Deltoid

Tim,

I have no issue with using the term 'trick' to describe a shortcut and disagree with those promoting this particular email as proof of wrongdoing.

However, there are a multitude of other emails that show truly egregious manipulation of results, distortion of the peer review process and corrupt practices etc etc.

Given how obvious the wrongdoing is I'm surprised that you would take a head in the sand approach.

Sadly, science is the loser.

Jack

PS - I don't think the release of information will have any effect on current climate negotiations at all, as they've never been about the science.

PPS - I see Sitemeter is reporting more than 3,000,000 hits. Well done.

Posted by: Jack Lacton | November 22, 2009 6:56 AM

"The emails are proof of scientists spending government money to increase support of that particular governments leading policies."

Where in the E-mails does it show this? Please give me a msg# or post the ENTIRE message/s that show this "proof". If you fail to provide anything other than snippets of messages I am going to dismiss you as just another lap dog. So go fetch.

Posted by: Trent1492 | November 22, 2009 7:00 AM

There are 1,073 email messages. They date from Mar 96 to Nov 09 and are from various people. They were obviously selected from a number of mailboxes and 1,073 is a very small number over 13+ years. IMO it's extremely unlikely that these are a random selection: they are almost certainly the "worst" to be found, and it's only by taking them out of context and misinterpreting them that anything "damaging" can be claimed.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 22, 2009 7:10 AM

The fuss about the word "trick" has been particularly amusing because it shows that the critics are as short on verbal skills as they are on scientific competence. The unabridged Webster gives under (3) the following definitions of "trick":"A quick or effective way of getting a result"; "the art of doing something quickly, effectively, skillfully"; "instant or skillful effecting of a result as, that does the trick"; "a feat demanding skill or ingenuity".

Posted by: Arie Brand | November 22, 2009 7:24 AM

it's also possible that ...the attacker uploaded the file from another country. Such as Britain.

Posted by: bi -- IJI | November 22, 2009 7:32 AM

A Sock Puppet:

it was coupled with the word 'hide', as in 'hide data that doesn't suit me': [...] 'trick' + 'hide' is starting to look unethical.

In the good old days when personal computers ran MS-DOS, there used to be "hidden files" in every diskette. I think this proves that the operating system vendors were all engaged in a nefarious conspiracy to own our PCs.

Posted by: bi -- IJI | November 22, 2009 7:59 AM

What's fascinating is the behind-the-scenes views showing how much McIntyre has spooked these climate scientists. The lack of scientific support for Keith Briffa is clearly evident; no one wants to stand behind his 12-tree sample "trick".

Posted by: Similam | November 22, 2009 8:26 AM

What's fascinating is the behind-the-scenes views showing how much McIntyre has spooked these climate scientists.

well, reading all those denialist posts about the CRU hack, you really can t evade to hear the triumphant "they mentioned me! they mentioned me!!!" shouts between the lines.

Watt s third post on the topic was the effect on the hits of his webpage.

were you trying to expose another "sceptic" personal trait, when you wrote that sentence?

so people who made zero impact on scientific papers still got mentioned in e-mail traffic?!?

Posted by: sod | November 22, 2009 8:34 AM

If the people at CRU had handed over the data as per the original FOI requests no data would have had to be stolen.

i always knew, that "sceptics" know very little about other stuff (beyond climate) either. but this episode is truly exposing a serious lack of knowledge about law and ethics.

for a start, you don t have the right to take something, if a person doesn t give it to you.

We used to wonder what they were trying to hide. Now we know.

so what did they hide where is the smoking gun?

Downplay it all you want, but this is a proper scoop with genuine implications for science and how it should be practiced.

yes, i have a pretty good idea about what will happen: real scientists will close ranks. they dislike thieves, and people without character. (reading other peoples mail is not the behaviour you would expect among scientists. publishing it isn t either)

let us wait and see, what comes out of this in the long run. but i have serious doubts, that this will improve access to data for "sceptics".

Posted by: sod | November 22, 2009 8:40 AM

Sod, actually there was a lot of scepticism among sceptics, who spent the first hours anti-virus scanning the zip file and wondering at the Russian (ftp) connection.

running an anti-virus program is making me a "sceptic" these days? wow!

Then news came out that UEA had been hacked and various people (Gavin Schmitt for example) have validated that from what they've seen, the emails are genuine.

there are many ways of editing. selection of the mails, could already be a pretty strong one, without changing a word.

But this is a whistleblower situation where the greater good is served by this transparency.

this is complete rubbish. whistleblowers do a little harm, to prevent a big one.

here is my question again: where is the smoking gun?

the item, that is worse, than publishing 1000 STOLEN MAILS on the web?

Posted by: sod | November 22, 2009 8:46 AM

Sod

You asked, "here is my question again: where is the smoking gun?"

Here it is:

From: Tom Wigley wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: Phil Jones p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Posted by: swindeled | November 22, 2009 9:05 AM

Data manipulation for an agenda.

Posted by: swindled | November 22, 2009 9:14 AM

Swindeled, which data were manipulated? Where on the surface record can we see it?

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 22, 2009 9:21 AM

Where on the surface record can we see it?

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 22, 2009 9:36 AM

I don't know where you can see it. For that, we must have two datasets, one before, and the other after. My conclusion is just based on the email, not on the data. This is extremely serious. The police must go in and invetigate.

Posted by: swindeled | November 22, 2009 9:44 AM

I don't know where you can see it. For that, we must have two datasets, one before, and the other after. My conclusion is just based on the email, not on the data.

Anti-science denialism in a nutshell ... thank you.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 22, 2009 9:58 AM

"... reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC"

This is not science.

Thank you

Posted by: swindeled | November 22, 2009 10:01 AM

This is not science.

Exactly.

It is an out-of-context e-mail.

Thank you.

Wanker.

Sad, foot-stomping, wishful, young naive wanker.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 22, 2009 10:03 AM

I hope you haven't, Doug, ruined our fun chain-yanking.

;o)

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 22, 2009 10:10 AM

... but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

It is manupulaion for someone else, for distortion.

Posted by: swindeled | November 22, 2009 10:12 AM

The police must go in and invetigate.

Fortunately, CRU is already in contact with the police. Those who committed the felony of cracking the site will be investigated.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 22, 2009 10:21 AM

"... reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC"

So in the "climate science" you can change your measurements?

The Police must go in and investigate for the sake of the world.

Posted by: swindeled | November 22, 2009 10:24 AM

So in the "climate science" you can change your measurements?

Of course, just as you can in any field of science when you find out that your instrument is miscalibrated.

If I have ten thermometers and one reads precisely 1C higher than the other nine when being calibrated, I'm going to subtract 1C from the measurements before I use them.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 22, 2009 10:34 AM

Leaving aside the whole thing of it being a feloney it does reveal both the mindset of denialist bloggers and their ignorance or wilful lack of knowledge about science.

George Monbiot et al have written recently about how denialists seem to become noisier and more pushy during 2009, even as the science becomes more solid. Its almost as if they know that the state of climate science is overwhelming their ideologically amplified noise level and it seems to be a desperate attempt to stop the science washing away all that they have built. I think they will just get noisier and climate scientists need to be tougher in getting the science out to the community at large and not just political and community leaders. Blogs like this one are not going to do it as the denialists are going out and addressing community meetings across countries like Australia. I guess you have lots of energy when your belief system is threatened.

Posted by: Jeremy C | November 22, 2009 10:39 AM

... "I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years."

Thanks for the acknowledgement! Never heared it before.

Is "cutting last few points" science?

Posted by: swindeled | November 22, 2009 10:48 AM

The scientists talk about "the recent cold-ish years". The foot soldiers talk of global warming. Who is the denier?

Posted by: swindeled | November 22, 2009 11:06 AM

swindled, swindeled, swndeled, vindicated, Vindicated, and whatever sockpuppet he posts as, is just trying to distract from the main issue.

No, the main issue isn't that Obama needs a teleprompter.

The main issue is that there is a cracker out there on the loose, he is uploading data from multiple users, and he is doing it with impunity.

I think the glibertarians haven't yet thought through the chilling ramifications of that, given that they're so enamoured with their talking points handed to them from on high.

Posted by: bi -- IJI | November 22, 2009 11:24 AM

@ 44 The Police must go in and investigate for the sake of the world.

Looks like somebody got some kind of message from the bottom of a bottle.

Posted by: WotWot | November 22, 2009 11:32 AM

I move to declare a Resolution to state that Swindeled doesn't know what the heck they are talking about, and therefore should be ignored for the reason of being a time-waster.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 22, 2009 11:38 AM

Folks should remember that the CRU is just one of many organizations performing climate research. The fact that the CRU folks have been unwilling to provide data to skeptic-cranks says nothing about the big picture.

Other organizations have handled the "skeptic" problem differently. NASA/GISS under James Hansen has handled the "skeptics" by telling them, "you can find all of our data and source code here (data.giss.nasa.gov) -- go knock yourselves out!"

Likewise, NOAA has long made available tons of data and climate-model source-code. See http://www.ccsm.ucar.edu/

What is especially revealing, though, is what the skeptics "haven't" done with the tons of data and source code available to them. They haven't done anything.

If the "skeptics" were serious, they would have long ago performed a bunch of re-analyses showing how NASA/NOAA have gotten it wrong and published the results.

In one of the Sherlock Holmes tales, a crime was solved by inquiring about the "dog that didn't bark". In the case of climate skeptics though, you have dogs that do a lot of barking, but not much else.

Posted by: caerbannog | November 22, 2009 11:48 AM

No, they're not obsessed with Steve McI; they really just want him to fuck off, now and forever, so they can get some damn work done.

Yes.

If I may, I pointed this out years ago. Of course the Hero Stevie had to change the subject when I brought it up.

This is one of the strategies - flood the discussion with meaningless sh*t to waste time. I say to all of them and to the deniers and pseudoskeptics: f--k you, time-wasting vermin.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 22, 2009 11:57 AM

Apparently if the scientists in question told their adoring climate alarmists to go sit in the street and consume their own excrement they would do so gladly and proudly exclaim it's the proper thing to do.

Irrespective of the science of Climate Change, these scientists are clearly guilty of A) open manipulation of the peer-review process, B) flagrant disregard of the FOI laws and C) public incrimination of other scientists who don't fit their "narrative".

Most telling is Dr. Mann using his considerable public standing to vilify Steven McIntyre even when it's obvious he hasn't seen the data in question! (The tree ring fiasco). He's obviously still angry McIntyre found errors which disproved his first "hockey stick" graph.

And Dr. Jones telling the scientists to delete emails pertaining to the document written for the IPCC so they cannot be provided through FOIA! How on earth can the author of this article ignore this incredible breach of ethics and law?

If this was an experiment to see if pigs can fly it would not matter, but these very scientists are producing the key materials the entire world will base trillions of dollars of spending on and as such their behavior is beyond reprehensible and is very likely criminal.

It's disheartening to see so many articles from so-called "science" websites who apparently endorse this shoddy political manipulation of data.

Posted by: JP | November 22, 2009 1:23 PM

One other thought before the denizens of this blog inevitably attack and insult me as a denier, idiot, right-winger or whatever. Just think about the long-term implications of the content of these emails.

Even if all the science is absolutely 100% correct, because the scientists in question have denied FOI requests and deleted documents, then it won't matter. Their ethical breaches could very likely cause the biggest loss of confidence the "green movement" has ever seen. And this does make me sad.

p.s. dhogaza, keep your blinders on dude. I'm not a climate change denier, I am an advocate of clear scientific principles. "The End justifies the Means" is a political philosphy, not a scientific one. Go read all these emails and tell me you are not shocked.

Posted by: JP | November 22, 2009 1:39 PM

JP:

Even if all the science is absolutely 100% correct, because the scientists in question have denied FOI requests and deleted documents, then it won't matter. Their ethical breaches could very likely cause the biggest loss of confidence the "green movement" has ever seen. And this does make me sad.

Yes well, thank you for confirming the fact that the motives were political! and had no scientific merit.

Posted by: Paul UK | November 22, 2009 1:52 PM

because the scientists in question have denied FOI requests

Well, you obviously aren't too bright! You don't seem to understand, for example, that ICO denies FOI requests, not scientists. If a scientist refuses to comply with a request, their lack of compliance is catalogued and available online and action is taken against them for failing to meet their responsibilities under the act. If you wanted to, it would be the easiest thing in the world to identify which scientist failed to comply with which request. Carpe diem, idiot!

Posted by: encs | November 22, 2009 1:58 PM

Swindeled:

... "I'll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that's trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years."

