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



Hot new search tool for Climategate – I and II combined

Behind the scenes, I’ve been playing with a new neat tool for hunting hypocrisy, corruption, bias and unprofessional behaviour and I’m pleased to announce its ready to share with the world. The kudos for this all belongs to, as usual, a skilled volunteer. Thanks to EcoGuy for turning his rapid-fire coding ability onto this.

On the  EcoWho site he has helpfully placed all of Climategate I and II together into a combined searchable database. It’s fast, easy to scan, it copes with tricky search requests and provides a link to the full email from the results page of the search.

 

Welcome to the ClimateGate FOIA Grepper !!!

 

Ecowho FOIA Grepper

  Click on the image or the link above.

Happy Hunting!

 

Jo

 

UPDATE: EcoGuy tells me that searches are coming in a stream about  one-every-5-seconds. Do tell us what you find!

 

UPDATE: Ecoguy adds: you can put ‘.*’ between words you are looking for to find them apart but in the same order (i.e. paper.*fraud) – you can do what is called basic Regex matching, so if you know Regex you can really go to town. Putting a space at the beginning and end will just match the word enclosed only.

 

UPDATE: Ecoguy has just added in the ability to turn on matching by case or to restrict to just matching whole words – should make it easier to find exactly what you are looking for.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (65 votes cast)
Hot new search tool for Climategate - I and II combined, 9.5 out of 10 based on 65 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/cn78j7k

104 comments to Hot new search tool for Climategate – I and II combined

  • #
  • #
    phil

    Please investigate why Phil Jones was sending out emails about carbon trading to UEA staff in 2000:

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0073.txt&search=carbon+trading


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Yes, I’ve been doing that on my own computer with, precisely, grep. Windows users can use the find command. As in find /i /n “shell” *.* in a directory where all mail/documents were gathered.

    Try searching for Shell, BP, Amoco, Goldman-Sachs, Tata… hm-hm. Have fun.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Geoff Jenkins of the Met Office wrestles with how to support the Team’s fight against historic evidence of the MWP by publicly responding with a counter-argument that even he doesn’t really believe.

      “I am not very convinced by it myself, but it’s the best I can think of.”

      Clearly in need of some coaching by Phil, whom the emails show to be far more adept at careful weasel words than statistics.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        So this is the best this scientist can come up with ..now now surely it could be caused by thousands of ridiculous reasons but in light of the facts he would prefer to make up stuff…Yep that’s how science is done.

        OMG !!


        Report this

        00

  • #

    The emails with the long numbers are the 2009 releases and the short numbered ones are the recent releases.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Otter

    And all of those numbers come with nifty black-and-white striped prison shirts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    I find it somewhat ironic, that we need a search tool to find a tool…..


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I bet all the Australians who oppose carbon trading will love how it is diving in Europe:

    http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/11/carbon-trading-in-crash-mode.html

    Ecotretas


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Hasbeen

    Oh it’s such a shame.

    All those nice people, loosing their shirts. I think I might cry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    phil

    UEA’s ‘strategic alliance’ with Goldman-Sachs:

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4092.txt&search=Goldman-Sachs

    date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:00:38 +010 ???
    from: Trevor Davies
    subject: goldman-sachs
    to: ???@uea,???@uea,???@uea

    Jean,

    We (Mike H) have done a modest amount of work on degree-days for G-S. They
    now want to extend this. They are involved in dealing in the developing
    energy futures market.

    G-S is the sort of company that we might be looking for a ‘strategic
    alliance’ with. I suggest the four of us meet with ?? (forgotten his name)
    for an hour on the afternoon of Friday 12 June (best guess for Phil & Jean
    - he needs a date from us). Thanks.

    Trevor

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Professor Trevor D. Davies
    Climatic Research Unit
    University of East Anglia
    Norwich NR4 7TJ
    United Kingdom

    Tel. +44 ???
    Fax. +44 ???
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Jo, the search tool is great but I’m confused by what Eco Guy thinks of AGW (CAGW)? A glance at his web site would not have made me think he was a skeptic. Could we hear from him? Thanks!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Have a look at the site behind the tool, Mark.

      The site overall, is full of useful articles for saving power, managing thermal transfer, and stuff like that – basically how to save a bit of money using applied Physics (oh and being eco-friendly in the process).

      I have always seen these guys as being the moderates in the middle – they discuss the options, but do not fall into the trap of assuming that if a little water is good for you, being dumped into a whole tank of it must be better.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Rereke, I wasn’t (trying to) accuse them of some dark intent, only that I’d like to hear what they are thinking about the latest e-mails and such.

        I don’t fault anyone for tapping the cash flow from co2 propaganda……..(well yes I do but that is another OT discussion).


        Report this

        00

      • #

        “The site overall, is full of useful articles for saving power, managing thermal transfer, and stuff like that – basically how to save a bit of money using applied Physics (oh and being eco-friendly in the process).”

