AAP reports from the future

This story from the Australian Associated Press contains the usual scare-mongering from Ian Plimer:

AAP November 19, 2009 01:36pm

Australia will go broke and become the laughing stock of the world if politicians ignore basic science on climate change, a leading global warming sceptic says.

But there is one intriguing detail:

Prof Plimer’s comments came as he delivered the annual Essington Lewis Memorial Lecture in honour of a former chief executive and chairman of BHP.

And that lecture won’t be delivered until 6pm today (Nov 19).

I think it is awesome that the AAP can report from the future, but I would find it more more interesting if they reported the Lotto results rather than something as predictable as a Plimer lecture.

Comments

  1. #1 cohenite
    November 20, 2009

    So, “The Decline” is really a “spurious decline in proxy based temperature records from tree rings in the Northern Hemisphere.”

    Trenberth’s e-mail which has been confirmed by Jones:

    From: Kevin Trenberth
    To: Michael Mann
    Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
    Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer

    Hi all

    Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.

    This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

    Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
    ***

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

    You have to love those snowflake proxies.

  2. #2 Jeremy C
    November 20, 2009

    Coehnite,

    James lovelock who is a scientist, you may have heard of these people, had a very good, one sentence, answer to your reprint of the email about seeing colder temps when he was interviewed earlier this year on Nature video. Go look it up, watch it and if you don’t understand what he says go ask any engineer hanging around the Hunter Street Mall up near your end. Just beware, they will look at you as if you are slow.

  3. #3 el gordo
    November 20, 2009

    One thing is for sure, RealClimate has been exposed as a blatant propaganda machine.

  4. #4 zoot
    November 20, 2009

    Is [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29Vip-PbuZQ) the video you refer to Jeremy? The reference to cold temperatures etc is at about 3:44.

  5. #5 James Haughton
    November 20, 2009

    These emails “prove” that HadCrut have been faking data, “tricking” people, “hiding declines”, etc, in about the same way that the [Bohemian Grove tapes](http://www.jonronson.com/them_bohemia.html) “prove” that George Bush is a satanist who practices human sacrifice to a giant owl effigy. There are a whole lot of innocent ways in which the “hide the decline” reference can be read; thanks to Duae for providing one plausible reading. Given the way it’s been trumpeted, this is surely the “best” that Anthony’s buddies have. A lot of fuss over nothing except an invasion of privacy.

  6. #6 Paul UK
    November 20, 2009

    >One thing is for sure, RealClimate has been exposed as a blatant propaganda machine.

    Oh, it’s so easy to give a simple personal statement that means nothing.

    Some more examples:

    “One thing is for sure, NASA has been exposed as a blatant propaganda machine.”

    “One thing is for sure, The Heartland Institute has been exposed as a blatant propaganda machine.”

    “One thing is for sure, Exxon Mobil has been exposed as a blatant propaganda machine.”

    “One thing is for sure, The British Antarctic Survey has been exposed as a blatant propaganda machine.”

    Just have a political opinion and put the organisation you hate in the sentence.

  7. #7 Marco
    November 20, 2009

    @85. Unfortunately, James, expect yet another string of newspapers (the usual suspects) touting this as “yet more proof” that it’s all one big conspiracy. They WILL refer to the Briffa case, regardless of the fact that Briffa completely demolished McIntyre’s criticism, making it two nails in the coffin of Copenhagen (there’s plenty already anyway).

  8. #8 Michael
    November 20, 2009

    Anthony,

    Are you still trying to figure out that small problem Bernard set you months and months ago?

    Or have you just given up?

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    November 20, 2009

    One thing is for sure, el gordo knows nothing.

  10. #10 sod
    November 20, 2009

    The speed at which people picked out this email and trumpeted it all over the net without any apparent effort to figure out what was being discussed is despicable. It’s not a hoax or a deception; it’s a simple repeat of what is already completely open and clear in the scientific literature; and it exposes — yet again — the so-called “skeptics” as just the opposite. Credulous nitwits who jump on any possible hint of a problem as a grand hoax. Sheesh.

    very well said.

    i actually do expect, that they will find some ugly stuff (or at least something that can be spun that way) in that amount of data. but they broke the news, before they found any real thing.

    it is exposing them as a pretty disgusting crowd.

  11. #11 Betula
    November 20, 2009

    I just found this email on a used computer I recently purchased…

    From: Kenneth Trenberth

    To: Michael Mann

    Subject: I’m about to cry

    Michael, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    That’s right, I said travesty…. if only that damn climate would start cooperating!

    We need to find more signs of potential disaster soon or God forbid, we may be mocked.

