JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Breaking! Apparently, more emails released. Climategate II?

Five hours ago, FOIA left a link on my blog to a Russian site (I had been away). Emails and comments are streaming through to let me know that the Tallbloke, and Jeff ID have also got them. Tallbloke has opened it and checked for viruses. Jeff ID confirms there are thousands of emails readable and 220,000 more locked behind a password. (H/t Foia (!) Ripper,  hunter, RoryFOMR,  Janet J,… thanks!)

Assuming (I stress) assuming that these are indeed real, and not an elaborate hoax, wow.

It appears it’s all on again. The sordid details, honest thoughts, and human folly on display. (If true, thank you to Foia.) We need confirmation.

UPDATE #3*** It appears the Guardian is onto this already and  Michael Mann is suggesting the emails are real”: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all”. Hat tip: Tom Nelson

The BBC likewise is reporting this, and confirming it — it appears the emails are from 2009 or earlier, and if that’s the case, it means these were probably held back from the first batch. This will be described as being “rehashed old news”, which committee’s have investigated, blah blah blah, but what it shows is scientifically even more damning than the first batch. All of these people were saying it was “settled” beyond doubt, yet agreeing with the “deniers” behind the scenes about the uncertainties, the failure of the models, their inability to predict clouds, and the tropospheric tropical temperatures (ie the hot spot)…

A NEW LINK TO DOWNLOAD (h/t David).

There are more links at Lubos Motls site

————————————–

Some alleged emails — choice picks:

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

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

Jones:

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

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

<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:

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

<1577> Jones:

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

<4085> Jones:

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

Wils:

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

 

<1485> Mann:

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

Bradley:

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

Cook:

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

Barnett:

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

<1982> Santer:

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

<5111> Pollack:

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

<5096> Cook:

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

I am updating live. There is a lot more….

Tallblokes Talkshop

Breaking news: FOIA 2011 has arrived !

UPDATE 10.34am GMT

OK, it’s genuine, and as far as I can tell, virus free. McAfee, Malwarebytes’, Avast, Superantispyware and Ad-aware all say it’s clean. (Thanks Niklas)

By the way, please redact any addresses, phone numbers etc before posting any juicy bits here.

Message to ‘FOIA’

Thank you, whoever you are, freedom of information is a principle worth upholding.

 

From Jeff ID.

Climategate 2.0

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

READ ME /// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///

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

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

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

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

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

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

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

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

 

——————————

More alleged emails

 

<3066> Thorne:

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

<1611> Carter:

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

<2884> Wigley:

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

<601> “David Jones”
subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
to: “Phil Jones”

Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single
station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the
Australian data is in pretty good order anyway

h/t Ripper

Jones:

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

 

Humphrey/DEFRA:

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

Jones:

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

 

<0953> Jones:

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

Crowley:

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

Wilson:

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

 

Hat tip Barry Woods!

UPDATE #2

<2009> Briffa:

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

<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

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

Kjellen:

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

Pierrehumbert:

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

<0310> Warren:

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

<2267> Wilson:

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

<5289> Hoskins:

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

<5315> Jenkins/MetO:

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

<2292> Jones:

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

<1788> Jones:

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

<2967> Briffa:

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

<2733> Crowley:

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

<2095> Steig:

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

<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

—————————————–

THE LINK TO DOWNLOAD THE INFORMATION

A NEW LINK TO DOWNLOAD (h/t David).

Remember, they are unverified at this stage

We don’t know how they were obtained

Please keep personal details out of comments.

———————————————

Keep sending in points of interest, post them in comments… Thank you!

Other sites with links now up:

Watts UP

Shub Niggurath Climate: Climategate II: More skeletons in the closet of anthropogenic global warming

ClimateAudit

James Delingpole: Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.6/10 (158 votes cast)
Breaking! Apparently, more emails released. Climategate II?, 9.6 out of 10 based on 158 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/86qyefq

294 comments to Breaking! Apparently, more emails released. Climategate II?

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    These e-mails are truly hilarious — a good first take is at: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/#more-12598

    It’s hard to pick a favourite.

    [John] Cook: “I am afraid that Mike [Mann] 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.”

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

    Crowley: “Phil [Jones], thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in the open.”

    [Phil] Jones: “There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA [University of East Anglia] with different views (from “recent extreme weather is due to global warming”) – at least not a climatologist.”


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Yes, the emails are hilarious examples of incompetence of the pawns used in a very serious attempt by world leaders to unite nations against an imaginary common enemy – global climate change – in order to “save the world” from the threat of mutual nuclear annihilation.

      There have been two serious consequences:

      1. World leaders became self-righteous in their plan to “save the world” and started to ignore the opinions of ordinary citizens.

      2. Many fields of science were compromised in the campaign to show that the Sun is a steady source of heat and cannot cause climate change: Astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle and solar physics.

      Those are the real tragedies lurking in the “Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)”

      http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

      With kind regards,
      Oliver K. Manuel
      Former NASA principal
      Investigator for Apollo
      http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Peter Hartmann

    it’s not John Cook, Rick. It’s Edward Cook.

    p.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    Ding Ding. Seconds out, round two.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Streetcred

      “CAGW is yet to come out of its corner for Round-2 … I see the seconds in a panic applying grease to the huge split between the eyes.”
      ” … referee is beckoning to the CAGW corner … CAGW got a bit of a hammering in the first round, this doesn’t look good … ring doctor is up on the apron … the seconds are remonstrating with him.”
      ” … yes … looks like some stirring from the CAGW, claiming it’s good to carry on … well! referee should stop this fight … there is no point in pushing out a CAGW that is incapable of defence!”


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Just in time for Durban. 220,000 more emails held in reserve, just waiting for the right moment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Humphrey/DEFRA:

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

    Can you believe there really is a Humphrey at DEFRA – just waiting for his knighthood?

    The Government already looked foolish. They didn’t want to be caught out being corrupt.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    FOIA was inconvenient for you Aussies. I have been following this around the blogosphere. It is fascinating to watch it spread.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Athlete

    Get ready for an onslaught from the usual MWP deniers

    Blah, blah, blah “taken out of context”
    Blah, blah, blah “the emails were stolen”
    Blah, blah, blah “private conversations”
    Blah, blah, blah “just scientists communicating with each other”
    Blah, blah, blah “115 independent inquiries found no wrongdoing”
    Blah, blah, blah…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John from CA

      No one I’ve seen so far has attempted to authenticate the emails. To be fair, they could be a hoax.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        John: Steve MacIntyre has posted on it, apparently found his name in 941 spots. I’ve asked on his blog, and am hoping that soon an email from a skeptic (or to a skeptic) will be found on a thread somewhere (perhaps forwarded from one person to another looking for a response). If that happens we will be able to confirm that at least some are genuine.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          John from CA

          I should have included major kudos to you for the way you approached the article.

          It should be really interesting to see what Steve MacIntyre says!!!


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Evil Denier

          Your wish is granted, M’Lady.
          Lucia Liljegren (who runs [strictly !]) The Blackboard identifies her email, and the subsequent machinations. I don’t know if she qualifies as a skeptic, but the identification is unequivocal, if indirect.

          BTW, to follow up our previous:
          Professor Brice Bosnich has it right. He could have made more of the buffering. And the CaCO3 chemocline. They’re both important.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Treeman

        WUWT have been busy authenticating these from the outset.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    DougS

    I’m getting worried!

    This stuff is so good (for sceptics) that it seems almost too good!

    Could they have been this stupid?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bulldust

      We asked the same questions at ClimateGate 1.0. The difference today, the important difference, is that the media is jumping on this one straight away as they realise dthey completely missed the boat last time.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Cookster

    I think one needs to assume these are an elaborate hoax until confirmed otherwise. BUT…. if true yes these emails are a bombshell of Climategate 1 proportions. The pre Durban timing also seems similar in circumstance to Copenhagen 2009. If it is real and the pre Durban timing is deliberate, could it be the Chinese or Russians they are trying to influence at Durban? In other words, those countries not corrupted by the western peer review system? Based on Climategate 1 and the outcomes of the resultant enquiries, this would be water off a ducks back to western governments and their allies in the Climate Research departments. I also wonder if it is the same person(s) behind the leaked IPCC report?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The sheer volume of emails is going to take some time to go through but if they are genuine, and I have to stress that, then just the leaker’s own selection in the readme.txt file are simply devastating.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/crash-post-climategate-mk-2/

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #
    stephan

    100% genuine would be my guess what would be the point in even bothering to post them?. How in hell could anyone duplicate all that info that is exactly same tone as climategate 1?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Just in time for the big back patting at the COP17 in Durban, South Africa. I’ve noticed a big uptick in the number of news stories on the “more severe weather events” meme. These new revelations should knock some of the “severe winds” out of their collective sails.

    I hope it puts an end to the whole scam!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    UPDATE #3*** (see the top of the blog for links).

    It appears the Guardian is onto this already and Michael Mann is suggesting the emails are real”: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all”. Hat tip: Tom Nelson

    The BBC likewise is reporting this, and confirming it — it appears the emails are from 2009 or earlier, and if that’s the case, it means these were probably held back from the first batch. This will be described as being “rehashed old news”, which committee’s have investigated, blah blah blah, but what it shows is scientifically perhaps more damning than the first batch. All of these people were saying it was “settled” beyond doubt, yet agreeing with the “deniers” behind the scenes about the uncertainties, the failure of the models, their inability to predict clouds, and the tropospheric tropical temperatures (ie the hot spot)…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Jaymez

      What Mann said in his own emails may not be particularly damning, but what others said about him is pretty damning. (at /// Temperature Reconstructions ///)

      No doubt the IPCC and the Climate Alarmists will try to bat away this latest batch of leaked emails by claiming it simply shows some normal discussion among scientists and authors and hope that the media do not go to the trouble of reading the emails or comparing the email contents with what the IPCC and the Climate Scientists involved in these emails have been telling the world about Climate Change. That is:

      – that the evidence is unequivocal that humans are causing dangerous climate change and that human CO2 emissions have to be reduced to near zero by 2050 to avoid catastrophic consequences.

      These emails (if genuine which appears to be the case)further proves:

      - The lack of scientific consensus regarding global warming/climate change and the causes.

      - The cynical manipulation of the supposedly independent UN IPCC reports to push the ideological agenda
      of some activist climate scientists

      - Bias selection of ‘evidence’ and papers to support their alarmist position and the exclusion of
      evidence and papers which conflict with their alarmist position.

      - More attempts to subvert FOI laws

      It is only because the ‘leaker’ of these emails knows there are platforms like Jo Nova who can get this message through the left wing MSM blockade and to the public, that the ‘leaker’ has gone to all this trouble. Well done again Jo!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Jaymez

        Again, assuming they are verified, it is hard to see them getting away with whitewashed investigations for a second time.

        Surely some of the various Scientific Academies need to start jumping ship out of sheer embarrassment?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Treeman

      The Australian are onto it as well.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      University at center of “Climategate” hit by second leak of old emails ahead of UN talks
      Associated Press
      Today, 1:40 PM
      LONDON — The British university whose stolen emails caused a global climate science controversy in 2009 says those behind the breach have apparently released a second and potentially far larger batch of old messages.

      University of East Anglia spokesman Simon Dunford said that while academics didn’t yet have the chance to examine all the roughly 5,000 emails apparently dumped into the public domain Tuesday, a small sample seen by the university “appears to be genuine.”


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Associated Press have also put an article by Raphael G Satter on the wire: “University hit by new climate leak ahead of talks”.

      “The university said in a statement that the emails did not appear to be the result of a new breach. Instead, the statement said that the emails appeared to have been stolen two years ago and held back until now, ‘to cause maximum disruption’ to the imminent U.N. climate talks next week in Durban, South Africa.”

      Michael Mann is also quoted as saying that the leak was, “an attempt to dig out [a] 2-year-old turkey from Thanksgiving ’09. That’s how desperate climate change deniers have become.”

      Mann is still the propaganda guru for the Hockey Team, it would appear. The statement also indicates that they are in serious crisis control, if they are giving obviously pre-made sound bites this close to the event.

      Popcorn, anyone?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    If these are true, it’s a good thing Julia managed to get the carbon tax through on time! This’ll give the Australian electorate confidence that the government knows what it’s talking about when it comes to taxing air. Brrrr … I think a chill wind just blew over Canberra.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      living in Canberra

      You are not wrong about the chill wind that is blowing over Canberra. We have just had a few warm days… followed by much cooler conditions. Funny how that happened immediately after the release of these emails.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    FYI – Jo, you are #2 on the bing search list for Climategate II. Congratulations!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    connolly

    The beginning of the end.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bret

    perhaps we could have the best of these emails in Christmas crackers,

    i would buy them.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Be sceptical. Don’t jump to conclusions.

    Verify. Play the Devil’s advocate. There is no need to rush the analysis.

    Walk softly while you don’t know where you’re stepping.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Do you reckon there would be a Murdoch journo waiting on Lord Oxburgh(?)’s door step to ask him to comment & if he has been offered another contract?

    (Damn ! they can’t hack him anymore)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Stacey

    I thought I would leave a message of support with our Gav and his friends over at UnReal Climate. They seem to have a problem so I thought I would post it here?
    You guys are very quiet at the moment, but don’t worry it is obvious that your remarks in the newly released emails have been taken out of context.
    Now what type of person normally says their words have been taken out of context?
    Of course someone who is completely honest like for instance politicians.
    The middle game was Climategate 1 which your mates managed to help you out with we are now into the end game and unfortunately you have no credible pieces on the board.

    Three cheers for the “cause”.

    Also posted at CA, Wattas and James Delingpole.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Hellau from Germany

    Cool site,

    I can’t yet say much except that as sequels go, Climategate 2.0 might turn out to be a bigger hit than its predecessor.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    I found these on James Dedlingpole’s post that pertain directly to Australia.

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

    Torok/CSIRO:

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

    Minns/Tyndall Centre:

    Note Torok from CSIRO. Ken will recognised him as the person responsible for manipulating the Australian Temperature data back in 96.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Perhaps some diligent reporter should be on his doorstep asking if the email is valid and a few more questions to boot.

      I agree with Bernd tread carefully and be accurate with the the information.

      Say YES to an election now !!


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Amr Marzouk

    Well done, await head in sand comments.
    Also welcome back.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Stephen Wilde

    In light of all this it is clearly time to rapidly extract as much fossil fuel as we need in order to educate and empower the world so that every nation reaches the stage where its population voluntarily limits its fertility as happens and has happened in every nation that has achieved sufficient wealth, education and freedom.