        Looks like it is Australian-based. Useful stuff on ‘R’ values etc. Has material on energy efficiency and climate-responsive design, which is my area as well.
        Bit weak on tropical situations so I guess the location of Eco guy is sub-tropical or temperate.
        The rainwater collection calculator uses monthly average rainfall which is useless if you live in an area where rainfall is highly seasonal, or rainstorms can occur on consecutive days. If the tank fills on the first day it ain’t going to fill all over again on the second.
        Daily figures linked to process modelling with full/empty algorithms is the only way to go. (Maybe I can offer to help with this ?)
        However, he seems to know more about climate than some geek playing computer games at the University of Easy Access up in the cold dark NW corner of the planet, so that would lead him to being skeptical :-)


        Report this

        00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Methinks that EcoGuy is someone who is concerned about the environment, believes in AGW and is extremely upset that so much harm is being done to the causes that he supports by a greedy but well connected individuals.
    In short he’s a proper environmentalist!
    Well done


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      So often people confuse someone who is concerned with the environment who seeks useful solutions based on valid science with the “environmentalist” who seeks political manipulation of the populace to achieve some end that they believe will “solve a problem.”

      The former I find we have too few of, we should all be concerned with better management of our resources. The latter I find to be either someone’s useful fool (if they are simply regurgitating the mantra of their leaders) or a greedy hypocritical bastard (if they are one of the leaders).

      So with that train of thought if you consider him to be one of the former (as you say a “proper” environmentalist) then good for him.

      We have far too many of the latter who want a solution to a problem without having any real understanding of the problem (or if it is in fact a problem) and even less of an understanding of the possible repercussions of their “solution.”

      We have seen numerous instances where something was rushed into because “we must act NOW!” only to find that the long term, end result was worse than had we done nothing.

      That is what I see with the “climate whatever vN.0″ crowd, a need to do something, anything, without really understanding why or what the results will be.

      People like that are dangerous no matter what name they go by or what “cause” they claim.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Searching the word “Problem” causes my PC to lock up!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Phil Jones:
    “Warming since 1975 to 2008 is slightly more than 1915-44.”

    Sounds like a natural disaster driven by the outlet of CO2 after WW2 ?

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2234.txt


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Click here to go to a wonderfull searchable database of both ClimateGate I and II emails…. Share this:EmailPrintMoreDiggFacebookLinkedInRedditStumbleUponTwitter This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink. ← Taranaki Regional Council, New Zealand fracking report finds no impact in Taranaki [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rob

    Revkin really is a disciple for “The Cause”. This ain’t no journalist.

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=revkin


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Im not sure exactly what the point is here, but it does sound a little ..


    The sondes clearly show too much cooling in the stratosphere (when compared to MSU4), and I reckon this must also affect their upper troposphere trends as well. So, John may be putting
    too much faith in them wrt agreement with UAH.
    Happy for you to use the figure, if you don’t pass on to anyone else.
    Watch out for Science though and the Mears/Wentz paper if it ever comes out.

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2252.txt

    And John Christy to Phil Jones:

    “I’m a little nervous now that you may have a “dog in this fight” as we say in Alabama while writing up the IPCC.”
    My English is not good enough to understand it…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Phil Jones massaging journalistts and magasines not to puplish sceptic papers:


    Just heard that New Scientist will not be running a piece on McIntyre/McKittrick. NS
    have finally been convinced the two Mc’s have an agenda and that no-one can reproduce their
    work !

    Also been trying to put a few people right about the von Storch et al paper. Hans
    sent an email around to a few of us saying the paper looks at methodological issues re MBH98/99 but that their model run isn’t an alternate history of the past. When talking to the media he doesn’t make this clear at all – let’s the journalists think it is an alternate.

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2257.txt


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Why is it when I read: “and that no one can reproduce their work” I hear “no one should reproduce their work”?

      If in fact no one CAN reproduce their work that is part of the process and should be evident AFTER the work is published and others have attempted reproduction.

      To claim prior to publication that no one can reproduce it is a lie of great magnitude. Who all constitutes this group that makes up “no one”? How many others would attempt (and possibly succeed) in reproducing the work were it published properly?

      Phil Jones appears to be a first rate ass only able to manage third rate science. The egotism and conniving in the emails is just atrocious for a professional in any field. It is made all the worse in that they claim to be scientists.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    janama

    OT – interesting editorial in The Australian this morning. here’s the conclusion:

    Transparency, as a rule, is something this newspaper views as a guiding principle because it fosters open-mindedness in the contest of ideas. Yet we cannot fail to notice that some sections of the media that have worked themselves into an unquestioning lather over various WikiLeaks information dumps or even the minutia of the Hackgate inquiries in London have shown a strange lack of curiosity about the Climategate leaks — even though they have provided a window into the science, politics and spin in the pre-eminent debate of our time. The ABC and Fairfax press might be embarrassed about how years of alarmist climate stories, and tokenistic gestures such as Earth Hour, might have fuelled the global warming hyperbole that has helped to create a sceptical backlash. There is no doubt such reporting has hurt the debate. The way to resolve that is not to avert their eyes, but to share the new information and encourage a rational approach.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      lmwd

      Janama, I also thought this was an interesting editorial from the Australian. It is like their eyes have been opened and they are now trying to distance themselves gradually as the uncritical swallowers of bunkum that they have been previously. Is this the tipping point we’ve been waiting for?