    Now listen to me and listen to me good, some clown recently released information showing October was the third coldest on record for the U.S…

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=national&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report

    We need to counter this sort of blasphemy at once!

    I am hereby ordering the immediate release of the backup cute Polar Bear pictures. In addition, we need to call the media and have them release more articles on how the cold is caused by warming….

    http://sify.com/news/cold-wave-attributed-to-global-warming-news-national-jegmDcafgcd.html

    While your at it, have them dig up some of those articles that explain how more snow is due to warming….

    http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200703150312.htm

    Time is of the essence. Remember, up is down, black is white, cold is warm and most important, we need to prevent a travesty.

    With Warmest Regards,

    Kenneth

    P.S. With any luck, I will not be sending you my usual Gingerbread house gift this Christmas

    http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061211182846.nwcc15td.html

  12. #12 Jeremy C
    November 20, 2009

    Zoot,

    Re your post *84.

    Exactly.

  13. #13 Dano
    November 20, 2009

    I think it is awesome that the AAP can report from the future, but I would find it more more interesting if they reported the Lotto results rather than something as predictable as a Plimer lecture.

    Yet another Dano line into the lexicon. If Tim uses ‘mendacicization’, Dano likely will have his own Wiki entry.

    ;o)

    Best,

    D

  14. #14 Dano
    November 20, 2009

    i actually do expect, that they will find some ugly stuff (or at least something that can be spun that way) in that amount of data. but they broke the news, before they found any real thing.

    Wait til all the news breaks of all the events out in nature that happened as a result of the e-mail whistleblowing breakthrough ClimateGate discovery:

    o Glaciers reversing course, now advancing

    o Arctic ice re-growing

    o Plants moving back south and blooming later

    o Animals moving back south and downhill

    o Sea levels falling

    o Crop nutrition increasing again now that CO2 washed out of air

    o Oceans are no longer acidifying, corals unbleaching

    o Land-use is improving increasing albedo

    o Permafrost freezing

    o Freshwater flow decreasing into the Arctic

    o Hg deposition from coal plants lessening

    o N deposition reversing and P no longer controlling freshwater ecosystems

    o The naughties no longer hottest decade

    My gosh, there will be a bevy of amateur scientist hiring, documenting all the environmental reversals, I tell ya!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Best,

    D

  15. #15 sods
    November 20, 2009

    [realclimate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/) has an answer up. very good, as a fast reply was necessary.

    but if you want to have some fun, go over to [Spencer](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/global-warmings-blue-dress-moment-the-cru-email-hack-scandal/)

    As of this writing, the BBC is the first mainstream news source to cover the story. But instead of discussing the content of any of the e-mails, the BBC is focusing on the illegal nature of the computer system breach.

    this is rich, isn t it? so the BBC does not publish private e-mails, but looks at the illegal nature of the breach?!? how dare they!

  16. #16 Perfect Prick
    November 20, 2009

    Danzero – these things sould like what happened in the past, the Arctic was quite clear in the 1920s.
    I think the amatuer have been un-covered. Falsifying data is professional is it now – suppose only if it serves a purpose eh. That is not how I did science.

  17. #17 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    I notice that continuing to run away from [my challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2089587), Anthony Cox (cohenite), has continued to his turdphile obsesion of smear-and-run.

    When challenged to simply state your charge. Anothony Cox and his fellow turdphiles, seem rather satisfied, even revelling in fostering smear and innuendo, says a lot.

    el gordo now that you’ve joined the ranks of the turdphiles, perhaps you could explain just how anyone or anything has been exposed as propaganda? You’ll find plenty of examples on this thread, showing that its your smear-and-run tactics that have been exposed as propaganda.

  18. #18 sod
    November 20, 2009

    more fun. this simply had to happen.

    those who published those e-mails got under massive attack from their own side. one [Michelle Malkin](http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/17/sarah-palins-private-e-mail-hacked-family-photos-raided/)

    what about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of … e-mail account all over the Internet?

    oh no. that was Michelle talking about Palin. about the [current event](http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/20/the-global-warming-scandal-of-the-century/), her approach is slightly different:

    That said: The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century — and have massive bearing on the climate change legislation being considered by our lawmakers here at home. Helpful rundowns of all the latest developments at Hot Air, Shout First, Andrew Bolt, and from James Delingpole at the Telegraph, who sums up some of the most damning e-mails:

    she joined the lowlifes….

  19. #19 Gerard Harbison
    November 20, 2009

    These are not private emails. They are coming from public universities and government sites. They would be subject, for example, to an FOIA, except, of course, Phil Jones in several of the emails was advising his correspondents to delete emails to frustrate FOIA requests. My lawyer friends tell me that would be a felony in this state; what it would get you in the UK I don’t know.