    Then the world will all the sooner reach peak population and begin a population decline towards long term sustainability with the wealth derived from fossil fuels (or any genuinely economic alternative) providing a buffer against the economic effects of a global population contraction.

    That is the way forward. Not a Luddite type regression to the politics and economics of the Middle Ages when life for all was nasty brutish and short.

    Not only do wealthy, free and educated nations limit their fertility, they also care for the environment.

    The so called ’cause’ is evil incarnate.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Plain Jane

      Good comment Stephen
      It is nice to see sensible ideas put out there. Malthus theory sounds like a self evident truth but the evidence just does not support the theory when it comes to human population.

      The whole AGW thing is a re-hash of the original sin concept. Science is not as good a grab for power and money as religion as it is supposed to be falsifiable and we can ultimately catch up on them.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    val majkus

    thanks Jo – amazing – you couldn’t make this stuff up


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    Jo

    Just a heads up – your link above to the download site doesn’t work?

    I have also just sent link to this blog to my local member (Michelle Rowland Labor member Greenway) – will wait for her comments (not) but at least I have the pleasure of informing her of all the bad news for the warmists on a regular basis.

    Cheers,


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Lawrie

      I have an ongoing debate with my member, Rob Oakeshott. I have been regularly updating him on sea level rise, global cooling and quiet sun. He clings desperately to the CSIRO and IPCC. I was in the process of giving him the bad news concerning the European ETS and next years $4 to$7 per tonne price when this news came through. Naturally I threw it in as a bonus. Poor Rob must be feeling under threat. His heroes are losing.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        living in Canberra

        I should do the same for my local member because he is a real alarmist idiot, froths at the mouth with his alarmism….ROFL… trouble is I prefer to have nothing to do with him.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Madjak

    I doubt these are a hoax.

    I seem to remember with Climategate I I was warning people of a possible bait and switch. I couldn’t believe their internal workings could be so utterly childish and corrupt.

    I have since learned how fanatical these guys are and hownaive I was at the time.

    These look legit. Thanks to FOIA.

    Lets slice and dice. I can’t wait to do a search on cern, Rudd, gillard and “carbon tax”. It will have to wait until tonight.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris

    Anthony at WUWT confirms that the emails are real. One of emails contains a reference to a joint Seattle radio station interview he had with Tom Peterson in 2007.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I get error 404- are they anywhere else?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Madjak

    Can someone put these up as a torrent. The first thing is to make sure thereare as manycopies as possible.

    I seem to recall all sorts of agit propoganda tactics with climategate I. Links going down, articles being replaced with “Its a hoax, you’re all being misled etc etc”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Lovely “David Jones” subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set to: “Phil Jones” [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova:  Breaking! Apparently, more emails released. Climategate II? [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I like the comment about Real Climate being a tool to win the PR battle LOL.

    BTW I approve of the name ClimateGate 2.0 :D


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    And another killer story breaks today as well…it was only a few hundred billion that the EU spent on CO2 trading..which did nothing..
    The $CAGW$ spinmeisters have a lot of work ahead…. :)
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/europes-287bn-carbon-waste-ubs-report/story-fn59niix-1226203068972


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert of Ottawa

    As observed above, teh UEA has already stated that three enquireies have already vindicated them.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    This period of the world’s history will go down as that in which the public become aware of the level of Government corruption we have been subjected to by cunning powergrabbers.

    The collapse of the US and European financial systems and the financial damage (theft) to most other western societies was due to corruption withing Government and not just bad luck or having to face super complex problems.

    The issue is always transfer or power and money to the right locations where it can be easily accessed eg. UN bodies designed to aid and assist the poor and starving or to stop the sea levels rising.

    It is also instructive to go into and understand the workings of the Global Warming Scam because the methods (deception) and aims (personal profit) of that process are now widespread within our modern society and the method of attack is illustrated by the manipulation by the Global Warming Catastrophe.

    The problem for the average person is that these processes are largely invisible because they operate under a cloak of Government sponsored activity which is assumed (wrongly) to be above reproach.

    In our democracy we think, in our innocence, that Government is carefully overseeing the probity aspects of ALL activity by the system.

    The Global Warming Scam shows that this is not so and shows just how gullible we have been as a community and that ANY activity by Government is open to the same self serving abuse.

    The Global Warming Scam is emblematic of all Government abuse and corruption and a timely warning that we are being had, big time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    Other blogs are reporting that the MSM are running stories on the release of the emails already, whereas with ClimateGate 1.0, they took much longer. I subscribe to ABC and SMH “breaking stories” newsfeeds (I used to for The Australian also) and so far zilch. I know this has occurred overnight in Australia, however both news services have published other (less interesting) stories during that time. I’m wondering therefore if they’re not classified as “mainstream”?

    Meanwhile, I predict that most of the those included in the emails will claim there’s nothing to answer for.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Madjak

      Dave,
      I recall with climategate 1.0 That the lamestream sat on it, delayed and then obfuscated and tried to minimalise it.

      In the northern hemisphere (particularly in the uk and the us), it “went nuclear”.

      I’m not holding my breath waiting for the ozzy pink press to cover it. They’re irrelevant anyways, imo.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Twodogs

      You’re right. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. I did notice thought they the Tele ran a story about Alan Jones being found to be in breach of the commercial radio code by “not airing opposing viewpoints” and broadcasting a “factual inaccuracy”. Since when did every comment made in the media have to proven to be factually correct prior to broadcast, and besides, who gets to decide whether something is “factual” or not?

      They are not even waiting for the media enquiry to finish. They are going after them one by one. It’s only a matter of time before they head down the food chain and go after bloggers.

      The truth is lost. Now it’s time for them to resort to force.

      So when do they start building gulags so we can get to know each other better?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    david

    Jo, the link is down, can you or one of the readers here provide a new link?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Walter

    I just love the timely release.Should smackem around a bit before Durban.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    david

    Sorry, thanks to val majkus above, there is a working link :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Streetcred

    Where are our trolls? Retching into the bowl, perhaps?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      From what we have seen so far I would suspect they are waiting for someone to tell them how to respond, what they should say, and what their opinion on this is.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Madjak

        just like last time. The spin doctors need to approve things again.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Catamon

          Oh you are so cute Madjak.

          Haven’t been here much of late. Having a life will do that. Its still entertaining though and i’m sure the “ClimateGate II” episode will provide much entertainment. Will be interesting to see if this goes the same as ClimateGate I and becomes mainly known as a discredited PR exercise by hyperventilating one issue wonders?

          What i have been enjoying though is the final days of parliament for 2011. Bills getting through and the Carbon Price getting Royal Assent. Sorry people, Betty Windor ain’t coming over the hill on her racehorse to save us all from this evil conspiracy.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      • #
        Crakar24

        Yeah so am i Tristan, this is just another beautiful example of i what i already knew.

        We could talk about the wonderful utopian Green world that will rise out of the ashes of what we now call modern society if you like.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Catamon

        There is a certain rinse / repeat meme apparent isn’t there??

        Still, sociologically and politically fascinating.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Tristan

        I don’t think there’ll be ashes (any more than we already see) or any sort of utopia. Over the next two or three decades we’ll see a continuation of the move away from a market in which it is free to pollute.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          “”"continuation of the move away from a market in which it is free to pollute”"”

          Haaaaaaaaaa Haaaaaaa ha ha

          Pollution has gone on un-scrutinised by the Green Mafia while the only non pollutant in industrial processes is demonised.

          It’s truly a topsy turvy world where the centre of all life forms on earth is regarded as a poison and its’ gaseous compound, Carbon Dioxide, is supposed to be LIMITED AT ANY COST otherwise we will all be incinerated and then drowned.

          In the meantime NSW State Government oversees continuing pollution of our water ways and atmosphere by inadequate control measures.

          Perhaps there is money and influence involved?


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Oh Tristan,

          Over the next two or three decades we’ll see a continuation of the move away from a market in which it is free to pollute.

          That’s just classic!

          Free to pollute.

          eg – Supply electrical power to ALL consumers!

          You really need to look at consequences other than the release of CO2.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          debbie

          Yep that’s right Tristan,
          Look up the list.
          Those evil carbon polluters are the same people and industries who supply energy to your home, supply building materials for your home, the roads you drive on (or walk or ride on), the food on your table, the gadgets you love to use and clean potable water at your fingertips. The ‘supermarket god’ (you know, where deluded people like you think food just magically gets produced with no logistics involved) also will need to pay.
          As Tony points out, you seriously need to look at consequences.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Tristan

          Judging by the responses:

          I’m a member of the green mafia
          I think electricity is pollution
          I think people who put carbon in the atmosphere are evil
          and I don’t know anything about the supply chain.

          All very interesting.

          The rabid attempts to attribute x, y and z to me aside: People, including myself (for the record, I grew up on a farm), should pay for the entire cost of the production of the goods we consume. The materials, the expertise, the labour, the transport and any detrimental environmental impacts. Pollution/environmental destruction is a cost currently paid for by everyone (by way of health impacts, destruction of scenery, loss of biodiversity and climate change). I propose that those costs are incorporated into the production responsible. Climate Change is one part of a much larger issue that includes things such as water security, air quality, soil and water toxicity, conservation etcetera.

          The consequence of such an approach works as follows:

          Rather than all of us paying for everyone’s choices (via our environment account)

          We all pay for our own choices (via our savings account)

          I’m sure the communist hunters on this site can appreciate this sentiment.

          Obviously this requires putting a price on environmental damage.

          Thanks again folks, your ludicrous comments are the foundations for my soapbox. xox


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Madjak

            So tristan,

            If thats your view, why are you in support of taxing c02, which, imo is the ultimate distraction tactic from water pollution, land pollution etc etc etc?

            Face it, the real polluters are laughing allthe way to the bank with this war on carbon based life forms.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            John Brookes

            You may be a troll Tristan, but you are good at it!


            Report this

            00

        • #
          ghl

          “Market solutions” just give control to the rich. Not a sensible way to run the world.


          Report this

          00

    • #
  • #

    [...] link? WUWT, Climate Audit, the Air Vent as before and this time too Tallbloke’s Talkshop and JoNova. Anyone [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Paul J

    So it appears they are part of the original tranch of stolen emails that were cut and pasted. You know the ones that were found to be false and all investigations cleared the IPCC. Apparently it’s a rather amateur job as the dates are obvious fakes.

    How did the last protest go when Obama was here Jo, you know the one that had a dozen people merge with the Ron Paul supporters to try and bolster their numbers. The TV did yourselves a favour and didn’t report the low turnout as it was an embarresment.

    cheers

    [I invite you to provide evidence that these are faked. Besides that, I find that major spelling errors are a sign of a questionable poster.]ED


    Report this

    00

    • #
      brc

      Is this a joke, sarcastic comment? It’s very hard to tell.

      In case it’s a real comment, here’s a few pointers for you:
      - the original emails were validated as true by everyone involved
      - the IPCC had nothing to do with it and was never investigated
      - the UEA investigated itself and said it had to try harder
      - the parliament investigated the matter but didn’t invite any critics to participate
      - the dates were all accurate as people who had the ‘other’ side of the emails verified.

      Let me ask Paul J : are you trying to defend Jones, Mann et al? For what they have been found out to be doing? Or are you one of those noble cause types, where the ends justify the means?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Jo – is your blog on Perth time? The timelines seem to be:

    WUWT November 22, 2011 at 1:02 am (California = 9:02 GMT)

    Climate Audit Nov 22, 2011 at 4:09 AM | Permalink (Canada, Eastern = 09:09 GMT)

    Tallbloke’s November 22, 2011 at 9:28 am (GMT)

    DITC (my own blog) November 22, 2011 at 9:44 am (GMT)

    The Air Vent November 22, 2011 at 5:08 am (Michigan = 10:08 GMT)

    JoNova November 22, 2011 at 7:08 pm (Perth = 11:08 GMT)

    Anyone know of anywhere else?

    —-
    REPLY No My blog is on EST Time Australia — which is three hours ahead of Perth. When I posted the only sites I could find were Tallbloke and JeffID. Watts Up was not up.
    Jo


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      At Lucia’s Steven Mosher commented:

      Kinda figured this was coming.
      frank at swifthack knew
      Foia contacted him
      as best as I can tell.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I’m curious to know why this is important?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Well it’s important socially in the “who’s who” of the Climate Denial Machine. :)
        The order in which the whistleblower leaked the file onto the various sites may indicate just how far up each blog owner is in getting the respect of the whistleblower or being able to attract eyeballs.
        It’s a sort of high-school level “Who will the hot whistleblower ask to the dance first?” kind of thing.

        So yes, completely unimportant that Jo was only 6 minutes and 1 web site behind Anthony Watts…. and a minute ahead of Steve McIntyre! Oooh! Tongues will be wagging! ;-)


        Report this

        00

  • #

    [...] Breaking! Apparently, more emails released. Climategate II? [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Juliar

    If only the MSM media in Australia will report this…unfortunately I haven’t seen anything. The omerta continues on AGW journalism.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Anthony

    This latest release is part of a huge conspiracy by the Popcorn industry, those cunning swine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    give thanx for the new release…

    Mike W -
    your link is indeed nicely timed:

    SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/europes-287bn-carbon-waste-ubs-report/story-fn59niix-1226203068972

    because the Australian is behind a paywall, i am presuming some of the following is in the text i haven’t seen:

    22 Nov: EnvironmentalFinance: EU carbon price forecasts slashed
    Growing fears about the EU’s economy have prompted a new wave of downgrades of carbon price forecasts – but a prediction by UBS that prices could slump to €3 ($4.06) next year has elicited a rebuttal from a leading carbon market group.
    In light of the ongoing eurozone sovereign debt woes and fears of a second, deeper, recession, analysts at Swiss bank UBS last week said that they expect EU allowance (EUA) prices to fall to €5 in 2012-13, with the possibility they may collapse to as low as €3. This, they said, is due to the financial crisis, which has created a surplus of EUAs – which will take until 2025 to disappear – and has also weakened buyers’ balance sheets…
    http://www.environmental-finance.com/news/view/2133


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I note with interest that there’s nothing so far across at the ABC.

    However, and it’s always me who is changing the subject, it seems odd this new raft of emails was released in the run up to Durban.

    Speaking of the ABC and Durban, I was listening to their midday current affairs radio program, ‘The World Today’ yesterday (Tuesday) and who would have thought they would have a report mentioning the scare campaign of AGW, especially in the lead up to Durban.

