as well, but nobody reads mine so it wasn’t noticed. I thought it was spam at the time (the “limited time offer” gave me that impression) and I dumped it without pursuing the matter.

  19. Jeff,

    There are some verification techniques that can be applied here, but all the data needs to be catalogued first. It will be a multi-person job, most likely taking weeks. I haven’t looked at the data myself, as I have no time at the moment. But here is what I think needs to happen (and if this has already been suggested elsewhere, my apologies for duplicating!):
    1) The raw data needs to be broken up and catalogued according to two general categories: correspondence & data. (there may be other categories, as well; I’m not clear)
    2) Once that is done, some heavy cross-referencing needs to happen:
    a) All email addresses should be verified;
    b) also, IP addresses should be cross-referenced with these email addresses, in order to verify correspondence is going to/coming from the appropriate known IPs;
    c) dates should be cross-referenced with various things, like paper releases, blog entries, other email correspondence, etc. This is probably the most important and subtle piece to cross-reference. If the correspondence is being faked, this is the most likely area for slipping up. It would be almost impossible to keep all of this straight, even if multiple people were involved in any such conspiracy to fake.

    This will be an enormous task. Any media outlet worth its weight would be able to do it. This is what they live for. Given the current state of the MSM, it is most likely going to fall on an “army of davids” (to quote Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit) to do the heavy lifting.

    If you want any additional feedback from me, or just want to tell me to take a flying leap (!), drop me a line at gregory at hillhaven dot info. Like I said, I’m booked. I was just laid off last week, and am working madly to start my own business (and pull in some consulting work in the interim). So, I’m not available to coordinate, or even really contribute more than a meager amount of grunt work to, the process. But maybe I can throw some additional ideas into the mix that will inspire. Stranger things have happened!

    This is amazing stuff, if true. But a lot of work needs to be generated by a lot of people in order to verify. Once all the basic groundwork is done, very pointed and verifiable FOI requests should be issued forthwith. Either the lid is going to be blown off a vast conspiracy, or the skeptics camp will be wearing some tasty (and potentially fatal) egg on its face. Better to be pro-active about the verification/validation process than reactive. It will make us look good if we find the holes before they do.


  20. Nukemhill, from what I can tell the email headers are legitimate. The question is whether this paragraph is legitimate (email 1120593115.txt)

    Now to your email. I have seen the latest Mears and Wentz paper (to Science), but am not reviewing it, thank goodness. I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept to my usual standards.

    This smacks of editing to me.

  21. Carrick,

    What would the point of making the edit you flagged?

    Scepticism and due diligence is necessary but it is possible to be too paranoid.

    I would look at the list of emails mentioned in the original post. If any have been altered those would be the ones because those are the ones that the hacker pointed everyone at. The rest are likely to be unaltered ‘background noise’.

    At this point I suspect that the emails are true and unaltered because the person informed enough to put together such a relevant collection would also be smart enough to know that alterations would be discovered and any good he hoped to accomplish by releasing the emails would be negated.

  22. Tim, I think the crosspatch (Comment#23820) on Lucia’s thread about this has encouragement and good advice about making sure you get the actual file.

  23. Please keep this data safe, and redundantly so.
    I am convinced that it is real, and important.
    If in doubt, post it all in open form, unedited.
    To FOIA:
    Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
    God bless you.

  24. Another (excerpted) interesting note from the (alleged) e-mails….

    On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay wrote:

    The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

    And a later reply:

    D et al – Please write all emails as though they will be made public.

    And yes, it could be a plant, a fake, an edit, et cetera. There was a corrigendum issued on this, though. Very curious.

  25. Some of these emails are surprisingly recent. Check this one (1257546975.txt) out, which has a Eudora-specific tag “”:

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
    Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700

    We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
    1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might
    claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

    See attached note.



  26. The wordpress XHTML processor ate the x-flow tags that were in the message that I just posted. Whatever the case, this is a tag that is specific to Eudora.

  27. Man, these CRU/UCAR guys are really testy about Lindzen and Choi. Reference 1257532857.txt (near the end of the list).

    Something to do with GRL and “crap.”


  28. These guys also can’t stand it that McIntyre hasn’t or won’t publish a tree-ring study.

    I just don’t understand this. His criticisms are made in public on the Internet. Anyone can read them and respond to them at their leisure either at CA or on their own blog. So why don’t they respond?

  29. I am the Essex County Conservative Examiner. I ran with this story after examining the documents for myself.

    I see that the FTP server has deleted the file. No matter. I have it.

    I’ll take under advisement the suggestion for a coordinated verification project. Can’t promise anything, but I belong to a group that might wish to undertake that project. I can tell you this: Phil Jones’ e-mail is definitely correct; I verified that on the Hadley CRU site.

    So I was the first semi-pro journalist to break the news, eh? Well, I’ve already tried to reach Glenn Beck (by e-mail and Twitter) and Judge Andrew Napolitano (by Twitter alone). Let’s see which man responds. Happily, those two men are very good friends. I definitely would like to get “Judge Nap”‘s opinion on FOIA defiance, manipulation of data, etc.–not to mention President Obama’s attempt to negotiate a treaty while doing an end-run around the United States Senate.

  30. I was about to upload it myself to Wikileaks but I chickened out because I don’t trust the founders politics enough to protect me from blowback. Hopefully someone will be braver than me. This isn’t going to be pretty. I *did* download my own copy however. 😉

  31. I also reported the story to both Drudge and Breitbart, as they’re the most likely to actually report and/or investigate here in the USA.

  32. As far as I can tell the document has been removed from the ftp server. Probably due to overload.

    I’d like a copy but I guess I’ll have to wait for the news reports.

    Blogged it already based on A. Watts’ blog.

    And Jeff,

    Way to go!!!! Paying attention is a very good thing.

  33. Tried to upload to wikileaks but it keeps timing out. checking with them to see if someone else has already made it available.

  34. Megaupload link is clean. Good god there is a ton of content! From the likes of Yamal, IPCC, Michael Mann, Phil Jones’ take on everything including something from Gavin Schmidt, etc. I haven’t read them, but the titles of the reviews, papers, etc are all listed in full. Email correspondence is also filled to the brim of topics ranging to getting beer with coworkers, covering up lackluster proof of 20th century warming, etc.

    I’m suprised at the hack. Why now? And what is in store for the future? Shall the whole house of cards come falling down in addition? Heh.

  35. Nothing yet from Hadley, its racing across the blogosphere, nothing in the online press – the coming week should be interesting!

    Ive sent the story to our pollies in Aus – might make them a little nervous as they are starting to give up on AGW there are way too many holes appearing!

  36. @ Mike comment 54

    This is the md5 checksum for the original russian zip file that a few posters on WUWT (and I) have confirmed is correct:


  37. Whoever the hacker is, he or she has done a service of great good to mankind.

    Its strange, this story is nowhere to be seen on the the BBC, The Guardian and other warmist propaganda arms. I won’t hold my breath, I doubt Monbiot will be writing this up in his smblog. (Smblog is a mixture of smug and blog, its a new word I’ve invented just for Monbiot’s endless nonsense.)

    I wonder, how long before we hear the alarmists cry, “This was faked by big oil.”

  38. On behalf of this fat, dumb and happy westerner who has a scientific conscience, and the billions whose only hope for a better future depends on economic growth and fair prices for food and energy, I profoundly thank the person who sent you this information.

  39. Even the BBC is acknowledging that “Hackers target leading climate research unit”. The police are investigating. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm Nothing about the contents of the files, just that:

    ‘A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.

    An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.

    “We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites,” the spokesman stated.

    “Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.

    “This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.

    “We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry.” ‘

  40. I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

  41. #14 Jeff Id “Ya really have to wonder why they chose this blog.”

    My guess is that it wasn’t a hacker, but instead was an inside job.

    Maybe you have a secret admirer at the CRU.

    Maybe he/she was impressed by your Antarctic temp reconstructions, or maybe your posts in August with turnkey code for extracting any arbitrary desired hockey stick out of Mann’s original dataset.

  42. I’d like to congratulate Jeff ID, Ryan O, Anthony Watts, Stephen McIntyre, Lucia Liljegren and many, many others on having become the climate debate’s version of the KGB. Great stuff. Now you have an even greater responsibility, because if AGW turns out to be a problem after all…

    And let’s hope I never win the lottery, because I’d probably hire a bunch of private investigators to find about all sorts of details of your private life and private communication and then leave a few comments/pictures on a few blogs…

    No, tempting as it may be, I wouldn’t do that as I’d be disgusted with myself. Besides you might be right and AGW might be a huge scam to divert all our money going to resource wars and the fossil fuel oligarchy to green taxes and a totalitarian one world government. That would make this orgy slightly less despicable.

    Party on…

  43. @ Neven
    I really don’t see how any of the people you list can be justifiably accused of KGB like behaviour.

    However if you follow the links here:


    From an article called

    “Andrei Sakharov, the KGB, and the Legacy of Soviet Dissent.”

    You may read this about Sahharov’s and his dissident colleagues, which you may find most poignant I think:

    “They knew, for example, how the fields of biology and genetics had been devasted by ideological constrainsts; with Stalins’s support, the followers of Tromfim Lysenko, a charlatan biologist, had thoroughly stifled research into modern genetics and plant biology. Lysenko claimed that he could transform one species of plant into another– turn rye into wheat, say — by altering its environment. Perhaps the most notorious consequence of Lysenko’s influence was the arrest of one of the world’s leading plant geneticists, Nikolai Vavilov, in 1940 and his death in prison in 1943. After the war, Lysenko renewed his ideological offensive. By 1948 he was able to announce the support of the Central Committee for his assertions that genes did not exist, thereby preventing any Soviet scientific research based on modern day understanding of heredity”

    Since this this FOI2009 file is from Russia and has the status of samizdata, I think it ironic.

  44. It is proven that we are going in a gradual obscurisation of the sun since the 50’s. Approx 22% less sun energy enters our atmosphere for that period due to planes condensation trails, proven the day after 9-11 when all planes were grounded. It does counter balance the green house effect as less water evaporates. Look it up

  45. #87 can you be more specific. I’ve had several lawyers say I’m not doing anything wrong. At the blackboard (link on right) a lawyer cited precedent for that issue.

    There are several issues here. First, I deleted and did not host the original file absolutely immediately although I did put the link back up once it was dead. Second, last names are removed from comments. Third, I have no proof of the validity of these posts.

  46. Me,
    There is no evidence, other than the claims of Hadley, that there was a hacking or theft of anything.
    If an employee decided to dump the files for the world to see, picking them and reading them is no violation.
    If they were stolen, unless you are the theif, picking them up and reading them is no crime.
    Me, my bet is you are one of the condescending arrogant types quoted in the e-mails.
    I have a downloaded copy, and will ahve a ahrd copy really soon.
    come arrest me, Me.