      Below is a comment I submitted a couple of days back, but didn’t get published….

      And just in time for Durban thousands of emails incriminating the small cabal of scientists pushing the dangerous climate change mantra has been released! Having read some of these emails, and if they are genuine, then it strongly suggests the world has been taken for a mug. Well meaning people easily deceived and manipulated for political and financial reasons. We are talking the systematic corruption of science here! No doubt Uni of East Anglia (and the IPCC) will once again quickly offer to investigate themselves, choose their own judge and find themselves not guilty. My guess is the mainstream media will brush over this scandal quickly for fear it will show them up for the uncritical, blind fools they have been!


      Report this

      00

  • #

    check this one out…from a CSIRO “scientist”

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/0332.txt

    Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the
    > >>>offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied
    > >>>to refereeing and editing. Whether that is done publicly or
    > >>>privately may not matter so much, as long as it happens. It could
    > >>>be through boycotting the journals, but that might leave them even
    > >>>freer to promulgate misinformation. To my mind that is not as good
    > >>>as getting the offending editors removed and proper processes in
    > >>>place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or
    > >>>concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      A very interesting read and something this guy should be ashamed off. Sure there are junk papers hitting the journals but doesn’t it only take 1 scientist to prove them wrong if they are. Now we have a scientist working for government funded organisation working for the people willing to deliberately hide, corrupt, bribe, coerce and sabotage any effort to prove them wrong. This CAGW incident has soiled science forever in my opinion.

      This scientist should be suitably employed elsewhere and not in the CSIRO. He would probably make a good door to door shoe salesman.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Streetcred

      Lovely thing this gift that keeps on giving … these csiro ‘scientists’ now have a name! I’d love to be a fly on the wall athe the OFFICE.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Yeap, that’s “Plan 3b”.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    To find the greatest number of “smoking guns” input “water AND vapor” or “water + vapor” depending on the “anding” routine. All these guys know water vapor controls climate and CO2 does not. They will complain about having to cover it up, and so on…

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition, 1/7th the absorber of IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 80 times as many molecules captures 560 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    See The Two Minute Conservative at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com for political analysis,
    science and humor. Now in the top 3% on Kindle.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi,

    Glad you like the tool – if there is any features you would like let me know…

    As regards AGW – I do not believe in man made climate change as it is being ‘sold’ to us; of course we have an effect on the environment, we are part of it & should act appropriately based on verifiable facts. The whole focus around Co2/climate change/global warming has more to do with naked opportunism than true environmentalism.

    BTW you can use .* to search for terms that are apart but in the same order (i.e. paper.*fraud)…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mondo

    It seems that “crap” is a commonly used scientific term used among “climate scientists”.

    A search using the grep tool reveals quite a few interesting e:mails.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I have been searching the emails for New Zealand related content, and just posted this on my site.

    http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/climategatte-2-salinger-puts-the-boot-into-de-freitas/

    The email is from Jim Salinger, who was a ‘scientist’ at NIWA, the organisation that created a junk science temperature record for New Zealand. In the email, he proposes that journal editors write to the dean of University of Auckland with a clear intention to try to get a skeptic, de Freitas, sacked from the university. In another email, Michael Mann approves of the action……

    Shocking stuff!

    From an Australian perspective, it is apparent that Pittock of CSIRO suggested putting the boot in. See here:

    http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/climategate-2-and-new-zealand/

    It is very, very ugly stuff….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    I am staggered how these guys refer to the logical fallcy of the “precautionary principle” in a way that suggests they see it as some form of literary law or something.

    Oh, and to recognise the precautinary principle as being a logical fallacy that can be used to justify doing or not doing anything makes you some right wing war mongering nutter.

    I really shudder to think what these guys would’ve been like under nazi rule. Let me see – something like the following:

    “Adolph says that the Jew were responsible for the war, so according to the precautionary principle, we must take all efforts to mitigate the risks posed by them”

    No, this is not a strawman, it is just a demonstration of how dangerous the precautionary principle is and how stupid people who subscribe to it are.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      MadJak, what

      makes you some right wing war mongering nutter.

      is having a B2 Stealth bomber as your gravitar.

      Just sayin……. :)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The majority of wars, at least in the past couple of centuries, have been started due to the precautionary principle:

      Two different groups of people – “A” and “B” were getting along just fine as neighbours, but one day a cow belonging to one group wandered in a field used by the other group.

