14 thoughts on “Climategate 3.0

  1. Probably won’t be anything earth shattering, but lots of small talk in the emails could add up to be a lot of behind the scenes activity.
    Might just find out how may professional warmists aren’t very fond of Mr. Mann !!

  2. I can’t read that many emails. Has anyone released the password yet so that the crowd can search through them?

    We already know what the jokers did so it is hard for me to care enough to read.

    I’m sure Steve could put together a few completed stories from this but I’m not sure he will.

  3. Hi Jeff,
    just as a kind reminder!
    At „Comment 10“ at https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917, Climategate commenced with the text:

    “FOIA said
    November 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm
    We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
    We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
    Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
    This is a limited time offer, download now: http…………cont“.

    The post on 13 Nov. 2009 was about an Open Letter concerning a Letter, which 18 leading scientific organisations had written to the US Senate in October 2009. The Open Letter asked the heads of the organisations:
    ___“How could it happen that more than a dozen of the most prestigious scientific associations signed and submitted this letter on ‘climate change’ without having ensured that the used terminology is sufficiently defined. Good science can and is required to work with reasonable terms and explanations. ……cont/.” Both letters here: https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/
    Luckily FOIA’s fight is impressive and successful. The climate definition matter is as flawed and inadequate as ever. A recent posting is titled “Roger Pielke Sr. and Climate Definition….cont/) here: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
    Thanks for placing the Nov.2009- post then and best regards ArndB

  4. Jeff, no need to release the password into the public domain. Just place ALL the emails into a MYSQL database and link it to an online search, the way the earlier climategate emails were–the search code automatically redacts the email headers/footers, email addresses and phone numbers, leaving just the body of the email messages, which is where the pertinent info will be. A few bloggers won’t be able to read 200,000+ emails–if it takes 5 minutes to read an email, 5 x 200,000 = approx. 16,666 hours = 694 days to read all the emails. This is something that needs to be crowd-sourced.

    1. Phil –
      That would be irresponsible. Redacting email addresses and phone numbers is a good first step. But that wouldn’t cover all personal details. The body of the emails may contain equally private matters such as health, financial or relationship information. Releases should be restricted to emails on professional topics only.

      I agree that the volume of emails is a hurdle. No doubt Mr. FOIA made a calculation such as yours to decide that he couldn’t possibly fully filter the emails alone. But relevant search terms have already identified the most likely emails. I rather doubt that there will be anything new of significance in the remainder (although it may fill in some details of, say, journal arm-twisting).

  5. There were a dozen or so of you weren’t there? Could you just agree to take on responsibility for 12th the emails each? That would cut it down to a somewhat more manageable 20k.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s