  47. Mr Essex County:

    “I’ll take under advisement the suggestion for a coordinated verification project. Can’t promise anything, but I belong to a group that might wish to undertake that project. I can tell you this: Phil Jones’ e-mail is definitely correct; I verified that on the Hadley CRU site.

    So I was the first semi-pro journalist to break the news, eh? Well, I’ve already tried to reach Glenn Beck (by e-mail and Twitter) and Judge Andrew Napolitano (by Twitter alone). Let’s see which man responds. Happily, those two men are very good friends.”

    That’s nice. But before you give yourself an injury patting yourself on the back, could you correct your references to “Hadley CRU” eg “I checked on the Hadley CRU site”?

    Hadley and CRU are two different institutions, hundreds of miles apart. The hack was at CRU, not Hadley. It’s like a Brit saying they loved staying in “New York DC” or “San Angeles”.

    Get it right – you make us all look dumb.

  48. I wonder if Al Gore was awakened by his aides when the news got out that they were ‘ hacked ‘ !!!

    lol lol

  49. Jeff

    Hey a mention about you in the N Y Times. This must be your second biggst scoop ever (second to my articles of course!)

    You need to go hunting Bambi more often.

  50. NEWS FLASH…this just in…- University of East Anglia was going to blame the ice age on the dinosaurs, but then they realized that dinosaurs have no money…..

    Modeling is only as accurate as the data input, and the intuition of your algorithms. Let those guys write a math model that correctly picks the Triple Crown winners (hell, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd) for the next 10 years, and I might believe they can do the same for the weather.

    Take the $$$ out of the equation and these “chicken little” scientists will go find something else to study. Take the $$$ out of the equation and the politicians will find something else to tax.

  51. nothing in the stolen and published mail disproves anything – simply go to your own personal mails and compare your vocabulary and your turns of phrases – you’re simply hanging on to the flimsiest of straws to keep on pushing your agenda which is worthless – it’s warming, and it’s manmade, full stop.

  52. This (Leaked FOIA Files) was just headlines on Fox News…. Now, an hour later, there is no trace of this news on Fox or CNN. Maybe the files are being researched or given the once over…? Very strange. I thought this would be a dominating news item. Does anyone think it will be in a day or two?

  53. This does irreparable harm to the skeptics cause. In all the emails there may be one or two moderately controversial bits, but they will change nothing, but from now on you all will be known not only as crackpots but criminals.

  54. I would love to see how much activity there is right now amongst the Climaterati moving funds to safe havens. The Rev. Gore must be poopin his panties. In the end, this just confirms the corrupting influence of $$.

  55. I am particularly enjoying how the aGW true believers, instead of dealing with the facts of corruption in the process their leaders have championed, instead want to still blame skeptics for pointing out the problems.
    You wish it were so. Prepare for a big nightmare.
    Desperately, I will bet.
    And to all you true believers: There is nothing criminal about what any of us are doing when we are down loading or reading or discussing these letters and data.
    So save the ignorant sanctimony for someone who is as gullible as you are on climate.

  56. Whatever you guys are going to do and when , its up to you , of course , but just make sure you MAKE FEW COPIES of all of that info . Just in case ….
    Good luck with releasing it !!!

  57. # 101 This does irreparable harm to the skeptics cause. In all the emails there may be one or two moderately controversial bits, but they will change nothing, but from now on you all will be known not only as crackpots but criminals.

    Are “the skeptics” a category chosen for you at birth? …If you are not a skeptic, then you are a sheep. Who is your shepherd John S.? Al Gore?

    I think it was Depeche Mode that said: “People are people”. Criminals are everywhere. And crackpots don’t understand this.

  58. !!!!
    This was al gores 2 am telephone call. I bet this is a crisis they love crisis its a horrible thing to waste a crisis! It must be a evil right wing conspiracy

  59. How do we convince those that warming is fake when they use the argument that the earth’s glaciers are in retreat? I suggest we say we just haven’t had as heavy snows recently but they will come back. How can I convince my colleagues?

  60. #99, I’ll have a post which demonstrates the error in your thinking shortly.

    Really, Jeff? Are you going to release your personal messages to other skeptics for the world to see? Or shall I ask some friends of mine to hack a few servers?

  61. F…you, ya right wing crazies!

    Hope you like prison food!

    [Let’s keep the swearing down. Remember we don’t have any proof that global warming is wrong here, it’s only evidence of people working together to stack the cards. ]

  62. Folks like Neven are so completely brainwashed that you could show them video of Gore spanking a shaved monkey while giving a briefcase full of cash to these deviant scientist and he’d complain you didn’t give the specific specie of monkey. I’m amazed at the level of sheepdom in the US.


  63. #113 Tex,

    Nobody said the warming was fake. Almost all skeptics agree it has warmed the last 100 years or so and that the CO2 has increased. The argument is between human and natural variation. This requires knowing what happened in the more distant past. The level of temperature in the LIA and MWP and previous times indicate the present rise was not unusual, and the present leveling off and even predicted dropping over the near future lays AGW to rest as a cause. In fact, many glaciers are now growing, but if you pick just a few special cases, it appears otherwise.

  64. Are you people believing in Santa Claus as well? Have you learned NOTHING AT ALL over the past few years?
    I suppose you just cringe at the mere thought of having to give up any of your commodities for the sake of your grandkids’ having a future..
    How can someone be so selfish..!
    Your cause leaves me very SAD!

  65. I don’t think the emails are relevant as posted. Some of the emails are over thirteen years old. What data are they referring to? The cache is interesting in that shows some evidence of data manipulation between
    a very small number of scientists over a very small framework, but the implications are null and void if the actual data produced and verified by the IPCC and others is not refuted. The problem with demonstrating
    that climate change is not induced by human activity is as follows: there are very large bodies of evidence and data which support this paradigm. As my colleague argues, “you have a finite space(earth) with an infinitely
    expanding population and infinitely decreasing resources coupled with only 12.3 miles of atmosphere and x amount of heat inducing pollution. The question, therefore, is not whether human activity increases global
    temperature changes but whether the changes are statistically significant.” In other words, arguing against climate change is nonsense but arguing against statistical climate change over x amount of time is much more persuasive. As far as they emails are concerned, they will not affect the basic arguments.

  66. When the US is out of water and uninhabitable I truely hope my governement will erect a deadly wall to keep the Repugnican American Fascist handpuppets like you out. You will harvest your bounty of useless American money.

    Go straight to hell don’t pass go just collect your blood money.

  67. #129, I don’t see these emails as having any effect on global warming conclusions. The only points in them seems to be that most of the scientists try hard to be honest. Several of them though are so deeply bought into the AGW system that they will say or do anything to promote consensus. Since these are the people in charge of he Journals and IPCC we can see that we will always get the same results – extremist warming – where there is a strong case to be made for lower levels of warming. Perhaps even non-dangerous or undetectable levels.

    Guy’s like Sly are so convinced the world is going to drown yet there is no evidence to support this conclusion. But he’s really angry because in his way of thinking the consensus on this is real. Sly there is just another misinformed individual who feels passionately about his topic. Where is the water going Sly? Do you think there will be less or more water when the Earth floods to it’s doom? It’s funny really but people think they really understand things.

    I do feel better about most of the scientists than I did before the emails were released. There are a lot of good people in the field. They are still part of a system designed to reward people with a warmist view so if they are honest and hold that view, they still rise up the ranks.

    Others were caught looking for ways to insure the MWP is low enough and the LIA is of the pre-determined amplitude. These are esoteric technical points which are going to make blogging fun for a while. Ya don’t get to choose your conclusion before your study in most cases.

  68. Its amazing how utterly blind and stupid people can be. The IPCC has spent forty years studying the matter and most of the worlds leading experts on climate change agree with their conclusions. I suppose if you look
    hard enough you could also find people to argue about the relative merits or existence of gravity as well. A few emails from over zealous scientists do not contradict the massive volumes of evidence supporting human endeavors as significantly contributing to climate change. My wife is throwing a dinner party for 8 this evening. As much as I loath these sorts of events, I wonder what the temperature in the room would be if 20 extra friends showed up? Many of the counter conspiracy nut jobs on this site need to get a job and grow up.

  69. Don’t forget the data protection act folks. You can request emails that refer to you by name from CRU under English law and I believe they must provide them.

    This could be a fun game to play with a number of organisations based in the UK if you think your name has been used.

    @John – the point is everyone, including many scientists, doesn’t agree and the IPCC is very much a political organisation. Remember the hockey stick …..

  70. Dear Man in a Shed: Rubbish. The IPCC is political only in that they have watered down their findings for public consumption. Your argument that “many” scientists don’t agree is simply false. The vast majority of
    distinguished and reputable scientists the world over have a consensus of unified opinion that human endeavors contribute to global warming. Most corporations with any vested interests in how global warming effects their business models agree with the IPCC. These businesses would include: Exxon, Shell, Toyota, ADM and a slew of top level corporations that are concerned with weather. In addition, the Dept of Defense and every single spy agency in every country has global warming analysts working round the clock. A warming pattern in Nigeria that causes a drought affects political tensions with rice producers in Australia which affects US import policy, etc.

    If you want to argue the potential timeline of global warming impacts and the relative changes due to global warming, then this is a valid argument. To argue that human endeavors do not induce global temperature changes is akin to arguing that Newton was an idiot or that the earth is just six thousand years old. You can find proponents of both theories. I assume you are aware of the fact that even if fertility and population lines were immediately calculated to be negative or neutral that the inertia of current human expansion will take the world population to 11 billion in the next thirty years. Have you been to Beijing? Have you talked to Alaskan bush pilots about the melting of compression glaciers? I have done both. You won’t find a bush pilot in Alaska that does not believe in global warming. Their evidence is anecdotal, but they all understand
    the relationship between carbon, heat, humans and global warming.

    My advice: get off your ass and your pompous attitudes, join an expedition to extract carbon data from ice melts, visit Beijing and breath the air and leave your ignorance at home. You may actually learn something. Then again, most of the people with your mindset have never done anything more than try to extract data from the warmth of a computer screen. Anyone that puts any actual effort into exploring the issue would not make the asinine statement that humans do not contribute to global warming. What that might do to mankind is up for debate. The underlying data is irrefutable. Get a life.

  71. @John A yet it moves.

    Everyone doesn’t agree. Many scientists don’t agree – and some of those who contributed to earlier IPCC reports now disagree with the man made climate change hypothesis. The geological record doesn’t appear to agree with man made climate change either, but does support other forcing mechanisms. It just doesn’t get covered in the media much.

    You’ll find large corporations adjust to large global changes in the political landscape. 20 years ago one of Shell’s two main planning scenarios was “Sustainable World” where ecological issues come to the fore. They all play along with the current political mood because they have no business interest in moving against the crowd and their customers. It proves very little other than they want to stay in business.

    The science just isn’t fixed or agreed. However there is a campaigning strategy which tries to just ignore those who descent, and advises on the propaganda approach to be taken its worth a look, though the anti-scientific and anti-democratic debate approach might disturb when you see it laid out. Let me quote you from a UK/EU govt document that outlines this.