    Remember that in the legislation recently passed, there is what is called CO2 equivalence, in respect of the 22 other gases that the UN decrees as GHG, and how each of those gases has it’s equivalence with CO2, and is being costed here in Australia according to its multiplier factor.

    The World Today report has a ‘beat up’ on this and how it is, er, ‘concerning’ those other GHG levels are rising alarmingly, and causing greater warming.

    It was interesting to say the least, especially keeping in mind the context of leading up to Durban.

    I was going to post the link here at Joanne’s site immediately I heard the short article, but they don’t release transcripts of their program at their site until the following day.

    Now, it seems almost academic to be placing that link here, but it is well worth reading the transcript of that short article at the following link:

    Use of HFCs exacerbates climate change: UN

    The interview is with Dr. Paul Fraser, an atmospheric scientist at the CSIRO.

    Note especially the use of, er, ‘fair and even handed’ language by the ABC where it says in the Intro:

    ….. a shocking report card on greenhouse gas emissions.

    They also subliminally shift the blame of guilt down to the personal individual level, by mentioning, almost in passing:

    The UN is also raising concern about potent greenhouse gases which are widely used in household goods and are becoming more prevalent.

    It’s an interesting article to say the least, but will quite obviously now be drowned by these new ‘Climategate 2′ revelations.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      What I guess was not perceived when HFCs were introduced more than a decade ago was the incredible growth that would occur in the developing world and the demand for refrigeration and air conditioning in the developing world means that the total demand for HFCs is greater than expected and likely to increase.

      Yes, well …

      As the redistribution of wealth though aid has started raising the living standard in the developing countries, we are now at a point where local investment in infrastructure is becoming apparent. This is primarily in areas such as irrigation and water treatment.

      Of secondary, but still significant importance is the need to preserve excess food (which is a new problem), and medical supplies (which has always been an issue). This will manifest itself in the purchase of communal freezers, refrigerators and air conditioners (the latter being mostly used for industrial chiller room applications rather than in dwellings).

      From a report we produced for a client about six years ago.

      The “new” focus of HFC’s is not new at all.

      A “hole” in the UN Clean Development Mechanism saw manufacturers of HCFC-22 (the mild greenhouse gas used as a refrigerant) being paid to destroy HFC-23 (a potent greenhouse gas) produced as a byproduct of of the manufacturing process.

      The amount paid to destroy HFC-23 was more than the value of the HCFC-22 was worth, so it paid the manufacturers to produce more HCFC-22 than the market demanded, just to get paid for destroying the by-product.

      The result is that there is enough HCFC-22 stock-piled to meet the projected demand for the next forty to fifty years.

      The UN has obviously just woken up to the fact that the pain they feel in their hypothetical foot is from a self-inflicted gun-shot wound.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    more revisionism:

    22 Nov: Reuters: Nina Chestney: “Carbon” becomes dirty word for climate investors
    In a sign of the tough times facing the carbon sector, the Carbon Markets and Investors’ Association last month dropped the word “carbon” from its name.
    The group, which represents more than 50 firms that finance and invest in emissions reduction, is now the Climate Markets and Investors’ Association (CMIA).
    “The new name reflects both the need and potential for the diversification of the role of the private sector in combating climate change,” said Miles Austin, director of the CMIA.
    “We need to explore supplementary routes to drive investments.”
    The VCS Association, which manages a voluntary carbon offset standard, stopped spelling out the word “carbon” in its name last year.
    “We never really thought twice about moving away from the word ‘carbon’,” said VCS Chief Executive David Antonioli.
    “Carbon trading in particular does not have the best reputation so if you want to stay in this space but draw less ire from some quarters it would make sense to use climate instead of carbon.”…
    Just a few years ago, many investors were betting on a $2 trillion global carbon market by 2020…
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-carbon-climate-idUSTRE7AL1GE20111122


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    22 Nov: Vancouver Sun: Craig McInnes: Political climate change leaves B.C. green plan in a fog
    Meanwhile, the alliance that was pushing ahead on the level of states and provinces in the absence of national and inter-national action has quietly disintegrated..
    Back in the not-too-distant past when Campbell was teaming up with then California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger as the dynamic duo of climate change, that might have been enough to keep the momentum going.
    But Schwarzenegger has gone back to making movies and Campbell is now doing Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s bid-ding as the high commissioner to London…

    On the provincial government’s website, gov.bc.ca, the climate change program that used to be prominently displayed now appears only in the fine print, along with dozens of other links. The elements of the strategy are losing support and being discredited, not just by climate change skeptics, but by critics who don’t doubt the science but still don’t like some of the policies being used to address it…
    The disintegration of the Western Climate Initiative undermines a key component to the justification for the car-bon tax…

    As for the carbon tax, it also seems to be near the end of its run. I don’t expect it to be repealed, but the Liberal-dominated legislative committee on finances that tours the province every year in advance of the budget has recommended that the increase scheduled for 2012 be the last.
    At that level, the tax will continue to have little effect on consumer behaviour, especially if we know it is not going to continue to increase.
    Another showpiece, the province’s claim to be carbon neutral, is falling short on two counts. First, it doesn’t include the out-put of BC Ferries, a major emitter. Second, the government achieves neutrality by buying carbon offsets, a practice that is both questionable in concept and in the way it is being implemented through the Pacific Carbon Trust, the agency set up to buy and sell the offsets.
    Many British Columbians have been incensed by the way schools and health authorities have been forced to buy carbon offsets only to watch some of those dollars be turned over to the energy giant Encana…
    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Political+climate+change+leaves+green+plan/5748323/story.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] are some tasty tidbits. Phil Jones: Bryan Weare is at US Davis. He would know about some of the things you mention. The [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    very bad timing for Romm:

    22 Nov: Economist: Carbon control
    This house believes that climate-control policies cannot rely on carbon capture and storage
    Join this Live Debate
    Defending the motion: Joseph Romm
    Opening Remarks: Joseph Romm
    Any debate over climate policies must begin with the scope of the problem and solution…
    Needless to say, anything close to 6°C warming this century would probably mean suffering beyond imagination for billions:
    • devastating heat waves, floods and other extreme events;
    • myriad direct health impacts;
    • dust-bowl conditions over much of the arable and heavily populated regions around the globe;
    • sea-level rise of around 1 foot by 2050, then 4-6 feet (or more) by 2100, rising some 6-12 inches (or more) each decade thereafter;
    • massive species loss on land and sea—perhaps 50% or more of all biodiversity;
    • food insecurity—the increasingly difficulty task of feeding 7 billion, then 8 billion, then 9 billion people in a world with an ever-worsening climate.
    Most of these will be happening simultaneously and getting worse decade after decade. Equally tragic, a 2009 study found that the worst impacts would be ““largely irreversible for 1,000 years.”..
    http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/781


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    val majkus

    and this site http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-2011-foia.html
    has a fairly detailed description

    The zip file contains a 13 MB “documents” subfolder with 23 DOC and similar mostly official documents, a 68 MB “mail” subfolder with 5,300 selected but full e-mails, the 20 kB readme.txt file that will be reproduced below, and a 133 MB archive called all.7z which unpacks to 806 MB (see e.g. WinRAR) containing 220,000 e-mails. However, this file is protected by an aes-256 passphrase that hasn’t been published (try to guess it or run cracking programs). So I omitted it in the second, reduced file posted on my Skydrive. I would guess that most of 220,000 e-mails (probably the whole IPCC e-mail history) are bound to be boring (which may be why they’re protected) but I may be wrong: they may still be explosive enough and the individual or organization may be waiting for a moment to release the password and allow thousands or millions of people (who have already downloaded the big file) to access the e-mails instantly.

    The “mail” subfolder contains a selection of 5,300 e-mails that were identified by the distributor(s) through some keywords by searching.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    People behind the latest email release are “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial.”- Michael Mann in today’s Guardian.
    This tells me, first, that Mann is paranoid and irrational; second, that he is a Green climate activist first and everything else second – certainly not a trustworthy “scientist” with credibility. For all their success in signing up dumb (and increasingly isolated)national governments like Australia’s, he and the IPCC still can’t provide an irrefutable causal link between global temperature and C02 ppm. We are still being asked to accept “opinions” and “probabilities” from a scientific establishment with a massive conflict of interest: if natural variability is to blame, the funding gravy train dries up and climate science becomes just another department competing for funds.
    It also tells me that the funding campaign, to be launched in the run-up to Durban this weekend, will be truly hysterical, even comical.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      brc

      It’s worse than that – as the early parts of the emails come out, it’s full of stuff about them not even beleiving their own models, privately admitting the hockey stick was a load of baloney, and more.

      Not only are they not scientists, they’re not even good activists. They’re just plain old liars, lying to stay on the gravy train. Beneath contempt in my book.

      The IPCC members have seen the writing on the wall hence the early leak playing up the uncertainties.

      Mann and Jones will go down in this one, maybe not this year, maybe not next. But the history books will not be kind. Mann seems to be the worst player, scheming to work out ways to smear Steve McIntyre instead of working out ways to prove him wrong with science. Mann’s knee-jerk statement is just gibberish – for example you don’t hack a website to get an email cache. With the troubles his university (Penn State) is already in w/regard to coverups with coaching, I doubt this is going to help and he will probably run out of people to protect him, and I would say university management will seriously consider throwing him under the bus to protect itself.

      Phil Jones, as always, just appears in above his head but sticking to the script. He knows the models are bunk, he know the problems, but bravely publicly doesn’t admit them while scheming to delete emails lest anyone find out what he really thinks.

      As for Labor – they’ll just play the blame game when it really falls apart. See Julia and corrupt unions members ‘I was young and naive’.

      As always, the pro-AGW trolls are dazed and confused. Everywhere I look, they’re tentatively trying out their old lines ‘out of context’, ‘cleared by enquiries’ but somehow know they have no traction at all.

      Personally I hope the encrypted 220,000 emails have the killer blow, and this is just a rope-a-dope to get the guilty drawn into defending themselves before the final hammer blow.

      Durban was always going to be a non-event, but now it’s really going to fizzle. And the funny thing is : they did this all to themselves. All that has happened here is that people private doubts and scheming have become public doubts and public scheming. If they had just acted honestly, this would have no impact at all. As it turns out, they have holed their own boat below the waterline.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      cohenite

      Mann has lost it, he is truly revealed. In regard to the people behind the leaks, one says this:

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

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

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

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

      “Poverty is a death sentence.”

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

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

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

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

      That doesn’t sound like big oil does it. Incidentally does anyone have a link to that quote by the author which I got from Bolt’s?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    val majkus

    one of our intrepid writers should at some time write a story on this
    ‘the manufacturing of a consensus’
    and when you look at these e mails and the climategate ones that’s truly what is depicted


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Isn’t it great to see scientists who are supposedly all in on some big con job sending emails to each other calling their work pathetic! It appears robust debate and dissent is alive and kicking in climate science!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Oh really? So is that why that pathetic piece of work became the centerpiece of the hypothesis and why we are referred to it so often?

      If the debate and dissent was alive and kicking those voices would have been heard long ago rather than through leaked emails. Try again.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      brc

      I would support your comment if their private doubts weren’t matched by doubtless public exaggerations.

      A person who sits on private doubts and knowledge that what they are doing is crap, but who publicly pronounces there is no doubt, and that trillions have to be spent – that person has no integrity at all.

      Telling each other the models are wrong, the studies are useless, then publicly telling everyone else they have to change the way they live because of imminent danger – if that’s not a description of a big con, I would struggle to find a better one.

      I know deep down you recognise this, hence your half-hearted attempt at defending the indefensible.

      If *you* have integrity, you should be distancing yourself from these fools and schemers.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Nice try Mattb to defend the indefensible.

      They called the work pathetic behind the scenes and then called us deniers when we said the same thing.

      The word you are looking for is Scum.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      mattb, I read your post and all I can come up with is that you are in denial. How does it feel?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MattB

      Ha ha look I just felt that it was expected of me to defend it:)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Pierce

      Hey! Mattb nice job you really deffended the indeffenceable! Congratulations! Did you know this comment is Ironic?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    it really is all over for CAGW:

    hopefully google will now stop manipulating their search engine in favour of CAGW and putting solar ads on every youtube u open…

    22 Nov: Reuters: Alexei Oreskovic: Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy
    * Says other institutions better placed to carry on effort
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/google-idUSN1E7AL1X520111123


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    3791.txt

    date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 19:49:18 -0000 (GMT)
    from: “Tim Osborn”
    subject: RE: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01
    to: “Jones Philip Prof”

    Hi Phil!

    re. your email to Dave Palmer [which he copied in his response to you and
    cc'd to me, Keith & Michael McGarvie, and which has hence already been
    multiply copied within the UEA system, and therefore will probably exist
    for a number of months and possibly years, and could be released under FOI
    if a request is made for it during that time!]… I assume that you didn’t
    delete any emails that David Holland has requested (because that would be
    illegal) but that instead his request merely prompted you to do a spring
    clean of various other emails that hadn’t been requested, as part of your
    regular routine of deleting old emails. If that is what you meant, then
    it might be a good idea to clarify your previous email to Dave Palmer, to
    avoid it being misunderstood.

    The way things seem to be going, I think it best if we discuss all FOI,
    EIR, Data Protection requests in person wherever possible, rather than via
    email. It’s such a shame that the skeptics’ vexatious use of this
    legislation may prevent us from using such an efficient modern technology
    as email, but it seems that if we want to have confidential discussions
    then we may need to avoid it.

    I shall delete this email and those related to it as part of my regular
    routine of deleting old emails!

    Cheers

    Tim


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    Richard Tol has confirmed that his three e-mails are indeed his and real.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Here’s the link to Dr Tol’s comment.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ho Hum, what would you expect?

    The Washington Post has an article at this link, pouring cold water on these emails.

    At the end of the article, Post journalist Jason Samenow of Capital Weather Gang states this classic:

    I could not agree more with (MIT Climate Scientist Kerry) Emanuel when he says the the contents of the Climategate emails are not the real scandal, but that it’s instead the effort to discredit climate change science.

    …..

    There are surely meaningful topics to debate in climate science. Competent people can disagree about how big of a problem global warming is. But the scientific community has largely moved beyond the scientific issues brought to life in the Climategate emails and more emails on the same issues only serve as an unneeded distraction.

    As I said, what would you expect?

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jazza

    So, will the ABC run with this at all,even denying or blaming to obfuscate?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Hasbeen

    Now is the time for every one involved in the science community, who must know how improbable the AGW argument really is, to screw every bit of courage they posses, into a tight ball, & come out with the truth.