Well dear Swindy

Curve fitting has been discussed here before I seem to remember. There isn't enough information in that email snippet to determine why the comment was made. As Tim has shown in the past, using polynomials for curve fitting can give a false indication at the end and start of a curve. Other techniques probably do the same. This would mean the last few points of data may have given a false impression to an audience. One that would show a decline when in fact there wasn't one.

The overall trend over decades may have been up. In any case if the scientist was presenting the graph, it would show the missing points and people would query it. Another point of course is that the Hadcrut data shows the alleged drop in temperature, yet the CRU is the place that was hacked, despite providing evidence to support some deniers.

The other point is that we don't know if the period between data points was months or years.

Basically, you are grasping at straws based on little bits of incomplete info. If you do a shallow analysis of the email and you don't like the science, you can read whatever you like. I think you'll find that on RealClimate the scientists make these sort of assumptions and statements all the time (about leaving out data etc.) and it is public. But the fact that it is a 'secret' email, somehow this is different??!

Really points to you as a victim really.

Posted by: Paul UK | November 22, 2009 2:25 PM

I must say, I'm impressed. These scientists can run and control a worldwide conspiracy of enormous complexity and scope with about six e-mails in twelve years. It must be a very well oiled machine.

Posted by: Jim Shewan | November 22, 2009 2:51 PM

Re: Trick

The "trick" discussion is getting a bit stale in favor of other emails, but here's another observation.

The following Google Scholar Search retrieves "about 19,400" uses of the word "trick" over the past 10 years in the "Engineering, Computer Science, and Mathamatics" category, which is presumably the catagory most relevent to the Climate Auditors' fields.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=trick+-%22ar+trick%22+-%22m+trick%22+-%22u+trick%22&btnG=Search&assubj=eng&assdt=2001&asylo=2000&asyhi=2009&as_vis=0

(Some notable authors whose last names are "Trick" have been removed. Some non-relevant uses of the word remain, but I think the point is made.)

Posted by: cce | November 22, 2009 3:18 PM

Culo d'Manteca

Reading the link it appears that 3.700 years ago there were warm conditions like now. That would have been the last spurt of the holocene climate optimum.

Not exactly. Ring widths are similar to now. They aren't corrected for age. Rings are wider when the trees were younger.

The trees at the top showed the recent growth because of the extra moisture from higher temperatures.

No. Because of the higher temperatures.

No MWP?

Not in Southern California.

Posted by: luminous beauty | November 22, 2009 3:45 PM

Irrespective of the science of Climate Change, these scientists are clearly guilty of A) open manipulation of the peer-review process, B) flagrant disregard of the FOI laws and C) public incrimination of other scientists who don't fit their "narrative".

Leave out that middle one and I would have guessed you were talking about McIntyre. Oh wait. Change it to "abuse of FOI laws" and you would be.

Posted by: pough | November 22, 2009 4:07 PM

Jones tells Mann that the spatial extent of the MWP research is limited to the eastern US/N.Atlantic/European and Far East areas. Which explains why Southern California is not in the loop.

In the same email (11 August 2000) he solves my earlier confusion about the Thames freezing over.

'Frost fairs on the Thames in London occurred more readily because the tidal limit was at the old London bridge (the 5ft weir under it). The bridge was rebuilt around the 1840's and the frost fairs stopped.'

Posted by: el gordo | November 22, 2009 4:52 PM

FOIAs Auntie [15], yeah, and if you'd given me all your money when I asked for it I wouldn't have had to bop you over the head and take it.

Posted by: Monado | November 22, 2009 5:36 PM

If Ben Santer and Phil Jones ever put out a book of their selected emails, I'd consider buying it. Those two manage to produce some Grade A snark!

One thing I can be sure of: this thievery has removed the gloves. From what I've read, the denialists have sneakily taken private emails in the hope of uncovering some kind of conspiracy only to discover that they're perceived as assholes and idiots - nothing more. Ouch.

Posted by: pough | November 22, 2009 5:45 PM

Luminous wrote:

<i>No MWP?</i>

Not in Southern California.

Correct.

Remember, the Baliunas and Soon (BS) paper that "analyzed" the paleoclimate papers found the same thing.

What's this?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!? you exclaim?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!!?

Didn't BS go on a Heritage Victory Tour after they wrote a paper that "claimed" the MWP was global?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Astute folk will remember that BS bullsh--ted the paper and even though they looked at the global reconstructions, they cherry-picked and didn't mention them in the write up and instead only focused on the local and regional papers, and Heritage trumpeted the cherry-pick.

And thus goes the meme, all over the denialosphere.

Denialists and pseudoskeptics: dishonest, lying hacks. And their Message Force Multipliers are credulous rubes.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 22, 2009 6:33 PM

Thanks for IJI, Sod, and BI for asking critical question about the credibility of the stolen/leaked documents. How on earth can anyone draw any conclusions if we don't know that the emails/documents are guenuine, unaltered, and provide a complete record of communications?

My blog post: Hackers treated as credible sources of information (D'oh!)

Posted by: Russell Thomas | November 22, 2009 6:42 PM

This is a disaster for climatology.

It has no impact whatsoever on the science of climatology.

It's one more impediment to getting society to act upon the knowledge of climate that field of research has acquired, but it's not like those opposed to acting on that knowledge haven't been doing everything possible to convince the public to ignore it for a couple of decades.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 22, 2009 7:05 PM

You people suck. These emails were not 'hacked', by some 'hacker'... this was an inside job whistleblower.... and it will destroy, rightly, Phil Jones' career. And I'll be laughing all the way....

This blog is full of pigs. The mindless followers of the warmist religion truly live here don't they.

Posted by: Killer | November 22, 2009 7:13 PM

Wouldn't be ironic if this hacker was found to be a US citizen - he could claim to be suffering from Asperger's syndrome like Gary McKinnon.

Lol! But even then, I would respect McKinnon more, since UFOs are more likely than massive global Global Warming conspiracy.

Course, there may be such a conspiracy, but then the Earth itself is in on it too.

Posted by: Alex | November 22, 2009 7:17 PM

This blog is full of pigs.

You think you've got problems?

My hovercraft is full of eels.

Posted by: Ezzthetic | November 22, 2009 7:36 PM

98 kent,

Of course they've been selected! 1,073 messages from a number of people (anyone got the number yet?) over 13+ years! Any reason to think there's any "worse" to come?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 22, 2009 7:56 PM

Since CRU is funded by UK all the emails are public property.

So are tanks. Go steal one and see how far that argument gets you with the judge.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 22, 2009 8:01 PM

I checked the fonts used on the emails and the recent style of said fonts proves that they someone forged the emails. I believe it was the Texas National Guard. I will expect to be named Time magazine blogger of the year shortly.

Posted by: Webster Hubble Telescope | November 22, 2009 8:12 PM

Finally! People are waking up to the gravity-ist lie!

We have been trying to expose this NASA round earth conspiracy for years now

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php

Mass + MAAAGIC = Gravity!

Posted by: Connor | November 22, 2009 8:25 PM

Power Line had the best summary.

Posted by: tommy | November 22, 2009 9:13 PM

Tommy, Powerline? Surely you jest. If there is any "reverberation" it will be because the echo chamber is springing into action.

Posted by: Deech56 | November 22, 2009 9:17 PM

Tommy, Powerline? Surely you jest. If there is any "reverberation" it will be because the echo chamber is springing into action.

Ad hominem: very becoming of the faith-based AGW crowd.

Posted by: tommy | November 22, 2009 9:36 PM

When will the rump wing dead-enders use ad hom correctly? Or is misusing it correct tactically and correct Englishly is immaterial to The Cause?

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 22, 2009 9:38 PM

The substantive arguments were made upthread. Look up and see what d-ckclueless 'swindled' tried and failed from his cut-paste from Powerline, and how quickly they disappeared.

That is: there is nothing of substance there. Or anywhere. Including your comments.

HTH.

Best.

D

Posted by: Dano | November 22, 2009 9:53 PM

Yeah Tommy, the code!, we need the code that the email programs were written in.

And what about the thoughts of the evil scientists as they wrote the emails?! We need to do a FOI on their minds!

Posted by: Michael | November 22, 2009 10:48 PM

I like this one ... certainly worthy read for the Deltoids;

"If nothing else, what has already been revealed makes it clear that, regardless of whatever may be the real nature of AGW, the scientific proof for it is highly uncertain and conflicted. It is also clear that many of its leading proponents have been knowingly complicit in an ongoing scientific fraud the likes of which has never before been perpetrated. At his next public apology session the PM should feel a duty to add frightened children, coastal property owners, farmers, graziers, fishermen and climate sceptics to his list of those wronged." https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/six-degrees-and-rising

Posted by: Lank | November 22, 2009 11:13 PM

Hey Deltoids - why not ask a Leyland Bro'?..."The only logical conclusion is that, since 2006, the weight of evidence goes against the (unproven) hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases cause dangerous global warming."

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/ending-climatemania

Posted by: Lank | November 22, 2009 11:18 PM

Reading the merangue ideas of the Denialati I am impressed by the depth to which they make mountains from molehills, and to which they tie themselves in Gordian knots of self-delusion.

I can't wait to see if Duffy and Comry-Thompson give this tea-cup some storm-time on Counterpoint in the coming weeks.

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 22, 2009 11:33 PM

Anyone care to say how this deliberate "hiding" of data is good science?

Tom, I’ll look at what you’ve said over the weekend re CCSP. I don’t know the other panel members. I’ve not heard any more about it since agreeing a week ago. As for FOIA Sarah isn’t technically employed by UEA and she will likely be paid by Manchester Metropolitan University. I wouldn’t worry about the code. If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them. I’ll be passing any requests onto the person at UEA who has been given a post to deal with them. Cheers Phil

Posted by: Bradley J. Fikes | November 22, 2009 11:36 PM

The global warming denialists have predictably gotten very excited about the emails that were stolen from CRU, declaring that they prove that there's a big climate scientist conspiracy (presumably to install a COMMUNIST WORLD GOVERNMENT).

Emails, shmemails. EU leaders are saying this outright:

New EU Head Blatantly Admits the Goal of One World Government

Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | November 22, 2009 11:40 PM

Mike Smith at 120..."why wouldn't everyone be happy if the earth wasn't headed to certain destruction"

Well said - It took 120 posts for someone to hit the nail on the head.

The messages detailed in these emails show that many climate scientists have manipulated data and climate models to exaggerate and give false and alarming future temperature predictions. Now that this club has been exposed we should be very pleased that we can relax about CO2 and focus on real problems of population growth and our environment.

Posted by: Lank | November 22, 2009 11:49 PM

Janet Akerman,

I gave you the entire email, so the quote could hardly be out of context. That's really weak.

And I already read your link -- it didn't answer the question about data hiding I raised ... Please copy and paste what you think is an answer to that specific email. The only discussion about "hiding" I saw in there was about a different email and different circumstances.

It would help not to be so defensive next time.

Posted by: Bradley J. Fikes | November 22, 2009 11:52 PM

So, climate denialists are so incompetent at guerrilla warfare that they didn't know that there was a Freedom of Information Act process until the e-mails were leaked? Is that what these e-mails show?

Do a search for "Monckton." You'll see scientists discussing the claims of this guy -- the harshest term for him I've seen is "charlatan" -- and discussions as to which sets of real data, and which real studies, rebut and refute his claims.

Do a search for "Al Gore." Most of the hits are news or commentary articles passed to someone else. These scientists aren't conspiring with Al Gore, and aren't supporting his political work. They're happy someone from outside the science/research community pays them heed, but there is nothing unholy linking any of these people to Gore, nor Gore to them.

Do a search for "research grant." You'll see discussions about the paltry grants they actually get for grants, completely refuting one favored denialist claim that these guys are monkeying with the data in order to preserve their fat grants.

I used to leak stuff to news media professionally. One of the cardinal rules of leaking is that you leak stuff that makes your side look good as well as stuff that makes the other side look bad. One shouldn't leak material that paints your opponents as extremely ethical and cool in the face of stupid but very public attacks by charlatans (Monckton), or that shows them to be virtuously pursuing the truth for very little financial gain, or no financial game.

The denialists not only can't get any of the science right, they also can't leak straight. They threw a spanner into their own works.

Plus, maybe a couple will go to jail for it.

Denialists would do well to read All the President's Men. It's not the petty political stuff that you go to jail for -- it's the later actions to cover up and sabotage.

Lew Rockwell and the rest of the denialists deserve each other.

Posted by: Ed Darrell | November 22, 2009 11:54 PM

Brad, the weak out of context spin was in your question. Read it again and guess what I called you on.