    If you want to send a private email, get a gmail address, and send it from your own computer. .

  20. #20 el gordo
    November 20, 2009

    Akerman:

    What’s with the ad hominem? Your language suggests you are just a girly man ‘hiding’ behind a skirt. I know it’s distasteful for you, but take the time to go through the emails over at Bolter’s blog.

    Indications are that Joseph Goebbels was on the money with his throwaway line that ‘truth is the greatest enemy of the state’.

  21. #21 bi -- IJI
    November 20, 2009

    Gerard Harbison, so does that mean the FOIA permits me to demand for the US’s nuclear weapon activation codes, since after all they’re owned by the government? Can I also demand for the contents of all your e-mails that you’ve ever sent to a .gov address?

    * * *

    el gordo says,

    > What’s with the ad hominem?

    and then immediately after that,

    > Your language suggests you are just a girly man ‘hiding’ behind a skirt.

    Enough said.

    * * *

    Meanwhile, I think I’ve identified the Russian server which was distributing the e-mails.

  22. #22 Dave Andrews
    November 20, 2009

    Tim,

    You obviously live in a different world zone in Australia.

    Have you not NOTICED the considerable interest elsewhere in the CRU email records?

    Stiil, you might as well continue,and this is a little cruel, living in your antipodean detachment from the rest of us.

  23. #23 IJI
    November 20, 2009

    Shorter Dave Andrews:

    Anyone who doesn’t have a full-time job devoted to obsessing over those leaked CRU e-mails is obviously detached from reality.

  24. #24 Dave Andrews
    November 20, 2009

    OK, I posted my comment, #102, above based on the headline for this thread without reading the comments. Obviously commenters have picked up on the story of CRU’s emails.

  25. #25 Gerard Harbison
    November 20, 2009

    Gerard Harbison, so does that mean the FOIA permits me to demand for the US’s nuclear weapon activation codes, since after all they’re owned by the government? Can I also demand for the contents of all your e-mails that you’ve ever sent to a .gov address?

    No, silly, because that’s classified material. There is absolutely no reason the CRU material should be classified, and it isn’t. But you could file a FOIA request with the University of Nebraska for the contents of my University email account here, with the warning that they will charge you for the cost of reproducing the email.

    I’m surprised people don’t know this stuff.

  26. #26 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    el gordo,

    Smear-and-run is a behaviour. That you practice the behaviour is damning of you. Calling you out on your behaviour is the opposite of ad-hom.

    Those seeking out, and revelling in (and continued adherence to), smear-and-run behaviour is well described as turdphilia.

    Don’t like the label? Then don’t practice the behaviour. And answer [my challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2090584).

  27. #27 IJI
    November 20, 2009

    Gerard Harbison:

    > There is absolutely no reason the CRU material should be classified, and it isn’t.

    And how would you know?

    > But you could file a FOIA request with the University of Nebraska for the contents of my University email account here, with the warning that they will charge you for the cost of reproducing the email.

    OK, but I don’t want to pay the cost of reproducing the e-mails, so can I simply crack into your university mail account and download the mails and do whatever I want with them? Is that OK? After all, they’re public material right?

    > I’m surprised people don’t know this stuff.

    Given that you had to rely on your “lawyer friends” to supposedly figure out these things, it’s not that surprising.

  28. #28 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    Harbison: it is a felony to hack a server. Hack my public site, and despite the fact that I’ve made information on it public, you’ve still committed a felony.

  29. #29 Mark Byrne
    November 20, 2009

    The content of the emails should be judged by everyone else in world disclosing their emails, lets not just focus on the poor sods who the watts crowed want to single out.

    I think we should encourage a continuous series of email hacks to fuel empty debate. We don’t need to argue the science if we continuously bring up cherry picked, out of context quotes and make unspecific insinuations as to their possible meaning.

    (BTW Gerard Harbison’s argument is as bankrupt as any).

  30. #30 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    But you could file a FOIA request with the University of Nebraska for the contents of my University email account here, with the warning that they will charge you for the cost of reproducing the email.
    I’m surprised people don’t know this stuff.

    Fine. Now go break into some of the university’s server and try, as your defense, claiming that “well, I could’ve gotten the information using FOIA requests anyway therefore I’ve committed no crime”.

  31. #31 IJI
    November 20, 2009

    > The content of the emails should be judged by everyone else in world disclosing their emails,

    Starting with all of James Inhofe’s e-mail communications. Drown Inhofe with a ton of FOIA requests, and I’m sure Harbison will suddenly experience a profound change of heart and realize that privacy is a very very important thing i ndeed.