    “The Rules of the Game” as written in appendix C of the Climate Change Communication Strategy
    A West Sussex Case Study ( google will no doubt turn it up if you want to check )

    Principles of Climate Change Communication:

    Forget the climate change detractors.
    Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change.

    The arguments should be about the science – which means data and its interpretation, hypotheses and attempts to prove or disprove them with observations.

    This is very clearly not what is going on.

  72. Good Lord! Your assertions are rooted in pure politics. Your claim that “many” scientists don’t agree is more than vague, it is erroneous. Define “many”. Again, you have over 16,000 scientists from every corner of the globe in convergence of opinion, and not just within the IPCC. This is just one body of scientists. Your claim that corporations are playing to the political winds is really laughable. Exxon, for one, is deeply committed to lowering carbon emissions because petroleum production happens to be their core business model! It’s as if I am speaking with people who are actually functionally illiterate. Further, I noticed in your response that you did answer any of my core questions: have you ever actually discussed carbon core samples from fresh ice drills with an extraction team? Me thinks the answer is no. Really, I don’t want to make things personal, but it is so clear to me that you just don’t have any idea what you are talking about.

    As I have said before, the debate must be framed in terms of impact and timelines. It simply can’t be framed in terms of whether humans impact heat modalities in a finite space. This question has been answered long ago. A more appropriate question to ask would be, ” and therefore?” The therefore is highly debatable. Now I’m going to go have a very strong drink.

  73. John, you’re a moron. And, as is true with most morons, you try to hide the errors of your argument in accusations of others “ignorance”. There are huge numbers of scientists that vehemently disagree with the “consensus”. Take this for example:


    But, of course, you’ll have some lame brained excuse for why these “deniers” are not legitimate. You keep asking if other posters have taken ice core samples. Have you? No, I thought as much. You’re relegated to the crowd of completely irrelevant.


  74. Why are so many people emphasising a so called ‘consensus’ of scientists ? Consensus and science have little in common – science is about getting it right. Wegener in 1915 suggested the earths crust was composed of techtonic plates that moved in relation to each other. The ‘consensus’ scientific view of the day thought this was nonsense. It wasn’t accepted as correct until the 1950’s. If, now, you don’t believe that Wegener was right (but no part of any consensus)
    you’d be regarded as a ‘flat earther’ !! The leaked emails – which I’d love to see – appear to confirm that collusion in promoting the man made GW ideas is more real than the usual slur aimed at the skeptics – that they’re all involved in the oil/power industries !!

  75. The distance from the sun varies.
    The distance from the moon varies.
    The angle of orbital inclination varies.
    The output from volcanoes varies.
    The output from deep sea vents varies.

    NO NO NO…these don’t vary on their own…it’s because of man…there are man made reasons for these changes……
    Perhaps it’s because all the people gather to the coasts to enjoy the beach !!!!


  76. Jeff Id,

    Congrats on getting selected as the source of leak du jour. It speaks volumes for you. But to kind of repeat a posting at WUWT, let me put this out there.

    The data may have been hid on a server, but was not untouchable. Much of what we are talking about is non-encrypted e-mails that were sent internationally. One hundred percent, these e-mails were available to and “read”/scanned/indexed by just about every major intelligence agency you can name. US, British, Russian, Chinese, French. While they probably flew under the radar for general content (not related to known criminals, Islamists, whatever), you have to wonder at the interest levels of the Russians in particular.

    The poor Rooskies have all this natural gas that goes in a pipeline to Western Europe. Darn Western Europeans are discovering shale gas/shale oil, messing up the balance of trade. At what point do the Russians decide to undermine the whole Cap and Trade nonsense by dropping the price of natural gas/petroleum again by declaring Global Warming is “off”? If you shock petroleum/gas back to low levels, you could perhaps make shale resources unprofitable for at least a few more years. While this whole exercise seems like an inside job, it just may be a highly professional OUTSIDE job. Note that the server for distribution of the material was in Russia–sometimes the Russians like to flaunt their work a bit as a warning to others (note Victor Yushchenko and his little problems with dioxin, or perhaps more compellingly, Alexander Litvinenko and his murder by Polonium-210….not something found at your average WalMart).

    Regardless, it’s just something to think about. We are reading this for the first time, but there should have been highly educated doctorates in various fields reading these same e-mails years and years ago.

    Along those lines, I am really annoyed with the Pentagon and CIA. Back in 2004, the Pentagon was waxing poetic about riots and being destroyed by global warming (see first link, in 2004). What in the world does the Dept of Defense have the Defense Intelligence Agency for if they aren’t going to bother to read the PERFECTLY LEGAL TO READ unencrypted e-mails sent internationally?!?!?!?!?

    And the CIA just set up a Climate Change office (second link). I mean, WUWT? Or more like, WTF?!?!?! I thought NSA had these big sniffer programs to evaluate all e-mails, cell phone calls, pager signals, etc (“Carnivore”). While they were at it, they didn’t think to check on the biggest of the big boys of AGW before opening up a special office on climate change? But then, maybe the whole Fort Hood incident shows that there are weird “off limits” areas our intelligence sources can’t check out.

    Short story, for those who think there has been some kind of major improvement in our intelligence programs and therefore our safety since Sept 11, 2001; the writing is on the wall. The same clowns are still running the same clownish games.



    Tuo Amico,

  77. As much as RealClimate.org pontificates, they are complete hypocrites. Here’s how:

    Yesterday, I attempted to post links to the original files on their site, but since posting there is moderated, I knew there was VERY little hope of my post making it through. I was correct. My post of the link to the original email files was never posted on RealClimate.org. The ONLY people privy to the link I wanted to post WERE THE MODERATORS.

    HOWEVER, what they didn’t know is, the link I supplied them was completely unique ONLY to them – NO ONE else knows the link other than them and me.

    It has sine been downloaded and spread around by them and/or their own moderators, and downloaded many times! Boneheads!

    So just for fun and posterity’s sake, my original post from yesterday posted here:

    Download and read for yourself!

    Original ZIP version HERE (~62MB)

    Original files using RAR (higher compression, ~50MB)

    The Distributor

  78. Which angle will MSM choose?

    (1) Deleted data & FOIA requests. CRU made headlines earlier in the year with a bizarre and troubling snub to Freedom of Information requests

    The world’s source for global temperature record admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.

    According to Climate Audit blog, CRU undertook an “unprecedented” public data purge in July.

    (2) Damning quotes from elite climate eggheads casting doubt on the entire climate modeling project… Kevin Trenberth, head of Climate Analysis at NCAR in Colorado — and a central author of the UN’s IPCC Fourth Assessment (AR4) — is quoted in a late-’09 email [1255553034.txt]:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

    (3) CRU: Evidence of anti-scientific deception, suppression of evidence, skewing of data and playing media games…

    — too many quotes to paste! Use link below…

    (4) “Selling” the Climate Change / Climate Debate / Climate Response message — PR Firms, etc…

    ZIP file contains a 2005 Climate Communications document by UK PR-firm Futerra Sustainability Communications, “The Rules of the Game” — now updated as “New Rules: New Game” (pdf) at Futerra’s site. Also check out their “Greenwash Guide” (pdf).

    For quotes, Futerra video, more links, (etc) go here

  79. John writes: “Its amazing how utterly blind and stupid people can be. The IPCC has spent forty years studying the matter and most of the worlds leading experts on climate change agree with their conclusions.”

    According to the IPCC, the IPCC was established in 1988 and issued its first report in 1990. That makes the IPCC about 21 years old, not 40.

    I’m not wading in to a pro- or con- AGW debate as I have demands on my time. Have a nice day.

  80. jeff id: monolithic props unto thyself! the comment above about schadenfreude kind of nailed the immense satisfaction i am currently feeling. this cannot be permited to pass. everyone needs to email ofcom about the bbc’s lame (and immensely biased) coverage featuring the bull skull picked clean of flesh in the desert (they changed that when they realised everyone had now read new rules new game i think also their banning of comments on the earthwatch blog smells like censorship to me). write to your mp/senator or whomever. file foi requests until they hate the sight of your name! if its publicly funded you can at least ask for information.

    as you may notice from the ‘crazy believers’ (rule 22 label people) they are now using outdated techniques! this rocks so much! rule 8: strike a careful balance in your language. however we should pity them as they are in fact under the influence of insidious techniques of psychological manipulation.

    to the person who aquired this info: many, many thanks you goddamn righteous sonofabitch! and to yourself jeff for noticing its significance.

  81. The IPCC is 21 years old. Climate change data has been scientifically recorded with any merit from the early 1960’s, and this data extract is used in initial IPCC reports which makes IPCC data about 40 or 50 years old depending on which report you read. By the way, anyone that doubts the impact of human endeavors on various heat modalities, as related to climate change, is encouraged to present their findings to the IPCC or WMO for peer review. If your findings are empirical and not political you may be surprised at the respect and appreciation you receive. On a personal note, an early query asked whether I had ever been involved in carbon measuring and dating of ice drillings. The answer is yes. On three separate occasions I was asked to verify both carbon and radiation/kvp/mas data from ice streams and ice drills. My work has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. FYI.

  82. Awesome work. I’ve been delving thru the email. The tidbits are being picked out, but boy are these guys paranoid. So much for open peer review. They even have the capability to screen postings on published article feedback. Check out file 1139521913.txt.

    “On the other hand, you
    might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
    comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
    they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d
    like us to include.

    You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
    resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
    forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our
    best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
    comments as a megaphone…”

    WOW… control the content AND the response…

  83. #137: Well I went to Beijing and sure, it’s polluted. And this is a climate problem? It is a local pollution problem and the pollutants in question are not CO2 (a naturally ocurring trace gas in our atmosphere).

    Your argument is basically that humans generate 60W/Hr of heat and do all sorts of other stuff so we must be the cause of climate change.

    This argument is logically flawed, but that is a characteristic of the warming alarmists’ position.

    Personally I think its a Jedeo-Christian “guilt” thing for your position and the sun for climate, but hey, that’s just opinion

  84. #165. My argument is about radiation and heat modalities, but I will address your thoughts as you seem to be educated about the subject matter. Of course CO2 is trace. But pre industrial CO2 levels were about 280ppm or thereabouts. Those levels are now at about 385ppm and rapidly climbing. But this is just a portion of the problem. CH4 levels are now at about 186% of pre industrial levels and N20 levels are rising at about 7% per year. There are about 70 other gases we could discuss which have levels higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. The cumulative effect is potentially catastrophic. Note the word potentially. Your comment that pollution in Beijing is confined locally is patently inaccurate. Particulate matter and gases have about a 45day circumnavigation cycle for most matter.

    My my argument is two pronged. To those who contend that global warming will cause the imminent demise of mankind I am in disagreement with such conclusions. There are other mitigating factors which I won’t discuss here. To those that contend that human endeavors don’t contribute to, or in some cases cause, global warming I must say that your conclusions are simply, patently and demonstrably false. These positions are borne from scientific ignorance.

