Breaking news: FOIA 2011 has arrived !

Posted: November 22, 2011 by tallbloke in climate, flames, Philosophy, Politics

UPDATE 1-12-11 A searchable database of all the 2009 and 2011 emails is here: http://foia2011.org

Wattsupwiththat has the best collation of links and discussions here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/climategate-2-0-emails-thread-2/

Climate Audit is well worth a visit: http://climateaudit.org/

======================================================

Our old friend ‘Foia’ dropped an interesting comment on the Ian Wilson thread at 9.28am GMT today.

Downloading now, check it out at your own peril, I don’t know what’s in it yet:

UPDATE 10.34am GMT

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

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

Wattsup has a thread running
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

Climate audit
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/22/new-climategate-emails

Air vent
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

Message to ‘FOIA’

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

Here’s the README contents:

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

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

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

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

“Poverty is a death sentence.”

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

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

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

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

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
as…

/// The IPCC Process ///

<1939> Thorne/MetO:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]
<3066> Thorne:

I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<1611> Carter:

It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:

Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]
<4755> Overpeck:

The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.
<3456> Overpeck:

I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
<1104> Wanner/NCCR:

In my [IPCC-TAR] review […] I crit[i]cized […] the Mann hockey[s]tick […]
My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.
<0414> Coe:

Hence the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be
instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.

<2009> Briffa:

I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
<2775> Jones:

I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
<1219> Trenberth:

[…] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. […] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
Japanese.
<0890> Jones:

We can put a note in that something will be there in the next draft, or Kevin
or I will write something – it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.
<0170> Jones:

Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does
say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.
<0714> Jones:

Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.
<3205> Jones:

Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)
<4923> Stott/MetO:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement [“probably the
warmest of the last millennium”] in or whether I should remove it in the
anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn
this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.

/// Communicating Climate Change ///

<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:

I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.
<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:

if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.
<4716> Adams:

Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
<1790> Lorenzoni:

I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion […] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon
<3062> Jones:

We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
[…] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.
<1485> Mann:

the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.
<2428> Ashton/co2.org:

Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. […] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible
<3332> Kelly:

the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[…] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable
<3655> Singer/WWF:

we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy
<0445> Torok/CSIRO:

[…] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” […] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef […]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers […] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change […] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:

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

Kjellen:

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

Pierrehumbert:

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

/// The Medieval Warm Period ///

<5111> Pollack:

But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
<5039> Rahmstorf:

You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing
<5096> Cook:

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

/// The Settled Science ///

<0310> Warren:

The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases […] As it stands
we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.
<1682> Wils:

[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably […]
<2267> Wilson:

Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[…] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
the sun alone.
<5289> Hoskins:

If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone
up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the
warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.
<5315> Jenkins/MetO:

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?
<2292> Jones:

[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.
<1788> Jones:

There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent
extreme weather is due to global warming”] – at least not a climatologist.
<4693> Crowley:

I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships
<2967> Briffa:

Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?
<2733> Crowley:

Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.
<2095> Steig:

He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.
<0953> Jones:

This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
<4944> Haimberger:

It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
<4262> Klein/LLNL:

Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
warming do this
<2461> Osborn:

This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however,
it raises some interesting results […] the analysis will not likely lie near to
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.
<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:

In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
cannot be explained in this way.

/// The Urban Heat Effect ///

<4938> Jenkins/MetO:

By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI
has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.
<0896> Jones:

I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t
think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
data that makes by their Figure 3.
<0044> Rean:

[…] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[…] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
<4789> Wigley:

there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets —
we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].

Jones:

The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at
all Californian sites.
<1601> Jones:

I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The
paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
20th century.
<2939> Jones:

[…] every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where
the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical
means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and
GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results.
[…] Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land.
There is no urban effect there.

/// Temperature Reconstructions ///

<1583> Wilson:

any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
<4165> Jones:

what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
<3994> Mitchell/MetO

Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no
<4241> Wilson:

I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[…] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
<3373> Bradley:

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
<4758> Osborn:

Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
<0886> Esper:

Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. […] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?
<4369> Cook:

I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.
<5055> Cook:

One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.

/// Science and Religion ///

<2132> Wigley:

I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
skeptics have extreme religious views.
<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]

[…] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the
Earth […] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
must pray that they pick up that message.
<0999> Hulme:

My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
God’s planet into research and action.
<3653> Hulme:

He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.