  32. #32 Gerard Harbison
    November 20, 2009

    IJI:

    Knock yourself out. It’s not my computer, and I don’t treat it as if it were my personal property. I suspect Inhofe knows very well how to protect himself from frivolous FOIAs, but heck, do the experiment. I’ve filed a few FOIAs in my time; it’s a useful exercise.

    dhogaza:

    It is indeed a felony to hack a server. We don’t actually know that’s how these emails were released, but if it is, you are indeed welcome to heap on the unknown individual who did this all the righteous indignation and moral opprobrium you bestow on the thousands of other hacks that happen daily. After all, it’s the hacking you’re mad about, not the nature of what was discovered, right?

    You people are confused. This is public information. The means of releasing it were likely illegal, but the information itself is neither secret nor private.

  33. #33 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    We don’t actually know that’s how these emails were released, but if it is

    The University has already gone to the police. Presumably due to the contents of the server logs.

    After all, it’s the hacking you’re mad about, not the nature of what was discovered, right?

    I haven’t seen anything in the content to be angry about. But, yes, I get angry at felons. I’ve had servers hacked before and it pisses me off.

    You people are confused. This is public information. The means of releasing it were likely illegal, but the information itself is neither secret nor private.

    Responses to FOIA requests will redact private phone numbers, etc, which have been included in the hacked copies of the server contents, so, no, asshole, it’s NOT all public information accessible through FOIA requests.

    Riding the moral high horse named “felony hacking of a server”. Amazing.

  34. #34 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    Also, copyrighted materials for which an organization doesn’t have the right to distribute also is explicitly exempted from disclosure by the FOIA process.

    In other words, you can’t force a federal organization to disclose stuff it has no legal right to disclose.

    At least some of the data being distributed by the hackers falls into this category.

  35. #35 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    Actually I should’ve said “copyrighted or otherwise protected …” the data CRU has no right to disclose is protected by legal agreements with the owners of the data.

    It’s similar to the Briffa situation where McIntyre has been castigating him and accusing him of all sorts of nefarious shit because Briffa refused to release data which was provided to CRU by russian researchers under an explicit agreement which didn’t allow CRU to release the data themselves.

  36. #36 Gerard Harbison
    November 20, 2009

    I see, dhogaza, you have all Michael Mann’s charm and felicity with the language. Big hint; being the first person to use scatology does not win you either the argument or admirers. It just marks you down as a person too stupid to come up with a clever insult.

    Office phone numbers are not private information, and I’ve never seen them redacted in an FOIA. Why you would put a personal phone number in an official email is beyond me.

    And no one’s riding a moral high horse here. I’m just pointing out the phoniness of your outrage. Now you’re all mad about journal copyright violations! Good grief, who do you think you’re kidding?

  37. #37 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    Gerard,

    Who are you defending?

  38. #38 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    Good grief, who do you think you’re kidding?

    No one. Hacking servers is a felony. I’m in the industry. I take it seriously.

    That fact that you don’t is and apparently don’t believe that others might is telling.

  39. #39 Gerard Harbison
    November 20, 2009

    Janet

    We don’t know who did this, so who is there to defend?

    I’m pointing out the deflection — people feigning outrage over the hacking, and let’s face it, hacking is just a sad fact of modern life — in order to distract attention from the deplorable content of some of the emails.

    Now please don’t call me a turdphile. I’ll be hurt.

  40. #40 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    I’m pointing out the deflection — people feigning outrage over the hacking, and let’s face it, hacking is just a sad fact of modern life — in order to distract attention from the deplorable content of some of the emails.

    Yeah, and let’s face it, murder, rape, burglary, auto theft, and other crimes are just a sad fact of modern life, and those who express outrage at such crimes are just …

    feigning it.

    Right.

    in order to distract attention from the deplorable content of some of the emails.

    I’ve seen your misrepresentations of some of the e-mails elsewhere. I think you’re feigning outrage over the content of the e-mail in order to distract attention from the fact that someone committed a felony by breaking in to this server and you and the rest of the denialsphere are caught out not simply defending the crime, but celebrating it.

  41. #41 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    Gerard Harbison,

    Are you a turdphile? Your comments suggest you could be inclined to a bit of underhand smear. What is the “deplorable content” that you refer to?

  42. #42 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    What is the “deplorable content” that you refer to?

    There is some questionable stuff regarding FOIA requests by McIntyre.

    However, we know that

    1) UK law is different than US law

    2) from past posts by McIntyre, it’s obvious that the university’s FOIA compliance office has been involved in the process, and for all we know Jones is just following requests from the office

    3) McIntyre’s been asking for data that CRU can not legally release (proprietary data from various NWS’s around the world who in part fund themselves through the selling of this data), has raised a big stink about it to the praise and glory of the denialsphere, and that apparently this data’s part of what was stolen

    We’ll see what shakes out of this.