      Everybody realised that it was an accident, and that nobody was to blame, but to ensure that the situation did not reoccur group “A” and group “B” collaborated in putting up a fence between their respective areas.

      Time passed, until one day, one person in group “A” said, “Our neighbours are awfully quiet of late, I wonder what they are doing?” The remainder of the group said, “Probably nothing, and any way they are on their side of the fence, so they can do what they like”. But the original person remained curious, so constructed a little platform so as to be able to see over the fence.

      A little while passed, an then a person in group “B” noticed the person in group “A” spying on them from the little platform. The person in group “B” then went to the others in their group and said, “We are being spied upon by someone in group “A”, why would they do that?” To which somebody else in group “B” said, “Perhaps they are planning to attack us, and are trying to identify the best way of doing that?” “Well”, said others in the group, “We had better ensure that we have sufficient materials to be able to defend ourselves in case you are right.” So group “B” started preparing defences as a precaution against attack.

      The person in group “A” finally noticed that the group “B” people were doing, and went to the other members in group “A” and said, “Group “B” are amassing material that could be used in a conflict, and that is why they have been so quiet. They must plan to mount a surprise attack.” Others in group “A” said, “Well perhaps they are only doing if for defensive reasons, to make themselves feel more secure?” To which others replied, “But that is stupid, we have absolutely no desire to attack them, and right now we are totally defenceless. We must take precautions”. So group “A” started preparing defences as a precaution against attack.

      It did not take long before the activities of group “A” were noticed by members of group “B”, so a meeting of group “B” was hastily called. “It is confirmed, said one. They were spying on us because they plan to attack us. We must seize the element of surprise, and attack them first.” Reluctantly, and with much sadness, the rest of group “B” agreed.

      And so it happened, and the two groups fought a long and bitter and bloody battle until only one person from each group was left alive, but both sorely wounded. And one turned to the other and asked, “Why did you attack us?” To which the other replied, “Because you were about to attack us”. “No, we were not”, said the first, “we were just taking precautions against an attack from you”. “But”, said the second, “We had no intention of attacking you until you started readying yourself for war. We were simply taking precautions too”. “Well”, said the first, “It is of little matter now, but isn’t it ironic that we have fought to the death because we both sought to avoid a conflict?”


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        I want to know how you and MV seem to know so much.

        I’ll agree on the precautionary principle being bed-wetting bunk, but rationalising precautions for defence has a long history behind it. I’ve assumed that Thucydides was issuing hard-won wisdom rather than ancient foolishness when he advised the peaceful to hedge their bets and retain an army. I do not think humans have changed much in 2400 years, but they now have the tools to create bigger disasters with less people and less time, and arguably have so much more to lose from war today than 100 or 1000 years ago.
        I would still advocate a defensive force capability, but the mitigation spending is proportional to the risk. War is just economics by alternate means. Our global economy and institutions may make war a bad 3rd or 4th-place option for everyone, but we still need to retain some defence capability in case market conditions change.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        @ Rereke W

        Your “A” and “B” scenerio is not related to reality. Either you BELEIVE that hapless humanity stumbles from one expensive bloodbath blindly into the next bloodbath…or….you recognize that moneyed interests stage set, direct and PROFIT from human carnage. These monarch/monopolists have near complete control over government, industry, media and academia. If nothing else, the ClimateGate disclosures show this back stage diatribe for the “Cause” of creating a one world, unelected government. The elitists belief is that because they have successfully extorted power for centuries that they will remain in control of their dreamed of Feudal Slave State. To that end they have photoshopped history, science and culture to herd humanity into their complete control. More on the Faux History aspect at Faux Science Slayer website. It is time for a New Universal Magna Carta. Our thanks to Jo Nova and EcoWho for making truth more accessable.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Mark D.

        Rereke,

        I think I can offer a couple paragraphs more detail:

        By chance each group A and B happened to have enterprising weapons makers. The weapons makers noticed they increased sales of their wares each time a “report” came back from the observer. The weapons makers in turn convinced the group leaders to demand a “safety tithe” from each group member for the purpose of buying weapons from the makers (for the safety of all).

        The “safety tithe” became such a large amount because of increasing fears, that a “tithe keeper” was called for. Since counting, tallying and secure storage of the tithes was expensive the tithe keeper was paid a portion of the tithes. After some time the amount of stored tithes was rather large and this was true on both sides.

        The tithe keepers happened to be both strolling along the fence one night and struck up a friendly conversation. They both could see (through a knot hole in the fence) that they were dressed better than average appeared to be eating pretty well. The two Tithe Keepers eventually became good friends although they didn’t publicly share this with either group. The Tithe Keepers worked together to “enhance” tithing because it was good for their lifestyle.

        Likewise the weapons makers were eating pretty well too. Eventually they asked the Tithe Keepers if they could securely store their excess proceeds from weapons sales. Naturally that was a perfect plan and the Tithe Keepers agreed (for a small percentage of course).