    It would be much more productive to work on problem solving that is rational and related to the actual long term effects of global warming. The capital markets are a bit ahead of the general scientific world in this regard. To continue to deny the human factor in global warming is akin to those that deny evolution or gravity. We must focus on how mankind will cope over the next 250 years.

  85. John,

    I would like to commend you on being what seems to be a shining example of a good human, visa vi a great American. Logical, patient, and knowledgeable.

    I am sure this cache of 13 years worth of emails, has loads of “juicy tid-bits”.
    I would be much more interested in the past 13 years worth of email from the more “corporate” side of this debate. I don’t think “tid-bits” would work to describe what we would find! 🙂

    The basic question of:
    Can we exist in a more efficient/clean manor – is really a no brain’r.

    How we get there? Is the root of this whole debate…
    Side A) The current “corporations” who control the mechanisms to bring us our way of life. Hey BTW, way to go on that – it’s pretty rad!
    – They REALLY want to keep things going as they are, or if there is going to be change they want to manage that.

    Side B*) Anything else.
    * Side note to the “B” scenario: The folks who are behind side “A” would more than likely still exist. However they would be forced to change, so they might be a bit pissy.

    Saying that “We have no impact on anything.” is just stupid.
    Even if some how was the case… Saying, we shouldn’t strive to make/do things in the most clean/efficient manor. — Would be even stoopider.

    So it comes down to do you support A or B.


  86. Something that strikes as very odd about the archive is that it is almost surgically clean. It seems to be the working results of an attempt to satisfy several well-known FOIA requests file with CRU.

    There’s no way some Russian kiddy-hacker could so cleanly and efficiently separate these few hundred email messages from the many thousands of emails that clutter an ordinary email in-box. There’s no social announcments, no birthday greetings, no love letters, no spam. Just mail to and from members of the UAE (Briffa and Jones, particularly), between a select group of people who I beleive were specifically covered in one of the FOIA requests. All the tree ring data (MacIntyre); all the CRU code.

    Most telling: none of the emails have routing headers. There’s no reason for a kiddy hacker to remove the routing headers; but every reason for an FOIA officer to do so.

    Somebody has put an extraordinary amount of effort into filtering this archive to a very specific set of requirements.

    One can’t help wondering whether we would have seen all of this a week or two from now through legitmate channels. And one can’t help wondering whether it wouldn’t have been far more damaging to those involved if it had been released through an FOIA request rather than through a “hack”.


  87. #171

    Kirby – the problem with your argument is that the majority of Americans are perfectly happy with “A”. I realize many others aren’t, but it is up to them to persuade the rest of us why we need to change our ways. If you attempt to do that through corrupt science, don’t be surprised when those of us who like the standard of living “A” has provided us fight back. If you attempt to force it on us with imperious government regulations that limit our freedom, we vote for the other guy. It’s pretty simple.

    No one is saying we “have no impact on anything”, of course we do. However, the sustainability argument has been wrong since the days of Malthus and it gives no indication of being any truer today. If you think that is wrong, then prove it without cooking the books. Unfortunately, those in your camp have instead resorted to ridiculous alarmist scenarios and collusion. The ensuing loss of credibility was utterly predictable.

  88. i contacted my congresman and i also contacted the department of energy,they have a space to file a complaint for fraud and abuse. Also im going to contact the fbi.

  89. Does anyone know of a clean site to download these files today (11/23/09). I’ve now tried the pirate and mega download sites and they both have spammed me with massive pop-up windows. I’ve had to shut down my computer and take out the battery to get back online. I have been studying false governmental issues for quite some time now, and would really like to read these emails for myself. Thank you for any help you can give.

  90. What is the official time-frame on these emails though?
    If these were dug up from the 60-70’s so what? Clearly the impact humans have had on the planet is more evident now? Where is the data and emails from 2000 on?

  91. Does someone have an idea about who “the mad Finn” refers to(clipped fromf the start of this post):

    “The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it.”

  92. “Does someone have an idea about who ‘the mad Finn’ refers to”

    My guess would be Lindzen which is Swedish but there are a lot of Swedish names in Finland though he was born in the US, I don’t know his family heritage. Just a guess.

  93. I was curious what this was all about, search and found the file on a Torrent network. I scanned all files for mail addresses and extracted about 2800+ unique mail addresses of scientists around the world.

    I wonder if it would makes sense to let them know their data might be in the open?


  94. Gwilly, perhaps that’s what it would take to blow the lid on this sordid affair, at the very least, some of these scientists might be willing to verify that the information is valid.


  95. “What is the official time-frame on these emails though?
    If these were dug up from the 60-70’s so what?”

    The emails clearly refer to much more recent events (the 4th IPCC report, for example), and in any case, email in its current form wasn’t commonly used by more than a handful of computer enthusiasts around the world up until 15 years ago.

  96. The vast amounts of information and scientific calculations that confirm that human endeavors contribute to global warming is really not an intelligently debatable subject. There are 6.5 billion humans consuming and using energy in ways that did not even exist a few years ago. The average American contributes more CO2, CH4,et al., in a single day than the average human being born in 1750 contributed in his lifetime. Any poor soul with a mere minimum of deductive logic can conclude from a few basic facts that global warming is caused, in part, by human beings.

    The planet is finite. The workable atmosphere is 12 miles high. The amount of energy and heat human beings can create is infinite. Human beings are multiplying at an exponential rate. Human beings are consuming raw energy faster than at any other time in history. Consumption produces various heat modalities, notably CO2. This is not a complex concept.

    The real debate should be about the implications of global warming. As I have said before, the conclusion that human beings are contributing to global warming does to necessarily require one to have an alarmist position on the matter. There is much to debate about the implications of this knowledge. On the other hand, it is a condition which obviously can’t be ignored over a long period of time.

    Having said this, I find the emails irrelevant in that I do not know the context, veracity or time frame of the emails. It is really a small sub issue to the greater problem of addressing global warming concerns in a
    rational manner.

  97. For me there is a very obvious reason for the promotion by any means of the human caused global warming.
    As carbon based energy supplies are dwindling and the planetary powers are unable, to announce this and its consequences (it would lead to complete financial meltdown), the promotion of carbon emissions reduction seems to be the only indirect alternative for reducing consumption, and lets not forget the wealth that will be acquired during the transition process to a “greener” technology.

  98. Being a converted believer I am grateful to the leaker and other skeptics for lending a balance to the climate debate. As an engineer I became suspicious some time back at the whitewash of “facts” and the sweeping under the carpet of other undesirable facts or opinions. The fact that the leaked emails gives credence to this opinion bolsters my belief in the basic teaching of questioning all data to ensure it stands on its own. The climate debate is in great need of this exposure.

  99. 200, That sounds like a good theory,
    But the way cap n’ trade is setup, two things are obvious to me about this bill- 1)encourages more polution as more wallstreet hack money can be made off of trading the carbon credits, and 2) wreck domestic energy development and independence of any kind including promising “green tech”(yet allowing solar and wind to survive because it won’t work anyhow), that way there is total American dependence on foreign energy and later also food. It is about making nations dependent on a global system thereby relenquishing individual sovereignty and freedoms!
    “Hopenhagen” is about speeding up the process of the destruction of the middleclass by making Americans pay a huge debt to other nations for our decades of pollution! Oh and subverting our constitution to the UN if the treaty is ratified by US congress, which it most likely will!

  100. I’ve been out of the loop in recent weeks, ever since msnbc decided to shut down their climate change and environmental forums. (Does anyone know why they did that?)

    It sure appears that the AGW fanatics are going to have to do a “lotta splaining,” as Desi Ricardo used to say to Lucy. I’m glad that the full story hasn’t burst upon the scene just yet. There is an awful lot of research to be done on this material before anyone will be able to assess its meaning and impact and then convey its “message” to the public in measured terms and tones.

    I suspect that the end result will be a discrediting of the hysterical AGW campaign in general, and, in particular, a decision by President Obama to back off his support of the cap-and-trade bill in favor of having the EPA handle CO2 as a candidate for inclusion in the list of “criteria pollutants” under the Clean Air Act.

  101. Does anyone else find it ironic, that perhaps one ficticious Al Gore invention (The Internet) might some day take down another ficticious Al Gore invention (Global Warming/Climate Change)? 🙂

    Nice job on this tech Blog Jeff. I only found it because of the leaked emails but I’d been looking for a blog such as yours that takes on the Chicken Littles of Global Warming. 😉

  102. At this link: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ed-begley-and-stuart-varney-argue-climategate-on-fox-news/
    author Steve Krakauer, gives “The New York Times” credit for breaking the story. Apparently they ‘broke the story’ yesterday, 11-24-2009. Even though you (Jeff Id), didn’t break the story. Even though you posted this story 4 days before the “The New York Times” on 11-20-2009. Time, must be like ‘global warming’, only scientists can understand it. Normal people are incapable of understanding what ‘a four day difference’ is!

  103. If the full set of these emails needs a parking site, the one above may do.

    It is curious. No one reads it. But it is on Australia’s public broadcaster’s open public website. I run that particular group, and they can all go there, and welcome, but in three clicks, you can start your own group, if you prefer.

    This is a very radical experiment, run by good folk. I drivel about whatever suits me, have never pulled a punch on anything, and so far, have never been censored on anything either, by the managers or the site owners, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And, Google for some reason just loves it.

    You may publish my email. It is p.s.avenscrf@gmail.com

    Peter Ravenscroft

    Geologist, Closeburn, Queensland, Australia.

  104. I find it extremely disgusting to publish personal correspondence of scientists. In the end, there are ways to publish your research out the reach of the peer-review mafia and after you have won the approval of other scientists to get back on the mob. But it’s horrible to reveal something so personal.

    Scientists are no saints, they also have their feelings, feelings that sometimes stand of the way of reason. Do you think that this kind of emails happen only on climate? They happen in every field of science, they are part of the game, but in the end, truth wins one way or another. That’s the beauty of science.

    And the right direction of public anger shouldn’t be against climate scientists, but against peer-reviewing as it is. But that wouldn’t be so popular, right?

  105. Deni, I find it disgusting that the privacy of the conspirators/collusionists is what concerns you most about Climategate. Legislation, both globaly and domestically is being pushed based on the fake science these crooked people were making up! Legislation that would steal wealth and enslave billions of people around the world on data that was made up! If an old person were being robbed across the street from me and I had to ‘jay-walk'(which is against the law) to assist in the shortest amount of time, no one would with an honest, sincere heart would consider my ‘jay-walking’ to be the most important factor in that scenario. Well, maybe you would find it more disgusting that I ‘jay-walked’ to stop a robber from robbing an old person. Just in case you didn’t read some of the more popular emails, the fake scientists at CRU and their crooked conspirators did everything they could to hide information, even from “Freedom of Information” requests. They told each other to delete emails (which is against the law, a crime). So, you can feel sorry for them all you want, just don’t expect anyone/everyone to feel sorry for these criminal warm-mongers.