    The other “scandalous” stuff is a bunch of bullshit as far as I can determine.

  43. #43 Nathan
    November 20, 2009

    Gerard

    “I’m pointing out the deflection — people feigning outrage over the hacking, and let’s face it, hacking is just a sad fact of modern life — in order to distract attention from the deplorable content of some of the emails.”

    Ok, so from this we can see that there isn;t actually anything deplorable. If all you can do is point at ‘feigned outrage’ then you have nothing. It seems you are simply trying to score rhetorical points here.

  44. #44 Michael
    November 20, 2009

    This is all just another installment in the denialist strategy to make make maximum noise with minimum content.

    Seems timely to re-visit this;

    http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/the-way-of-the-astroturf/

  45. #45 Ray
    November 20, 2009

    The person who made this information available may be employed at CRU, a whistleblower, which would make the person immune to prosecution.

    Phil Jones however requesting others including himself to delete emails in the face of a Freedom Of Information request is a blatent felony.

  46. #46 dhogaza
    November 20, 2009

    The person who made this information available may be employed at CRU, a whistleblower, which would make the person immune to prosecution.

    It’s an external hack. The university is already working with police.

    In the US, whistleblower legislation isn’t a blanket protection allowing one to commit felonies, and I rather doubt it is in the UK, either.

    Internal or not, release of this stuff is criminal, and I think it’s just wonderful watching denialists cream themselves over how “noble” crime is as long as it serves their supposed needs.

  47. #47 Bernard J.
    November 20, 2009

    If it is established that the release of these emails and datasets was felonious, regardless of the opportunity for the public to access them by FOI, is it then a crime to reproduce the same material on other servers? If so, does reproducing criminally-obtained information constitute a crime in countries where the original method of obtaining the information is not a crime?

    And if these emails and datasets are available to the public under FOI, why did the Denialists not previously obtain them this way? Are the denialists now going to file en masse for the data and correspondence of all climatologists, simply because these are ‘public’ information?

  48. #48 Ray
    November 20, 2009

    “dhogaza 126; Internal or not, release of this stuff is criminal, and I think it’s just wonderful watching denialists cream themselves over how “noble” crime is as long as it serves their supposed needs.”

    Neither you or I us or them matter, its science being well served through transparency. The whistleblower/hacker deserves a Nobel Prize in economics.

  49. #49 Ian Forrester
    November 20, 2009

    Gerard Harbison, why do you only read denier web sites such as climatefraudit and whatswrongwithwatt? They are the only ones who confuse the Hadley Centre of the Met Office with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.

    I just checked your web page and you made this juvenile mistake. Are you really a professor at a University in the US? Must be one of the lesser known ones with very poor standards if they allow someone who never checks their facts to be employed there.

  50. #50 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    >*Phil Jones however requesting others including himself to delete emails in the face of a Freedom Of Information request is a blatent felony.*

    Ray, are you satisfied making this type of wild and damaging accusation without your full name? If I was prepared to accuse someone of a “a blatent felony” I’d come out from behind my sock puppet.

    BTW which email are you relying of for this strong accusation? Lets see what evidence you rely on to makes this claim.

  51. #51 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    Gerard Harbison, like Anthony Cox, Lank and el gordo, all went away to do their home work when I ask them for some facts, or a basic statement of their charge.

    They apparently knew that all of climate science was guilty of something. Now they just need to study long and hard and find some disjoint cherrys to match their preconceived notions.

  52. #52 Ray
    November 20, 2009

    Janet, wild and damaging accusations posted below in Phil Jones’s own words, my name hardly matters eh.

    From: Phil Jones
    To: “Michael E. Mann”
    Subject: IPCC & FOI
    Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
    Mike,
    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
    I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
    Cheers
    Phil
    Prof. Phil Jones
    Climatic Research Unit

  53. #53 IJI
    November 20, 2009

    Shorter Ray:

    I read one single e-mail without context and I immediately conclude that there’s a huge cover-up conspiracy! Also, cracking was an act of civil disobedience! After all, if Greenpeace and go around messing with stuff, why can’t we?

    However, if Greenpeace tries to crack into James Inhofe’s private e-mails, that’ll be a grievous crime against freedom and liberty!

    * * *

    Michael:

    Thanks for the thumbs-up!

  54. #54 Bernard J.
    November 20, 2009

    For all of the Denialati here who are in a lather over the revelations of a Global Conspiracy of Climate Scientists, I have two simple questions…

    1) What exactly is the nefarious intent behind “Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”: what did Mann achieve by doing this, and what would have been shown had he not ‘tricked’ the world?