        When the war eventually started, both the Weapons makers and Tithe Keepers did exceptionally well. The leaders on each side started to make noise about how fat and well dressed the Tithe Keepers and Weapons makers were. The wealthy fat decided to share some of the wealth with the leaders. This was always carefully done and they were always rewarded more when the people were told something frightening. All was well and the leaders became fat too. The wars went on for quite some time. Once and a while peace was negotiated. During these peaceful times the Tithe Keepers would loan tithes to the people so that they could build nicer huts naturally they charged a small percentage on the repayment of these loans. Then for some reason another war would start…….


        Report this

        00

      • #
        MadJak

        I would agree that it has been a contrinuting factor to many wars (WW1 in particular is probably a good example), however, I see the precautionary principle as not being a means in itself. It is often used as a justification for someones world view.

        In the example you give, in the context of pre WW1, there were many groups involved in pushing the precautionary principle because it suited their world view or their profit agenda. As an example, the monarchies of europe were finding they were becoming more and more irrelevant in the industrialised age. There were many people supported by the monarchies in europe who saw war as being a means for the autocracies to prove their relevance. It would have been these people who pushed the precautionary principle, and hence the powder keg that became Europe pre 1914.

        As Blackadder said in BA IV in response to Baldricks question about “how did we get from the one state of affairs [peace] to the other state of affairs [war],”, ergo, how did the war start. From about 28 seconds in here.

        Much in the same way that those people who are set to profit from the AGW scare are doing. They in turn are supported by people who really don’t want to be proven wrong -> and it is this latter group that spout the PP as being some some relevant fact instead of being a logical fallacy dumb people use to justify an argument which they can’t win.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Siliggy

    From 3650.txt
    If you do not have enough data then:

    For much of the SH
    > between 40 and 60S the normals are mostly made up as there is
    > very little ship data there.

    Proceed but

    One cautionary note–talking to Phil Jones last week, he mentioned
    >> that the recent addition of SH buoy data has added data from areas of
    >> the globe hitherto undersampled; it may have “suppressed” the ocean
    >> area warming relative to land.

    Hmmm the warming from since data that was made up may have been suppressed. That is a worry!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    crosspatch

    Might be a useful addition: Over at Jeff Id’s blog is the mechanism for unpacking the MIME attachments to many of the emails (munpack) in the comments of this thread

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/mime-data/

    Those attachments can provide additional context for many of the emails.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    The Herald is a very busy paper..they have not got time for this stuff..
    Cutting edge stuff today edged out this latest series of email leaks..
    Lets see..story on Kyle Sandilands..check..story on Kyle minogue..check..champion cuban cigar roller..check..a $310.00 cab fare..
    Could be a pulitzer prize coming their way soon..
    ut whats this..they mentioned the latest hack..
    Err..no…its more “scary stories of $CAGW$” based on the journalists guesses..and this pearl of truth passed his lips and the editors..
    “The peer-reviewed science is sketchy…..”
    Which did not stop our hero from blathering garbage..
    What a complete and utter rag the Herald is..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Email 1848 contains an interesting philosophical exchange between Nick Brooks, of the School of Environmental Studies at UEA, and John Turnpenny, who is at UEA, but is an affiliated researcher at the Tyndall Centre.

    There are several reasons why I find this exchange insightful:

    1. The concerns of the School of Environmental Studies extends to economic matters, it seems:

    … it might be useful to explore the philosophical background to the current debate on economics and the environment, although I don’t know whether this is the sort of thing it would be appropriate for Tyndall to engage in publicly. My thoughts on the philosophical context are summarised below …

    2. Nick Brooks sees the issue of climate change as a battle:

    … the coming century will be characterised to a large extent by a clash between a “promethean” approach to the environment that seeks to push technology (and economic growth) forward with little or no attention to risk and environmental stability …

    Note that in this phrase, he defines a label for his protagonists – “The Prometheans” – which he does not do for the philosophy that he subscribes to. Such marginalisation is a common technique in most forms of propaganda.

    3. He then takes his definition of the Prometheans to an extreme:

    … this conflict is already underway, between the promethean extreme neo-classicists, and the sustainability movement. Climate change is the most obvious battleground between these two opposing philosophies, with the prometheans deploying all means at their disposal to oppose sustainability.

    4. Attempts to capture the high ground:

    … [The Promethean] philosophy in which any attempt to manage innovation, enterprise or economic growth is seen as morally wrong. I think this explains some of the vehemence of the opposition to processes such as Kyoto – it isn’t just a question of costs and benefits, but rather a question of the struggle between good and evil …

    5. States his desired outcome (my emphasis):

    There should be a place at least for a “soft” precautionary principle that involves risk assessment – technological innovation will continue but perhaps as a society we should be more conscious of what sort of technological developments we think are desirable …

    6. And ends with a fallacy of extension:

    … those that oppose the precautionary principle most vigorously are often those that strongly support precautionary spending on defence to guard against possible future attack by unidentified enemies …

    In reply, John Turnpenny’s response is much more moderate.