    Any who don’t will for ever be tainted with fellow traveler status.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Juliar

      Agreed, there needs to be a united front on this. More scientists coming out at once will put pressure on th lies and the MSM will be forced to report it.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      incoherent rambler

      “So Dad(Mom), what did you do to help expose the greatest science scam in history? You weren’t one of the silent people were you?”


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    GrazingGoat66

    If these are real (or at least some are authentic) then…..oh dear. This could be the final nail in certain alarmists coffins surely.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      GrazingGoat66

      Note I wrote “certain” alarmists. Some of the usual suspects who have gone above and beyond with their ridculous predictions are whom I was targeting.
      I agree wholeheartedly with Mike (Comm 74) when he says that there is too much money tied up in the rort to let it fall over. But I re-iterate my point that certain warmists will eventually be completely ignored, even by their fellow alarmists thanks to their (increasingly) absurd public commentary.
      And at that point, then there is hope that sensible public discussion will gather pace of it’s own accord.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Bingi

    wot was that? you think this might be the final nail in the alarmists coffin? or maybe it’s the final, final, final, final nail in the coffin???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    This could be the final nail in certain alarmists coffins surely.

    Not going to happen..
    The $CAGW$ troops have invested too much time and energy into this..there are too many careers and too much money built on and around this meme..
    Look at all the billions “used” in the carbon trading scam in the link I gave above,
    And as usual..not one of the “believers” that have time to read this site ..have the guts or integrity to even say..”well yes..what a waste of time and money that was..”
    They just hide..its a great combination..intellectual and moral cowardice..at least they are consistent with this..
    Yet..bizarrely ..can find the time to gloat about a CO2 tax..
    And whats even scarier..many of the pundits..if you ask them anything..know even less than some of the trolls that drift through here(yes..I know thats a tall order) :)
    They “want” to believe in it..its a religious belief based on a what superficially appears to be a reasonable sounding hypothesis..
    A friend of mine teaches science…he said to me one day “but dont you believe in global warming“.
    I explained to him the difference between global warming and $CAGW$…
    He looked slightly puzzled..
    So..I bought him “The HockeyStick Illusion” by Montford.
    My science teacher friend told me “I might read this but it scares me“.
    He can not believe that consensus view in the media/science can possibly be mistaken..about anything..
    A common troll strawmannian (is that a good segue?) trick is then to ask the rhetorical question “so..its a vast conspiracy then
    No..its called $+vested interests+cognitive dissonance=$CAGW$
    Simple..:)
    Like many in the world..they think an appeal to consensus is a scientific argument…how many $CAGW$ trolls use it..exactly..
    Its just that many of the activists/scientists..now know that without this..there is no funding..no more models…and they have a mortgage to pay as well.
    How many of us would put our hand up and and tell the truth..knowing you would be dismissed and virtually unemployable in these niches fields..
    Exactly..
    Look at the flipping hockey stick…in the real world..shredded years ago..in the $CAGW$ world..business as usual..
    They play the old “that might have had a few problems but in the scheme of things blah blah blah.”
    $CAGW$ is not falsifiable..it never was..thats the beauty of it..its everything to everyone..
    Can I start a trend of $CAGW$ instead of CAGW…its far more pertinent.. :)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Look at the flipping hockey stick…in the real world..shredded years ago..in the $CAGW$ world..business as usual..
      They play the old “that might have had a few problems but in the scheme of things blah blah blah.”

      Wilson:

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

      The sad fact is they knew it themselves the only stupid souls that did not catch on are the warmbots that frequent this site and a few others. Imagine having swollowed this shit for years, defending this shit for years and now finding out that you have been played for the fool by these scammers.

      You know i actually feel sorry for Tristan et al.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        brc

        You know i actually feel sorry for Tristan et al.

        I don’t. They were given plenty of evidence that the hockey stick and models were all faulty, but they chose to believe instead of opening their mind like the rest of us.

        I don’t know how they feel now that the people they have been defending have now been revealed as knowing the hockey stick was BS all along, that they were publicly attacking McIntyre while privately agreeing with him. I would feel pretty duped if that were me.

        Jo has been posting for a long time how the ‘hot spot’ disproves the theory, all the while someone came up with one BS paper. Now we know that even those on ‘the cause’ knew that was a load of crap, but they didn’t come out and admit it. Same for the Antarctic warming, cloud-less models, it just goes on and on. Just about everything posted on sites like this over the last 5 years or so has turned out to be correct, and the team ADMITTED THIS AMONGST THEMSELVES, all while exhorting their merry useful idiots to fight the good fight for ‘the cause’.

        All in all it’s a pretty bad day for the true believers. It’s like spending your life in a vow of silence, abstinence and virginity only to find out the high priests have been having drunken orgies with shouting matches. Will be interesting to see how many of the true believers blink their eyes and pretend they didn’t just see the high priest with pants around the ankles, beer in hand.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    • #
      Bruce of Newcastle

      Looks like ‘FOIA’ has scored a hit on battleship Lewandowsky. No less than 31 links in his article. Slightly touchy about Climategate is our Stephan.
      <blockquote>”Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from public sources (primarily the Australian Research Council and other federal agencies). He does not have any commercial interests of any kind.”
      All produced using my taxes too!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Crakar24

      I read it GA nothing new defend defend defend.

      I can understand people like yourself, Tristan, Catamon(gstthepigeons), JB, Mattb and all the other warmbots out there having an opinion on AGW and i dont begrudge you because they differ from mine but what fascinates me is your steadfast refusal or is it an inablity to allow doubt to creep in.

      Lets look at the facts:

      1) The planet is not warming
      2) The models could not predict the winning local chock raffle ticket number nevermind the climate
      3) I have lost count of all the “gates”
      4) we have emails straight from the horses mouth telling you this is a scam
      5) We have gross hypocrasy
      6) We have gross incompetence
      7) We have outright fraud
      8) We have useless taxes
      9) We have lies and deceit

      Through all of this you lot have maintained the faith, you have not wavered one iota in your belief of the theory and you are just as convinced now as you were at the very beginning that tipping points actually do exist so now the question must be asked as to why.

      To me there can only be two reasons why:

      1) You stand to gain by supporting this scam, examples would be Al Gore, Malcolm Turnbull, Mr Panasonic AKA The King of Geothermia AKA Tim Flannery and all the money junkies you care to name or

      2) You have an IQ below 50 now i actually know someone like this if he was balls deep in permafrost during an Adelaide summer and you told him it was caused by AGW he would believe you.

      So the question is GA (and all others mentioned) which group do you belong to?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Juliar

        There are some intelectual people who honsetly do believe in AGW. Obviously these people aren’t scientists but they believe it because when people tell you that AGW is real over and over again you will eventually believe it. AGW alarmism is in the media continually so the more people here about it the more they will believe AGW is real.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Winston

          It’s more than that, my friend. They are in love, head over heels irrationally in love, with the idea that mankind as the apex predator of the planet is an evil, malevolent force and is to be seen as an horrendous blight on the pristine Gaia earth mother spirit that gives us our planetary home. Like Catholicism vilified sexuality, so too do Gaia worshippers despise and seek vengeance upon those of us who consume more than our perceived fair share of her bounty. It’s all about biblical guilt and sin, and typifies everything counterproductive, irrational, self-loathing and regressive in the mindset of some of our number, who rationalize their fear of progress with a Luddite doctrine, ironically while wrongly casting themselves as enlightened and progressive souls, when evidence surely suggests otherwise. In addition, they are high on concept, short on planning, insight and morality with respect to the consequences of their actions.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Bruce of Newcastle

          J – be careful with what you are saying please. You should be using ‘CAGW’ because AGW is real, but harmless. UHIE is AGW, but is not harmful. Every time you start your car you are putting waste heat into the atmophere – that is (minute) AGW. It is not catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming, CAGW.

          I am a scientist and on my reading of the climate data, particularly the temperature record there appears to be measurable warming due to CO2. This is indeed the finding of people like Dr Ray Spencer and Dr Richard Lindzen, who respectively measure 2XCO2 at 0.6 and 0.7 C/doubling. The point here is this level of climate sensitivity is so small you would have to burn all the extractable carbon in the world and then some to even get 2 C of AGW out of CO2. Not conceivably catastrophic.

          If you regard AGW as unreal you are leaving yourself open to scientific criticism which is unnecessary if you instead write ‘CAGW’.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Bruce.

            You ask “”J – be careful with what you are saying please” and I could perhaps follow up on something I wrote the other day about separating the facts?

            To say that “AGW is real” is being a little too honest, perhaps to the point of misinforming people with little scientific training. AGW is real but it is so tiny as to be unmeasureable.

            It worries me to see quotes like ” measure 2XCO2 at 0.6 and 0.7 C/doubling ” without the full qualification of which factors are being included or excluded. .

            I realise it is not always easy to do this briefly but there is one critical point that Dr Ray Spencer and Dr Richard Lindzen’s quoted remark is not clear on.

            These quotes are for ALL atmospheric CO2 both natural and human origin

            They do not isolate the temperature change attributable to the Human origin CO2.

            If this was done the temp change due to MAN would be between 0.030 and 0.035 Celsius degrees.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Keith – You may be right. I see the upper limit as 0.15 C due to greenhouse gases during the 20th C, by difference. That is compatible with those 2XCO2 values. I should say that “2XCO2″ usually comprises all GHG forcings (ie CH4, N2O, CHF’s etc) but with CO2 being about 90% of it. So doubling pCO2 might raise temperature by 0.7 C or by 0.6 C but it won’t be anywhere near IPCC’s silly model numbers.

            But my point stands – AGW exists, but it may range from minute (your values) to small (my values). It comes in different varieties – the urban heat island effect (UHIE) is human caused warming with measurable effect, but is clearly self limiting. You won’t ever fry the world by paving it with asphalt.

            Who cares if AGW is small and undangerous? My point is it exists in the data, so you’re open to criticism if you say otherwise. This whole shebang is about unjustifiably spending squillions to stop non existent CAGW.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Bruce, I haven’t ever had a reason to quarrel with you but please ponder for a moment that UHIE isn’t much different than say the natural effects of stone walls in a canyon. UHIE may very well be a man caused warming but might it also be offset by Rural Agriculture Island Effect(RAIE)? think of the albedo difference between prairie grasslands and the standing corn field.

            For certain man is here (with good luck awhile more) but assigning the scarlet letter “A” to anything invites the application to nearly everything and without real benefit.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Mark D

            The “stone walls in a canyon” is a “get you thinking” image.

            Tends to remind us that all incoming heat/radiation is going to end up somewhere and will eventually find its way back to that big old heat sink in the sky at about minus 270.46 deg C. (I used to think it was absolute zero but have been put right by a CSIRO guy.)

            The only difference between the energy into an UHI zone and bush is the time frame for turnaround and the re emission wavelength.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bruce of Newcastle

            Mark – Look at the link I provided. It shows that empirically even quite low population densities can give an increase in local temperature. You know well that asphalt will do it too, but simple dirt will also.

            I agree the principle is applicable to anything from desertification to a surfiet of moles, but most is due to human activity which technically makes it AGW. But not CAGW.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Bruce

            The last comment “even quite low population densities can give an increase in local temperature” gives an interesting starting point to examine whether world CO2 increases are due to humans or perhaps something else.

            I have mainly been looking at the CO2 – radiant energy in/out cycle which helps hold the Earth at a liveable temperature.

            There are two aspects of the UHI that now come to mind. First the changing albedo which is most of what I think you are talking about and secondly, the fact that people need energy.

            Of itself , nothing startling.

            But then the image of Mauna Loa’s CO2 – straight line – CO2 vs time graph came to mind. The graph always comes with the comment : humans are doing this.

            I have always refused to accept that humans in a steady state system were causing linear increase in atm CO2 content BUT it just struck me that population growth is exponential and everyone wants energy.

            Every new person uses electricity of burns the local scrub to cook with and so increases thermal output and CO2 output locally.

            I do think that if population ever became neutral (work out your own odds of that) then human contribution to atm CO2 would be zero. It is only the human pop ACCELERATION that can cause any CO2 increase because it will normally be sequestered rapidly by the environment at steady state.

            Just how much the accelerated energy extraction can contribute to world temps has to be quantified. Generally combustion leads to convection so residence time in atm may be small leading to very little temp rise. Rambling brain explosion. :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Bruce, I can go with the total UHI as mathematically no more than all the BTU (old fashioned) of combined human carbon fuel use. Globally it can be no more than that. I’ve never heard it said that the actual heat from combustion contributes no more than a trivial amount to global temperatures. If that is true then UHI is only a focused effect that makes no difference overall. It may skew temperature measurements but if the global measurements were done well it wouldn’t matter. AGW or CAGW are terms used to describe co2 not combustion caused warming. I agree with you that humans aren’t doing anything to cause catastrophe. (you could get me going on the notion that population density (human caused) will increase probability of a pandemic disease catastrophe but that is a different subject).

            My point is there isn’t much AGW either and it could be quantified rather easily by tallying all energy production and subtract Hydro, solar, wind, bio-fuel and maybe a few others.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Juliar

            I am only new to this place so I am not use to the abbreviations of somethings but I will remember to use the correct abbreviation next time. Kinky Keith, I do not have any qualification or training yet but that doesn’t mean I know completely nothing about such topics. :)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Juliar

            I was making a comment on a comment on a comment.

            But I agree with you original statement. :)


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        You have to read it, not as Gee Aye, but as G.I. – Government Issue.

        This is the term used to describe soldiers and marines in America.

        The “thinking” military refer to them as “grunts” because they have trouble forming coherent sentences.

        Given the brevity and lack of intellectual content exhibited by Gee Aye, I have come to the conclusion that he/she/it is merely following orders: “Yes Sir! This soldier will copy the script onto enemy blogs, sir!

        Cannon fodder, they used to be called, unfortunately necessary, but expendable.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Winston

          “Yes Sir! This soldier will copy the script onto enemy blogs, sir!