Then read the link I gave you carefully,

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

as I said, you could have found it your self if you were really curious.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 23, 2009 12:03 AM

Janet Akerman, The chunk you gave me does not discuss the email or the "hiding" question, which referred to hiding data potentially under FOIA. The part you cited discusses Briffa and the tree-ring data, an entirely different subject.

Do you understand now?

Posted by: Bradley J. Fikes | November 23, 2009 12:11 AM

Kent opines:

Since CRU is funded by UK all the emails are public property.

Hmmm…

Then why are public servant email accounts password-protected? Why is it considered an extremely serious offence to read colleagues emails? Why are emails routinely permitted to be deleted in the day-to-day running of public service – why not remove the 'delete' option from all email programs if the emails are "public property"?

Why is it that members of the public do not every day walk freely into the offices of government institutions and walk out with arm-loads of these "public" emails?

Given the billions of dollars of public subsidies of Big Oil, why do we not have the right to walk in to their offices and request all of their correspondence on efforts to avoid tax, on carbon emission regulation, on what they really think about the action of greenhouse gases, and on what the real known reserves of oil are?

And why do you confabulate government and non-government environments?

One could go on ad nauseum, but what's the point? It is clear that your logic doesn't pass even a pre-pubescent standard.

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 23, 2009 12:19 AM

I feel the most egregious thing of all has to be Dr. Phil Jones telling everyone to delete their emails just in case one of the FOIA requests gets granted. Unbelievable! CEO's in private industry have gone to jail for exactly that type of coverup.

Posted by: JP | November 23, 2009 12:25 AM

Doug,

Bradley, He said the data was covered by prior agreements (of non-release), not that he was going to hide it.

He said he was going to be "hiding behind" the agreements.

Posted by: Bradley J. Fikes | November 23, 2009 12:25 AM

Brad, My Bad,

I've read too many trolls today.

Fighting FOI is not about science, its about policy. FOI can be a tool of harassment, but I still think FOI are necessary regardless of the harassment potential (I assume those scientist did too, until harassed).

I understand that these FOI were rejected by the office responsible for British FOI.

Regarding transparency in science, it should not be ad-hoc, what applies to one should apply to all. And a lot of science if now funded by IP, so there are legal questions of ownership. Not as simple as some wish it were.

Others may have more details.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 23, 2009 12:43 AM

Janet,

Global agreement about managing environmental costs is not global government.

Well, first of all, that isn't what the EU leader said. Try watching the video again.

Second of all, if the Global agreement, involves any political body overseeing with regulatory power, then yes, it is a global government.

Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | November 23, 2009 12:50 AM

Bradley J. Fikes and a few others: I have read the e-mails of Ben Santer getting seriously p.o'ed because of McIntyre's FOIA requests. You should try reading them, too. You will find the reason why the FOIA requests are not "legitimate", and why Jones tries "hiding behind" the agreements: McIntyre requests data, demands codes, demands every single step in-between, while MOST of all that is freely available and published in the literature. Why is he demanding so much when anyone with sufficient understanding (ah, there's the rub, perhaps) can do it himself? As Santer also notes, he'd like to do some ACTUAL science, rather than continuously having to bother with frivolous FOIA requests for data that is already in the literature. The exchange further suggests they would have no problem with being audited, they just very strongly doubt McIntyre is the person to do so, considering he doesn't even spend one second on the fatally flawed paper Santer et al criticised, but instead starts to harass Santer for data and methods that, and I repeat, ARE FREELY AVAILABLE.

Posted by: Marco | November 23, 2009 12:57 AM

Brad, that's a defensible point of view, but 't must not be limted to what people on one issue. It should be the same for AGW as for Big Pharma, Agribusines/GMO etc.

Otherwise its a tool for attacking science which conflicts with interest of the most powerful, but absence of resort for science favoured by dominant industry.

It also has IP funding effects, resulting in the de-funding of vital work.

So more transparency is a good thing, but requires more funds.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 23, 2009 12:59 AM

I would like to nominate tommy as Treasurer of the super genius league, because you always put the brightest lights in charge of finance. I'm being quite serious. Here are the funds, tommy.

Posted by: Pinko Punko | November 23, 2009 1:07 AM

Nanny, writes:

If the Global agreement, involves any political body overseeing with regulatory power, then yes, it is a global government.

Well Nanny, by your definition, the UN is global government, as is the World Court, the WTO, the IMF, and many more.

But of course they are not, the are either a union of government's, or a bunch of inter-government treaties, with agreed regulators.

I'd personally like to change some, but in a semi-democracy I go along with the some decisions that the majority vote for (or in some cases, fail to vote against).

I want internalisation of as much of externalised costs as possible, don't you?

Consequently I want a price on carbon, and I want it enforced.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 23, 2009 1:19 AM

Mr. Watts, I appreciate the difficulty you outline in complying with FOIA requests, but surely it's to be expected when you are working on research which is the underpinning for literally Trillions of dollars in funding for the UN and it's hundreds of members. This is not endangered lizard research in Barton Springs, this is possibly the biggest piece of research since the dawn of man. The results of this research simply must be the most transparent of any every done.

Posted by: JP | November 23, 2009 1:27 AM

I want internalisation of as much of externalised costs as possible, don't you?

Not if it involves politicians and bureaucrats. Then you'll just get the usual big-corporation favoritism, cronyism, bureaucratic bungling, back-room deals that squash the little guys, etc... etc...

Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | November 23, 2009 1:32 AM

As we see from comments here, these chicken-littles won't go away quietly even as their legs are cut out from under them.

This is how we know you're an idiot. In your Bizarro fantasy world, when chickens have their legs cut off, they go away quietly. It is impossible to take you seriously.

Posted by: pough | November 23, 2009 1:45 AM

The RESULTS of the data are readily available, but not the techniques which would allow duplication of those results.

The techniques are readily available. They are what scientists go to school to learn.

Whaere do all these clueless idiots come from?

Posted by: luminous beauty | November 23, 2009 2:03 AM

The RESULTS of the data are readily available, but not the techniques which would allow duplication of those results.

Duplication is for paranoids, replication is for scientists. Besides, denialists have never contributed to the code or data that is available.

Your outrage is noted, but you know, people who believe in science have had to deal for years with outright climate frauds and charlatans, for whose malfeasance they’ve documented the incontrovertible evidence. Yet they’ve never been in all that time as hysterical as you denialists are today and yesterday. I can scarcely follow two links on the Internet today without being mobbed by deeply stupid oil spivs projecting their religious fervor onto climate scientists and asserting “evidence” from between the words of emails they can barely understand. I mean this is some creepy Salem-type delirium that exceeds birthers, teabaggers, creationists, or any other crap the pomo right has spawned to date. Except for Al Gore, Soros, and ACORN, there’s just something fucked up wrong with your country. I hope Obama raises your taxes.

Posted by: ali baba | November 23, 2009 2:16 AM

It seems to me that if McIntyre et al. were truly interested in the quality of the techniques used by CRU to analyze the raw temperature data, they could simply use the same techniques as described on any set of "dummy data" and then do the analysis. If the techniques produced spurious results, it would show up, since you self-generated the raw "dummy data" that you processed and know exactly what it is.

Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 23, 2009 2:53 AM

Don't be a dummy Douglas.

The denialists won't be happy till they have the real 'raw data' - ie. the satellite signals for temp measuremnts beamed directly through their thick skulls. Even then they'll blame everyone else when they can't 'see' the data.

Posted by: Michael | November 23, 2009 3:03 AM

I wonder if Jones and the others lawyered up, yet?

Posted by: Hushashi | November 23, 2009 4:00 AM

@Con

Deleting scientific data and asking others to do the same is a crime.

Nice smear, shame about 2 things - what you describe is not a crime, and in any event that's not what happened.

However, beating your wife is a crime - when did you stop doing that?

Posted by: Dave | November 23, 2009 4:58 AM

Yep, and if you'd just handed over your credit card and the cash as the blaggers asked, they wouldn't have kicked seven types of sh!t out of you.

Per-leease. Is this the best you can do?

Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | November 23, 2009 5:13 AM

@ el gordo

How long before the msm pays some serious attention to this newsworthy story?

Oh wow, got to love that. Paint yourself as the victim there, in spite of the fact that this has been in national media (newspaper, radio and television) in the UK since the story broke. Yeah, one big leftists-control-the-media conspiracy there...

Fill the media with substanceless conspiracy smears then complain that the smears aren't getting enough coverage due to further conspiracies. Classy.

Posted by: Dave | November 23, 2009 5:30 AM

Wow, this group has certainly circled its wagons nicely.

Read the emails to understand how well McIntyre understands the data and the code. He understands Yamal better than they do.

Read Jean S' post on CA to understand exactly what Mann's "trick" is, with full explanation. Why didn't RC do that? Because it is embarassing to the Team. (The "trick" is most definitely unethical hiding, not simply an elegant method.)

Read Curry at CA to understand how seriously non-Team scientists take the Team's unethical behavior. Their wanton manipulation of the peer reviewed publishing process cannot be allowed to stand. Why aren't y'all up in arms? If the people in power were "denialists" you'd be all over this... yet science should be about truth not political power.

Every hour you defend the Team, you lose credibility on this.

Does anyone here understand the difference between a whistleblower and a thief? Try thinking about this as an act of civil disobedience; that might be more familiar.

Young scientists are starting to look at this and ask: "why should I go into science if the Powers That Be will destroy my best work if it doesn't agree with their preconceived notions?"

Posted by: MrPete | November 23, 2009 5:43 AM

TS (6): "IMO it's extremely unlikely that these are a random selection..."

That's understating it somewhat. In their untramelled and unseemly stampede to get to the "juice", the "sceptics" conveniently forgot to apply even the least measure of that quality they're always bragging about - sceptical thought. "How do we know this stuff isn't fake? How do we know the motives of the unknown person(s) who selected these files? How do we know this is truly a "random" selection? Even if it is random, how do we know this selection is representative? Is there more extensive context to all this we don't know about or aren't being told?" These are some of the questions the "sceptics", the "searchers for the real truth" either forgot to ask or (conveniently) forgot about.

And they think they've found something revealing. Gits.

Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | November 23, 2009 5:53 AM

MrPete (182): "Every hour you defend the Team, you lose credibility on this."

"Credibility"? Ever heard of the word "hypocrite"?

"Does anyone here understand the difference between a whistleblower and a thief?"

Perfectly thanks. Evidently you don't.

"Try thinking about this as an act of civil disobedience; that might be more familiar."

Oh OK, so let me see if I've got this right. I can get someone to hack your server, download all your business emails for the last 13 years, post a selection of the files I've illegally obtained on the interdweeb, claim the selection is "random" (and thus imply they're representative of the whole), then attempt to destroy your business and public reputation by claiming you're a fraudulent so-and-so who deliberately "hid the truth", and all the while I am merely exercising my right to civil disobedience, not acting like a common-or-garden variety criminal.

Have I got that right?

Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | November 23, 2009 6:09 AM

I'm looking forward to McIntyre challenging Jones face-to-face - and Jones providing a similar response to the one Buzz Aldrin gave to one of his 'fans'.

Posted by: www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXpqao3DaMrxBlzfEgxjma-RY4O8Q15Rk | November 23, 2009 6:20 AM

Was irritated to hear the handling of this on the BBC's Today programme on Radio 4 this morning.

Who did they have on but Nigel Lawson, who claimed to be "open-minded" about the science, but sceptical about policy - and then proceeded to trot out the claim of no warming this century, and proceed with a no-smoke-without-fire line calling for public enquiry into possible scientific wrongdoing. And surprise surprise his book (on sale now) was mentioned.

At least they didn't have him unopposed like Plimer, and they got Andrew Watson on (who did his best, but its so hard to counter the amount of smears that can be trotted out in thirty seconds, when given thirty seconds to respond).

Ho hum.

Posted by: Dave | November 23, 2009 6:23 AM

Does anyone here understand the difference between a whistleblower and a thief?

Yep, indeedy.

I've had to blow a whistle in my time, over extensive data fabrication by a technician in a lab where I worked.

And let me tell you, my revelation did not require that I somehow had to hack into the email and the data records of the entire department where I worked. Why would any whistleblower do that, and indeed, how could any mere whistleblower do such?!

The very fact that the hack garnered all of the electronic records for the department at UEA shows that it is an external job (if nothing else, no internal source would be so stupid as to leave certain trails to their involvement). The hack is a felony, it is being investigated by the police (hopefully including Scotland Yard and Interpol if necessary), and it is most certainly ideologically-driven, probably in no small part by those who stand to lose at Copenhagen if the world actually does decide to hold polluters to account.