  106. “steal wealth and enslave billions of people around the world”
    How exactly? So far all the measures I see connected with climate change are making sense even without any climate change. You cannot continue to make business like 20 years ago, the world is different today. Climate change is just a good incentive to start the change. I don’t see anything bad in limiting CO2 emissions (and hopefully other greenhouse gases) in the whole world. Or in producing your own electricity. Or in having more energy efficient appliances – after all, it’s me who pays the electricity they consume, I want them efficient.

    And even if today the climate changes we see has nothing to do with humans actions (which I personally find implausible), eventually we’ll face this problems, because the Earth is finite space, you cannot endlessly use and abuse. Sooner or later, we’ll have to deal with the consequences form our actions, why not start today? Not to mention that currently, most big productions are in Asia, so it’s kind of very easy for people from the West to claim they’re not polluting and everything is fine.

    Anyway, back on the subject. Yes, it is disgusting to hide data or to stop articles being published for other reason than science. However this is fact in the whole science. Not just in this specific case. There is a way around a scientific mafia, but it’s annoying and time and energy consuming. Why nobody cares about this problem. Why nobody cares that the beloved science-industry link is making science dependent from industry and hardly serving public good. It’s very easy to yell against the nasty, leftist servants of ecologist, but obviously nobody cares about the real problem in science, whose consequence are those emails. Without saving the root problem, science will continue to serve whoever pays the most.

    And anyway, back on my claim – yes, I find it disgusting to “hack” emails. What if somebody hack your email and publish EVERYTHING. Is it nice? How would you feel. This is personal correspondence, its secret can be broken only after a court order. It is illegal and it’s disgusting. If I cannot count on the university servers to communicate freely with my colleagues, how would I be able to work with them? What you write in an article is perfected and glossed form of your thoughts. But until you reach that level, you have to be able to be stupid, angry, sad, miserable or arrogant in your private conversation, I don’t see how you can work if you’re always threatened that somebody can publish your emails. Damn, it’s horrible!

    Don’t get me wrong, I don’t try to excuse those scientist – I couldn’t download the files to read them and make sure for myself what happened, so I won’t mess into this. For me, it’s disgusting how the privacy of those people is broken conveniently before the meeting in Copenhagen. It’s disgusting how everyone abuse the situation and their personal thought are published. Even if they are monsters, it’s still disgusting. And in the end, if they stopped articles from being published in peer-reviewed journals, independent scientists could always use free server, publish into not so popular journals, gather evidences and try to fight this guys with scientific methods. Hacking emails is disgraceful!

  107. You’re repeating what I said about you as if it’s different from what I said. You’re disgusted at the ‘hacker/whistleblower’ and not the criminals that obstructed law by doing everything they could to delete emails, ignore Freedom of Information Requests, that one is a big crime, destruction of information/evidence, and bullying and intimidating anyone who dared ask any questions they didn’t like. Climategate exposes the fraud conducted by those fakes at CRU, “the leading global warming researchers”, whose ‘research’ is used to push legislation in the UN that will affect every country on earth, including the poor undeveloped countries, and it’s all based on fabricated data! And your concern is, as your last sentence in that last post shows, “Hacking emails is disgraceful!”. Think about it for at least 8 seconds Deni. We’re not arguing. We are in agreement of my description of you.

  108. Yes, Wutt, committing a crime to prevent or expose another crime is disgraceful. And illegal.

    Privacy is something I’m not willing to sacrifice for a process who has very distant connection with real science from the beginning. Science is about gathering data, interpreting the data, making a theory and then confirming it. The hysteria pro/against climate change isn’t scientific, the actions of political super-powers aren’t based on science. Scientists are just a part of the whole picture, not the organizers.

    And finally – if you don’t have a problem with scientists being dependent and the system being corrupted, then I don’t see why you have a problem with their attitude in the current case. Causality.

  109. You’re right! We agree again! 🙂 Science is about “gathering data, interpreting the data, making a theory”, but, you’re wrong about the last step. It’s not “confirming it” as you wrote, it’s about testing the theory. But, you are right though, CRU and all the other entities associated with ‘global warming’ fabricated data in order to confirm, not to test. Then, they intimidated anyone who pointed this out, the destroyed evidence (see here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece).
    You know maybe if we take into account that during the 70’s the left-wing extremists/democrats/socialists/environmentalists were predicting an “Ice Age” just around the corner, maybe if the “Ice Age” and “global warming” would bump into one another, they should cancel each other out! I mean, scientifically speaking, of course. And just a wierd coincidence here, but, Obama appointed Science Czar John Holdren was part of the “Ice Age” scare mongering in the 70’s and here we are today, discovering that he’s also part of the ‘global warming’ scare mongering! Isn’t that something! A man who stands on both sides of the climate fraud! Thanks Deni.

  110. Pingback: How Climategate Works – The Blogs at HowStuffWorks
  111. The controversy over one set of emails, which range over a thirteen year period, is quite amusing. As one who has been intimately involved in studying climate change over the past 25 years, the colloquial nature of the emails has been taken out of context. The emails do nothing to change the peer reviewed data from thousands of scientists, the emails merely demonstrate that at one institution, over a defined period of time, some of the exchanges, between a very limited number of people, appear to insinuate a lack of integrity. To therefore draw the conclusion that global warming does not exist, because of these emails, sheds more light on the lack of deductive reasoning skills of global warming skeptics than anything else.

    I would be willing to wager that most global warming skeptics have not read reports one through four from the IPCC, or the input data from NASA and the sixteen other major atmospheric agencies. I would also be willing to wager that most, if not all skeptics (particularly pundits and politicians) have never visited the arctic and discussed the carbon data results from the actual scientists on the ground. Most skeptics have either a political or religious basis which form the premise of their denials.

    As I have said before on the blog, all the denials in the world will not change the data from literally thousands of heat modalities which have been collected from thousands of different scientists from hundreds of
    respected institutions around the world. The issue is not whether human endeavors contribute to climate change; the evidence to anyone with a modicum of education is absolutely clear: humans contribute to climate change. The real issue is to what extent do humans contribute to climate change and what is implication of that contribution. It is not necessary to adhere to a doomsday scenario if one understands climate change.

    What is absolutely critical is to move away from a discussion of CO2 as the stand alone byproduct of all human activity. While CO2 remains a significant problem, there are many, many other gases which are being emitted which have the potential to do far more damage. Some of those gases become toxic in combination with other atmospheric elements, and these are the sorts of problems which must be addressed.

  112. –I would be willing to wager that most global warming skeptics have not read reports one through four from the IPCC, or the input data from NASA and the sixteen other major atmospheric agencies. I would also be willing to wager that most, if not all skeptics (particularly pundits and politicians) have never visited the arctic and discussed the carbon data results from the actual scientists on the ground.–

    I would be willing to wager most AGW alarmists have not read reports one through four from the IPCC, visited the arctic, etc. So what?
    To pretend as though the IPCC and NASA are not heavily involved in this mess, including the emails and the data that was released, is quite frankly bizarre. Messrs Jones, Schmidt, Briffa, Mann etal were the dominant voices over a good portion of the IPCC reports and have now been revealed to have tainted the peer reviewed literature itself. The 40 or 50 people that the Wegman report pointed out were involved in this social network of confirmation bias are precisely the people with the most influence on the IPCC, GISS, CRU and so on.
    Very few sceptics deny the obvious physics or that there is some amount of human influence on climate. What is questioned is the abysmal quality of much of the science being produced and the unjustified alarmist conclusions being drawn from what little we do know.
    When alarmists dodge the questions they’re usually demonstrating that they are projecting when they accuse others of having a political or religious basis for their beliefs.

  113. “Very few sceptics deny the obvious physics or that there is some amount of human influence on climate.”

    I am glad you agree. And I have read reports one through four. I have no idea why you think IPCC was involved in the private email exchanges between a very limited number of scientists. Could you elaborate? NASA? I think they are quite busy with other matters. These are the kind of statements that are not productive.

    As to your first assertion, to what degree do you think human endeavors contribute to climate change? This is the point of real discussion, as is your statement that we need not be alarmist about all the data. On this point, I agree with you.

    I can also assure you that the data is very alarming if you look the data over a 250 year projection. What you and I don’t know is what x factors might mitigate or propel the data in a different direction. These are real issues. Emails between scientists that stretch back thirteen years is of little consequence other than to provide gossip and fodder for those with hidden agendas.

  114. I can also assure you that the data is very alarming if you look the data over a 250 year projection.

    I can assure you that tAV does not deny climate change, however models are not data which can be relied on as these emails clearly point out. The real answer to the question we all want to know on how much warming will there be and what effect will it have is – I don’t know and nobody else does either.

    It’s the ones who say they do know we have to watch.

  115. #221 Dr. Baptiste

    There has been some discussion on this blog about the level of certainty which GCM’s have wrt climate sensitivity. My understanding (per AR4) is that models cannot constrain estimates of climate sensitivity to GHG forcing without making parameter assumptions based on confidence placed in paleo reconstructions. Many of the thousands of peer reviewed works which you speak of base conclusions of climate sensitivity on these same models – which is circular. Are you aware of foundation science which conclusively demonstrates climate sensitivity to GHG’s based on the insturmental record (ie: independant of GCM’s)?

  116. To Dr. Thierry Baptiste:
    You call yourself a doctor and you can’t see the obvious implications of the emails/documents/’source codes’? Some doctor you are! And in the field of ‘climate change’? In the 1970’s it was and “Ice Age” that loomed over the planet. When that didn’t happen somewhere in the late 1980’s some genius decided that “global warming” was scarier. Now that temperatures are actually cooling the whole lot of “global warming” hysterics decided they could save the movement by calling it “climate change”.
    OK, Doctor, since the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change exists only because of the fabrications that came out of CRU, that means that any policy, legislation or recommendations coming out of the UN/IPCC are trash. I don’t think anyone, even more so for “Doctor” such as yourself, has understanding that you don’t create policy/legislation affecting all the people of the world on fabricated data.
    Now, you argue that it was only a few ‘scientist’ exchanging ‘one’ set of emails. It isn’t ‘one set of emails’. It’s actually a shitload of emails AND source code that shows the programs that churn out all the data global-warming-hysterics use to be us skeptics over the with, were designed to show “global warming” despite temperatures cooling globaly. Now, I’m not as elite as a Doctor like you but, that’s what I would call FRAUD.
    You also said “emails do nothing to change the peer reviewed data from thousands of scientists”. Are you kidding! Some of the emails prove that the “peer review” process was rigged. Those AGW-hysterics would review each others work and intimidate/sabotage anyone who disagreed with them. Did you even read through the emails Doctor?
    You also want us to believe that the emails where written by “a very limited number of people”. So, according to you, it was just a few garden variety ‘scientists’. You must think all the rest of us are so stupid. That small group of people included (but, not limited to) the leaders of the AGW-hysterics Phil Jones, Michael Mann, various heavy-weights at NASA and NOAA, Obama appointed “Science Czar” John Holdren, who by the way was involved in the 1970’s Ice-Age-hysterics that was going to doom that planet as well.
    You say that “thousands of heat modalities which have been collected from thousands” can’t be ignored as some sort of proof that the global-warming-hysterics are right.
    Good. That’s not what is being argued. The crime here is that the CRU took those temp-sets and fabricated even more data, which is the basis of the whole global-warming-hysterics, and laws affecting all the people of the planet are going to pass base on the false-data. Also, all the other scientists and entities ‘researching’ on the matter used CRU’s fabricated data.
    Last, the emails show that the leaders of the global-warming-hysterics, the leaders at CRU destroyed evidence in the face of FOIA requests (illegal). Destruction of evidence is not a trivial thing, like you want everyone to believe.

