Posted: 11/22/2011 10:03:54 AM EDT
|
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time. The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there. Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere: <3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction”. <3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc. <3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit. <0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause <2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process <2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task. |
|
people are just now starting to go through this to find whats in there. he's an interesting one... Blockquote>Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year "reconstruction”. Osborn: Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! Esper: Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it is an important one. [...] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why don’t you want to let the result into science? Cook: I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead. |
|
2368 Dave, Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond? With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent. There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time going through these. Cheers Phil |
|
Quoted: 2368 Dave, Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond? With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent. There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time going through these. Cheers Phil  |
|
Quoted:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/ Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.
The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there.
Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:
<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
"reconstruction”. <3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc. <3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit. <0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause <2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process <2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task. 
These people have some fucking audacity. 
|
|
Jones: Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days, these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don’t have) and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release). CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. (…) Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I’ve ascertained it most likely came from there, as I’m the only one who knows where the files are here. |
|
Quoted:
Jones: Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days,
these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don’t have) and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release). CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. (…) Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I’ve ascertained it most likely came from there, as I’m the only one who knows where the files are here. Ok, all these e-mails seem to indicate that these researchers and their organizations are in the UK. However, the US dept. of energy is funding them? |
|
1788>Jones Melissa, There shouldn't be someone else at UEA with different views - at least not a climatologist. It would also look odd if the two people interviewed with opposite views were from UEA. Maybe you should reply and say we can't find one, saying that most climate experts would take the same view as Dave |
|
2563> Pitock ">(b) Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the >offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to >refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not >matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the >journals, but that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation. >To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and >proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might >work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors. >(c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and >embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of being >embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for Science or Nature. >Offending editors could be labelled as "rogue editors”, in line with current >international practice? Or is that defamatory?” |
|
Quoted:
2563> Pitock
">(b) Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the
>offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to >refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or privately may not >matter so much, as long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the >journals, but that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation. >To my mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and >proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might >work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors. >(c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices might work and >embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are capable of being >embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter for Science or Nature. >Offending editors could be labelled as "rogue editors”, in line with current >international practice? Or is that defamatory?” CONFROMITY MUST BE ENFORCED, TOVARISH! Looks like the long march through the institutions continues to this day. 
|
|
Quoted: anyone have a link to where we can download these files? I still have all the files from climate gate 1 saved this magnet link worked for me...magnet:?fl=http://remote.utorrent.com/talon/seed/6592169267/torrent/e0c7873&ws=http://remote.utorrent.com/talon/seed/6592169267/content/e0c7873&xt=urn:btih:EBD36AFC51AFEF4486028C1940739E6112964629 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
anyone have a link to where we can download these files? I still have all the files from climate gate 1 saved this magnet link worked for me...magnet:?fl=http://remote.utorrent.com/talon/seed/6592169267/torrent/e0c7873&ws=http://remote.utorrent.com/talon/seed/6592169267/content/e0c7873&xt=urn:btih:EBD36AFC51AFEF4486028C1940739E6112964629 bad link |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Jones: Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days, these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don’t have) and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release). CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. (…) Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I’ve ascertained it most likely came from there, as I’m the only one who knows where the files are here. Ok, all these e-mails seem to indicate that these researchers and their organizations are in the UK. However, the US dept. of energy is funding them? During a March 2009 closed-door meeting, Department of Energy senior advisor Matthew Rogers outlined his "dilemma” over how to comply with his new mandate to quickly spend $36.7 billion in grants and loan guarantees from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka, the Stimulus Act) on renewable energy and climate change. Today, with only $300 million of our taxpayer money and children’s inheritance left to spend, poor Matt says his "popularity continues to decline.” Nearly $2.4 million dollars of that Stimulus loot may be funding the latest research by Penn State University Professor Michael Mann, father of Mann-made global warming, the debunked hockey stick temperature graph and many infamous Climategate e-mails. In one new project where Mike is the principal instigator, over a half-million dollars in grant money generated only "0.53” jobs in Pennsylvania . We must have missed the headline "Stimulus Creates Millionaire.” source: http://www.eco-imperialism.com/content/article.php3?id=288 |
|
Quoted:
I keep saying. Dont attack capitalism directly. Attack the components of capitalism that make it work, energy. "The Cause" is a communist plot. People need to see "climate change" for what it is. It actually has nothing at all to do with climate. It is soley intended to facilitate income redistribution. There isn't now, and never has been, any proof of man made climate change. What has happened is that a bunch of scientists (I use that term loosely) were bought with your money and directed to dream this shit up. Liberals know that they can't simply walk up to you and take your money. There would be strong resistance and they would probably get their ass kicked. Instead, they have to concoct some bullshit reason to "tax" you out of it. Folks, quit letting them fool you. All they want is your money for their purposes and total control of your life. Climate change is, and always has been, nothing but a sham to legally separate you from your money. |
|
Quoted:
Do not worry, the mainstream media will fully investigate these emails and the attempt by these scientists to hide or manipulate data. I have no doubt. The climate science thing is dying, and I believe only rising temps can revive it. No, the media won't help. But actual climate, along with releases such as this, will. China already threatened increased emmisions if they are not paid off, and people are losing interst in global warming. |
|
Anthropogenic global warming theories are ALL based on the shoddiest variety of bargain basement junk science.
What they ARE useful for, however, is advancing the cause of socialism. And that is exactly what the enemies of freedom have been using them for in recent years - to manipulate the minds of very stupid voters. 
|
|
Quoted:
Anthropogenic global warming theories are ALL based on the shoddiest variety of bargain basement junk science. What they ARE useful for, however, is advancing the cause of socialism. And that is exactly what the enemies of freedom have been using them for in recent years - to manipulate the minds of very stupid voters. Not to metion the huge "green" industry it has spawned. Follow the money. Quite possibly the biggest scam ever played on humanity. |
|
I think I felt something burst in my head while reading that
I'm guessing that all the money spent directly on this fable is never going to be recovered. I don't even want to think of all the other far reaching consequences, but I'm confident that it has set us back a lonnnggg time. How does our side even begin to combat this kind of corruption without compromising everything we stand for? It's like every fucking issue the left champions is just a quagmire of corruption and a giant power-grab. How do they even look at themselves in the mirror knowing that they are fucking untold millions of people (probably spanning generations)? |
|
From: Mick Kelly To: Phil Jones Subject: RE: Global temperature Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300 Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years. |
|
has anyone verified the provenance of the emails yet? i'm not going to start pushing this story hard until we are as confident as we were about the last batch. the potential for false flag is just too great. the first climategate thread was arfcom at its finest.  |