MrPete, it seems that you have not a clue about what real whistleblowing is. Oh, and as an aside, Jean S's effort at Climate Audit is a more egregious example of data laundering than anything that you might imagine that the UEA team was involved with.

Sadly for you, science and understanding are not on your side. Cluelessness certainly is though - in fact, I'd say that you and it are conjoined...

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 23, 2009 6:37 AM

Mr Pete writes, "Try thinking about this as an act of civil disobedience; that might be more familiar."

In pacifist terms, the act of civil disobedience is to disobey an unjust law and suffer the consequences of the act to highlight the injustice. Only when the perps step forward and allow themselves to be prosecuted will I think about this as "civil disobedience".

Posted by: Deech56 | November 23, 2009 7:17 AM

Hmmm...

Lateline just had a piece about the CRU hack, and bizarrely gave Andrew Bolt the starring role as the representative of the Denialati - with almost no whimper of challenge to his comments.

Tim Flannery was interviewed immediately afterward, but even ol' Tim let a few slip to the keeper: his reply to a question about 'cooling since 1998' did not include any mention of the factors that elevated global temperatures in that year, nor any mention of the factors such as La Nina and the solar minimum that might create the 'plateau' since. Nor did he mention that 1998 has since been equalled, or beaten, depending on which dataset is referred to.

It's a bit sad really, because I reckon that any but the most denying of the lay audience could have understood the relatively simply concept that 1998 is simply a noisy peak in a trend, and that its presence does not alter the implication of the trend. If Flannery had pointed out that such highs and lows are part and parcel for any short interval of a longer-term trend I am sure that most open-minded folk would have understood.

Anyway, the transcripts and videos should be up tomorrow.

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 23, 2009 8:02 AM

"The techniques are readily available. They are what scientists go to school to learn."

Wow. I wasn't aware fraud was a legitimate scientific principle. They teach that in school do they?

The techniques ARE NOT readily available to duplicate Mann's results with the raw data. If you've followed this at all you know this.

Posted by: JP | November 23, 2009 8:29 AM

Two emails: In the first, Michael Mann nicely describes the role of skeptics and peer review. In the second, Phil Jones talks about rigging the peer review process to keep out skeptical papers.

How can this be ethical science?

Michael Mann to Andrew Revkin

"Skepticism is essential for the functioning of science. It yields an erratic path towards eventual truth. But legitimate scientific skepticism is exercised through formal scientific circles, in particular the peer review process. A necessary though not in general sufficient condition for taking a scientific criticism seriously is that it has passed through the legitimate scientific peer review process. those such as McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted."

Phil Jones to Michael Mann

"The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it.I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Posted by: Bradley J. Fikes | November 23, 2009 8:55 AM

How can this be ethical science?

i want to here you say this again, in a courtroom. and you will be waving the STOLEN MAIL, that is your evidence, in the air.

pure comedy. (ps: thanks for the "the office uk" reference above. Gareth is the perfect image of the average sceptic)

Posted by: sod | November 23, 2009 9:05 AM

sod, That's not an answer, that's an evasion. Let's hear your evaluation of the ethics of rigging peer review like Phil Jones described.

Posted by: Bradley J. Fikes | November 23, 2009 9:14 AM

To put it bluntly, one of us is delusional and I don't fancy your chances.

Cesos Mantequilla, you have a future in stand-up.

Posted by: luminous beauty | November 23, 2009 9:30 AM

The techniques ARE NOT readily available to duplicate Mann's results with the raw data. If you've followed this at all you know this.

Posted by: JP | November 23, 2009 8:29 AM

Then how do you explain Amman & Wahl's ability to duplicate them? Not only that, but duplicate McKittrick & McIntyre's erroneous, mistake ridden attempt to duplicate them?

Posted by: luminous beauty | November 23, 2009 9:46 AM

Hang on... RIGGING the peer-review process? You are confusing issues, Bradley.

If scientifically suspect articles are consistently getting through to certain journals (E&E in the above case, I recall offhand), then it's entirely fair to argue that those journals are not adequately peer-reviewed, and should not appear in a summary of the science. Which is what IPCC AR4 was.

Now, tell me this. Did Phil Jones have ultimate say into what went in and what stayed out of the final IPCC report? And if not, how the hell do they declare, rather than argue, what is defined as peer-reviewed literature? And how the hell do they have the power to 'rig' peer review?

Clutching at straws, really.

Posted by: Bud | November 23, 2009 9:50 AM

MrPete@182: McIntyre understood Yamal better? That's a good one, considering that Briffa demolished just about any and all claims. Delayed Oscillator takes it even further http://delayedoscillator.wordpress.com/ (scroll down to find the many blogs on Yamal).

Of course, since you are an avid CA believer, you more than likely follow the two-step rule: 1. McIntyre is always right. 2. In case he is not, rule one applies.

Posted by: Marco | November 23, 2009 9:57 AM

... even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Utter corruption!

Posted by: con | November 23, 2009 10:17 AM

My favorite line in this satire was delivered by Kevin Trenberth:

"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."

This one line epitomizes the fear of being wrong about AGW, which can easily be confirmed by reading comments on sites like this...

If the earth's climate doesn't cooperate with climate model projections and peer reviewed theories, then the credibility and reputations of many scientists and their affiliated organizations are at stake.

This would be worse than a travesty, it would forever leave a stain on the scientific community and bring to light the ideologies, politics, egos, bias, monetary forces and marketing techniques behind creating a consensus to sell societal change.

Question: If this "lack of warming" were to continue unaccounted for the next 18 years or so, would this travesty then become a disaster?

Posted by: Betula | November 23, 2009 10:41 AM

Betula,

Still projecting your neuroses, i see.

Posted by: luminous beauty | November 23, 2009 11:06 AM

Ironic that the denialists are up in arms about their ever-so-slightly flimsy evidence of manipulation of data at CRU, yet I don't know of a single one of them who spoke out against Ian Plimer's manipulation and misrepresentation of his sources in Heaven and Earth.

Posted by: lord_sidcup | November 23, 2009 11:17 AM

Mr Pete writes, "Try thinking about this as an act of civil disobedience; that might be more familiar." In pacifist terms, the act of civil disobedience is to disobey an unjust law and suffer the consequences of the act to highlight the injustice. Only when the perps step forward and allow themselves to be prosecuted will I think about this as "civil disobedience".

Exactly. Thoreau was not named "anonymous". Nor was Ghandi. Nor was MLK.

Each stepped forward and was willing to go to jail for their actions.

Mr. Pete's "heroes" are anonymous cowards.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 23, 2009 11:25 AM

220 lord_sidcup,

Do they ever show any scepticism (the real kind) over anything, no matter how obviously dishonest or cretinous, as long as it attacks climate science? After all, (I repeat yet again) Plimer's book contains claims too dishonest even for Durkin's TGWWS, the previous benchmark for dishonesty.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 23, 2009 11:35 AM

From: Michael E. Mann,
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks back to: AD 1000 AD 1400 AD 1600 (...) But basically, you'll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them up. (...) p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things...

em! Dirty Laundry indeed!

Posted by: con | November 23, 2009 11:45 AM

@con: You fail again in the context. Trenberth is discussing a complex climate model that has troubles modeling some short-term variations. There is no doubt on the theory. None.

Posted by: Marco | November 23, 2009 11:50 AM

@229 Marco

Clicks link...

IPCC Projections Disproved by Girma Orssengo, MASc. PhD

Bwahahahahahahahahhhhahahaha

(pause for deep intake of breath)

Ahahahahaahahahaaa

(Sits down, wipes tear from eye)

Thanks, I haven't laughed that hard in ages. Probably not since Girma claimed that the moon sucked the sea away from the earth's surface, leaving a vacuum underneath.

Posted by: Dave | November 23, 2009 12:12 PM

Dave

The graph is from IPCC, the observation is from HadCRU. What is wrong with Orssengo's chart posted @229?

Posted by: con | November 23, 2009 12:16 PM

LB states....

"The fact is that the problem Trenberth was agonizing over could have been obviated in 2003 but for the intransigence of the BUllSHit administration"

Ah yes, "could have".

Back to speculating about the results of something that didn't happen.

The word travesty comes to mind.

Posted by: Betula | November 23, 2009 1:02 PM

Bradley J. Fikes confuses inclusion of garbage with proper ethics. Let me just re-quote the start of that email for you again:

The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew.

Quite. The ethical thing to do is include something that you think is garbage. Garbage is ethically positive. One more time:

The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew.

Good ol' garbage. Ethically, garbage is superior. Just ask Bradley J. Fikes. He loves garbage. And again:

The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew.

If I were a scientist and I was working on a very important document and some asshole buffoon was trying to inject garbage into it, I shouldn't try to keep the garbage out. Garbage good. Garbage real good!

Garbage.

Posted by: pough | November 23, 2009 1:20 PM

Quite. The ethical thing to do is include something that you think is garbage. Garbage is ethically positive. One more time... Good ol' garbage. Ethically, garbage is superior. Just ask Bradley J. Fikes. He loves garbage. If I were a scientist and I was working on a very important document and some asshole buffoon was trying to inject garbage into it, I shouldn't try to keep the garbage out. Garbage good. Garbage real good!

Oscar the Grouch has a climate degree? Who knew?

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 23, 2009 1:29 PM

This is an example of a bluff we'll be seeing a lot of: the denialists claim they're in possession of stolen emails proving all sorts of incriminating shit, but so far, their claims are all noise and no specific citations, references, or statements to back any of it up.

Yes.

Call them on it when used. Ask for specifics. As we see all over this thread, they fold when you call their bluff.

Just because they jump up and down and ululate and point doesn't mean anything.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 23, 2009 1:58 PM

What is wrong with Orssengo's chart posted @229?

For starters, the author: he has no credibility at all -- a rather important point that you ignored when it was pointed out ot you. Seriously, Girma has gummed up several threads with idiotic logic and flat-out lies, and has even admitted he has a purely political agenda that has nothing to do with truth or honest science. He's a crank and a troll.

Second, why did Girma only cite ONE source of "actual measurements?" Is there only one group on Earth monitoring temperature changes?

And third is his brief, crappy, and self-righteous writing:

The main issue in the global warming debate is the truth. The only question in this debate is “does human emission of CO2 causes global warming?” One way to answer this question is to compare the IPCC projections for the mean global temperature anomaly with actual measurements as shown in the above chart.

The tone here is typical of the deluded conspiracy-buff: "My only concern is THE TRUTH, which no one else cares about!"

And that's only what a non-scientist like myself can find wrong with that chart.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 23, 2009 2:18 PM

Here's another bit of hacked emails the denialists probably won't be quoting all that much:

We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

Apparently the CRU folks were getting HUGE amounts of FOIA requests from McIntyre, so many -- and so unreasonable -- as to constitute the bureaucratic equivalent of a DDoS attack. As in about fifty FOIA requests in five days.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 23, 2009 3:16 PM

Raging Bee, who was that from?

I should think that LLNL and DOE have a fair amount of experience handling crank FOI requests, far more than UEA ...

Posted by: dhogaza | November 23, 2009 3:30 PM

Sorry, that quote was apparently from Thomas Karl, director of the NOAA's National climate Data Center. Here's the article I got it from:

http://www.salon.com/news/globalwarming/index.html?story=/tech/htww/2009/11/23/thecaseofthehackedclimatechangeemailspart_2

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 23, 2009 3:56 PM

There seems to be a great deal of confusion about the UK FOI legislation. Let me clarify a few things that are enshrined in the Act:

1. A public body can decline to provide information that is already freely available through other means;
2. An authority can withold information if there is an intention to publish it in due course (very relevant in the case of scientific data);
3. A public body does not need to disclose information that has been provided in confidence (interesting implications for emails from external organisations / people);
4. Section 14(1) clearly states that public authorities do not have to comply with vexatious requests (see below);
5. Section 12 of the act allows a public body to refuse a request if the costs of providing the information are too high. For most public bodies this cost is currently 18 man hours (24 for central government);

The Government guidance on vexatious requests says this: In particular, you should consider the following: - Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive? - Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff? - Would complying with the request impose a significant burden in terms of expense and distraction? - Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance? - Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

I will let you judge for yourselves whether this definition of vexatious might apply in the case of the FOI requests mentioned in this thread.

Posted by: GWB's nemesis | November 23, 2009 4:28 PM

The UK version of FOI is more protective to the recipient agency than the US version and Maine's but the principles are similar. Under these guidelines, McIntyre et al's carpet bombing of requests to CRU perfectly fit the definition of vexatious.

In Maine, there is a specific provision which allows agencies to deny any waiver for search fees to people who have filed "frivolous" FOIA requests with the agency in the past.