    2) What exactly is the nefarious intent behind the “hiding” [sic] of the diverging post-1960 tree-ring data: what was achieved by doing this, and what would have been shown had the post-1960 data not been “hidden”?

  55. #55 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    Ray,

    Your the one here accusing Jones of a “a blatent felony”. So your name does count.

    Unlike you Ray, I don’t know:

    * the context of this emai;

    * the credibility of this particular email;

    * what discussion went with it;

    * the timing of any FOI;

    * the timing of the campaigns of harassment against these people;
    * the degree of harassment experienced;

    * whether this request claimed to be made by Jones was real or carried out;
    * and the legal implication of all of this.

    So your the one who has jumped the gun without presenting all the information. No need to gather the facts hey Ray? Just something you read on the internet?

    What is your name Ray? Jones is a real person, you just called him a criminal.

  56. #56 Gerard Harbison
    November 20, 2009

    Actually. Janet, It’s Friday night, and I went to have dinner with my wife. It’s something called a life. I have one. I rather enjoy it.

    Even so, you hurt my feelings.

    To the rest of you; yeah, there’s a lot of denial going on around here.

  57. #57 Michael
    November 20, 2009

    BJ:

    2) What exactly is the nefarious intent behind the “hiding” [sic] of the diverging post-1960 tree-ring data: what was achieved by doing this, and what would have been shown had the post-1960 data not been “hidden”?

    Easy – all the thermometers in the world what not have been fooled into thinking it’s been getting warmer.

  58. #58 Michael
    November 20, 2009

    Graham Harbison:

    It’s Friday night, and I went to have dinner with my wife. It’s something called a life. I have one. I rather enjoy it.

    Well, that’s not a luxury we have. No rest for the wicked and all that.

    A world-wide conspircy of scientists and peer-reviewed science journals doesn’t just concoct itself you know.

  59. #59 Janet Akerman
    November 20, 2009

    OK Gerard, come back when you’ve done your homework, to see if your can find anything to support your initial view.

  60. #60 Michael
    November 20, 2009

    ahem…..all the thermometers in the world would not have been fooled into thinking it’s been getting warmer.

  61. #61 Dappledwater
    November 21, 2009

    “To the rest of you; yeah, there’s a lot of denial going on around here” – says Gerard Harbison staring into mirror.

  62. #62 el gordo
    November 21, 2009

    Kevin Trenberth asked Michael Mann ‘where did the heat go?’

    Trying to explain observed surface cooling in terms of natural variability is no easy matter.

    Mann: ‘…is there something going on here w/the energy and radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I’m not sure this has been addressed…has it?’

    14 October 2009

  63. #63 Michael
    November 21, 2009

    el gordo et al. seem stunned to discover that science mostly progresses in increments.

  64. #64 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    el gordo finally produces evidence of [malfeasance](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2091400).

    How dare scientists ask questions and look for answers? These guys are supposed to be trying to con the world into George Soros evil plan.

    Soros should sue these two for breach of contract.

  65. #65 spangled drongo
    November 21, 2009

    Can I ask all those of the warming persuasion here, do you still defend the “stick” as strongly as the “team”?

  66. #66 Dirk Hartog
    November 21, 2009

    Bernard, J’s post above, #134, is IMHO the best contribution to the debate so far.

    Of course, you will never get McIntyre, Watts, et al, to answer these two simple questions (which are the crux of the matter).

  67. #67 Marion Delgado
    November 21, 2009

    Gaz:

    It is sloppy journalism, but the reporter’s only partly at fault. Nor is it standard policy to say, did x if x is in the future compared to when the story runs, and even if it runs after the event, it’s very phone-it-in, and normally you’d ask why the story, and if it’s filler or just placating some interest.

  68. #68 Nick
    November 21, 2009

    Drongo, Steve McIntyre built his second career on the “Stick”.It’s always been more valuable to him than the climate research community.

  69. #69 Marion Delgado
    November 21, 2009

    I wouldn’t focus on the taunts from the sociopaths and their dupes, but on the intent. The intent is to get an attack in to distort and recharacterize what was done.

    Actually, this retroactive denial of an expectation of privacy that was reasonable, if people are going to discuss science at all outside presentation of papers, is despicable, beyond the pale, based on criminality, and in no way reasonable. Saying they should have followed the standards of the White House after the Americans passed a specific law mandating it, or the practices of a high-stakes business firm is insane nonsense.

    Everything Watts did with weather stations did not pan out, but he kept on. Why? As I said at the start, the only purpose is harrassment. The same is true here – this is exactly why the Bush administration revealed the cover of a CIA agent and her agency front – harrassment, making an example, etc.