          Perhaps the following will allow us to see Tristan, JB, Catamon, and others in the proper light. The thankless task of their devil’s advocacy.
          Trolls’ Mission Impossible……
          Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to infiltrate sites like WUWT or Jo Nova in the guise of a reasonable person who has the best interests of science and the planet at heart. There, you must engage those who frequent the site by following the rules of engagement as set out below:
          1) NEVER make any statements about what YOU actually believe. This is anathema to the troll edict and allows these skeptics (otherwise known as “adversaries”) to pick apart the logical fallacies of your arguments.
          2) NITPICK at any grammatical errors or loosely argued statements, and keep hammering away at the minutae till you wear them down.
          3) OBFUSCATE, CONFUSE and DISRUPT the thread as much as you can, forcing it to drift away from the original topic. One should look to the example of that exemplary pedant, “Adam Smith”, as inspiration in this regard, as he was and remains the Bradman of trolls.
          4) MAINTAIN AN AIR OF DETACHED SUPERIORITY, because nothing infuriates the skeptic more than a vacuous argument put forth with an air of moral and intellectual superiority.
          5) CUT AND PASTE as much as possible, preferably with irrelevant details peripheral to the thrust of the topic. Supply links to websites and papers which only bear peripherally upon the argument, where possible, and preferably rely upon computer modelling with a minimum of empirical data for the skeptics to pick apart.
          6) IGNORE any aspects of the post which are especially relevant or well argued. By ignoring them and pretending the comments weren’t made they thus effectively cease to exist.
          7) And always remember- STAY ON MESSAGE, no matter how much your argument has been shown to be erroneous, irrelevant or downright illogical you must never concede defeat. In the words of Bill Clinton- “Deny, deny, deny”.

          A word of warning, however. Should you be caught, the Minister for the Department of Climate Catastrophisation will disavow any knowledge of your activities. This tape will self destruct in 10 seconds………………………….


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Winston,

            if you were the only person commenting at this blog, I would read every word.

            You separate the dross so wonderfully, and every point you make in the above comment is perfectly stated, and absolutely correct.

            I am absolutely certain that Donald George is rolling in his grave right now.

            He WAS a giant.

            Doctor Smith, in his earlier life, was a flea who flitted across the pitch at Kennington, and into Don’s eye as he faced up to his second ball from Eric Hollies on 16Aug48.

            Winston, I know this may be a demotion for you, but if you were my GP, I’d swap Doctor’s right now.

            And J.B. please no comments about getting a room.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            The Don was the quintessential sportsman of the last century, IMO. So, by referring to the erstwhile Mr Smith as the “Bradman of trolls”, I didn’t intend to impugn the great man himself but may have done so inadvertently by association. My humblest apologies.

            It is true that Bradman was bowled for 0 on that fateful day in 1948, and though he was too humble to admit it, I’m sure it had as much to do with the emotion he felt at the reception he received from the patrons at The Oval, as it did to the deception of Hollies’ wrong ‘un.

            I doubt that Adam Smith or his ilk, in any guise, could have lowered Don’s sights sufficiently to be distract him, such were his inimitable powers of concentration.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Yes Winston, another good post.

            Tony, JB makes comments like “get a room” because he is jealous. He doesn’t have any friends and leads a very lonely existence. Because of his demeanor, he can’t make friends either so when he sees people that actually appreciate each other (the basis for friendship) he can only bristle.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        John Brookes

        Winston, as I’ve said many times, I have doubts. I have trouble believing that we are looking at another couple of degrees temperature rise this century.

        However, you’ll forgive me if I have even more trouble taking “skeptics” seriously.

        Climate scientists have a central thesis that seems reasonable, and some side lines that might be a bit dodgy (regional predictions, even regional observations and analysis). “Skeptics” have no central thesis, other than a strong belief that its not warming, its not CO2 and its not our fault (a sort of trinity). The “skeptics” endless bad arguments and comical parade of charlatans dents your credibility. The general inability (with one or two noble exceptions) of “skeptics” to be at all critical of each other doesn’t help.

        That scientists are, at least in their private emails, critical of each other, is a strength, not a weakness. That scientists cling to pet theories, while not admirable, is pretty common, and has been for hundreds of years.

        So, as yet another final nail goes into the coffin of CAGW, conveniently timed in the lead up to the Durban conference, you’ll pardon me if I’m skeptical.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Winston

          I’ll give you some small credit, John, for the honesty displayed in your answer above regarding your “doubts”. Even if I beg to differ with much of the rest of your assertions, I don’t doubt your sincerity.

          The “skeptics” endless bad arguments and comical parade of charlatans dents your credibility.

          Many skeptical supposed ‘bad’ arguments have in fact been quite germane and well made, as has been now openly acknowledged in several of the private emails we’ve just read courtesy of some of the principals in the CAGW circus. Steve McIntyre, Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts come off quite well in the respect shown for their positions and arguments, rather than as a “comical parade of charlatans” as you so quaintly put it. Could you be projecting a bit there?- After all head to head – Spencer versus Flannery, Watts versus Lewandowsky, Lindzen versus Steffan, McIntyre versus Garnaut, Monkton versus Gore- looks like you might have been looking at the wrong cast of characters for your “charlatan parade” there, JB- people in glass houses……..

          Basic problem is that all models are wrong

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

          That doesn’t seem to suggest that Phil Jones believes that the GCMs are that accurate or authoritative, now does it? So, when he believes these models are terribly flawed and lack predictive capacity as a result, why does this same person publicly suggest that the science is “settled” and that their is no doubt whatsoever that the GCMs are accurate? That’s not a ‘bad argument’, it’s a lay down misere. It’s also a complete deception and possibly fraud, if money is obtained and personal gain is attendant (awards, grants, Nobel prizes, etc) as a result of deliberately misleading fellow scientists, governments, and the public at large. It is indeed a “weakness” to not be totally open and freely admit uncertainties publicly as part of the scientific process. Anything less defies the whole principle upon which scientific method is predicated.

          Faith is not a substitute for unbiased observations, desire is not a substitute for meticulously and methodically accumulated objective data, and nobility of cause is no substitute for proper methodology and transparent adherence to scientific method and principle. As the IPCC, UEA and UVA have demonstrably failed to adhere to these tenets by their own admission, they thereby forfeit any semblance of credibility in propagating this whole climate catastrophe meme, even notwithstanding the fact that observations in the real world do not bear out the predicted warming that was alleged to be inevitable without drastic alteration of the world’s fundamental economic basis.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Vanishing Point

          John you assume that as a skeptic I need a central thesis. But why? Observations of the real world show no appreciable temperature change. Therefore existing understanding of the world does not need changing either thence no need for a new central thesis or climate science for that matter. Scientists are humans too. When given a new toy they are very proud of it and think that everybody should get excited too. So when given a new gauge to measure CO2 they have seen a raise in CO2 they did not see before. When they get a new digital thermometer that can measure temperature to 4 digits after the decimal place they wet themselves. A modern speed camera will tell you that you are a killer when you drive 1 km/h over the speed limit but is it true? Perhaps it is more important to look at the road ahead rather than at the speedometer?

          During the last 30 years the world did not change very much when it comes to ‘climate’. If the next 70 years sees a dramatic change then surely humans will be able to cope. After all it did not really take that long to rebuild Europe after the WWII. Look at what has happened to China during the last 20 years. Given enough resources humans are able to take care of themselves really well and even to help the environment at the same time. The only time there is a problem is if the resources are in short supply and that can happen if resources are being wasted (on buying lots of digital thermometers for example).

          Currently the observed link between temperature and CO2 levels is very week indeed. Perhaps in the future it will change but by then technology will be very different too. There weren’t many iPhones on board of the Titanic. And the Wright brothers did not actually fly from Sydney to London with 500 other friends and their luggage. What do you think people will be capable of in 50-100 years time? Surely a CO2 gauge or a computer model can’t tell you that. Given enough energy it will be easy to convert CO2 to a harmless chemical if it proves to be a problem or (trying to be funny) to build a giant air conditioner. But this will be impossible if we spend our money buying indulgences and flogging ourselves for our sins instead. It is so much easier to form a sensible thesis when one lives in comfort and without pain. Last time I’ve checked London was not covered by horse s**t yet that was a central thesis a while ago. Lucky they did not have ‘climate scientists’ at the time otherwise they would have bulldozed Scotland to ‘recycle’ it over there.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Mark D.

      He ought to be able to self-diagnose: Clinical Denial

      I could almost hear him whimpering “make it stop make it go away” as I read his piece….


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Gee Aye

      in reply to all… I was bringing it to your attention, not endorsing it.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    John of Cloverdale Perth WA

    brc, I hope those politicians, public servants and gravy train people like Flannery and Steffen choke on their champagne and caviar as they attend the Durban Circus.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] New Climategate emails have been leaked. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Smith101

    I wonder if the about turn contained in the “IPCC scientists test the Exit doors” post is in anyway connected with the Climategate 2 emails’ release; if so then beyond coincidence that suggests prior or inside knowledge in some quarters.
    Also any chance (Jo?) that the currently accessible portion of the Climategate 2 email zip file could be broken down into bite size chunks for those of us still beholden to “steam-driven dial-up” internet connections? We need to access and post as many emails as possible before the spin doctors weave their stories. Probably would not hurt to let our local federal MPs and senators know about this too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John in NZ

    In November 2009, some photos of Mr Fox appeared on the internet. No one knew who released the photos, but they showed Mr Fox covered with blood and
    feathers and a dead chook in his mouth.The background looked like the inside of the henhouse. Mr Farmer was said to be appalled.

    People who thought Mr Fox had been killing chickens for some time were quick to declare that this was overwhelming evidence. Incontrovertible, they said.

    Obviously, an independant inquiry would be needed. Mrs Fox was, of course, the obvious choice to head the investigation. Parrallel investigations were also launched by Mr Weasel and Ms. Stoat.

    Mr Fox was asked for an explanation and was quickly able to answer all their questions.

    They rapidly concluded their investigations and completely exonerated Mr Fox.

    They had asked him to explain, and he did. The photos had been stolen. They were private property and had been taken out of context.

    The investigations felt there was no case to answer.

    Mr Farmer declared the investigations to be a whitewash, but then he would wouldn’t he?

    In November 2011 some more photos of Mr Fox emerged on the net. What appeared to be Mr Fox’s hands were shown to be wrapped around a dying rooster.

    Mr Fox is reported as saying

    “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    the MSM has all the memes ready; mostly covering it on Blogs ONLY:

    22 Nov: ABC America Nature & Environment Blog: Ned Potter: ‘Climategate 2.0′? Or Just Nasty Climate Politics?
    On the other hand, Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, writes on RealClimate.org, “Very little appears to be new in this batch. Indeed, even the out-of-context quotes aren’t that exciting, and are even less so in-context.”…
    And there is this from the University of East Anglia itself:
    …“As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context…
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2011/11/climategate-2-0-or-just-nasty-climate-politics/

    previous articles by “climate” hack Ned:
    http://abcnews.go.com/Author/Ned_Potter


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Washington Post Capital Weather Gang Blog
    Posted at 06:39 PM ET, 11/22/2011
    Climategate 2.0: Do new emails undermine global warming science?
    By Jason Samenow
    The “new” emails (not new in that they are from 2009 and earlier) – while trumpeted by some climate skeptics as “spectacular” and draining life from the manmade global warming movement – mean little substantively from a scientific standpoint, just like the set that preceded them.
    The climate skeptic blogosphere has been quick to cherry pick certain snippets from the emails they claim show dissension within the climate science ranks, perhaps to demonstrate scientists may express more doubt about their confidence in the science in private than they do in public…
    And they’ve pointed to emails where a scientist discusses ways to avoid releasing data, suggesting he has something to hide…BLAH BLAH
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/post/climategate-20-do-new-emails-undermine-global-warming-science/2011/11/22/gIQArptGmN_blog.html

    Jason Samenow: Center for Climate Change Communicati George Mason University
    by Kevin Rosseel
    Climate Change Division (formerly Division’s Communications Director)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Jason Samenow is an environmental scientist working in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Change Division in Washington, DC. A meteorologist by training, with degrees from the University of Virginia and the University of Wisconsin, Mr. Samenow has worked tirelessly in 2009 – and for almost a decade – to use communications as an effective tool to combat climate change.
    Among the activities in which Mr. Samenow has been a leader in 2009 are participation and sometimes management of the federal Communications Interagency Working group of the U.S. Global Change Research Program – see http://globalchange.gov/. His tireless efforts on behalf of promoting coherent and consistent climate messaging from federal agencies has been a remarkable contribution to making science intelligible to U.S. and international citizens at all levels, general and technical.
    http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/Jason.cfm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Revkin has put a new thread above his Climategate 2.0 thread, obviously demoting it as quickly as he could. his take on Climategate 2.0 is shameless:

    NYT Dot Earth Blog: Andrew C. Revkin: Another Treaty Negotiation, Another Batch of Climate Science E-Mail
    9:42 p.m. | Updated
    Talk about getting ahead of the news. There have already been pre-emptive posts by climate campaigners warning journalists not to be fooled into seeing news in a freshly revealed batch of what appear to be old e-mail exchanges among climate scientists. The material swiftly spread around the Web sites of climate doubt purveyors and energy stasists early today.
    Joe Romm’s headline began, “Fool Me Once, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice, Shame on the Media.”
    Jocelyn Fong of Media Matters put it this way:
    The question is: will mainstream media outlets allow themselves to be made part of a campaign to distract the public from the big picture on climate change? Or will they fulfill their responsibilities as journalists? Looks like we’ll find out if they’ve learned their lesson to research first, then report.
    What these activists forget is that the first time around there was news. The contents of the files did raise questions. The questions were answered.
    In the meantime, Anthony Watts, perhaps desperate for a new raison d’être now that the relevance of his weather station investigations into global warming have evaporated, described the e-mail trove this way: “They’re real and they’re spectacular!”…
    I still stand by what I wrote in August of 2010:
    Do I trust climate science? As a living body of intellectual inquiry exploring profoundly complex questions, yes…
    [9:50 p.m. | Updated | Interviewed for the news story in The Times tonight, Raymond S. Bradley, a climate scientist at the University of Massachusetts, said that criticisms he made in one e-mail of a particular past paper by Michael E. Mann, a climate scientist now at the University of Pennsylvania, had no bearing on his confidence in the basic body of science pointing to substantial human-driven warming:
    “I did not like that paper at all, and I stand by that, and I am sure that I told Mike that” at the time, he said. But he added that a disagreement over a single paper had little to do with the overall validity of climate science. “There is no doubt we have a big problem with human-induced warming,” Dr. Bradley said. “Mike’s paper has no bearing on the fundamental physics of the problem that we are facing.” Read the rest.]
    It’s also important to keep in mind how little of significance the first batch of e-mails and other material contained…
    Francesca Grifo, senior scientist and director of the scientific integrity program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a news release that the new incident was a good reminder to British law enforcement agencies to “redouble their efforts to find the criminals who are behind” the initial release of the douments. “To do otherwise sends a message that freedom of expression will only selectively be protected.”
    Of course, the first step — after two years and counting — is for the Norfolk Constabulary (as I’ve written here before) to decide whether a crime was committed in the first place…
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/a-new-batch-of-climate-e-mail-surfaces-ahead-of-treaty-talks/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    This just in from Watts, classic case of fraud with jail time attached…..i cannot wait to see the warmbits defend this. Maybe it will finally sink into their heads that they have been had.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/al-gores-global-warming-claims-on-kilimanjaro-glacier-finally-dead-and-buried-in-the-climategate-2-0-emails-even-phil-jones-and-lonnie-thompson-dont-believe-it/

    It starts out by telling you Al Gore bullshit about melting glaciers, it then shows you emails where they discuss the lack of temp increase and say Lonnie Thompson thinks glaciers are shrinking due to sublimation.