The entire point is to not penalize honest, legitimate and reasonable requests for documents the agency possesses on a subject while weeding out the people writing in crayon and/or using the FOIA to harass and deliberately gum up the works.

The default position is to just request the information from an agency staffer. Usually they will give to you without any formal request at all. If you ask nicely.

Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 23, 2009 4:50 PM

As someone who sits on the FOI committee within a UK public body, I will make an observation. Sometimes it is clear that individuals deliberately set out to be classified as vexatious - for example they lodge multiple requests within a very short period that cannot possibly be met. When these requests are turned down they respond by claiming that the public body is denying them their rights, a narrative that attracts support and sympathy from a certain subset of society, regardless of the actual reality of the situation.

This leads to palpable frustration amongst those working in the public sector.

Posted by: GWB's nemesis | November 23, 2009 5:12 PM

Nanny your describe what we get now following 30 years of deregulation, producing government disproportionately controlled by concentrated wealth.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the deregulation that you are referring to. Government has grown and grown over the last 30 years, ... heck since Cleveland was in office.

Concentrated wealth can hire lobbyists that influence Big Government. That is the chain of influence. My solution is not to limit wealth, not to limit free speech, but to limit government.

Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | November 23, 2009 5:47 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't see the deregulation that you are referring to. Government has grown and grown over the last 30 years, ... heck since Cleveland was in office.

Of course na_gs doesn't want to see it.

My first career was in banking as an analyst. The key deregulation was in some laws in the banking industry that allowed the expansion and the resultant bubble is all you need to know. Key deregulation to make the rich richer.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 23, 2009 5:58 PM

Er, correction: I confused the Data Quality Act with the earlier Shelby Amendment. Both are in the same vein, though - inserted into other laws at the insistence of industry lobbyists, with the intention of making it easier to challenge regulations (by challenging the core science rather than through usual complaints channels), and ensuring such a challenge could only go one-way (such that it couldn't be used to target them).

For the record, the complete text of the Shelby amendment, available at that link, is four lines long, and basically forces into law exactly what Brad asks for.

Posted by: Brian D | November 23, 2009 6:11 PM

Oh my are we not the smart ones. If this file only has around a 1000 emails from 13 years, do you really think it was a hacker browsing all the mailboxes on the server looking for the "best" ones? Or perhaps, it was a prepared file for the FOI request by someone internal and it was accidently made available? I love the jump to conclusions you are accusing people of without looking in the mirrror as to what you are doing, the same thing!!!

Posted by: Jon | November 23, 2009 6:27 PM

There should be some provision that if you take public funds, your data will be made available to the public.

That would mean, by definition, that a Wal-Mart or other corporation that receives tax breaks/incentives from a state or municipality for locating there, should be considered, for the purpose of the law, a public agency subject to full production of any and all documents on any topic, including any and all proprietary information.

Once Wal-Mart agrees to abide by such a provision, I'm all for it.

Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 23, 2009 6:37 PM

Or perhaps, it was a prepared file for the FOI request by someone internal and it was accidently made available?

So...somebody put together an FOI file, complete with 'gosh, let's delete all of our sensitive e-mails so no one can FOI them!' e-mails, then accidentally uploaded it to a Russian FTP site? Plausible!

Posted by: MartinM | November 23, 2009 7:20 PM

Nanny,

My comment just go through moderation, and is here.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 23, 2009 7:28 PM

Jon writes,

*Oh my are we not the smart ones. If this file only has around a 1000 emails from 13 years, do you really think it was a hacker browsing all the mailboxes on the server looking for the "best" ones? *

No "smart" Jon, Not just "browsing" I'd be surprised if the highly agended hacker didn't use a range of search functions to cherry pick his/her email matching his/her preconceived agenda.

But were not as "clever" as you.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 23, 2009 7:40 PM

Posted by: Lank | November 23, 2009 8:14 PM

Sorry, forgot link. The video is up.

Posted by: Bud | November 23, 2009 8:25 PM

Sod, I'm not convinced it's a whistleblower. That comment essentially leads to an external source - a Turkish IP uploads the file to the RC server and creates a draft post (the draft was caught and left unpublished), then a comment appears on ClimateAudit that links to the RC-server's copy of the file. (The comment, in full, is "A miracle just happened." with the commenter's name linking to the file on RC.) THEN it appears on Air Vent, from where it spread elsewhere.

Anyone interested in speculating on Steve's and Jeff's computers getting 'audited' by the Mounties and the FBI respectively in the near future?

Posted by: luminous beauty | November 23, 2009 8:39 PM

Luminous.

I'd bet that they've already been deleting like mad.

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 23, 2009 8:49 PM

Con,

You've an apt name. You've just been conned by Girma Oressengo. We fortunately have the evolution of Girma's ideas on record. They make quite entertaining reading. Readers can follow his evolution for 2000 posts. He pulls data from different data sets and basically shows him self up here.

Just take a look at the data he references from HadCurt says he is plotting. He applies a compress means function to achieve his results. But does this chart look like the one he produced for "realist" (sic)? Its far more wobbly, yet his is so smooth. Its a fraud!

Now look at the 12 month mean figures.

What's more IPCC didn't plot projections according to HadCrut. He's mixing data sets.

You believe Girma, you ain't sceptical in the slightest.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 23, 2009 9:31 PM

Oops, apologies cce, I think I misread your post. I retract my comment in #282.

Regards,

Don.

Posted by: Donald Oats | November 23, 2009 9:59 PM

These are troll-points (my shorthand for troll-delivered orchestrated talking points). There's no earthly reason to reply to these nth-hand, identical, accusations. The people making them are not living in the reality-based world, and their motivations are the lowest possible.

Seriously. Even if some moronic troll posts here "This is proof that ...," at least in a venue where the blog owner is science-compliant, there's no need to reply to them. Discuss the much-repeated talking points? maybe, a little. But again. Since it's the entire goal of the trolling to get their time-wasting hook in your mouth, I'm just suggesting people don't nibble.

Posted by: Marion Delgado | November 23, 2009 11:00 PM

This is as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. -- con.

But until we see ALL the raw data, how can we believe you?

What if one of the 2s was on a sunny roof next to a heater?

Wouldn't it almost be a 3?

Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 23, 2009 11:18 PM

JP@153

Are you being particulary dense for a reason, or is it natural?

The email you link to was sent to Dr Jones.

That means it's in his email inbox.

So if he's an evil email deleting conspirator he can easily delete it from his CRU account

Posted by: Eamon | November 24, 2009 12:38 AM

That is "auto-correlation", not "auto-correction"

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 24, 2009 1:03 AM

Monbiot is a concern troll.

Jones has absolutely nothing to apologize for. Monbiot is playing the classic role of the Puritan who says "tut .. tut" when it is convenient for him to play the role of prim school marm upset that someone left a participle dangling.

Monbiot should get off his ass and do some actual investigative reporting into who stole the documents and who tried to hijack RealClimate's site to take over their front page and splooge them.

But for Monbiot, that would be "drudge" work far beneath his station and would require ... actual effort.

Posted by: Douglas Watts | November 24, 2009 1:20 AM

It doesn't matter how private the emails were, describing someones death as "cheering news" means you are finished.

You lose your job.

You lose your reputation.

Man, this apple is crispy!

Posted by: Earthtide | November 24, 2009 2:23 AM

Earthtide -

I have to wonder what the Denialosphere reaction would be to Hansen or Mann having a heart attack.

But let's put it like this: Prominent denialists have helnped in successfully stopping any effort to control GHG emissions for the last 20 years (Since Hansen's 1988 testimony); as a result, By any sane estimate, the death toll as a result of this will be a minimum of six figures and probably much, much higher. Denialism isn't some sort of internet parlor game, it's mass murder on a vast scale.

Posted by: Andrew Dodds | November 24, 2009 4:08 AM

Curiously, I had been typing a similar post to Dave's at intervals during the afternoon, when I read his and realised I'd been gazzumped. No matter!

I would add one further piece of evidence though - the only people I know who refer to themselves in the third person are Girma Orssengo and Eli Rabbet, and I doubt that Eli would be the sock-puppeteer beind the 'Con' con.

It seems that Wormtongue will try any dishonesty in order to circumvent the right of Tim Lambert to ban Orssengo from clogging the arteries of Deloid with his bilge.

His slipperiness won't make his crap any more right though.

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 24, 2009 5:59 AM

dc1 #144

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that co2 is not some poison gas.

Not, it takes someone much stupider than that!

dc1, how about you gather some facts for us - say, sit in a room with a 10% concentration of CO2 in the air and get back to us in, say, 24 hours and let us know how you make out?

Posted by: Gaz | November 24, 2009 7:26 AM

Well, I just read a selection of emails and have to admit I feel more than a little bit dirty at invading people's privacy. But it is useful to actually see the context of a lot of the accusations that have been made, and you seriously need to have a predetermined conclusion in mind to read them as evident of foul play. Even the repeated references to the FOI are largely about the frivolity of FOI requests for data, and frustration thereof.

Posted by: Bud | November 24, 2009 8:12 AM

Steve@297

I'm aware of that. It doesn't change the fact that it's odd for someone who's being accused of conspiracy to not delete mails he sends and receives as part of aforesaid 'conspiracy'

Posted by: Eamon | November 24, 2009 8:43 AM

TS above, UK readers can find the Newsight program on iPlayer here.

Posted by: Bud | November 24, 2009 9:03 AM

Of course deregulating little bits of the economy while leaving others stifled with regulations will, like a small break in the levee, lead to a massive outpouring. It's because everyone thinks the regulation "protection" is still in place. "The government will take care of it", right Dano?

na_gs, I appreciate you wishing that this ideology was still relevant on the ground. Too bad events have proven otherwise (this is not an endorsement of th' soshu.izm) 'bout th' regalayshun.

There's just too much information out there now to wish that it were true.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 24, 2009 9:34 AM

From the logs:

"As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”

• From: Edward Cook

What a line, guys. That had a lot of thought behind it.

Science should be about a pursuit of truth, and debate should be as well.

I am sorry to disagree with you folks.

Posted by: Will | November 24, 2009 4:07 PM

What a line, guys. That had a lot of thought behind it. Science should be about a pursuit of truth, and debate should be as well. I am sorry to disagree with you folks.

The quote refers to the author's opinion of Steve McIntyre, that he (McI)'s not interested in the truth at all, just plausible deniability (and if you read the walking-on-eggshells prose employed by McI when he implies fraud etc, the accusation makes perfect sense).

The author would agree with you about science, which is why the author loaths McIntyre.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 24, 2009 4:43 PM

Besides the word "hide" was not about the FOI requests. It was about faking up the temperature graphs. "Trick" was used to "hide the decline" which means that in context it was being used to obfuscate.

Sorry, you don't know WTF you're talking about.

And, of course, the whole kerfluffle is over one graph in one brochure by one organization. The e-mail refers to nothing in regard to what's in the scientific literature.

The divergence problem being referred to is widely described in the relevant literature, with nothing being hidden whatsoever, unless, as Gavin Schmidt has said several times, you consider "publishing in Nature" to be "hiding stuff".

Posted by: dhogaza | November 24, 2009 4:49 PM

and in fact were threatening to destroy.

yes. and when he wrote, that he would kill his wife when dinner wasn t ready, he was planning murder.

Brian, why don t you post your e.mail account and password, so that we can look at your mail?

Posted by: sod | November 24, 2009 4:53 PM

sHx writes:

Ad hominem attacks that involve repeating the same 'gotcha' question that's supposed to nab a denialist idiot with pants down, complete indifference to what even to this lay person appears to be a flagrant breach of scientific ethics,...

ShX seems to be labouring under the illusion that this here blog is actually a science journal.

Anyway, nice concern troll.

Posted by: Michael | November 24, 2009 5:09 PM

sHx,

No details, just assertions? Ready and willing to debate the facts, you are not.

Brian you have just attribted your preferred meaning to the words used in the emails:

...the word "hide" was not about the FOI requests. It was about faking up the temperature graphs. "Trick" was used to "hide the decline" which means that in context it was being used to obfuscate.

Brian, are you sure of your interpretation on these matters?

Have you every used the word "trick" and "hide"? Does that mean each occasion is valid evidence that you were obfuscating the the truth? Every used slang words?

I suggest that if we had your email account I could used your standard of argument to judge you guilty of anything I wished.

I also suggest you educate yourself on the issues that the people in question were discussing before you hang them in your frenzy. The context brings light that you are ignoring.

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear.

Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682).

Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 24, 2009 5:14 PM

305 Tim,

Was that really from Girma's IP? The style was not quite Girma's.