  117. Thoughts on whether this is a hacker or a whistleblower.
    In the original posting on the Air Vent subject, Open Letter On Climate Legislation « the Air Vent

    19.FOIA data mirror said
    November 20, 2009 at 12:59 am

    Then when we go to the Megaupload site, the description given of the data contained in FOIA2009.zip is

    climate audit whistleblower FOIA wuwt FOI2009.zip

    It seems to me that right from the start, (if FOIA Data mirror is the person releasing it) identifies himself as a whistleblower, not a hacker. Also another point, is the “FOIA wuwt” a place in CRU system, or East Anglia system, where that zip file was stored with the name referring wuwt McIntyre request?
    Also why the reference to climate audit?
    Another clue might be in his pseudonym FOIA data mirror. This has to have some cryptic meaning (to him/her).

    Could it be that in looking for clues most people here, because of their interest in mathematics and data, have overlooked the clues of the wording of the posting?

  118. xyzlatin: Certainly seems like the actions of Whistleblower! However we do not want to see this person suffer the devastating effects that Whistleblowers inevitably face. More specifically in this case: they would be subjected to legal prosecution.

  119. I certainly agree that this person should not suffer but should receive the highest accolades. I think the UK has laws that protect whistleblowers. Actually, if the tide swings against AGW (which won’t in my opinion happen soon), that person will be able to be rewarded publicly.

    I happen to think this person is a very smart person who has covered his tracks, but has a
    sense of humour and has left a few clues to tease us with. In fact, his/her first message was a bit of a teaser, hinting that this is only a selection and therefore one assumes there may be more. A wonderful way to twist the knife into Phil Jones and the Hockey Team as they wonder what else is to be revealed. I am happy to play the game (if there is one) to discover the clues, because I think he/she has covered his/her tracks.

  120. sorry, hit the wrong button. To finish the previous post, I think he/she has convered his/her tracks too well to ever be found.

  121. It seems rational discourse is not to be had on this particular site. I understand. Those with a particular viewpoint have responded to my earlier postings with nonsensical and irrational thoughts. Nevertheless, I will answer their questions in the next few days if I can decipher the actual questions.

    Bear in mind that the emails in question have not been examined in context or for veracity. It is as likely that they are mendacious as they are credible. That being said, the content of the emails reflects upon the authors and not on the general problem of climate change. One bad apple……

    Once again, I will assert that you one would be hard pressed to find any credible scientist who has actually read, and understood, the IPCC data, along with the plethora of collaborative and corresponding data from multiple sources, who would conclude anything other than the veracity of global climate change due, in part, to human activity.

    It is my fervent wish that those that are skeptical of the IPCC reports actually read the reports and study the underlying data. Some of the chemical analysis is quite complex, and much of the mathematical models are
    also somewhat complicated. I believe this fuels the debate because the information is very hard to disburse in popular form. Having said this, there is an abundance of raw data, particularly related to gases, that is
    is really not subject to interpretation. I will address this issue further in the coming days.

    In the meantime, please take the time to study the data which you so roundly disregard. It is quite compelling and worthy of discussion. And as for the emails, I personally find them irrelevant to the raw data.

    A Bientot,


  122. Doc, the site is unmoderated. If there is an offensive comment I’ll consider removing it. I have read plenty of the literature of which you discuss and my conclusion is — nobody knows. The primary uncertainties in models are the key to the result. The corrections in the temperature records are the signal. The palo data by Mann (and others)was selected through correlation or multivariate regression to choose the best upslopes.

    [self snip venting]

  123. Also, doctor. If you wish, the regulars here would be very happy to read your thoughts on AGW. If you do a well written post, I’ll make it a headpost here and people will discuss. To make sure it’s fair to you, I will moderate that post harshly for off topic and personal attacks so you won’t need to deal with unreasonable garbage.

    My email is on the right if you wish to take a shot at it.

  124. Jeff,

    Thank you for the opportunity to expand on some of the comments I have previously posted. I will consolidate my thoughts and post a more specific writing as soon as time permits. Hopefully, I will be able
    to do this in the next several days. As for your comments regarding my academic qualifications, you are definitely correct. I have certainly been wrong many more times than I have been correct. I welcome a
    good and interesting discussion about these issues in the days to come.

  125. #231 Dr. Thierry Baptiste, you assert that studying the data and the IPCC reports is compelling and worthy of discussion. I have read the areas on atrribution, climate sensitivity, and models. I paid particular attention to the methodology used in going from the assumption as stated in 4AR that most of the warming was antropogenic starting 1950. In 4AR, the assumption is concluded to be very likely due to the models cannot be run to show the 20th century warming without CO2. However, the sensitivity was developed from data reconstructions that JeffID, M&M, Zorita, and others have confirmed such as Wegaman and NAS (North report) that these reconstructions have problems. In fact, JeffID and Zorita show a systemic error with reconstructions. M&M, as confirmed by Wegman and North will select the “hockey stick” from red noise. Further, Wegman and North found problems with strip bark, PC1 (or PC4) and that these should not be used. There are other errors, such as the “stolen” email indicates that the “fertilization” problem was real and in the process of being studied, prior to MBH98. After M&M, the reconstructions have relied on Yamal that has known problems, one of which is the standard deviation increase in modern times, that the email show that the community was aware that the non-homogeneity was from restricted growth in early life most probably due to overshadowed of canaopy or roots by neighboring trees. Thus at present, there are few, if any reconstructions that support the way the models were developed. With being true, the IPCC’s claim of supporting its assumption of mostly antropogenic after 1950 cannot be supported. Note that the reconstructions assume homogeneity, and with that shown to be known not to be true, the models as developed by the methodology of the 4AR cannot be supported. By the way, the interpretation as related to gases is not questioned, it is the magnitude of the effect of doubling CO2, and the inability of models to backcast the twentieth century (stated by the IPCC) which now may be assumed unable to backcast the MWP, rendering scientific acceptance of the models as unlikely.

  126. xyzlatin: I too applaud the release of e-mails despite the problematic illegality of case.(All’s fair in love and war).

    However the plea for Whistleblower status may well be ruined because of the very obscure way the e-mails were launched into public domain. For the “offender” to then claim Whistleblower status “after the fact” will not stand up in court too well.

  127. 234, Open discussion is the purpose of blogs. That is why many of us prefer unmoderated status.

    I’ve made several good quality errors in the open here. For calculations we like to present data and code, if that’s part of your post. I’ve had the experience of being wrong in front of 40,000 people – if nothing else, it opens your eyes.

  128. To 231. Dr. Baptiste,
    Let’s see… you said ” It seems rational discourse is not to be had on this particular site.”
    Is it “rational” of you to keep pretending that “emails” or “ONE set of emails” when in fact it’s THOUSANDS of emails and the source code to the programs used to fabricate the desired results from actual data collected? Ponder, if you must.
    Is it “nonsensical and irrational” to point out that you are one of “Those with a particular viewpoint”?
    You say: “Bear in mind that the emails in question have not been examined in context or for veracity.”
    Wrong! Phil Jones of the CRU, among others who are complicit, have already verified their authenticity. Besides, I know how to read! Why would I need anyone to explain the context of the emails, when I or anyone can read them for ourselves? No one needs to be a scientist to understand what “delete the email I sent you” or “where’s the warming?” or “redefine the peer-review process” means.
    You also say: “the content of the emails reflects upon the authors and not on the general problem”
    You would be right if the “authors” were any old “garden variety scientists” but, they’re not! They are the people driving the whole “global warming” hysteria. The UN’s IPCC is aiming to create laws that legally bind everyone on earth to the crap these guys have been making up!
    As for your third paragraph in post 231:
    Who, exactly, would decide which people are “credible scientists”? Because, that’s exactly what Phil Jones and his buddies, including Science Czar John Holdren have been doing… silencing anyone who dares ask inconvenient questions.
    Instead of the “skeptical” reading the IPCC, the underlying data, mathematical models and the raw data, why don’t you just read all the Climategate documents? Please doctor, don’t “roundly disregard” all that evidence of fraud! Everyone else is having no problem reaing through the emails and source code, it should be a cinch for you Dr. Baptist! You’re so eloquent and scientific!
    I know many are veiwing this as “us vs. them” but, you’re an educated man, rise above that and see that this has nothing to do with “Skeptics” like myself or with “Hysterics” as yourself. It has to do with the deceiving, conspiracy/collusion, destruction of evidence, and intimidation, sabotaging of “scientific review” by the people driving the “Global Warming” hysteria, which will be used by all the governments of the world and by the UN to dictate to everyone what they can and can’t produce to raise themselves (particularly third world countries) out of poverty. These people are creating future poverty, they’re creating the future crisis the can’t be “let go to waste”.
    And finally, your last sentence “And as for the emails, I personally find them irrelevant to the raw data.”
    Of course you do, dear.

  129. #223
    –I have no idea why you think IPCC was involved in the private email exchanges between a very limited number of scientists. Could you elaborate? NASA?–

    Drs. Jones, Mann, Briffa, etal are primary authors and reviewers, and judging by the emails, gatekeepers of some of the chapters in the IPCC reports. NASA, if I’m wrong I will be pleased to be corrected, is the agency employing both Drs. Hansen and Schmidt also heavily involved in the IPCC reports and some of the emails.

    –As to your first assertion, to what degree do you think human endeavors contribute to climate change?–

    I don’t think the data or the science are advanced or refined enough for anyone to do anything other than guess. Guessing is neither productive nor science.

    –I can also assure you that the data is very alarming if you look the data over a 250 year projection.–

    Well the trend from 1940 to 1980 would have been very alarming,, in the opposite direction, if it had maintained its trajectory for 250 years. A good rule of thumb, not a law admittedly, is just when people tell you a trend will continue into the foreseeable future is just about the time it stops. Until we have some handle on the factors that will or will not continue this trend or even what is causing it, 250 year projections are worse than useless.