/// Climate Models ///

<3111> Watson/UEA:

I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.
<5131> Shukla/IGES:

[“Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:

While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.
<1982> Santer:

there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we’ve applied.
<0850> Barnett:

[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
<5066> Hegerl:

[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing […] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
<4443> Jones:

Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.
<4085> Jones:

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

/// The Cause ///

<3115> Mann:

By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> Mann:

They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.
<0810> Mann:

I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause
<3594> Berger:

Phil,
Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.
<0121> Jones:

[on temperature data adjustments] Upshot is that their trend will increase
<4184> Jones:

[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! […] Even though it’s been a mild winter in
the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the
La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
<5294> Schneider:

Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are
forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy

/// Freedom of Information ///

<2440> Jones:

I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
<2094> Briffa:

UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.
<2459> Osborn:

Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing
“David Holland”. Everything we found was cc’d to you and/or Dave Palmer, which
you’ll already have.
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:

As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
<1577> Jones:

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

Comments
  1. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    Well done TB

  2. AleaJactaEst says:

    where did the original link come from TB?

  3. tallbloke says:

    Jeez, check the date on the ‘statement.doc’ in the docs folder. It’s today!!

  4. tallbloke says:

    AleaJactaEst: where did the original link come from TB?

    Our friend Foia posted it on the Ian Wilson thread.

    It’s the real deal alright, just found a juicy mail from the Foia officer at UEA to P. Jones discussing how to evade giving out the info requested by Steve McKintyre…

    see 3334

  5. Alea Jacta, the link was left at CA on the Anderson Cooper thread. But here it is again:

    http://files.sinwt.ru/download.php?file=25FOIA2011.zip

    I too have checked it for virus etc and started to open it.

  6. Niklas says:

    Malwarebytes’, Avast, Superantispyware and Ad-aware all say it’s clean.

  7. tallbloke says:

    Hi Lucy, it was left on the Ian Wilson thread here at around the same time. 🙂

  8. Joe Lalonde says:

    Sort of shows… putting ALL your eggs in one basket(CO2) and global warming has changed the dynamics on panic in charging up the uncertainty crutch.
    These Bozo’s have no clue how this planet operates outside of following temperature data!

  9. Anteros says:

    Can you give a bit of background to this? Was any of it expected? How far back do the emails go? I’m intrigued – More info please!!

  10. Roy Martin says:

    Goodness, gracious me!

    When will the committees of enquiry re-convene to consider the new evidence?

  11. tallbloke says:

    Lol! Hi Roy. There will be a few taking a bit of the Durban Poison following this!

  12. tallbloke says:

    3341

    date: Wed Dec 3 16:01:24 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: Schles suggestion
    to: Gavin Schmidt

    Gavin,
    I’m trying – but we’ve not got to bother unless he pays his £10!
    It would probably be counter productive, but it would be good if
    all that is going on behind the scenes re FOI, research fraud allegations etc
    were to come out.
    If I decide to do IPCC again, I’ll certainly flag it up with Thomas Stocker.
    Cheers
    Phil

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

  13. tallbloke says:

    Anteros: Clever people will soon sift this lot into date order. The mail looks like it’s from the same batch as the original FOIA release at the end of 2009

  14. tallbloke says:

    Niklas: Thanks, added to post

  15. Phillip Bratby says:

    Not quite the 2 year anniversary of Climategate. Climategate2 perhaps

  16. Anteros says:

    It did occur to me that maybe all the available emails weren’t released in the original tranche……. I wonder if any of the participants realised that a lot of their embarrassing emails hadn’t been released and were still in ‘the pipeline’….
    All I can say is ‘thanks’, ‘very thoughtful foia’, and ‘damn fine timing’

    A happy interglacial to you all ! 🙂

  17. Otter says:

    I admit to being a bit wary of this, but I do find it interesting that at least a few of them admit that the MWP was ‘more extreme’ than things are today. And even the MWP is not the warmest period in the past 10,000 years, if I am not mistaken?