    Then we get the press release by Thompson before “Cracked crab buffet 16″ stating glacier retreat is caused by global warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE BACKED UP EMAILS WHEN IS THIS PRICK GOING TO JAIL


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Gee Aye
    November 23, 2011 at 2:46 pm · Reply
    You will all love this.
    http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-a-real-climategate-out-there-4428

    A joke.??
    A person who does no research..quoting someone…who does no research.
    Wow..how consistent..
    The “enquiries” didnt find anything..because they did not try and find anything.
    Which part of that dont you understand.? :)

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/03/the-mann-report/

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/5650-were-the-qclimategateq-inquiries-whitewashed

    http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/03/house-of-commons-cru-email-report.html

    http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/03/heat-on-mann-at-home

    And for a boot into Mannian maths..i love briggs
    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=195


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Thanks Mike, just the kind of comments I like. I think all of us could use a handy reference that summed up each committee with a link and a single three line paragraph explaining the main problem or omission with each one. Anyone up for that?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Jaymez

      Spot on Mike. I saw Lewandowsky’s in a number of places. Also posted at #94 before I scrolled up and read your post.


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #

    The coalition are on to it…just had an e-mail from Menzies House with links to Jonova and WUWT…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    email 5333.txt
    These are excerpts from this email I have quickly tidied up.
    Dr. Wibjˆrn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University is disagreeing with Phil Jones

    cc: Wibjˆrn KarlÈn ,
    “Phil Jones”
    date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:39:07 +0100 (BST)
    from: P.Jones
    subject: Re: Climate
    to: trenbert

    In short, the problem is that I cannot find data supporting the temperature curves in IPCC and also published in e.g. Forster, P. et al. 2007: Assessing uncertainty in climate simulation. Nature 4: 63-64.
    In attempts to reconstruct the temperature I find an increase from the early 1900s to ca 1935, a trend down until the mid 1970s and so another increase to about the same temperature level as in the late 1930s. A distinct warming to a temperature about 0.5 deg C above the level 1940 is reported in the IPCC diagrams. I have been searching for this recent increase, which is very important for the discussion about a possible human influence on climate, but I have basically failed to find an increase above the late 1930s.

    > This region, as I am sure you know, suffers from missing data and large
    > gaps spatially. How one covered both can greatly influence the outcome.
    > In IPCC we produce an Arctic curve and describe its problems and
    > character. In IPCC the result is very conservative owing to lack of
    > inclusion of the Arctic where dramatic decreases in sea ice in recent
    > years have taken place: 2005 was lowest at the time we did our assessment
    > but 2007 is now the record closely followed by 2008. Anomalies of over >5C are evident in some areas in SSTs but the SSTs are not established if
    > there was ice there previously. These and other indicators show that
    > there is no doubt about recent warming; see also chapter 4 of IPCC.

    In my letter to ìKlass Vî I included diagram showing the mean annual
    temperature of the Nordic countries (1890-ca 2001) presented on the net
    by the database NORDKLIM, a joint project between the meteorological
    institutes in the Nordic countries. Except for Denmark, the data sets show an increase after the 1970s to the same level as in the late 1930s or lower. None demonstrates the distinct increase IPCC indicates. The trends of these 6 areas are very similar except for a few interesting details.

    > Results will also depend on the exact region.

    I have in my studies of temperatures also checked a number of areas
    using data from NASA. One, in my mind interesting study, includes all the 13 stations with long and decent continuously records north of 65 deg N.
    The pattern is the same as for the Nordic countries. This diagram only shows 11-yr means of individual stations. A few stations such as Verhojansk
    and Svalbard indicate a recent mean 11-year temperature increase up to 0.5
    deg C above the late 1930s. Verhojansk, shows this increase but the
    temperature has after the peak temperature decreased with about 0.3 deg C during the last few years. The majority of the stations show that the recent temperatures are similar to the one in the late 1930s.

    I have noticed that major cities often demonstrate a major urban effect
    (Buenos Aires, Osaka, New York Central Park, etc). Have data from major
    cities been used by the laboratories sending data to IPCC? Lennart
    Bengtsson and other claims that the urban effect is accounted for but
    from what I read, it seems like the technique used has been a simplistic
    Major inner cities are excluded: their climate change is real but very
    local.

    ext step has been to compare my results with temperature records in the
    literature. One interesting figures is published by you in:

    Trenberth, K., 2005: Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming.
    Science
    308: 1753-1754.

    He included many more stations than I did in my calculation of
    temperatures N 65 N, but the result is similar. It is hard to find evidence of a drastic warming of the Arctic.
    It is also difficult to find evidence of a drastic warming outside urban
    areas in a large part of the world outside Europe. However the increase
    in temperature in Central Europe may be because the whole are is urbanised
    (see e.g. Bidwell, T., 2004: Scotobiology ñ the biology of darkness. Global
    change News Letter No. 58 June, 2004).

    So, I find it necessary to object to the talk about a scaring
    temperature increase because of increased human release of CO2.
    In fact, the warming
    seems to be limited to densely populated areas.
    The often mentioned
    correlation between temperature and CO2 is not convincing.
    If there is a
    factor explaining a major part of changes in the temperature, it is
    solar irradiation.
    There are numerous studies demonstrating this correlation
    but papers are not accepted by IPCC. Most likely, any reduction of CO2
    release will have no effect whatsoever on the temperature (independent of how
    expensive).

    > You can object all you like but you are not looking at the evidence and
    > you need to have a basis, which you have not established. You seem to
    > doubt that CO2 has increased and that it is a greenhouse gas and you are
    > very wrong. But of course there is a lot of variability and looking at

    > one spot narrowly is not the way to see the big picture.

    In my mind, we have to accept that it is great if we can reduce the
    release of CO2 because we are using up a resource the earth will be short of in the future, but we are in error if we claims a global warming caused by CO2.

    > I disagree.

    I also think we had to protest when erroneous data like the claim that
    winter temperature in Abisko increased by 5.5 deg C during the last 100
    years. The real increase is 0.4 deg C.
    The 5.5 deg C figure has been
    repeated a number of times in TV-programs. This kind of exaggerations is
    not supporting attempts to save fossil fuel.
    I have numerous diagrams illustrating the discussion above. I donít
    include these in an e-mail because my computer can only handle a few at a time.
    If you would like to see some, I can send them by air mail.
    I am often asked about why I donít publish about my views. I have. Just
    one example of among 100 other I could select is: KarlÈn, W., 2001: Global temperature forces by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases? Ambio 30(6): 349-350.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    2dogs

    I’d bet the passphrase on the 220,000 encrypted emails gets cracked by the end of the year.

    Anyone got a quantum computing machine on which I can run Shor’a algorithm?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      I doubt that the folder password will be “cracked” by a computer program. The encrypted folder is in 7zip which uses the AES-256 encryption algorithm. A conservative estimate of brute force cracking by anything short of an NSA cryptography super-computer is of the order of 550 years.

      Not that it matters. I believe the answer lies in the readme text file. The published sentences in the readme text are disjointed, distorted, and jumbled. On top of that, number values are treated in an obscure manner. I think someone familiar with, say, cryptic crosswords, will work it out in the next week, using the sentences in the readme file as something like cryptic crossword clues, possibly with the addition of the word “Harry”.

      The 5,300 published, unencrypted emails apparently have been stripped of a date-stamp, but have been numbered. I strongly suspect once access has been gained to the rest of the emails, it will be found that they are numbered also.

      Far from being the result of a hurried word-search as alluded to in the readme file, I think the published emails are carefully selected sign-posts to much more damming email conversations between the guilty parties.

      It is going to be an interesting couple of weeks.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Lock the bastards up..wheres the prosecutions..home office too scared eh!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mydogsgotnonose

    Reportedly the passcode is “4x00y312dym!231@4″


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    What was the phrase – “It is the right thing to do”

    Go Julia!!!!!!!! just go


    Report this

    00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Cmon Pattoh…

      You know it was actually `It is the rooigghhtt thaanngg to doooo!`

      Go Julia!!!!!! Just go.. is correct!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        pattoh

        Mr Adder

        I stand corrected.

        I suppose after the rush to get the Carbon Tax & MRRT through The Rainbow Coalition deserves to spend a couple of months basking in the sunshine of “political success”.

        However as a paranoid cynical pessimist ( who only ever gets pleasant surprises), no amount of spin will protect this government from the perfect storm brewing .

        With all that is happening in the EU & US & so much of the “rent”(foreign earnings) being paid by the resource sector, what will happen to interest rates when the terms of trade turn down? What will keep the battlers in brick veneerials , flat screens & Holden Cars? ™

        It is hard not to imagine a future for Australia which will have less energy, less manufacturing , less industry, less mining, less home ownership, less infrastructure & less social equity & cohesion.

        The general angst which made the residents of Western Sydney & more recently London burst into party mode may be something we will all get used to living with.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          The Black Adder

          Totally Agree Patoh,

          It seems the ALP/Greens are hell bent on destroying our way of life!
          My local paper today `The Cairns Post` has not a single piece on the release of these new Emails, Climategate II. What??
          But they thought it prudent, to have a small piece on the Greens MP Adam Bandt, winning `Pollie of the year` in GQ Magazine.
          It seems that the Ozzie media also are hell bent on destroying our way of life.

          God help us, or Shane Warne help us, someone please…..


          Report this

          00

          • #
            pattoh

            “Polly of the Year”!

            & they gave the “the Best Treasurer” gong to Wayne Swan!

            FROTH & BUBBLE
            The judges must have been the offspring of those who gave a similar gong to Paul Keating.

            Did anybody else sit through any of Paul’s self assessed “erudition” on Tony Jones last night?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Mark

            My local paper today `The Cairns Post` has not a single piece on the release of these new Emails, Climategate II.

            Well they could have done worse like the reporters at the good old SMH. They just recycled the “stolen e-mails” meme.

            And no, I didn’t buy the oversized fish ‘n chips wrapper. It was in the coffee shop.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        …….”hands juilar the magnum and retreats”…..


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Beth Cooper

    On WUWT 22/11 @3.16 pm Richard Toll confirmed that 3 of the 5000+ emails are his and are genuine.
    To Msrs Briffa,Jones,Mann,Overpeck,Ridley,Trenberth:
    “Happy Climategate Anniversary.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Jaymez

    It was fairly predictable that ideological believers would dismiss these latest leaked emails as insignificant. As one of the climate scare cheerleaders Psychology Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, who like Tim Flannery has found Climate Science a much more rewarding area than his own area of expertise, could be relied upon to be one of the first to dismiss the emails. He has posted widely at ‘The Conversation’ plus many Environmental and Climate blogs.

    While I agree that there is no email which on it’s own turns the entire IPCC report on it’s head, it is pretty hard to dismiss comments such as:

    “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”

    And, from the same UK Met Office official:

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

    Remember that following the release of the IPCC AR4 we were told by these same group of scientists that the evidence was unequivocal. There was no doubt that humans were causing dangerous climate change and that if we didn’t drastically reduce human carbon emissions immediately we would suffer catastrophic and potentially irreversible climate change. We had to act NOW!

    Yet in these emails many well qualified scientists are voicing doubts, concerns and major uncertainties. In fact what they are doing in these emails is exactly what so-called ‘sceptics’ or ‘deniers’ have been pilloried for by Lewandowsky himself. Worst still, in some emails there are scientists discussing how to hide the truth from the public.

    If some want to claim this is normal behaviour for leading scientists then that scares me. If Lewandowsky thinks it is normal behaviour to hide facts, flaws, and uncertainties in his research, then I would be most concerned about the standards at his University.

    Then again I have lost count of the times I have seen Lewandowsky write that climate science is settled, and anyone who questions it is a denier who is potentially suffering from some cognitive disorder. So you’d hardly expect him to be impartial any more.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      It’s a good point that just because professor Lewandowsky is a psychologist, and potentially an expert in how people think it is no guarantee of any expertise in climate science.

      Psychology helps us understand the functional mechanisms at work withing the brain and associated input devices (ears , eyes, touch smell) ie HOW we are able to think.

      It has absolutely NOTHING to say about what people think and even less guarantee of the capacity to think scientifically.

      Science is about learning how to think in a way that enables you to relate to the real world.

      Climate Change, CAGW, is a glaring example of how untrained science “groupies” can believe they are scientists because they are a UN IPCC secretary or politically appointed environmental consultant.

      The latest example of such group think after so many tragedies is yesterday’s Western Australia Bush Fire disaster.

      People feel safe in groups in the Australian bush despite the physical reality, repeated over and over in the face of Green Tree Hysteria, that clearance and back-burning are essential to survival in the bush.

      Group delusion is one of the human races most amazing features and is even more amazing when it comes from someone who should be aware of it: a Psychology Graduate (probably majored in advertising psych).


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        I would go further and suggest being a psychologist is antithetical to the term “scientist”. Psychology is in essence a pseudoscience in that very few of it’s basic tenets are testable or falsifiable. Legitimately, one can make a psychological appraisal of any individual in any particular way that the psychologist chooses, based solely upon their own personal prejudices and belief system, projecting often their own psychological weaknesses on the poor victim patient. That is not to say that there are not “good” psychologists out there who offer good advice and insights with a minimum of personal prejudice, helping some of those most vulnerable at times of crisis. Just acknowledging, however, that it is a field where selective use of “facts” is the norm, and cognitive dissonance and narcissism runs rampant.

        So, for Lewandowsky to cast aspersions on genuine scientists who are unconvinced by data presented on climate (without appropriate access to un-manipulated data and based on a multitude of assumptions which are yet to be fully understood) is not only utterly predictable on the basis of his approach to science, but also frankly laughable since the man wouldn’t know scientific method if he tripped over it.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Winston

          Your comment that “Psychology is in essence a pseudoscience” may be more true of Freudian type work or “talking treatment psychology”.