    He dismisses the concept of “the prometheans” and describes the conflict as being more between the “light greens”, where he places the CRU, and the “deep greens”, which he suggests is Nick Brooks position.

    A nice encapsulation of “activist science”, and the subliminal use of propaganda techniques (as compared to the use of subliminal propaganda techniques).


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      nice exploration.

      One should be asking why two scientists would be employing propaganda in their communications. Unless their science is “social or political” not “Climate”……


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      Thanks for that, Rereke…

      Interesting how Nick Brooks so befuddles what is a relatively straight forward confrontation.

      I remember a time when one could read The Age or the New York Times and follow their essentially left-biased arguments which were based upon rational ideas and fairly honest language. Today I simply can’t find that sort of honest reasonableness on the Left. It’s like the whole lot of them from their brightest intellectual stars to the street rabble of Occupy Whatever have suffered a massive cultural stroke that’s left them no longer able rub together two thoughts to form even the scent of a meaningful argument.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      wes george

      “Promethean neo-classical extremists” indeed. LOL. Versus the “sustainability movement.” Poor Nick Brooks. He is right though about the form of the conflict. It’s us against them. And it has very little to do with science.

      Maybe what Nick means to say is that the natural ongoing evolution of technology and society that’s been smartly accelerating these last few centuries is being opposed by Green reactionaries who – with a kind of evangelical fundamentalism – just say NO to every aspect of modern technological progress. No new dams. No coal. No nuclear. No new power infrastructure. No new roads. No mining. No forestry. No irrigation. No modern genetics. No development. No suburbs. No trade. No to our national and cultural heritage. No to scientific transparency. No to free speech. No to our children’s future.

      Arrayed against this Green reactionary religion on the side of technological and social evolution there are just people living life… we really don’t have any unifying or coherent “philosophy.”

      We, the living, are just the rolling forward of human destiny, really. The universe unfolding according to it own schedule. To imagine that some cabal of Green dogmatists can command the unfolding of human destiny would as barking mad as, say, believing that parliament could pass legislation guaranteeing fine weather for our children!

      Yes, some few of us are skeptics, some are capitalists or economically committed to free markets, some are libertarians, others are workers and farmers who have upwardly mobile ambitions for their children. Some of us have jobs in industries threatened by Green Luddism. Billions of us only just got electricity in the last few decades! A few, like Lomborg, realise that the only path to sustainability is to actually accelerate technology evolution rather than wind it backwards. He knows whatever we do, humanity can not stand still at this level of development. We must continue the great modern project of building for the future.

      The only thing that unites us is that we aren’t mad zealots of the Green high church of the coming apocalypse.

      So there is no “Promethean neo-classical” conspiracy outside Nick Brookes’ fevered brain. There is only people moving on with their lives in a civilisation which is expanding on one side and on the other a new government-funded religion, reactionary, dogmatic, armed with an apocalyptic prophecy and a self-righteous esoteric priesthood (climate pseudo-scientists) that use fear, lies, hate, oppression and media manipulation as their primary evangelical weapons against us, the living.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] [Update: November 26, 2011: There is now a combined searchable database of all of the Climategate (1.0 and 2.0) emails: ClimateGate FOIA grepper! h/t Joanne Nova] [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    From 2165.text

    The burden of proof is really for climate skeptics who acknowledge global warming is occurring, to demonstrate why it is *not* mostly due to highly likely causes such as CO2 and CH4 etc.

    No. You cannot prove something that doesn’t exist. The CO2/CH4/etc alarmists must prove that, while global warming may be occurring, the warming exceeds(by a margin of 3 to 4 sigma) the natural variation before the industrial revolution. Then and only then is it rational to start looking at the industrial revolution for causes. Unfortunately, we have no reason to expect the alarmists to think and act rationally any time soon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Sorry. That was email 1265.txt.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    A rather misterious sequence of e-mails appears if you look for Teri, the previous name for Tata, Pachauri’s company. I can’t figure it all out, but it seems like an attempt to take over something (the Tyndall Center?) and even involves secret documents! Wow :-)

    Also interesting is their relationship with Big Oil. Among other things, they seemed to be flirting with Exxon circa 2000.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Nick Brooks use of Prometheus as a figure to describe his opponents is dizzyingly ironic. It is illuminating in demonstrating his intellectual snobbery and his lack of insight into his own logical fallacies.

    Prometheus was an immortal who tricks Zeus and provides fire to the mere mortals, unleashing terrible consequences. A sin for which he suffers eternal punishment of having his liver eaten daily by an eagle, only to regenerate in perpetuity to prolong the agony in a perverse and cruel sense of justice (an early example of sustainability perhaps- the gift that keeps on giving).
    So, what does this analogy tell us about Mr Brooks?
    1. He identifies himself with Zeus and his fellow immortals, being one of the illuminated few no doubt, who feels betrayed that such power (technological progress) was given to the common man instead of remaining the exclusive privilege of the gods. ie. MR BROOKS IS AN ELITIST.