BTW any chance that comments could be divided into pages to speed things up? I see that RC now has 50 posts/page but 100 would be fine too. This only became a real problem with the Girmathon but it makes a difference even with shorter threads.

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 24, 2009 6:51 PM

305 Tim,

Was that really from Grma's IP? The style was not quite Grma's.

BTW any chance that comments could be divided into pages to speed things up? I see that RC now has 50 posts/page but 100 would be fine too. This only became a real problem with the G*rmathon but it makes a difference even with shorter threads.

(My previous post was held, so I'm trying this obvious ruse. ;) )

Posted by: TrueSceptic | November 24, 2009 7:19 PM

TrueSceptic,

The latests disjuncture in Girma's string of denial is that didn't mention the emails. He was here to sneakily self promote his latest blog work.

IMO Tim did him a favour by removing his multiple self incriminating post. Now he can pretend he said something different. No mind, his latest delusional comment is transitory.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 24, 2009 8:13 PM

When a whistle blower releases emails, they are thieves.

Careful, your bias is showing.

Posted by: William Wallace | November 24, 2009 8:17 PM

@325 William Wallace: Are you channelling MrPete?

Presumably if I hacked your computer, spread select bits of the downloaded files about the place and used that to defame you, you'd simply shrug and agree with me that I was simply "serving the greater good"...

Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | November 24, 2009 8:47 PM

Here is a good video for you folks to enjoy: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/minnesotans-global-warming-mock-climategate

Posted by: William Wallace | November 24, 2009 10:13 PM

Gawd... yet more evidence that right wingers can't do funny. I spent the whole thing drinking a cup of coffee and none of it went even close to anywhere except my throat. I want my time back.

Posted by: Bud | November 24, 2009 10:24 PM

Thanks for the confirmation Willy W, I keep finding you lot have nothing.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 24, 2009 10:56 PM

Tom, did you see this from one of the emails:

If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Posted by: William Wallace | November 24, 2009 11:17 PM

What's the matter William Wallace (334)? Janet's question too hard to understand? Or is it you know you've been called on your BS?

Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | November 24, 2009 11:31 PM

Shorter Tom:

If you're a scientist, you should welcome people stealing from you, even if it is a felony.

Tom:

If you believe this, and if your RW asshole friends more or less make this a condition of doing science, every techie in the world will avoid science as a profession.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 24, 2009 11:47 PM

Eric blows a gasket over at RC.

Not that I blame him. oracle2world has just proven in a few flabbergasting paragraphs why RC needs moderation.

Posted by: Bud | November 25, 2009 12:01 AM

In the interests of scientific openess, I have decided to release a few emails between myself and a postgrad student working on one of my projects. The scandal was bound to come out, so I might as well pre-empt the embarrassment...

         -------------------------------

To: YYYYYYYYY@ZZZZZZZ.gov.au
From: XXXXX@VVVVVVV.edu.au
Subject: Re: Fiddling with the data

Hadrian:

I use a little trick to 'adjust' the data – just add 1 (or 5, or 10, or whatever works for you) to all of your data, et voila!, no problem!

Just remember to keep a track of your adjustments for when you present the data! It can be a bit embarrassing when some sharp-eyed pedant in the audience realises that your animals appear to be about twice the size that they should be! ;-)

Knut.

To: YYYYYYYYY@ZZZZZZZ.gov.au
From: XXXXX@VVVVVVV.edu.au
Subject: Re: More fiddling with the data

Hadrian.

Ah, that's be the tagged ones. You can remove the discrepancy by hiding the values that were gathered by manual measurement after 1998. Use the automatically obtained values instead.

As to Nero, someone should take his knees out with a sledge hammer. Then he'd have half an idea about what it's like.

Knut.

To: XXXXX@VVVVVVV.edu.au
From: YYYYYYYYY@ZZZZZZZ.gov.au
Subject: More fiddling with the data

Knut.

Um, how does that work?

H.

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 25, 2009 5:15 AM

Erm, that should have been "burrow work"!

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 25, 2009 5:32 AM

Janet and Dano,

I guess you'll see what you want to see regarding "deregulation". If you add 1000 regulations and subtract 1, I guess you call that deregulation, but I don't.

Janet, your "failures due to insufficient regulation" have a flip side: Regulations played a big part in the creating the problems in the first place. See the boom created by the Federal Reserver prior to the 1929 bust. See also the government role in creating the railroad monopolies! Nuclear regulation? Who created the atom bomb again?

The superpower IS in demise, but not from "deregulation". It is from overregulation (Big Government), not producing, spending way too much, and from devaluing its currency the same way Zimbabwe has.

Posted by: nanny_govt_sucks | November 25, 2009 6:23 AM

Whatever na_gs. You obviously have never worked in banking or finance. But you go ahead and believe whatever is convenient to maintain your ideology.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | November 25, 2009 8:11 AM

However, I stopped reading the comments for this post at the 100th comment. No need to read further.

Right -- the comments aren't worth your time to read, but it's still worth your time to add a comment of your own. And of course your comment is flat-out incorrect because you didn't read all the comments and therefore don't know what you're talking about.

This blog has the most arrogant, condescending and repulsive set of commenters I've ever come across in the blogosphere.

Um, excuse me for sticking to pedantic details, but we're not the ones stealing other people's emails and lying about what they said.

Ad hominem attacks...

Bitch, please. You call us "arrogane and repulsive," and THEN you complain of "ad hominem attacks?"

...that involve repeating the same 'gotcha' question that's supposed to nab a denialist idiot with pants down...

So did any of the denialist idiots actually ANSWER the questions? Oh wait, you didn't bother to read the comments, so you wouldn't know, would you?

Yet another denialist idiot shrieking about ad-hominem attacks because he can't make a substantive argument about the issue at hand.

Posted by: Raging Bee | November 25, 2009 10:11 AM

James Hansen has publicly advocated putting global warming "deniers" on trial.. And we all remember how James Hansen didn't want to release his slopping and buggy source code that ended up erroniously identifying 1998 as the warmest year on record. Fortunately, the so-called deniers were able to reverse engineer and identify his mistake. Opps.

These emails illustrate how the peer review system is gamed, and is essentially turned into a mutual affirmation clique. How global warming alarmists conspire to keep skeptical eyes off their data and methods. And, worst of all, how they proudly brag that they would rather destroy and delete data than release it to others to find bugs, errors, and fraud.

Posted by: William Wallace | November 25, 2009 11:09 AM

Nice spin, Marco, but let's look at the words of Phil Jones...

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! --Phil Jones Jul 08, 2004

Posted by: William Wallace | November 25, 2009 12:40 PM

Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails. Or course, the so-called sciencebloggers are probably busily trying to invent some clever neologism to discredit older scientists who do not agree with them. It's easier than addressing arguments, and, besides, it is difficult for sciencebloggers to end the AGW deceit.

Posted by: William Wallace | November 25, 2009 2:39 PM

Nanny writes:

I guess you'll see what you want to see regarding "deregulation".

I agree with you on that point. The difference is how hard we each look at the evidence before we decide what we see. I provide figures that have informed my views.

You choose not to challenge these figures nor the logical implications of these figures relating to concentration of power:

How much does it costs to run a winning campaign now days? Where do you get the money for that? Every hear of the Glass–Steagall Act? Well how much did its repeal, along with the other deregulation cost you?. Tell me something else that has ever cost that much?.

Why not address these relevant points?

Nanny next asks:

"failures due to insufficient regulation" have a flip side: Regulations played a big part in the creating the problems in the first place. See the boom created by the Federal Reserver prior to the 1929 bust. See also the government role in creating the railroad monopolies!

I also agree, that regulation will have unintended (and sometimes perverse consequence), but I argue that failing to regulate in the face on a known perverse system will have predictable consequences, which are (as in the case of perverse concentrated-contribution-government complex) predictably terrible.

I also argue that the chance of having beneficial regulation diminishes the more entrench vested interest get in the power system. (See my points above, the ones you chose not to address).

The problem that a bunch of super-elites finally got to push through their wishes regarding the Fed (in 1913 following Jekyll Island), would not be solved by reducing the potential for democratic counter balance to the concentrated power of such super-rich.

Without Jackson etc. using the power of democracy, the super-rich would have taken banking power in the US much earlier.

Nuclear regulation? Who created the atom bomb again?

The USA, with a massive military budget in the time of war. A budge that never looked back, and one that Eisenhower foresaw would result in a Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. A complex that has become a template for other industries.

The superpower IS in demise, but not from "deregulation". It is from overregulation (Big Government), not producing, spending way too much, and from devaluing its currency the same way Zimbabwe has.

The first part part of the sentence is lacking supporting evidence.

The second part seem partially accurate, but Zimbabwe is an extreme example, the US will not drop that far. The costs of essentials (for the proto-serfs) will inflate, but the price of the big assets owned by the super-rich are actually deflating. And the super rich 1% own as much as the bottom 50%.

So while the proto-serfs will end up paying more for essentials, and more to pay off debt, the price of major assets will deflate.

Hence its inflation for the little guy and deflation for the super-rich.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 25, 2009 5:11 PM

Actually it gives the CRU FOI officer grounds to dismiss them on grounds of being vexatious or filed for purposes of harassment, bad strategic move by SteveM.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 25, 2009 5:51 PM

And we all remember how James Hansen didn't want to release his slopping and buggy source code that ended up erroniously identifying 1998 as the warmest year on record.

1998 was the warmest year on record (until 2005.) That's global means per GISSTemp. If you're referring to US temperatures, that's a different matter altogether.

Posted by: Joseph | November 25, 2009 6:22 PM

but despite those fightin' words, the two papers actually did get in.

dhogaza,

Any details? Which papers are we talking about?

Posted by: Mark Byrne | November 25, 2009 6:43 PM

Taah Dhogaza,

If anyone finds it first, please link back here.

Marco, were you referring to the resignations that occurred due to unsupportable papers getting published?

Posted by: Mark Byrne | November 25, 2009 7:02 PM

Yes, the left wingers in science have a track record of going after journal editors for allowing contrary papers to appear in journals. Richard Sternberg comes to mind.

Ah, yes, the sternberg card is played.

Well, as it turns out, the situation is very similar, and sternberg did indeed bring disgrace to the journal he was editor of.

Looks like we have an all-around anti-science type in William Wallace, folks!

Posted by: dhogaza | November 25, 2009 7:32 PM

It should be "The Anthropogenic Climate Change Denialists". It is so sad that you "believers" are so out there with your religion that you are unable to discuss the "climate fraud" in a civil manner. Provide transparency to some recently collected data which are coupled to a recent "climate warming prediction model" and a link or reference to a scientific article discussing these findings (all collected raw data, methods used to collect these data and statistical methods used to treat that data) and if you cannot do that, well then you shouldn't speak out at all. Watching a glacier melt is not proof of anything other than that the ice is melting. Got any proxy data collected after 1980 lying around somewhere, no, why not? Would be interesting to compare/run some recently collected proxy data in a recent/updated "climate prediction model" wouldn't you say? But that would be to much for your puny brains to cope with. No, you will probably adjust the data to fit with your beliefs, so no transparency.

Posted by: RdTop | November 25, 2009 7:39 PM

Oh, and note that McIntyre uncovered that problem because ...

all the data is being hidden by climate conspirators?

Not exactly, he was able to do that because all the data is kept online where anyone can access it and compute to their hearts content.

The scandal of it all.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 25, 2009 7:50 PM

Your rewriting of history doesn't surprise me.

Uh, how do you think he got the data?

blocked his access to the data via the internet, slyly alleging a denial of service attack

Uh, he was spidering a server and ignoring the robots.txt file, so a network admin shut him out. McIntyre then huff'd and puff'd but the network admin didn't know who he was, but of course McI couldn't believe that some random network admin wouldn't know someone as famous as him.

If you bother yourself to read the thread posted at CA at the time, you'll see that many of his worshippers over there actually agreed that there was nothing nefarious about what the network admin did, and that steve was overreacting because he was clueless.

Admins block spiders that ignore robots.txt routinely if they catch them. Bandwidth has to be paid for, after all.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 25, 2009 8:05 PM

dhogaza, what do you think of the proposal to

when people publish articles they should have to archive the data as they used it. The exact providence of their data if they downloaded it from an internet archive they should have to post the URL of the place where they got the data and the date they downloaded it so you can know the exact version they got in case the versions change. And, they should archive the code in which they obtained the calculations.

Wouldn't this be more transparent? What objections, if any, do you have to this modest proposal?

Posted by: William Wallace | November 25, 2009 8:12 PM

Wouldn't this be more transparent? What objections, if any, do you have to this modest proposal?