    –Emails between scientists that stretch back thirteen years is of little consequence other than to provide gossip and fodder for those with hidden agendas.–

    If they reveal attempts to squelch dissenting science and the publicaton of same and if they reveal an almost total contempt for taking seriously informed criticism of their work product and if they themselves reveal hidden agendas of very influential climate scientists, all of which and more I believe they do, then I think they are of considerably more consequence than you allow.
    I hope you didn’t find my first response irrational. I don’t think it was. I just disagree with some of what you said. It sounds as though I probably agree with some as well.
    But when you start off with unsupported accusations that sceptics haven’t read any of the literature and are motivated by political or religious(?) reasons and are incapable of deductive thought it makes reasoned discourse a little more difficult right off the bat doesn’t it?
    Seems to me courtesy is as courtesy does.

  130. Brian, you make several good points. I would strongly disagree that Jones, Mann or Briffa are gatekeepers at the IPCC. The organization simply does not work this way. The peer review process is very rigorous and rotating in nature to preclude this very possibility. You must also remember that over 16,000 scientists have contributed data to support a variety of global warming positions. NASA and other geo and astro related agencies regularly submit data for review as well.

    I might also add that while the IPCC is the most widely known international agency for studying climate change, there are many other very credible and significant agencies which also study the matter. Which is why I have tried to suggest on this site that the emails in question are not relevant to the overall data related to climate change. In any event, I will post a more academic viewpoint on this website in the next few days or at least in the next week. These things are as time permits.

    As to your suggestion that my original comments were a bit acerbic, you are correct and you make a good point in that I should not make claims of irrational discourse when I myself am starting the discussion
    in a rather discourteous manner. I stand corrected and apologize.

  131. Following the trail further…
    email number 1233245601.txt dated 29th January 2009 From Phil Jones to Ben Santor at the Lawrence Livermore National Library in California, and he makes mention how funny that Ben has put information in a directory called FOIA.
    Perhaps the leak has come from a file on Ben’s computer in California?
    The released emails as has been pointed out by others, were collated Jan 1st 2009.

    > With free wifi in my room, I’ve just seen that M+M have
    > submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic – using more
    > years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data –
    > laughing at the directory name – FOIA? Also they make up
    > statements saying you’ve done this following Obama’s
    > statement about openness in government! Anyway you’ll likely
    > get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both
    > Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I’ll
    > suggest this.
    I wonder if he is still laughing?

  132. Dr. Thierry Baptiste,

    A couple points to consider while you are writing your post:

    1) What changes to the IPCC and climate science in general do you feel are required to ensure that scientists like Mann, Jones and others are never end up in positions of responsibility again?

    2) Scientists like Pielke Sr, Spencer have complained that their research is ignored by the gatekeepers preparing the IPCC and other government reports. The emails tell us (non-climate scientists) that their complaints have merit. How would you fix the process to ensure that outsiders can have confidence that science is not being ignored or minimized in order to fit the IPCC’s political agenda? It is not enough to simply claim that Mann and Jones are aberrations because the trust has been lost and actions are required to restore it.

  133. Ooops – What an inconvenient truth: They Dumped the Data!

    From the Sunday Times

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.



  134. #245

    Comment by Prof. Phil Jones , Director, Climatic Research Unit (CRU), and Professor, School of Environmental Sciences,University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK:

    ….These people just make up motives for what we might or might not have done.Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center [see here and here ].

    The original raw data are not lost. I could reconstruct what we
    had from U.S. Department of Energy reports we published in the
    mid-1980s. I would start with the GHCN data. I know that the effort would be a complete waste of time, though. I may get around to it some time.

    #242 xyzlatin:

    At 17:07 27/10/2009, Michael Mann wrote:

    Hi Phil,
    p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like


    Codename Andy?

  135. Thierry Baptiste,
    You seem to be suffering from several major delusions – in this you are not alone in the “climate science” community.
    1. Rational discourse is to be had at this site. It is not permitted at ‘realclimate’ where sceptic comments are deleted. Jeff has offered you the opportunity of writing a ‘headpost’ here. Do you think the ‘climate scientists’ at realclimate would allow him the same?
    2. Several people have confirmed that the emails (the parts that they were involved in) are genuine. Even Jones has not attempted to deny this. But you seem to be in denial.
    3. ‘due in part to human activity’ but how large is that part? 5%?
    4. “It is my fervent wish that those that are skeptical of the IPCC reports actually read the reports”. Well, yes, we have done. A long list of detailed criticisms of AR4 and examples of exageration, distortion and selective reporting of the literature is on my web site. Much of this is now confirmed by Jones’s own emails, for example where he says he is determined to keep something out of AR4 even if it means ‘redefining peer-reviewed literature’.
    5. “please take the time to study the data” well, we would like to, but Jones will not release it. He says in his emails that he would rather delete it than release it.

    Clearly you have a great deal to learn about climate scepticism. Please read Jeff’s earlier posts (for example the ones on the Antarctic reconstruction) and please read climate audit. At the moment you are just making a fool of yourself.

  136. #241,

    Thanks for the reply Dr.

    –I would strongly disagree that Jones, Mann or Briffa are gatekeepers at the IPCC. The organization simply does not work this way. The peer review process is very rigorous and rotating in nature to preclude this very possibility.–

    I did not mean to imply that any one of them acting alone is a gatekeeper over the entire IPCC, which is why I used et al. However the Wegman report clearly identified a social network of 40-50 scientists with close co-author ties, especially with regard to Mann. Wegman specifically criticized the method by which this like minded group was responsible for peer reviewing each others work, even when there were clearly conflicts of interest involved. The emails demonstrate Dr. Wegman was quite correct.
    How can Jones’ deeply troubling comment that he and Trenberth would keep dissenting papers out of the IPCC review even if he had to “redefine what peer reviewed literature is” be taken as anything other than gatekeeping? Steve McIntyre and others have carefully documented the walls, in some cases completely insurmountable ones, that they have had to scale to even be allowed to properly critique various chapters in the IPCC reports.

    — You must also remember that over 16,000 scientists have contributed data to support a variety of global warming positions. NASA and other geo and astro related agencies regularly submit data for review as well.–

    Yes, but how many are like Mr. Hansen or Mann consulting with AL Gore and Greenpeace on how to present global warming hysteria? Any scientist who will publicly engage in political movements based on an area of science he works in should expect his credibility to be questioned. More importantly any scientist so engaged is the one who should most closely check himself for confirmation bias, but is unfortunately also the one least likely to.
    As I said before most sceptics are perfectly willing to follow the data wherever they lead as are most of those 16,000 scientists. I suspect a good many of the sceptics are also members of the 16,000. We are not willing to follow catastrophism based on bad science or agendas and that is in fact what I am sceptical of; bad science in the name of an agenda. And that is what the emails confirm; that some of the most influential climate scientists in the world, in fact the record keepers of the two main temperature records for the entire planet, are engaged in some distinctly anti scientific activities.

    –I stand corrected and apologize.–

    Thank you Dr. Baptiste, that is appreciated greatly.

    P.S. I have to agree with Jeff Id on the utility of reading the ChiefIO site (link at upper right) on GISTEMP. Quite an eye popper, IMO.

  137. Re post 157: Yes the Cheshire Cat noticed the prejudicial pictures!

    Perhaps the BBC science crew believes there are three elements: Fire, Air and Water

    Fire: Global Warming
    Air: as in Hot Air
    Water : as in rising sea levels, storms etc.

  138. Anyone can take quotes out of context to slant an argument. This is especially easy when fed thousands of emails that you can google search. Bravo.

    I am a climate scientist and please tell me what personal gain are we possibly posed for with a ‘climate conspiracy theory’? I am only aware of a road full of years of study and hard work, large sacrifices in personal lives (especially for women), and pretty minimal pay. The only climate skeptic who is actually a scientist that I know (yes singular), appears only driven by a need for attention and by a bitterness that his science has been popularized by heightened concern for climate change. I would say most climate scientists are attracted to the field because it is INTERESTING and not because they are leftist environmentalists with secret agendas. I’m sorry, but the supporting body of research for climate change is unchanged by ‘climategate’ – maybe you should read it, but that is much more difficult that searching emails for hot key words.

    I am saddened for the US and for the world by reading these near-sighted, self-serving posts. Tell me, what motive could possibly be worth it?

  139. Re posting 255.Laura, there are probably thousands of climate scientists like you out there trying to do a good properly scientific job. I am not one of them, but my livlyhood and future depend directly upon the climate in all its aspects. What has pushed me into the sceptics camp is the blantant disregard of dissenting data by the climate establishment on their preffered viewpoint. There is no doubt that the climate is changing as I have personally observed and commented on for the last 30 to 40 years. What is also apparent is that human population pressures, especially since the end of the 2nd world war have created huge changes in the worlds vegetation cover and albedo, together with agricultural clearing burn offs that have consigned unquantifiable tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. There has been little or no debate on limiting the earths population or its direct effect on the current situation.(its probably 5.5 Bn too large)
    There are factors emerging daily that affect the models’ performance that are blithely ignored. If the models in all their complexity cannot accurately predict what is happening without numerous fudge factors and data “correction” they should be put in file 13 where they belong until they can come up with something better.

  140. Hmm lets see the 79 Billion spent by the US government, The emails that you obviously didn’t read that shows that CRU was taking in $$ from Shell, BP and looking to Exxon as well. Hey I got an idea why don’t you turn in a grant request that wants to explore natural varibitly in climate in the 20th century, see the response you get then come back here with the results. Then again we are just crackpots like Dr. Lindzen of MIT, Dr. Happer of Princeton, Dr. Christy of UAH, Dr, Spencer of UAH, Dr. Soon of Harvard, Dr. Freeman Dyson. Do I really need to go on?

    Hey here’s a second idea why don’t you go to the website run by Sen Inhofe and take a look at the list of 700 scientists that say AGW is not true. Then when you get that wrapped around your mind come back and try again or you could go back to college and take an introductory course in the scientific method and learn that Skeptisim is the heart of it not Groupthink.

  141. #258, I don’t disagree with you but would like Laura to explain the ‘out of context’. So far not a single scientist has explained what ‘in context’ means. Laura obviously feels strongly about this, so I’m hoping that perhaps we can learn something. In my opinion there are no context issues which can be addressed in an open fashion which will hold water. But I’ve been wrong before, um earlier, today, several times, and there was um yesterday…

    let’s see though.

  142. Laura, I have tried to have rational discussions within this particular venue and it is really not possible. All of the data and cogent arguments you might present will be shouted down by those that have very
    little scientific training and/or a particular religious or political bent. Those that think humans endeavors do not effect various heat modalities, including CO2 and radiation mixtures, are simply not willing or capable
    of discussing the issue rationally with you.

    I would note that the moderator of this site offered me the opportunity post an academic writing for review, and I find that offer at least reasonable. Unfortunately, there is so much data readily available for those willing
    to have an honest intellectual discussion that my posting, and efforts, would be totally redundant. My suggestion, Laura, is to accept the fact that there are those individuals that are still arguing over gravity and evolution as well. I am in your camp and I applaud your efforts.