          Modern psychology, as in trying to understand how we function is more akin to psychiatry and is both testable or falsifiable. Brain chemistry, system responses etc are used to explore brain architecture which is a fascinating area of science..

          Unfortunately we would both agree that Mr Lewandowsky is more into the Freudian and personal opinion type of psych.

          The appeal to authority.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Mark D.

          Winston, may I add that in the psychology field, some of the most messed up people were the professional therapists. What that says (speaking in general terms) about the state of psychology as a “science” is telling.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Pete H

    Tom Harley
    November 23, 2011 at 5:09 pm · Reply

    The coalition are on to it…just had an e-mail from Menzies House with links to Jonova and WUWT…

    LOL, They have been at it all day over at Dellingpoles bit in the U.K. Daily Telegraph. Really low level trolling but they do take their time to get their act together….by which time we get even more info out on “THE CAUSE”!

    The Causegate? ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mohib Ebrahim

    For those unfamiliar with all the players and issues, I suggest a review of my (shameless plug) “ClimateGate: 30 Years in the Making” graphic timeline (hosted right here on JoNova), which covered the first batch of ClimateGate e-mails, to get some background and context. And for those familiar with the players and issues, you’ll find it helps understand what else was happening at the same time as a given e-mail to give it more context.

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This is a test comment.

    Pointy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    Watched the “On thin ice” episode of david attenboroughs(?) Frozen Planet series last night.

    It was eitherthat or some (probably) agit propoganda staged debate on how green jobs are where australia needs to focus (good grief).

    Something tells me theres another Global Warming talkfest happenning soon.

    So heres my analysis and critique of it:
    1) Good on David attenborough for refering to his argument as global warming rather than the ignorant oxymoronic term climate change.
    2) It opened up with the poor poley bears. Including the cute cubs. It wss interesting how as he talked about how many are starving, the one being weighed as he talked had a healthy weight. Sure enough he had to talk about how the younger ones were sometimes drowning due to the distances travelled and because the mother ends up on land where she will struggle to feed. To this I say, well thats good news for the seal pups then.
    3) He then threw in the old “Many polar bear populations are in decline” comment. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that 9 of the 11 main polar bear populations have been doing rather well lately?
    4) Quite telling was his reference to the polar bear “Race”. Interesting freudian slip?
    5) QDos to DA for not linking the warming to c02.
    6) Then there was the arctic ice thickness thing. He gives the impression that the arctic hasn’t melted before. He then states that the NW passage was nqvigated throughfor the first time in human history a few years ago. Uhmmm, admunsen?
    7) Noticibly absent was the qualification of statements like “the arctic ocean is warming at twice the rate of anywhere else in the world”. Uhmm, over what timeframe?
    8) Then came the melting glaciers withe the “ice scientists” -who?, oh, you mean glaciologists. It is my understanding that when melted water sinks to the bottom of the glacier, it then freezes again as the cold water gets stuck between permafrost and the glacier. To not mention this and talk about it acting as a lubricant seems non ingenuous.
    9) I start to note he talks in timeframes of the last 20-30 years. Maybe he was talking from what he has seen, which is fair enough I guess, but 30 years is not that relevant when talking about gw -its only partially relevant.
    10) Good on him for mentioning that changes aren’t necessarily bad for every speices. Of course his references were few and carefully picked.
    11) Now this bit sucks. When finishing up the arctic he talks obliquely about how the melting glaciers raise sea levels. The way it was said leaves the audience with the impeession that hes referring to the sea icemelt as well as the glaciers. The same trick as manbearpig. Not impressed.
    12) Next came the georgian retreating glaciers. Yes we are in an interglacial period of time.
    13) Next up was the snow cover of antarctica. Good on him for mentioning that hardly anyone is talking about that melting.
    14) Then came the ross ice shelf. Sure enough the dramatic footage of calving. On the one hand he states we have only started exploring antarctica for the last 100 years, on tye other he talks qbout this being gh


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Madjak

      cont.
      on the other hand he takks about calving being observed to be more rapidly than ever over the last 200 years. Uhmmm, a bit of a problem there.

      Overall, it was worth watching some warming docco which didn’t just spout the unproven link between warming and c02 (ref trenberth, climategate2).

      Whilst I think a genuine attempt at balance was made, from his perspective. I must admit it was a bit surreal reading the climategate2 emails whilst watching it.

      In short it wasn’t in the same league as manbearpigs botchup, but there were some rather subtle segways and omissions, I thought couod have bought the documentary more in the realm of balance.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      FYI Madjak. He may be approaching “national treasure” status but he really needs to check out his facts or pick on another poster bear …

      http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/polar-bears-going-extinct-yawn/

      Pointman


      Report this

      00

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      Well DA is at most a warmist or least a luke warmist but look at his masters, the British B(ullshyte) Corporation. And yes his statements are well off the mark as far as ant real research goes..but he DA is a god of the environmentalists! Mind you so is the other David, Bellamy who is a complete skeptic.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Madjak

    Phil jones is asking why people need to know who wrote which paragraph:

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8378994

    Uhmm, because the work is being used to justify radical changes to the worlds economies there phil!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bret

    still waiting to read an email that endorses the agw theory . They just seem to undermine the theory.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    There are some entertaining comments over at RC. Gavin is getting quite testy at times. Little wonder though, because the poor sausage is living in abject poverty on his meagre salary:

    [Response: Oh please. If I wanted to make pots of money, I would have gone into the City as a 'quant' like many of my cohort. I have a civil servant job which is reasonably well paid, and which allows me to live in a one-bedroom apartment in an unfashionable neighbourhood of New York City. Woohoo! Please leave your lame imaginings at home. - gavin]
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/two-year-old-turkey/comment-page-3/#comments

    It must have been a really dodgy graduation class that year … let’s face it, it was the “quants” with their reckless disregard for their fellow humans that led us to the GFC part I and II (just about to hit). Gavin certainly shares one trait with the quants, a complete lack of humility normally associated with scientists. Somehow I doubt he has their modelling ability or he might have been able to land one of those quant jobs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    Breaking News !!! Just heard it live on Newsradio on the way to work!

    Harry Jenkins has just resigned as Speaker of the Lower House.

    Something is stirring in Canberra!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      connolly

      Slipper will desert the Libs and Gillard will have a one vote buffer. Doesnt need Brandt. As i said let them twist in the wind. Lets have a summer of Kadich back in the baggy gree, Sheeds destroying Eddie and some sex and drugs scandal in the NRL before we get down to business of desptaching the whole rotten corrupt crew to the recycling environmenmtally sensitive garbage bin of history. Priorities.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-24/harry-jenkins-resigning/3690850


      Report this

      00

      • #
        MattB

        I think it is more about not needing Wilkie or any of the other independents on a particular vote, than it is Bandt. It is much harder to take GQ man of the year Bandt out of the equation as they still need to work with the greens in the upper house. But between the three genuine independents it now means the most extreme view on any particular issue can be ignored.

        Incidentally it is staggering that with this razor thin majority, and all the pressure Abbott has been piling on, that it is the ALP who have managed to seduce a Lib to the speaker’s role.

        Love her or loathe her you have to admit this whole thing is looking like a very secure government (until the next election of course!)


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          I’m with you MattB

          Brilliant work.

          I really think she will win the next election.

          Australians really are that stupid.

          Look at NSW.

          Labor lasted 13 years before the electorate got wise enough to realise that the state had been white anted out from underneath them


          Report this

          00

          • #
            John James

            gillard and the alp (Australian LIARS Party) and the REDS (greens) will be utterly destroyed in the next federal election as will anna BLIGHT in the next Queensland election.

            There is only so far that you can push Australians before they SNAP !

            Election Now to remove these COMMUNISTS!


            Report this

            00

        • #
          connolly

          Good point Matt re. Wilkie. She may renege on the pokies pre-committment deal with Wilkie which is hurting them in Queensland and NSW. And it will help in the Thompson police investigation if it comes up trumps. Having Slipper as a Speaker will be like Barry Gomersoll reffing the Stae of Origin. (Ask a New South Welshman about that). Interesting times. But the stench over this government will linger as it depends on Thompson and Slipper. Love the smell of a putrifying dying government in the nmorning


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Truthseeker

        The article you quoted also has this;

        But Opposition Leader Tony Abbott hit back, saying it was the Government’s responsibility to provide a Speaker and that his party room has decided that no Coalition MP should accept a nomination to sit in the Speaker’s chair.

        Mr Abbott called a press conference mid-morning to demand the government call an election over the issue.

        “If it [Labor] cannot provide the Speaker then it can’t remain in office,” Mr Abbott said.

        He indicated that Mr Slipper would be excluded from the Liberal party room and be expected to resign from the party if he accepted the nomination. Queensland’s Liberal National Party, of which Mr Slipper is a member, has also threatened to throw him out if he accepts the Speaker’s job.

        I am not sure where the Slipper desertion idea comes from …


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Juliar

          Slipper has formally announced he’s leaving the Libs and is now an independent. Looking at his seat of Fisher on the AEC site, it is a Liberal ‘stronghold’ seat therefore this will ultimately be his last term in the House of Reps. No way will he get in as an Independent.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          brc

          The truth is Slipper (or Sleeper, as he is known for his parliamentary dozing sessions, allegedly from boozy lunches) is on the nose in the electorate (of which I am a constituent).

          He was being edged out by the local branch of the party in a very grassroots action – Mal Brough made overtones about wanting the seat and the locals couldn’t grasp him quick enough. Some will say it was Mal Brough who did the pushing but from my standpoint I don’t agree entirely with that. I’m not in the party but I know people who are, and they were triumphant at the recent meeting where Mal Brough was voted president of the local branch, which Slipper himself admitted made his position ‘untenable’. In reality it was a proxy vote for the next preselection, so he knew he was done for either way.

          So he’s being pushed from his seat at a local level, wasn’t popular amongst his colleagues so decided to do a ‘stuff you’ and take Gillards pieces of silver to dump his party and sidle up to Labor.

          He was already very unpopular, but I suspect it will get to the point where he and his family will have to move out with this little move.

          I don’t know about anyone else, but there is no way known I would sell out like that. Then I wouldn’t start rorting travel and other expenses to the tune of 600 large, either.

          The guy is a class A political lowlife and the Liberal party is better off without him in the long run for when it does take office in a solid majority. This type of person is the leftovers of the old National party in Queensland and the entire country is better off seeing the back of them.


          Report this

          00

    • #

      I wish Harry Jenkins all the very best and hope he serves his electorate as he should.

      On a sadder note the Libs lose and effective vote..interesting times !!

      Say YES to an election now !!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Juliar

        Do they really lose? Slipper is a nutter and the fact he is causing trouble for the Libs is not such a bad thing. He is not good for the party. I personally have believed this for months that Gillard will lead the country and her party to the next election. No challenges or elections will happen. The polls seem to dictate who is the leader for the ALP. I guess we will have to wait at the latest till 30 November 2013 for an election. Lets hope people don’t forget about this awful Carbon Tax.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    J.H.

    Wilson:

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

    Who is Wilson?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi JH

      The constant point that is so obvious it ceases to get a mention. Solar energy variability.

      The sun is always left out because we need to isolate specific mechanisms to assess them.

      For example, the CO2 radiant energy absorption thing.

      It is a definite factor in keeping the Earth warm enough for us to live here and it must be quantified. But.

      The problem is that “researchers” “forget” to extract the attribution for the human component of CO2 in action and just leave the Total CO2 to “appear” as Human origin CO2 (about 5% of total). Oops, just a mistake.

      Sometimes water vapour is “forgot” and sometimes clouds are forgot and so on.

      No wonder the sun gets lost in all this.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        J.H.

        Thanks KK. I agree completely….

        I was just wondering who “Wilson” was, so I can look him up and his body of work…. I can’t seem to recall him and what his stances are so as to give context to his comment…. Just irks me not knowing. :-)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    connolly

    Our very own member of the ‘Team” Professor Tim Flannery has become embroiled in his very own “Waterfrontgate”, Been caught out telling fibs, intimidating a neighbour and defaming the most popular radio presenter on Sydney radio. This pretender must resign from his sinecure. Its not the end for these imposters yet. But its beginning. They whole wretched scam is over. One of the reasons is that it was perpetuated by the appeal to authority. Well the authorities are being exposed as fudgers. liars and rent seekers. The scam will die on the sword of the lack of credibility of the “authorities’. These are good days.
    You can hear Ray Hadley pantsing Flannery here.

    http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/11/23/listen-to-ray-hadleys-tim-flannerycrikey-diatribe/

    Just an election. Thats all. Doesnt really have to be tomorrow. Let them twist in the wind.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    23 Nov: UK Daily Mail: Sean Poulter: Green ‘tax’ to rise every year… but don’t worry, ministers claim overall bills will be lower – because their policies will make you use less energy
    Chris Huhne makes comments during Commons statement
    Claim based on assumption home energy use drops by a third
    The revelation threatens to spark a revolt from consumers, who are suffering the biggest and longest squeeze on living standards in more than 60 years. In addition, Chancellor George Osborne is under pressure to over-rule Mr Huhne and halt the rush to green energy in a bid to protect British industry.
    The fear is that manufacturers and other businesses will be saddled with huge levies on energy bills, pushing up costs and threatening their ability to sell goods around the world…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065360/Expect-gas-price-rises-warns-Energy-Minister-Huhne-insists-government-pin-increase.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    for S-E Queenslanders who have been given a nice Xmas present by the outgoing Allconnex:

    23 Nov: ABC: Drive with Kelly Higgins-Devine: AllConnect (should be Allconnex) water bills (23rd November 2011)
    We had a call earlier today from Brad from Rochedale, an AllConnex customer who’s just got his latest water bill.
    And it’s quite large, to say the least.
    According to Brad, he’s just been billed for 6 months worth of water, rather than the standard quarter.
    Brad now has one month to come up with the cash, but he’s certainly not the only one stuck in this situation, we spoke to Logan Council and they said they’d received many calls about the bills.
    Brad joined the program to tell us his story (AUDIO)…
    We spoke to Andrew Foley, the CEO of AllConnex Water and asked him why Brad was charged for nearly six months of water and if there had been a change to the billing process.(AUDIO)
    http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/11/allconnect-water-bills-23rd-november-2011.html

    Allconnex had a brief mention in the local free paper yesterday, mentioning it was necessary to bill for more months as part of the transition of water bills back to the Council. the cost of the Council taking water back is allegedly around $290m!!! Gold Coast Council, being the first of three Councils to opt out of Allconnex, is supposed to pay all this cost, but there’s now doubt this will happen and all three Councils may be left with the Bill.

    and all this is because the Qld Govt upped the price of bulk water to the Councils.

    meanwhile, we environmentally-conscious folks who would like to grow our vegies etc can barely afford to water the plants!

    give thanx the rains have begun.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    first piece of real journalism on the matter…

    23 Nov:UK Register: Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails
    ‘All our models are wrong’, writes Jones
    By Andrew Orlowski
    With the release of FOIA2011.zip, the cat’s now well and truly out of the bag…
    Clive Crook, a believer in the manmade global warming hypothesis and supporter of carbon reduction measures, expressed it like this:
    “The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.”…
    “Basic problem is that all models are wrong,” writes Phil Jones, bluntly, “not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
    If that’s the case, then why isn’t this printed as a large health warning on the cover of the IPCC reports? Politicians who devised policy based on estimates of certainty by the IPCC now know they’ve been sold a pup.
    In the short term, the issues raised by Climategate I, which subsequent inquiries failed to explore, are back with a vengeance…
    So the mewling infant that we call Climate Science – a 40-year-young offshoot of meteorology – has been thrust into a political role long before it’s capable of supporting the claims made on its behalf. From the archives we can see the scientists know that too, and we can read their own reluctance to make those claims, too.
    “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation?” muses one scientist. “They’ll kill us probably.”
    That won’t be necessary.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/23/climategate_2_first_look/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    This read is so boring……………………………………looks like a US TV sitcom repeat.