Journals are moving in this direction, made possible by cheap storage, cheap high-speed internet access, and cheap computers.

But things don't happen overnight.

Keep in mind that McIntyre has, for instance, attacked Lonnie Thompson for not having followed journal requirements that weren't adopted until some years after the paper in question was published.

So be wary of how proposals like this are used - retroactively beating people up for not doing something that wasn't required in the past (nor standard practice) is, well, not fair.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 25, 2009 8:22 PM

Willaim Wallace wishes that unsupported papers could be treated the same as supportable fact checked papers?

Let me guess all science that you disagree with is "left wing" science? Perhaps if science challenges your ideology it must be wrong?

Willy, many sensible people think that when the evidence contradicts your ideology its time to challenge your ideology.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 25, 2009 8:42 PM

Effective Strategies to Trump "Denialists" (put together after reading the first 100 and the last few scores of replies to a particular entry in Deltoid. Dedicated to Tim Lambert of UNSW)

1- Tell them they are not scientists. No, they are idiots. This strategy should work most of the time because most members of the public are not scientists anyway.

2- If they claim to be scientists, tell them they are not climate scientists. They speak outside of their area of expertise. Only idiot scientists would do that. (This strategy should work for most of the trolls that claim to be scientists and aware of scientific method and ethics.)

3- If they claim to be climate scientists, ask them what they have published lately in reputable peer-reviewed journals. (Since we have already bullied all reputable peer-reviewed journals into line, this strategy should make the troll that claims to be a climate scientist -not that they come hereabouts anyway- the idiots that they always have been.

If these strategies fail, then feel free to go for all lower common denominators. Call them idiots again. Idiots, idiots, idiots! Introduce fresh methods. Like calling them morons instead of idiots. Make fun of their spelling, grammar, moniker, etc, even if they are from a non-English speaking background. Take no prisoners!

I am sure Tim Lambert of UNSW, who is not a climate scientologist -excuse the error, pls- and who must be very busy right now investigating the claims about the programming code and HARRYREADME.txt, would approve the strategies offered to the pet trolls of his blog in the holy crusade against AGW heretics.

BTW, I'll be at the UNSW studying something unimportant. Not computer or climate science, unfortunately. Maybe, I'll invite Tim for lunch one day -a free lunch!- and get to know him better. I'm sure he'll turn out to be a very nice guy when meet him personally, despite his fascination with pet trolls.

Posted by: sHx | November 25, 2009 10:09 PM

"Have you tested your strategy?"

No. I am testing it now. Only an idiot would ask a question like that!

Posted by: sHx | November 25, 2009 10:48 PM

...supportable fact checked papers...

I don't think the peer review process works the way you think it does. Reviewers often do not have full access to data about which the paper has been written (though it would be nice if they did). It is not practical for the reviewer to replicate authors' conclusions. The output of peer review is not perfection. It is just a form of quality control, and it is only as good as the reviewers are skeptical. Given the level of AGW skepticism indicated in the CRU emails (that is, virtually none), it appears to me that papers providing evidence of AGW haven't received much quality control.

Let me guess all science that you disagree with is "left wing" science?

I love science. I loathe people who call themselves scientists when they're actually left-wing activists.

Science attempts to describe what is. It doesn't advocate for what should be. Cap and trade, command and control economies, etc. These are not science. It one front for creeping socialism and a steeping stone to communism.

Mark Bryne, it is interesting that you felt you had to explain that for deltoid regulars. LOL. Says a lot about your respect for their intelligence.

Posted by: William Wallace | November 26, 2009 12:51 AM

I wonder if Willy Walls would work better in a fortune cookie bakery or a cereal box factory?

Best venue for such pearls, you know.

Posted by: Pinko Punko | November 26, 2009 1:11 AM

That should read Soon and Baliunas (2003) made it into the CD.

Posted by: Mark Byrne | November 26, 2009 1:17 AM

Willy Wally just luuurrrvs science. All sorts of science. Like creation "science" (see elsewhere on ScienceBlogs). I suppose Evolution is just left wing activism too. I don't know if there's any real value in responding to him, him being a lunatic an' all….

Posted by: marcusj | November 26, 2009 1:43 AM

And Steve C, In what sense can one determine the full spectrum of any others views from a cherry picked selection of emails?

But let us turn to specifics 'William the believer', please cite the best evidence you have that support your claim that:

"These emails illustrate how the peer review system is gamed"

I'd like to begin to bring together the context the specific papers that were at issue to see how your claim stand up.

I note that you have declined a similar early invitation for specifics (on the matter of an imagined whistle blower). I hope you won't decline this new opportunity.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 2:33 AM

After reflection on William Wallace's post where he states:

I loathe people who call themselves scientists when they're actually left-wing activists. Science attempts to describe what is. It doesn't advocate for what should be. Cap and trade, command and control economies, etc. These are not science. It one front for creeping socialism and a steeping stone to communism.

I'm beginning to gain some empathy for those scientist who's experience the brunt and who thus detect a rising parallel to McCarthyism.

Posted by: ajax | November 26, 2009 3:36 AM

Re William Wallace:

I loathe people who call themselves scientists when they're actually left-wing activists. Science attempts to describe what is. It doesn't advocate for what should be. Cap and trade, command and control economies, etc. These are not science. It one front for creeping socialism and a steeping stone to communism.

Richard "What We Are Up Against, and What to Do" Lindzen, is the sort of activist scientist that the New Climate McCarthyists seem to like. Lindzen's regular sessions at the ideological lobby tanks (Heartland Inst., George C. Marshal, Preping-up
big oil and big coal) prove his unaligned sensible position. So too his position in an Exxon funded "think tank'. This is why he is not subject to William Wallace's critique.

Advocating for inaction is the only acceptable role for a scientist, and the only solid test that proves someone is not suspect.

Forget the science seems the risk of Williams approach? William appears hight focused on advocacy that challenges his ideology. Advocacy and activist that he likes goes without notice or critique from William.

Posted by: Kessler | November 26, 2009 5:19 AM

William Wallace:

And we all remember how James Hansen didn't want to release his slopping and buggy source code that ended up erroniously identifying 1998 as the warmest year on record.

What? You mean the world hasn't been cooling for 10 ... err hang on.... 11 years?

Was that oft-repeated denial mantra actually "slopping" and "erronious"?

Flamin' heck!!

Posted by: Gaz | November 26, 2009 7:28 AM

Some readers will be aware the Hansen recently put himself forward for arrest at a Mountain-Top coal-mine protest. Later we found that Hansen was suffering cancer (which has now been operated on).

Other readers might not be aware that before James came out of the protest closet, he once came to Minnesota to spread the AGW news. The Globe Is Warming!

However, when they're right-wing activists...

Give me an example of a right-wing activist scientist.

Everybody, happy thanksgiving, I hope you get to spend it with loved ones. And remember, don't eat too much tofu turkey.

Posted by: William Wallace | November 26, 2009 9:41 AM

Give me an example of a right-wing activist scientist.

John Christy, Roy Spencer, Robert Lindzen.

Oops, epic fail, I gave more than "an example" ...

Posted by: dhogaza | November 26, 2009 1:43 PM

Nanny,

In case you missed my reply, it is here.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 3:46 PM

Wallace,

Is it that you don't want to get pinned down on the detail? Do you prefer to keep to smear-and-run tactics?

I'm sure with thousands of emails you could say what ever you like, so long as you keep running and never get hung up on the context nor detail.

Unfortunately running a propaganda campaign is different to truth seeking.

And unfortunately the overwhelming evidence suggests we are on a path of extreme risk, and such (as your) focus on propaganda in place of truth seeking is contributing to reducing our opportunities to create a 'safe landing'.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 7:32 PM

And we all remember how James Hansen didn't want to release his slopping and buggy source code that ended up erroniously identifying 1998 as the warmest year on record. Fortunately, the so-called deniers were able to reverse engineer and identify his mistake. Opps. Posted by: William Wallace | November 25, 2009 11:09 AM

Ooops indeed, strange memory you had since that didn't happen! Prior to the posting by McIntyre, Hansen had pointed out that 1934 was in a statistical tie with 1998 and that the record year was 1934.

Posted by: Phil. | November 26, 2009 9:45 PM

William Wallace, change the IP laws and the remaining data can be released. Or lobby for more funds to buy out the IP rights.

Until then I am to understand all the GISS data is avaliable, it is shows the world is warming faster than CRU data.

So perhaps you'd suggest we now adapt GISS as the more accurate?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 26, 2009 11:41 PM

Tim et al, I deal with computer security quite a lot. What you're not understanding is this: while it is painful to admit (esp for CRU), to date we have exactly ZERO evidence that anyone has committed a crime in releasing these emails. Don't fly off the handle quite yet... :)

Among security nonspecialists...

1) By FAR the most common method for secure and/or confidential information to be released is an "oops" on the part of those who hold the information. It happened earlier this year at CRU, just by way of example.

2) The second most common way: purposeful release from the inside, either by someone who didn't realize the information was confidential, or someone who did but felt the information should get out. (That latter would be a whistleblower of course.)

3) It is actually quite rare for someone to hack their way in. If CRU were subject to a knowledgeable data attack, the attack would be quite easy to accomplish and they would never know it happened. A good attacker can cover all tracks.

With those realities in mind, it is rather early to be claiming the data was stolen via external attack. That's by far the least likely path for it to have been released.

I don't mind your venom however. One thing I've learned this year: when people go over the top in their politicized perspectives, they lose the ability to see things clearly, and more quickly make it obvious to the rest of the world just how off base they are. The truth ultimately does get revealed, no matter what.

[D -- last I heard, the samples were being isotope-analyzed, which may provide far more interesting info than a simple refutation of stripbark BCP as climate proxies. Since there's no budget for any of this, it's all done on lowest-priority lab time. I'm frustrated by the delay as well, but hey, we're in no danger of falling back to the Team's disclosure record :). Nothing hidden, nothing to hide. All available data still remains online, including all recent corrections found.]

Posted by: MrPete | November 27, 2009 12:50 AM

MrPete.

You're engaging in pocket hockey.

1) By FAR the most common method for secure and/or confidential information to be released is an "oops" on the part of those who hold the information.

What, you mean "oops, I've accidentally released some information that I hold, whilst simultaneously using Russian and Turkish servers in the process, and also whilst attempting to 'release' it on the RealClimate site"?

In your game of pocket hockey, I think that's an own goal.

2) The second most common way: purposeful release from the inside, either by someone who didn't realize the information was confidential, or someone who did but felt the information should get out. (That latter would be a whistleblower of course.)

When I approached senior management about data fabrication, I didn't feel the need to hack into the emails of everyone in the department. I certainly didn't think that it needed to be released on an internet denialist site first, when there are numerous institutional oversight mechanisms available.

Additionally, it is inconceivable that workers do not know what material in a department is confidential - in Australia an essential part of every job application, and of every subsequent job induction, is the demonstration of appropriate understanding of institutional confidentiality conditions, and I doubt that British standards are any less stringent.

3) It is actually quite rare for someone to hack their way in. If CRU were subject to a knowledgeable data attack, the attack would be quite easy to accomplish and they would never know it happened. A good attacker can cover all tracks.

Hmmm...

So, it's "quite rare for someone to hack their way in", but it's "quite easy to accomplish"? Well, you have at least one out of two correct, and judging by the industry in firewall software and by the convictions for hacks into US military and law enforcement sites, it's patently obvious which of the two it is.

And who said that this was a "good" hack? Whoever was responsible bungled their attempt to break into RealClimate.

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 27, 2009 2:59 AM

why is it that the supporters (dhogaza, D, and others) sound like bullies and resort to name calling, while the skeptics sound a lot more reasonable? whatever your opinion on the matter of AGW, shouldn't we be focused on the truth and not worried about being right?
personal attacks do not makeup for scientific shortcomings.

Posted by: J | November 27, 2009 5:33 PM

Whoever was responsible bungled their attempt to break into RealClimate.

My understanding is that they were successful - that's why Real Climate was down for the day a week ago Wednesday.

I'm sure MrPete will respond that whistleblowers commonly distribute their goods via committing a felony (breaking into Real Climate) that's not protected by any whistleblower act I'm aware of.

Posted by: dhogaza | November 27, 2009 6:38 PM

interesting story.... i'm not a scientist, but am looking for help with this. a friend, who doesn't believe in global warming, said 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapour. less than the 5% remaining is carbon dioxide. less than 5% of that is man made, the rest coming from nature somehow. so from that only 0.25% is from man. And we only want to reduce our usage by about 15%. this is only 0.0375% of greenhouse gases. (I think my math's right. not sure if i paraphrased him correctly). i can see why he wouldn't believe global warming if this is true. my question is, is it true? something seems to be missing.
thanks for everyone's help.