    2. By having the temerity to challenge Zeus’ omniscience and power, Prometheus has committed the ultimate sin of egalitarianism. ie. HE IS ANTIDEMOCRATIC.

    3.Prometheus disrupts the natural order of things by giving man such power, threatening the peace and tranquillity of the Olympian paradise. ie. HE IS A UTOPIAN and HAS LITTLE REGARD FOR EMPOWERING THE COMMON MAN.

    4. The eternal punishment meted out against the hapless Prometheus is incredibly cruel and disproportionate to the crime. ie. HE HAS AN INTENSE HATRED OF THOSE WHO OPPOSE HIS UTOPIAN VIEW. Clearly he believes this is the sort of punishment due to people who don’t fully buy into his sustainability doctrine.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bytheway

    Here are two IPCC “climate scientists” agreeing to be sock puppets for a Greenpeace operative.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    This is as good as having Climategate 3. One only needs to put ‘medieval‘ in the search box to see how ‘settled’ the science is.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    john james

    ‘Green’ debacle: Tens of thousands of abandoned wind turbines now litter American landscape

    “In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned.
    Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.”

    http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wind_turbines_abandoned.html#ixzz1eincLFME


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      It’s almost as if the Green movement has deliberately immolated itself in pursuing such an illogical failure that was so obviously doomed yet they were so incredibly blinkered to miss. One could be forgiven for thinking, in one’s more cynical moments, that amoral corporate interests with little care for the environment have given Greenpeace and others just enough rope with which to hang themselves, and just enough kerosene to perform the world’s first auto-cremation. How Quixotic, Cervantes would have had a field day!


      Report this

      00

  • #
  • #
    Streetcred

    I have just one thing to say, “JO, YOU’RE AWESOME!” :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    If you have the Climategate files on a local drive, a useful alternative to Find (eg Grep for Windows)is Agent Ransack, free lite version of Filelocator Pro:

    http://www.mythicsoft.com/page.aspx?type=agentransack&page=download

    Has some useful functions, eg listing of all finds, sections containing the search item, logs, etc.
    Clicking on the message opens in Notepad, or right-mouse click on the message, select “open with” – any editor on the desktop, so you can use an editor (like Editpad lite) that cleans up line feeds, highlights email addresses, makes URLs click-able.

    Took me about 20 minutes to build a catalogue of what these clowns are saying about “reefs”.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      find somewhat does the job, provided one is willing to wait. There seems to exist an improvement, findstr. Gnu grep for windows requires you to set the PATH dos by hand, then seems to cause memory things when piped – pity. Thanks for the tip.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Has anyone tried producing an audio file of the e-mail release ?

    I really don’t have time to read through them all, but they would make such entertaining ‘background music’. (with all the formatting and headers removed of course).

    That way they might reach a wider audience, as the get played on mobile devices & players across the planet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Plunket

    I found 1107.txt (Fri, 12 Mar 2004) very interesting –a candid assessment by Chick Keller of Fred Singer’s 2003 critique of Mann’s work
    - he begs colleagues “what I need is strong evidence that the surface record is indeed
    correct (UHI effect is small, and marine boundary layer approximation is correct)”
    - he observes “keep in mind that increased CO2 is good for us–more agriculture, etc.”
    Richard Somerville response includes the following admission:
    - “We don’t understand cloud feedbacks. We don’t understand air-sea interactions. We don’t understand
    aerosol indirect effects.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Dig this..

    “Many of us on this forum make our living as
    academics, so we’re required to write proposals,
    bring in grant money to our university…. The reality is
    that delving into controversy and policy, for
    many of us, could wreak havoc on our careers.
    Early in my academic career, [b]I had a habit of
    speaking my mind[/b], and time and again found myself
    in a world of trouble. [b]A *few* scientists can
    pull this off [/b]and continue to make the rounds
    testifying in front of the policy- and
    decision-makers, but [b]the majority can not[/b].

    http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2268.txt


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Stephen Williams

    This exchange highlights the religious nature of the ‘belief’ in climate change http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4959.txt&search=drought


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi,

    I have just added in the ability to turn on matching by case or to restrict to just matching whole words – should make it easier to find exactly what you are looking for.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross James

    Picking up clues of the identity of the hacker is indeed tricky. Connecting and seeing patterns is also a fraught with all kinds of issues.
    Looking and reading through it seems to indicate an American Centrist contrarian position on Climate Change. It is full of the standard cynical and tongue in the cheek contra-science clichés. Whoever compiled the emails appears to be familiar. Working with a minority community, he forms established phrases/headings that are clearly recognizable within the contrarian community on climate science.