    In the future, only highly politicized scientists vetted by the radical business/military culture will be allowed to operate. That’s the goal. So, of course, the talking points project everything they’re doing onto science.

    Because, frankly, the key trait all the war-on-climate-science people share is projection. It’s gone from Karl Rove science debate to Tonya Harding in short order.

  70. #70 Louis Hissink
    November 21, 2009

    Chuckles

  71. #71 Louis Hissink
    November 21, 2009

    Science is about explaining observations in terms of KNOWN scientific facts.

    AGW has never been observed to require a theory.

    You lot are stupid because you seem not to learn from personal physical experience.

  72. #72 IJI
    November 21, 2009

    Louis Hissink, is “personal physical experience” an euphemism for “feeling”?

  73. #73 sod
    November 21, 2009

    ouch. somebody on WuWt spoke the truth: listen to what crosspatch had to say:

    crosspatch (18:48:38): What is being said on CA and WUWT are probably the least of their worries. They have a lot more to worry about in their own academic circles now with having a lot of the talk about their fellow academics exposed. What people were saying about whom behind their backs and what was being said about other institutions and various projects, etc. is going to do them a lot more long term career damage than anything we say here.

    so we found no smoking gun. but the gossip that can be found in the e-mails will damage them anyway.

    “sceptics” obviously are really nice persons.

  74. #74 sods
    November 21, 2009

    Chuckles

    again, sceptics exposing themselves. wonderful people.

    so Louis, when will you publish your e-mails over the last 10 years?

  75. #75 Neil
    November 21, 2009

    Of course, the long game is to render publicly-funded science impossible (just as rendering *all* public funding is part of these people’s long term policy).

    Opening the scientists’ e-mail is one big step on the way to achieving this. Intercepting snail mail and phone calls will be justified next.

  76. #77 murph
    November 21, 2009

    Time to sell your Climate Ponzi Scheme stocks, warmoids

  77. #78 Chris O'Neill
    November 21, 2009

    Brains of a drongo:

    do you still defend the “stick”

    And which “stick” of the ten sticks used by the IPCC might that be?

  78. #79 GWB's nemesis
    November 21, 2009

    The UK right wing rag the Daily Telegraph has a story today expressing outrage at the fact that the story has effectively been ignored by most of the press, or treated as a story about hacking by a few. The reality is of course that there was remarkably little in the leaked emails and documents of any substance. The sense of disappointment on the denialist sites is increasingly palpable.

    Of course the sad outcome of this will be that scientists will be much more guarded in what they say in emails to each other. Given the importance of open dialogue within the science community this is a retrograde step that will cost us all in the long run.

  79. #80 Dave
    November 21, 2009

    > Chuckles
    > Posted by: Louis Hissink

    As in “Chuckles The Clown”? Yup, can’t disagree with you there.

    Still trying to smoke out all the evil Marxists at the University of East Anglia? Checked under the bed for Fabians?

  80. #81 zoot
    November 21, 2009

    Fiendishly clever those Fabians. Before they made the stolen email files public they removed all of the traffic between them and CRU. If you look carefully at the wheels within wheels it’s obvious this is all a plot to discredit the denialists!

    The Fabians will stop at nothing in their campaign for one world government – if you don’t believe me, just ask Louis.

  81. #82 Paul UK
    November 21, 2009

    GWB Nemisis
    >The UK right wing rag the Daily Telegraph has a story today expressing outrage at the fact that the story has effectively been ignored by most of the press

    Are you referring to the amateur James Delingpole?

    Is he an official reporter?

  82. #83 Murph
    November 21, 2009

    GWBs “nemisis”,
    Time for a a new moniker dude, you’d be hard up to be the nemisis of the class clown at a sheltered workshop

  83. #84 Lank
    November 21, 2009

    ‘In late 2009, the credibility of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) took a serious hit when email exchanges between some of its senior authors and editors revealed deliberate efforts to falsify data and silence dissenting scientists. The IPCC’s reputation was already waning in the wake of scandals concerning Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” temperature diagram and the role of government officials and environmental activists in its so-called “peer review” process. The IPCC Email Scandal of November 2009 meant the IPCC could no longer claim to represent the “scientific consensus” on global warming.’

  84. #85 Philip Branch
    November 21, 2009

    swindled said “Wire tapping is legal to investigate a crime, so does hacking.”

    I think you’ll find that wiretapping in most jurisdictions needs to be authorised by a magistrate (or equivalent) who has been granted the power to do so. I’m not sure of the legislation in the UK but in Australia unauthorised wiretaps can land you in prison for six months for each offense and cost you $60,000 a day for each tap.

    However, I doubt that this would come under wiretap legislation. It depends on how the data was stolen of course, but I would think it more likely to be prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act which can land you in prison for up to five years and an unspecified fine.