    Yawn.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      The Black Adder

      Hey Ross…..

      Your comment is so boring……. are you sure you did not mean to hit the Real Climate Site!!

      US Sitcom??? I would think this site is more like Kingswood Country..

      Tell the pooftas to bugger off !!!!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Yeah – it’s a bitch waiting for the new series.
      Tell me Ross, which episodes are you looking forward to the most?

      The ones where it is finally revealed how many people are dying from Malaria as a result of your ban on DDT?

      Maybe you’re looking forward to the episodes detailing the mass starvation rate caused by your much-favoured biofuels? Or possibly the food riots where desperate people are seen killing each other to get enough to feed their starving children?

      Or perhaps you are savouring the opportunity to witness fuel-impoverished, frozen, dead pensioners being dug out of their living rooms all across Europe in the next few years? Or could be you’re a “reality TV” fan, and eagerly awaiting the interviews with the distraught family members here in OZ, because we can’t let any more people migrate to safety here because we don’t have the power or water infrastructure to support them, after years of neglect by successive governments, all in the name of your “green” policies?

      To be honest, Ross James, I sincerely hope your real name is not Ross James. You see, Ross James, the thing is, after the next couple of series of “How To Kill Off Half The World’s Population With A Climate Hoax”, there’s going to be a hell of a lot of pissed-off people looking for someone to blame for the deaths of their loved-ones.

      And to be honest, I’m not sure there’s enough crooked scientists, bent politicians, or air-headed journalists available for those angry people to vent their pain on. So presumably they will then go looking for anybody whose names they can find that they can possibly link to this “crime of all centuries”.

      Yes, no doubt about it, the next few year’s series are going to be mighty interesting.

      .
      Oh, did I mention your post will be featured on Carbon Cate?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John James

      So please share with us all WHY you “Ross James” are actually here.

      What is your agenda and motive???


      Report this

      00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    If that’s the case, then why isn’t this printed as a large health warning on the cover of the IPCC reports? Politicians who devised policy based on estimates of certainty by the IPCC now know they’ve been sold a pup.

    Why..BECAUSE its s setup by the criminal banksters of London and WS who will make millions out of scam C trading schemes and stuff the world economy which is already down the drain now..and start more wars..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tom

    As usual, Dr Roy Spencer, the man the IPCC-led climate cabal fear the most, has a rational, logical assessment of how the most recently released emails fit the bias of the IPCC, which set out 23 years ago specifically to blame the human race for cyclic warming, a political objective that did not require “science”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Andrew Bolt will have Steve McIntyre as a guest on his TV show on channel 10 to discuss climategate 2 emails etc.

    That’s at 10am Sunday and repeated 4.30 pm and on youtube within 24 hours.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RB

    Hi Pat #107

    You say:

    “Politicians who devised policy based on estimates of certainty by the IPCC now know they’ve been sold a pup”

    Not so. Politicians got exactly what they demanded.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Is it just me or is there absolutely nothing surprising any more about the Team’s shenanigans, duplicity, and total disregard for the peer review process? I go away from JN for a few days to gasbag elsewhere on the net, and when I get back, sheesh, look what I missed. ClimateGate, the sequel! Most of it will be dross, but all our favourite characters from the first series are back and there’s sure to be some useful scenes played out.

    A little tidbit from email 5341.txt:

    However, an implicit message of Table 2 is that adaptation could
    handle climate change alone (the -15% option), so why are we worrying
    about mitigation? I think that this will be noted by many readers and
    it would be best if the piece had an explicit view on this, or delete
    the -15% option.

    Yes, you could just refrain from mentioning that adaptation to climate change is vastly cheaper than attempting to stop the climate from changing. Yes, that is an option. 8-O

    But their quote from Santer is yet another smoking gun: [1982.txt] 06 Dec 2007

    What we are finding so far is that there are “horses for courses”. As I
    mentioned yesterday, there is no individual model that does well in all
    of the SST and water vapor tests we’ve applied.

    Now what was I saying about the Hot Spot just last week?
    From a 2006 report by Ben Santer:

    For longer-timescale temperature changes over 1979 to 1999, only one of four observed upper-air data sets has larger tropical warming aloft than in the surface records. All model runs with surface warming over this period show amplified warming aloft.

    So Santer knew the models didn’t work both before and after he signed off the AR4 Science Summary in 2007. It’s yet another smoking gun of duplicity, duplicity being a requirement of politics but anathema to science.

    Perhaps it’s unfair to assign the title of “Chief Sell-out” so soon when there are so many eager contenders. Keep Santer near the top of the list, just behind the Hockey Team and old Travesty Trenberth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Sorry, can’t resist. email 4431.txt:

    I have done that already. The results are not very spectacular. I did the trick with
    replacing actual temperatures for the climatological temperatures in a paper on the
    ALP-IMP data. A huge impact of higher surface temperatures on the areal extent of
    drought was found.

    Yes, it is the same trick to hide the decline. Same trick.

    And what a complete furphy about drought. Correlation does not imply causation. Physically, droughts cause high temperatures, not the other way around. This has to be debunked every time the lamestream media reports high temperatures causing droughts.

    Your tax dollar, hard at work in the U.N.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    aussie

    From Claudia Tebaldi (4347) RE: Report from UK Climate Projections Review Workshop

    Dear colleagues

    Could someone explain exactly what the last sentence in the following
    paragraph was meant to mean, i.e., the sentence starting “Trying to
    fulfil ……. I interpret the sentence as saying the panel does not
    believe the analysis at all – hence none of the probabilistic analyses
    can be trusted because it not only stretched the ability of current
    climate science but it was actually not possible – this sentence will be
    used by sceptics to argue that the projections are useless and should
    not be used – is that what is meant???


    Report this

    00

  • #
    aussie

    Randomly looking at these emails certainy delivers some gems …

    The following email(2368)indicates how JONES handled an earlier FOI request by DAVID HOLLANDS – looks like he just deleted everything.

    It is in response to an email from PALMER – UEA re a FOI Request from STEVE McINTYRE. Both parts are below.

    The question is, is JONES suggesting that deleting the email is the best way to handle the requests, or is he effectively saying to PALMER “I dont have anything on McINTYRE, I’ve deleted it all?”

    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

    // Below is the email from PALMER ////

    Gents,
    Please note the below. I am not in a position to deal with the substance of Mr.
    McIntyre’s comments but now have to handle his request under DPA (which means a troll
    through your files for material that identifies Mr. McIntyre). Please note that under
    the DPA, comments about an individual are the personal data of that individual and
    subject to access under a DPA subject access request. Ergo, I would strongly advise all
    to be careful in what you put in your correspondence.
    As to this specific DPA request, I will require proof of identity, £10, and a form
    before we proceed but I do assume that all will be forthcoming upon request. We then
    have 40 calendar days to respond.

    Cheers, Dave

    The string of emails in the above email group (2368) is well worth the read and shows their attititude towards anyone who dares to have a different opinion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    aussie

    Another gem in (3730)re climate change models

    From CONWAY – UEA

    … this is why the time horizon for predicted changes may therefore be altered – because we don’t
    actually know when certain CO2 concentrations will be reached and how sensitive the climate
    system is to a given change in conc.

    That is right, in their own words, “… we dont actually know …”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    This hacker thinks he can help the poorer nations by feeding them this two-year-old lemon. The impoverished nations explain constantly to the UN the type of help they want. It’s not the rotting leftovers of this disinformation. Many developing nations want action and help by addressing human-caused climate change. The richer nation’s (living on credit) and over indulgence of the world’s resources have indirectly contributed to the economic financial crisis. It is a flawed system of economic imbalance. This is not based on singular studies but a vast body of evidence. These are stolen and quote-mined emails (Guardian directly sought explanations). They do not in anyway change the scientific reality. This earth is still warming dangerously rapidly as all objective indicators point and supported by recent 2011 data sources. Human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant driver above and beyond all other known causes. This will hit the poorest nations the hardest on our planet.

    This Climategate hacker is not helping the poor of our nations. All attention should be now on scientifically-based goals in ensuring mitigation for these nations rather then this self-centered, self-indulging smut and smear campaign. This is a committable crime. With friends like the Climategate hacker, who needs enemies? (Many posters affirming this action have bluntly pointed out)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Vanishing Point

      Excuse me but when my ancestors were busting their guts working hard to improve their existence the impoverished nations were doing exactly the same what they are doing now – fighting between themselves and allowing their rulers to live in luxury. Why should I care what happens to them? When December 2004 earthquake hit Indonesia they had to postpone purchase of Russian MIG jet fighters due to lack of money. When by early 2005 international aid came in they could complete the purchase. Perhaps the money could have been spent on improving the quality of life of their citizens.

      Who exactly was helping India or China to develop? They finally saw the light and they did it all themselves. What’s wrong with the rest? Don’t tell me about living on credit. I pay for my actions and have never asked for help. I certainly don’t want the corruption and perversion of science as evidenced by the emails to affect western governments. It is disgusting how low some people will go to manipulate research to present their point of view.

      As to human caused climate change perhaps you should read the emails first. They may just teach you something about reality. If you want to correct the economic balance then perhaps you can give those who you consider worthwhile your share but do not attempt to force me into it. Climate is always changing and always will and humans have no control over it – it is mostly natural. But remember that in nature it is the strongest that survives. If you give your resources willy nilly to everybody then the nature will not be kind to you. And who is going to help you then?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Ross James @118 (regarding the e-mail release).

      this two-year-old lemon.

      Ross I gotta tell you are truly showing your “denial”.

      What is causing more starvation is higher cost food. What is causing higher cost food is the diversion of crops and croplands to biofuel production. So tell me what is causing the push for biofuel? Let me answer for you: liars and propagandists telling you that carbon is bad. The lemon as you call it is the proof positive. If you still don’t get it stick around for a little more “education”.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Robert

      You state:

      This earth is still warming dangerously rapidly as all objective indicators point and supported by recent 2011 data sources. Human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant driver above and beyond all other known causes.

      Even though the geologic record shows the earth has been much warmer and it (as well as life) not only survived but in fact thrived.

      So provide your evidence of this “dangerously rapid warming” as I will then provide you with evidence that the only thing that is in danger is the handouts to these developing countries and some leftist agendas.

      I have a relative who has been doing missionary work in Africa for over 15 years. She has contracted malaria while working there, has seen first hand how things work, and knows intimately just how much of the “aid” money actually gets to the people there.

      If you want to yammer on about helping these poor third world nations then sell your car, sell your house, take the money and give it to them and spend a decade or so of your life living amongst them actually doing something.

      Otherwise please take the sob story somewhere else as you are as guilty as everyone you want to blame.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John James

      Fool!

      The real CRIME is the perpertration of the biggest FRAUD in the history of civilization, namely man made global warming.

      People who continue to promote this FRAUD are also complicit in the CRIME!

      This FRAUD is being used as a Trojan Horse to redistribute wealth and introduce a Totalitarian One World Government !


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Ross,

      it is becoming more likely that the e-mail releases are being done by someone from inside the warmist “Team” camp.Possibly a disgruntled member.Who could be fed up with the many lies,distortions,manipulations and all around unethical behavior of the AGW believing camp.The e-mails certainly show it.

      It could be Dr. BRIFFA doing it.

      Have you ever thought of that possibility?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      MadJak

      Yeah, I guess that’s why the underdeveloped nations rallied behind china at copenhagen eh Ross.

      $37 trillion would not only aleviate all poeverty in the world overnight, but I am sure it could go a long way to raising all impoverished peoples standard of living to something quite comfortable.

      Starving people don’t give a chit about AGW. They are preoccupied with getting food into their families mouths.

      Face it, the only people who push AGW are the people who want to get something out of it. They, in turn are backed by a predominantly white, middle class ideologists you have probably never known hunger or poverty, live in crappy little apartments in the city like little battery hen chickens.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    aussie

    I suggest Ross James takes off his “doom-coloured” glasses and read some of those emails to find out what they actually say about climate science. If he is honest he will also see how we are being manipulated and decieved by the greatest hoax ever. That is the only lemon we are being served.

    Is Wiki-Leaks a “committable crime”? My guess is you would think not because unlike GC2 it is not an expose` of leftist ideals.

    I also ask Ross, can science clearly demonstrate what human-caused climate change we have inflicted on the developing nations? I’m talking proof not hype or trying to fit data with wishful thinking.

    I am not against helping devoloping nations, but they are learning fast how to prey on the developed nations “guilt” for inflicting this so-called “terrible climate change” on them and they know that the do-gooders will gladly write them a cheque to clear their concience.

    Ross, if you and others want re-distribution of global wealth be honest about it and dont use a scam. The end does not always justify the means, even when it does suit your ideology.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    And this is nothing more than attempted criminal brainwashing of school kids..
    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/3042.txt
    Weel my 6yo will be smart enough to see thru it..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    derspatz

    When it comes to brute force cracking of the encrypted file perhaps Chinese alphabet versions of some of the phrases already suggested would be a better bet ?

    I’d start with this ;-)

    “你所有的基地都屬於我們”

    :-)

    regarDS


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Joe V.

    Can FOIA be nominated for a Nobel or something, albeit ‘incognito’ ?


    Report this

    00

  • #