    Unfortunately none of this says a great deal that can be highly honed into and personalized. This worldview of climate change is contextually centered on America. Expanding the viewpoints beyond continental North America, the obvious word patterns repeat like Google searches finding multiple contrarian web sites on the science. We all know about hit rates and the number crunching of ASCII standards by computer algorithms seeking word patterns. The parroting is a development of a common “science” global language belonging to communities scattered throughout the world that do not represent majority science on climate change. Clearly the evolved clichés are minority viewpoints of science contained within the key phrases. This leads us to conclude that these minority players elsewhere in the world actually belong to a similar species. This is like the parrot bird species. Therefore this American patterning in the word and paragraph constructions could originate from any part of the globe. It is indeed a dedicated community all over the globe of contrarians on the varsity of climate science as being credible.

    The email hacker will remain a mystery for now. The arguments derived from these emails are inconsistent. There is a distinct danger in the minorities outside the greater body of acceptance of climate science. They could fall victim to their own limited understanding of the science to the exclusion of all else. Any breakthrough dynamically and consisting of fresh data and information are excluded from the established dialogue, language and word construction. It is then not surprising that they may well end up arguing on very narrow, inconsistent and out of context analysis which will unduly lead to wrong conclusion. After all time waits not for any man as it was in 2009.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe V.

    Is Climategate 2.0 really Eternity III ?

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

    Wondering what kind of mind is behind it, could this encryption puzzle be a latest in the fascinating Eternity series of puzzles ? It would be out just in time for Christmas.

    Or is it rather just some magnificent benefactor reminding the miscreants to mend ways, as there is further retribution to be had ?

    When the laws of civil society fail to be functioning as a deterrent, clearly something of a higher order is required. Could this be it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jazza

    I’ve always marvelled that rational adults living in a world where distance is no barrier, nor are changing seasons, could accept the rabid MMGW alarmism as science.

    And I’ve commented often, and now will, in paraphrasing the excellent talk to Royal Society of the Arts, Edinburgh, 2011, “Scientific Heresy” by Matt Ridley,
    “A theory so flexible it can rationalise any outcome is a pseudoscientific theory.”
    Amen to that, and a scam and rort it seems by the “inner circle” of “scientists” perpetrated on us all, shouldn’t we now withdraw our consent to be fooled any longer?

    (www.wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ridley_rsa.pdf)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    Two years ago, the public were fooled into believing Climategate 1.0. Despite two years of quote mining the emails, we’re still waiting for this so-called “conspiracy”.

    This time round, the public aren’t going to be fooled by Climategate 2.0.

    (BRAVO! I had nothing to delete this time) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      This time around the “public” isn’t listening to people like you.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gordon

        (Deleted the completely off topic remark.It was your usual baseless name calling and trolling comment) CTS


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Robert

          Right Gordon, you are just afraid you no one will care what you think any longer. Not that anyone cares what you think now.

          There are ethical issues amongst others that are at question, you are the one that can’t seem to stop talking about some conspiracy. We’d love to listen to the science but first we need to know the scientists are honest and pursuing science and not activism or personal agendas.

          The lack of professionalism shown in the emails should be a clue to you, but then judging by your behavior on another thread I doubt you understand what we are talking about.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Gordon

            Scientists complain, scientists bitch, scientists argue, so does Jo, Monckton, Ball, Spencer et al. So what, scientists are humans too. Despite having two years to cherry pick quotes from a decade of emails, where’s the conspiracy? Why don’t you (SNIPPED out the D word again) address the disinformation you are engaging in? For example, the constant rehashing of debunked arguments, the constant attacks, misrepresentations etc…

            (You MUST stop using the D word.If not you could be put into moderation) CTS


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Tristan

      Well, what do you expect? When your position is inherently illogical, you can’t resort to argument, you have to engage in all this silly smoke and mirror business.

      (Gordon is now in moderation.Because his argument method is to call people names and make trolling postings.What about you?) CTS


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Tristan

        What about me, CTS? I’m not using any ad hominem. I’m referring to the quality of the attack on the integrity of the UEA.

        You could even say I’m hunting hypocrisy, corruption, bias and unprofessional behaviour. :)

        People on this board are always calling me a troll. They just don’t like my cocky refutations to their smugness and sneering.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Gordon

      [deleted]
      —–
      Gordon,
      Illogical and baseless comments don’t meet the site standards. Name and explain that paper the “deniers” deny or apologize and agree not to name-call. No more posts from you until we resolve this. Jo


      Report this

      00

  • #
    GordR

    Jo

    If you want to talk about baseless attacks and name calling, just look at your own site. Don’t insults sceptics by calling yourself a sceptic. You are a denialist!

    —-REPLY: Hmm. Gord, I presume you are “gordon” posting under a different email? Fake ID’s is a no no too.
    This is a science site, justify and substantiate your terms. We’re trying to make sure you can put a logical argument together. A denier, denies something. What paper? — Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brand New tool for digging into Climategate’s (both) emails: is.gd/FvShK5, in alphabetical order and # of exchanges.

    Check it out at is.gd/FvShK5

    Regards!


    Report this

    00