Posted by: question. | November 27, 2009 9:23 PM

Dhogaza.

"Bungled" was a poor choice of wording on my part. The fact that the cracker(s) didn't enter and exist RealClimate without being spotted straight away was the point that I was trying to make.

It's secondary though to the more important point that one doesn't "accidentally" release information by committing a felony and breaking into others' servers, nor does one blow the whistle by committing a felony and breaking into others' servers.

However one slices it and dices it, MrPete is full of it.

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 27, 2009 11:06 PM

To reiterate:

Most of the files in the .zip file seem to be packaged under timezones of -0500 or -0400.

Posted by: bi -- IJI | November 28, 2009 1:45 AM

However one slices it and dices it, MrPete is full of it.

Oh, yes, it's one of those self-evident truths Tom Jefferson talked about ...

(MrPete's been around a long time)

Posted by: dhogaza | November 28, 2009 5:57 PM

I was amazed at the sheer dogmatism I found on this site and the frequency of insults and ad hominem attacks directed against Plimer and anyone who may be naturally skeptical about the certainty of this issue.

By contrast, when I visit sites on the other side of the fence, I find the commentators and posts much more reasonable.

Did you keep rehearsing those content-free lines while you were at the back of the car? Because I must have heard it a hundred times.

There's a reason why Deltoid has a special thread reserved just for you. So get back in that thread.

Posted by: bi -- IJI | November 29, 2009 1:16 AM

biji,

sHx was a blatant concern troll. See here.

Posted by: Mark Byrne | November 29, 2009 2:26 AM

Regarding realclimate as a source. The raw data GHCN v.2 didn't seem to have pressure and humidity. Necessary, in my view, to determine how much heat is in the atmosphere, since dry air and wet air at the same temperature have different amounts of heat.

Realclimate commenting on climate science by climate scientists who get paid to study the climate and who might have a vested interest in getting people alarmed. But other than that, solid source.

Posted by: William Wallace | November 30, 2009 12:20 AM

WW (436): Do you have even a skerrick of evidence for this sly little smear: "Realclimate commenting on climate science by climate scientists who get paid to study the climate and who might have a vested interest in getting people alarmed" (emphasis added).

If so, provide it. If not, act like any decent human being and retract the statement.

Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | November 30, 2009 12:33 AM

Wallace states:

Realclimate commenting on climate science by climate scientists who get paid to study the climate and who might have a vested interest in getting people alarmed. But other than that, solid source.

Nice little closed logic their Willaim, so if you are a climate scientist you should not be trusted on climate science.

BTW, what is this "might have a vested interest in getting people alarmed"? Why not accuse aids researches, or public health reserachers, smoking reserachrs of that charge?

I would have thought, might have a vested interest in aquiring knowledge would be the significant driver. Or might have a vested interest is getting the science right, accurate, and faithfully represented.

On the other hand there are these motives. Compare and contrast.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 30, 2009 12:51 AM

I was outside listening through a closed window, so I am wondering - did I hear correctly?!

Did Joe Hockey just say that he'd appoint Ross Garnaut and Ian Plimer to derive a Coalition policy on the science of climate change, should Hockey gain the leadership?

This goes from the comic to sheer tragedy, if so...

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 30, 2009 1:31 AM

Did Joe Hockey just say that he'd appoint Ross Garnaut and Ian Plimer to derive a Coalition policy on the science of climate change, should Hockey gain the leadership?

1) An economist; and 2) a non-climate-scientist error riddled polemicist.

Can anyone spot the skill set that is missing?

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 30, 2009 1:44 AM

Gaz.

Yeah, I caught the PM repeat on local ABC, and heard Fielding speak after the Hockey story. It was just another example of his detachment from reality... I should have guessed that it would be one of the nutjob senators that came up with that one.

One thing for Australian politics at the moment - if it wasn't so serious in consequence, we'd all be splitting our sides laughing!

Posted by: Bernard J. | November 30, 2009 3:00 AM

Here is a thoughtful piece the alarmists should read:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html

Posted by: William Wallace | November 30, 2009 11:05 AM

For smear-and-run fetishist

"a thoughtful piece" = ???

Posted by: Janet Akerman | November 30, 2009 2:41 PM

never heard of that source, but this report about the investigation sounds interesting:

Meanwhile it is believed that hackers unsuccessfully attempted to secure data from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma), a division of of the climate research branch of Environment Canada.

and

A UEA spokeswoman also confirmed that the information was not available on a server that could be easily accessed and could not have been inadvertently released.

let us see

Posted by: sod | December 1, 2009 9:12 AM

Willy,

Regarding realclimate as a source. The raw data GHCN v.2 didn't seem to have pressure and humidity.

You aren't looking in the right place.

Posted by: luminous beauty | December 1, 2009 11:41 AM

Bernard, looks like you're off Aynsley Kellow's Christmas card list if his response to your comment to Counterpoint is any indication ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/ya6glx6

Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | December 1, 2009 10:31 PM

Carbon is essential for all life. Carbon dioxide is essential for our life. Without it, plants die and we die.

Which is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it's a pollutant.

Can't help but notice the rest of your comment was essentially a content-free whine.

Posted by: MartinM | December 1, 2009 11:09 PM

You didn't actually make an argument for CO2 not being a pollutant, you know. You just asserted it. Which makes you a hypocrite as well as an idiot.

Posted by: MartinM | December 2, 2009 3:06 AM

[comment deleted. Ray is only permitted to post to the Ray thread]

Posted by: Ray | December 2, 2009 3:57 AM

Martin's logic is impeccable Ray,

Now its time to make your case. You needn't make it 1,000 pages, since that was in fact only your straw man beat up, presumably to distract from Martin's correct logic.

Posted by: Kessler | December 2, 2009 4:51 AM

Repeating your previous fallacious arguments does not strengthen them, especially after the fallacy has been pointed out.

Posted by: MartinM | December 2, 2009 6:29 AM

Repeating your previous fallacious arguments does not strengthen them, especially after the fallacy has been pointed out.

Martin's point is flawless Ray.

Yours, Ray is something else.

Posted by: Kessler | December 2, 2009 6:48 AM

Back to your thread Ray.

You couldn't be clearer in demonstrating what rubbish and pollution is.

Posted by: Janet Akerman | December 2, 2009 6:57 AM

Would you like me to give you a 1,000 page dissertation on why carbon and carbon dioxide are essential for life?

yes, please. title, author and year, like a proper citation.

but how should you know how to cite properly?

you believe that the average dissertation has 1000 pages?

and has a topic like "why carbon and carbon dioxide are essential for life"?

your academic career did not progress beyond kindergarten?

Posted by: sod | December 2, 2009 8:10 AM

Could somebody here identify instances when legitimate scientific advances were disseminated and conducted outside of the peer review process?

Because, I think you should get used to it. Peer review is dying, thanks to Dr. Phil Jones et al.

Even Judith Curry, Chairperson of School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, recognizes that blogging skeptics are providing a legitimate scientific function.

Yet the extreme left wing scienceblogs bloggers continue to characterize these people as "denialists".

Your sweater is unraveling.

But the failure to distinguish between, like, the advocacy group, talk radio kind of skeptics versus scientists, researchers and even people on blogs who are actually doing analysis, you know, technical people analyzing the data and doing analyses, I think all of that kind of skepticism needs to be looked at, rather than trying to dismiss it in the way that I'm seeing, you know, in these emails.--Dr. Judith Curry inverview broadcast on NPR

LOL. Looks like Guy Raz forgot to read the memo to kill the climategate story by ignoring it. I wonder how long before he's reassigned to cover less prestigious issues by the libturd powers that be.

Posted by: William Wallace | December 7, 2009 9:54 AM

Any individual cell has many mitochondria.

Science is just something that you met once, briefly, back in junior high isn't it?

Posted by: Bernard J. | December 8, 2009 5:47 AM

What, you mean "oops, I've accidentally released some information that I hold, whilst simultaneously using Russian and Turkish servers in the process, and also whilst attempting to 'release' it on the RealClimate site"?

You have too little imagination. More like "oops, we left the files out in the lobby. Sarah's nine-year-old daughter shared them with her friends. One of her friends is a thirteen year old whiz kid who posted them online through an anonymizing proxy." Or whatever.

I didn't feel the need to hack into the emails of everyone in the department.

Again, you're assuming a hack. Not a necessary element.

it is inconceivable that workers do not know what material in a department is confidential

Wow, you have high standards. I can count on one hand the number of corporate entities I've consulted for who actually keep confidential material locked up. (Look around your office suite next time you go in: how much material could a janitor collect?)

So, it's "quite rare for someone to hack their way in", but it's "quite easy to accomplish"? Well, you have at least one out of two correct, and judging by the industry in firewall software and by the convictions for hacks into US military and law enforcement sites, it's patently obvious which of the two it is.

You clearly know little of this. Not something I'm going to discuss in detail online, for obvious reasons. Knowing some top-level experts, I consider myself knowledgeable but not expert.

A mini-introduction: there are three levels of security: commercial, non-commercial, and government. "the industry" is commercial. "US military" is government. The best non-commercial easily defeats the best commercial (often within seconds or minutes.) CRU clearly has lower-than-commercial security practices.

who said that this was a "good" hack? Whoever was responsible bungled their attempt to break into RealClimate.

I remain unconvinced there was any real breakin attempt. Non-experts easily see scary attacks in ordinary events or breakdowns. And yes, if there was an attack on RC, the fact that it was bungled is ample evidence it was not done by a pro.

Oh, in answer to the conundrum about rarity of hack vs simplicity: a) Leaks are far more common than hacks. This alone makes release-by-hack relatively rare. b) For a determined opponent, non-hack attacks are usually simpler and cheaper than hacking. Why bother with hacking when you can just walk into the building? Again, this makes hacking the more uncommon method. c) Simplicity of hacking: let's just say that with the right tools it is scary-easy. I used to have a fifteen-second demo I did for executives to put the fear of God into them, so to speak. You get me a cup of coffee, I get all your passwords. :-D

Posted by: MrPete | January 2, 2010 10:28 PM

MrPete might be right. Someone may have filched access codes by walking into somebody's office and copying them from an open computer.

It's still a criminal act, though.

Posted by: luminous beauty | January 3, 2010 1:06 PM

I've not been paying a lot of attention.

Sigh.

Posted by: Gaz | January 4, 2010 12:05 AM

Gaz, why "sigh"???

I've now searched for any confirmation or even rumor that the police believe it to be a hack, as dhogaza claims. In fact, I've searched for any statement from the police at all. Obviously, the web is a big place, but I've found nothing. If dhogaza, you or anyone have any links providing an update from investigative authorities, I'm quite interested.

The most interesting new thing I found is evidence that (some of?) the material may have come from one of Tim Osborn's computers, perhaps his home computer: http://ijish.livejournal.com/692.html

Nothing conclusive, of course. The obvious question for an investigator: who has access to Tim's computers.

All in all, a gut-wrenching situation.

Posted by: MrPete | January 4, 2010 2:36 PM

Martin, A variety of PC email software packages understand mbox format, including the Eudora software that CRU staff use on their Windows computers.

No roots, servers or sysadmin experts need have been involved for mboxes to be part of the picture.

Posted by: MrPete | January 4, 2010 3:13 PM

480 Luminous,

A number of email accounts were accessed. What sort of "open computer" would this be?

Posted by: TrueSceptic | January 4, 2010 6:02 PM

Don't feed MrPete, the whole exercise is meant to counter criticism that it Is Not Nice To Read Stolen E-mail. They cast doubt on its being stolen in an effort to whitewash the actions of The Mob who are using them to try to get people like Jones and Mann fired.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 4, 2010 7:31 PM

When a crime is exposed I have a hard time punishing those that expose it. Let's take care of these Bernie Madoffs of the energy scare first. Billions of dollars are changing hands.

Posted by: JBM | January 10, 2010 4:17 PM

Bernie Madoffs of the energy scare...

Nincompoop.

Attempting to protect the planet from pollution is not going to affect the real approaching "energy scare" that is Peak Oil/Coal.

If anything, careful husbanding of finite fossil resources is also the best mitigation of the coming "energy scare" - but of course, acknowledging this and acting upon it would be counter to the fundamental tenets of the laissez faire ideology upon which starry-eyed nonsense comments such as JBM's are made.

Truly, JBM would make Tim Curtin proud.

On a different matter, it seems that I am finally about to lose my borrowed computer. So many moles to whack, and no Interweb umbilicus to whack them through...

Posted by: Bernard J. | January 10, 2010 8:11 PM