    Regardless of how it was done I don’t think there’s any question that it was illegal.

  85. #86 el gordo
    November 21, 2009

    Mike Hulme is part of the click which has created this monstrous fudging. When he first started with CRU he came as a specialist ‘in the construction of observed climatologies and in the validation of global climate models’.

    Hulme was compromised from the get go. H.H.Lamb, the first director of CRU, will be turning in his grave.

  86. #87 NM
    November 21, 2009

    swindled said “The people who released the CRU data…exposed that these were not just scientist, but activists with a political agenda to start an anti-industrial revolution.”

    Hmmm… From what I’ve seen all it’s exposed is that the people at CRU hold you denialists in deep, deep contempt. If the most incriminating thing is that ten years ago a graph was put together so as not to highlight some dodgy tree-ring data then I think you are being a bit optimistic if you think that’s evidence of some global conspiracy.

    I suppose anything is grist to your rather peculiar mill, but really I would have thought you would be quite disappointed. No communication with the wicked Fabians, no instructions from would be communist overlords, no gloating about a world government… Starting to look like a bit of an own goal actually…

  87. #88 Dave Andrews
    November 21, 2009

    Well, well, well

    Suddenly the believers are the denialists. If you don’t think this is important and more than just a matter of ‘legality’ then you do not understand what has happened, A group of scientists have deliberately set out to manipulate data, hoodwink funding bodies and politicians, and put pressure on a scientific journal to remove its editor because they didn’t like the papers it was publishing.

    Oh and BTW, they also admit the GCMs did not predict the current temperature decline.(Hi Mark!)

  88. #89 pough
    November 21, 2009

    put pressure on a scientific journal to remove its editor because they didn’t like the papers it was publishing

    So the only real different between them and your ilk is competence? How is this an argument in your favour?

  89. #90 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    Dave Andrew hints at his recent [epic failure](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2090986).

    See a Doctor Dave.

  90. #91 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    el gordo writes:

    >*Mike Hulme is part of the click which has created this monstrous fudging.*

    el gordo, revels in [more](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2090841) smear-and-run.

    Forget the evidence to support your smear el gordo? You know what that makes you.

  91. #92 Michael
    November 21, 2009

    Dave Andrews writes:

    they also admit the GCMs did not predict the current temperature decline.

    Well, fancy that, here’s Dave using bold to demonstrate that he doesn’t have a clue.

    And could el gordo provide instructions on how to become part of a “click”? Sounds interesting.

  92. #93 Paul UK
    November 21, 2009

    Dave Andrews:
    >A group of scientists have deliberately set out to manipulate data…

    And the evidence is??
    Out of over 100megs of data, one paragraph in thousands of emails!
    WOW!

    You impress me not.

  93. #94 Kessler
    November 21, 2009

    “one paragraph in thousands of emails!”

    What evidence Paul?

  94. #95 pough
    November 21, 2009

    Some of the things that the Grand High Poobahs of the Church of Anthropogenic Warming write in emails when they think nobody will find out is very, very enlightening! Read this and weep, alarmists:

    On the contrary, submitting to these “demands” undermines the wider scientific expectation of personal confidentiality . It is for this reason , and not because we have or have not got anything to hide, that I believe none of us should submit to these “requests”.

    The jig is up! The writing is on the wall! The cat is out of the bag! The kilt has been lifted! The dinner bell has been struck and the denialiti are slobbering as expected!

  95. #96 el gordo
    November 21, 2009

    Michael

    A ‘click’ develops naturally, when people of like minds get together. All these characters have known each for quite some time.

    The story is gaining attention in the msm and the WUWT post on the CRU data hack was the number one post on WordPress yesterday.

  96. #97 Michael
    November 21, 2009

    Fascinating.

    Then what’s a clique??

  97. #98 Janet Akerman
    November 21, 2009

    el gordo, with the [ugly fetishist](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php#comment-2092367)

    Thinks the propaganda battle makes up for evidence.

  98. #99 Ian Forrester
    November 21, 2009

    Dave Andrews said:

    A group of scientists have deliberately set out to manipulate data, hoodwink funding bodies and politicians, and put pressure on a scientific journal to remove its editor because they didn’t like the papers it was publishing.

    Seems like DA has turned against McIntyre, the Pielkes, Spencer, Lindzen, Soon et al.

    Now he will have twice as many people chasing after him and showing how dishonest, stupid, arrogant and nasty he is.

  99. #100 el gordo
    November 21, 2009

    Michael

    Hah, must be the heat – definite brain fade. My apologies to everyone who may have been offended by my four letter word.

Current ye@r *