  143. Dr Baptiste,the whole point of a debate is the airing of both points of view with equal opportunity to evaluate their pros and cons. Some of us, who do not have either political or religious bents, have sufficient scientific training to evaluate data from a wide variety of sources, and who have sufficient real life experience to call into question that which we find to lack substantiation, (and have no axe to grind in the US being non American) to appear to disregard certain fundamental and inescapable facts, or which appear to be manipulated also require our concerns to be addressed. In this debate there appears to be manifested an exhorbitant amount of academic bigotry wherein anyone without a long list of post nominals is considered unworthy of consideration. I have considered sufficient evidence from good scientific sources to observe that there appear to be major areas of inconsistency in the general global warming arguments. A major area of concern is of the incestuous nature of some of the cardinal data under pinning the entire debate, such as the temperature records exposed in the email exposure. What we are asking for is that where areas of doubt occur, such as atmospheric moisture concentrations on heat retention and glacier dissipation, oceanic carbon uptake variability and the redistribution of heat via the oceanic conveyors be acknowledged and their effects be further investigated and accurately quantified before outcomes are foisted on the wider world for which we are expected to pay with no recuorse to question. At the end of the day we require that the science in the investigation is good, transparent and replicatable without “cheating”

  144. The volume of data concerning the merits of global warming is so diverse and abundant that I am not sure which “major areas of inconsistency” you would be referencing. I remind you that while the IPCC is certainly
    the most prominent scientific organization concerned with climate change, there are many, many other data gathering independent organizations whose conclusions and data have virtually mirrored the IPCC conclusions.
    If anything, the IPCC tends to be a bit reserved in it’s findings.

    For the climate change conspiracy to exist and function, it would require the collusion and cooperation of nothing less than 48 European nations, all the attendant scientists, the further cooperation of the entire pan pacific region and the conspiracy of many of the worlds leading corporations. The suggestion that over 16,000 climate change scientists are working in concert and silence to propagate a fraud upon mankind as a whole is just patently absurd.

    I have participated in no less than 27 carbon ice drills and had the distinction to review data from numerous sources including several clandestine agencies that have very sophisticated atmospheric and weather
    related technologies. To assert that the data from all sources is corrupted is simply an untenable argument. I would further add that the emails which have generated this pseudo controversy are completely insignificant as to the broader question of global warming implications. Were these emails related to the only source of data, then I would understand the concern. The fact of the matter is that any data which
    you may consider compromised has been verified and peer reviewed by at least three other independent analysis.

    It is unfortunate that as we spend time discussing the “veracity” of global warming the effects from global warming are becoming apparent and quite serious. I would venture to say that the within 25 years the first
    serious calamities from global warming will become readily apparent, and that within 75 years the earth, as you and I experience it, will be vastly different. The real issue is whether technology can help wean
    Level 1 countries off carbon based fuels before absolute disaster strikes.

    After reading some of the postings herein I have my doubts. It will take collective political and social will to affect real change, and both of this elements are in short supply.

  145. @ 255. Laura
    “Anyone can take quotes out of context to slant an argument. This is especially easy when fed thousands of emails that you can google search. Bravo.”

    Duh! It took all your scientific prowess to come up with that non sequiter. So far, it’s been the Global-Warming-Hysterics, and their “scientists” who have been selective and the ones taking Climategate files “out of context”! How’s that for scientific analysis?! Skeptics use the emails, documents and source code in full! Hysterics only select one or two “emails” and quote a few phrases.

    “I am a climate scientist and please tell me what personal gain are we possibly posed for with a ‘climate conspiracy theory’?”

    Are you serious!! I’m having a hard time believing that you EARNED your degree/s as a “scientist” if you can’t answer that question. Just the grants from “big greedy corporations/govt’s alone would be enough to call “personal gain”. Another, among many potential motivations, maybe you’re a social-justice-pusher. Maybe you and others would like to see the certain countries subject to an unelected group of scientist/politicians who will dictate what and how much a country can produce. There are so many possibilities Laura!

    “The only climate skeptic who is actually a scientist that I know (yes singular)”

    Poster 258. Boballab has already addressed this ridiculous lie.

    To 260. Dr. Thierry Baptiste
    “Laura, I have tried to have rational discussions within this particular venue and it is really not possible.”

    Why do you keep returning. Why don’t you and “Laura the saddened scientist” go and make “good science” instead of coming back here with your patronizing, thinly veiled insults. Be productive. Go back to science and leave the blogs to the bloggers.

  146. 260.Dr. Thierry Baptiste said
    December 10, 2009 at 12:41 am
    ‘Laura, I have tried to have rational discussions within this particular venue and it is really not possible. All of the data and cogent arguments you might present will be shouted down…’

    Dr. Baptiste,
    I have read your posts #221, 223, 231, 234, 241, 260 and 262.
    I was wondering about your response to Laura and your mention of presented data. Please forgive me if I have taken this comment in a way which you did not intend. What data have you presented, in your posts, that has been shouted down?
    Tony Hansen

  147. Notice the cautious delivery of real scientific papers (“…we believe”, “it seems”…)and contrast that with pompous verbage of the alarmists.

    More so, “consensus” is a political term, most decidedly NOT a scientific one.

  148. I want to personally thank you for providing this link. Great information, and one more piece to this endless puzzle of shit!

  149. Compliment of the season.
    I am Mr Henry Smith. the managing director of SMITH
    FINANCIAL HOME LTD. I am a registered private and certified loan
    lender. I give out Short/long term loans to individuals and co-operate,=

    locally or Internationally all over the world, I am not a bank and I do=

    not require much documents.so if you are interested in getting a loan from the firm contact email..
    continents, so there is more to gain in getting a loan from this
    Lending Firm.email address via .mrsmithloanfirms@sify.com

    Contact us today If you are interested in getting a loan you desire
    from this firm, we can arrange any loan to suit your budget at low
    interest rate. To proceed or commence with the processing of your
    loan, you will be require to fill out the borrower application
    information email:mrsmithloanfirms@sify.com
    Full Name……………………..

  150. The very fact a hacker tapped into a database really proves how faulty Microsoft is and that we all need better security. Somehow I do not equate a hacker with someone who is reputable. Clearly the hacker is working for someone’s interest, and I would raise questions concerning those involved with those interest’s.

    I’m not sure hacking into databases brings any more real debate or information with regard to the subject matter. But it does raise questions pertaining to security, ethics and opens the discussion with regard to how competing forces should treat each other.

    All this really proves is that science is a myriad of theories, some proven and some not proven, where there’s a need to prove and disprove theories, there’s a need for research. And when theories enter peer review, they should not be rubber stamped into approval nor should they be completely ignored.

    However, with regard to the climatology studies, in an environment that is constantly changing anyway, the hard facts cannot be “debunked.” And there is always a factor of some level of unpredictability and uncertainty; with that in mind the studies have indicated things like “trends” and looking back on the earth changes over a period of 60 years in combination with what we know about the history of such patterns; it can be said with confidence that what is happening over the time period is climate change.

    Ice ages and other things that happen are things that happen and understanding these changes and finding ways to predict these changes and weather systems is increasingly important as we enter a new stage in development.

    Engaging in research and discussion is more productive and more valuable as we progress. I’m not really sure the way to the truth and the way to the solution and the way to the future can be found in opposing anything without solid ground. Leaked emails by a hacker is not very solid.

  151. To Ella on post #286,
    The emails and ‘source code’ don’t prove that a crime has been commited. What they do prove is a willingness to lie to every government (UN), all the people of the world and the willingness to smear and ruin fellow scientists careers/reputations. They also prove a willingness to commit a crime when it comes to Freedom of Information Act requests.

    You wrote “Somehow I do not equate a hacker with someone who is reputable”.
    Good. Neither do I. I don’t know anyone who would. However, the hackers reputation should be the least of your interests. What I find more interesting, considering what the ’emails and source code’ reveal, is the reputation of the scientists and by extension the “science”. Wouldn’t you agree?

    It almost seems like you want people to focus on the hacker (and on Microsoft? What is that about?) more than what the ’emails and source code’ reveal about the slimy, secretive, elitist, evil, greedy, malicious, rotten, lying, criminal, activist, facsist, collusionist, scientists where doing?

    You also wrote “Leaked emails by a hacker is not very solid.” Solid what? Solid science? Solid argument? No where have I seen anyone call the ’emails and source code’ science. And, they are not an argument. What they are is a window into the ‘Man made Global Warming’ cults’ inner workings. A look at how ‘scientists’ collude with each other to ruin peoples lives for questioning (blaspheming) the science, ‘scientists’ eagerness to physically harm people, and to break the law by destroying ‘scientific’ data and placing the ‘intellectual property rights of corporations’ ahead of the need to ‘save the planet’ from “Man made Global Warmning”.

    All that, and the fact that Phil Jones has admitted to a lot of what he and the CRU have been accused of in the last couple of weeks, makes the ‘scientists’ less “reputable”. And that makes the ‘science’ open to ingestivation on “solid ground”.

    I’ve run out of time. I have to shovel the snow out of the driveway. Damn heat is unbearable!

  152. Ya science has alot of theories and alot of stuff is accepeted more because of popularity than because of being factually correct.

  153. Academy Award winner George Clooney stars in the title role of this suspense thriller. As an assassin, Jack (played by Mr.

    Clooney) is constantly on the move and always alone. clickhere check

    out the full information

  154. Almost two years later, is it fair to ask . . .

    If world leaders tricked leaders of scientific organizations and the news media into cooperating with them to present anthropogenic climate change as the “common enemy” in order to save the world from mutual nuclear annihilation:

    Click to access 20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    Then we cannot put the genie back in the bottle now, 40 years later.

    Can we instead find an exit strategy to restore basic human right to govern?

    Click to access 20110815_Climategate_Harmony.pdf

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  155. Pingback: forum
  156. Pingback: discount
  157. May I simply just say what a comfort to uncover somebody
    that really understands what they are discussing online. You definitely
    understand how to bring an issue to light and
    make it important. A lot more people must check this out and understand this side of
    the story. I was surprised that you’re not more popular because
    you surely have the gift.

  158. Hello there, I discovered your web site by way of Google while searching for a similar matter,
    your site got here up, it appears to be like great.

    I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.
    Hello there, simply became aware of your blog thru Google, and located that it
    is truly informative. I am going to be careful for brussels.
    I’ll be grateful if you continue this in future. Many people can be benefited out of your writing.

  159. We comprehend that our customers have a broad scope of necessities and want. With such countless escorts to choose from we ensure that you can discover someone that you always wanted.https://lahorecallgirl.com/ Above all, we would make you encased.

  160. Are you looking for Luxury Escorts in Karachi? If so, you can check out our website. We would offer you the Hot and sexy Escorts in Karachi. We have high-class escorts who have been working with us for many years.https://escortskarachi.pk/ They accurately know what gentlemen actually want. We are among the top-performing escort agencies in Karachi. However, we have a great record, and we have some marvelous clients.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s