  18. Niklas says:

    cc: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, k.briffa@uea.ac.uk
    date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 16:22:24 +0100 (BST)
    from: “Tim Osborn”
    subject: Re: FOI appeal
    to: “Phil Jones”

    Phil — thanks for this. I expect they will request the “Report of the
    Investigation Committee” under the US FOI act next! Tim

    On Thu, July 10, 2008 3:42 pm, Phil Jones wrote:
    >
    > Tim,
    > Not heard anything. Don’t think Keith has either.
    >
    > Last year when the then deputy librarian looked through Dave Palmer’s
    > files for the earlier request, I was aaked to go and talk to the person
    > in the Library.
    >
    > Don’t pass the attached on. It came the other day. I still don’t
    > think they
    > have told Keenan, as if they have I would expect this all splashed over
    > CA.
    > It doesn’t say much, but for Wei-Chyung Wang it needn’t, but I can
    > imagine
    > Keenan and CA not being very impressed.
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil
    >
    > At 10:32 10/07/2008, Tim Osborn wrote:
    >>Hi Keith and Phil,
    >>
    >>if I remember right, then the decision on Holland’s appeal needs to be
    >>returned to him in about a week’s time. Have you heard anything from
    >>Jonathan Colam? I thought he might ask us about it before making his
    >>decision?
    >>
    >>Tim
    >
    > Prof. Phil Jones
    > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
    > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
    > University of East Anglia
    > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk
    > NR4 7TJ
    > UK
    > —————————————————————————-

  19. tallbloke says:

    Otter: The climate has been on a wavy cooling trend since the ‘Holocene Optimum’ in the early farming days, around 6000BC

  20. tallbloke says:

    Niklas and everyone, please add the number of the email you quote, Cheers

  21. J Bowers says:

    Hey, Tallbloke, how about another reminder to redact email addresses, too?

    Enjoy the quote mining and spin.

  22. Joe Lalonde says:

    Tallbloke,

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

    Just look at the political decisions of almost every country from “green energy” to curbing the greenhouse gases to the creation of the “carbon market”.
    These were ALL political decisions that now were too quick in coming through bad technology and heavy subsidizations to following temperature data to the exclusions of ALL other “interesting influences” that have no bearing on temperature.
    They definitely have bearing on circulation and the planetary physical changes.

    But who questions the “experts” we have put in trust to do our understanding of this planet for us???
    TB, in 2012, science is in for a real beating for the stupidity that is now ingrained as science.
    Velocity is considered by a very minor field of a very few but never looked at by the majority.
    This is sciences weakness in understanding circulation and the energy differences.

  23. tallbloke says:

    Hey Mr Bowers, it’s great to get an insight into the behind the scenes conduct of the people who have helped in spending billions of our money and desecrating our landscapes with wind turbines built with subsidy on their mates land with huge rents accruing from the public purse.

    Get used to scrutiny is what I say.

  24. J Bowers says:

    Hey Mr TB, if you have a starry-eyed view of how science works I guess you’ll always be in for disappointment. “Desecration” in context of windfarms is one of the most Quixotic things I’ve seen you write to date. Get a donkey.

  25. tallbloke says:

    5349

    “(but we shall need to identify
    > someone specific to work on the communication to industry end) and I would
    > be happy to approach Bob May or Ron Oxburgh, which would (all) you prefer ??
    >
    > I have just sent another message which bears on the publicity
    > issue, as it’s not completely straightforward…”

    Hmmm, Looks like Ron Oxburgh might not be the ‘independent enquiry headwe were led to believe…

  26. tallbloke says:

    Mr Bowers, get a life, or some sceptics emails, or something. Email envy is so unbecoming. 🙂

    ” if you have a starry-eyed view of how science works I guess you’ll always be in for disappointment. ”

    I studied how science works at postgrad level. I have some clear ideas on how the science/policy interface should and shouldn’t ‘work’ thanks.

    One of them is that it shouldn’t be cooked up behind closed doors whilst spending vast sums of money being extracted from the public.

  27. Niklas says:

    Sorry, I was quoting 4334.txt.

  28. AleaJactaEst says:

    cc: “**********************>, “********************)”
    date: Wed Sep 23 12:26:15 2009
    from: ****************************>
    subject: Re: FW: Environmental Information Regulations 2004 request
    to: “*************************>, “**********************************8>

    ****,
    We should discuss this one on October 1 at 08.30.
    This person is threatening in his final sentence. He claims to be Deputy Head of Life
    Sciences, but it would seem he has done no research in his life. He is an active blogger on
    Climate Audit.
    By Oct 1 I might have more news from the Met Office. They are wanting to do as little as
    possible as they have just lost all the MoD money for climate science, which was £4M per
    year.
    Cheers
    ****

    5197.txt

  29. […] er alle schijn van dat heden morgen climategate 2.0 is uitgebroken. Op tenminste twee klimaatblogs (hier en hier) is door ‘foia’ een link geplaatst naar een Russische server. Ik heb de 185 MB […]

  30. […] comes from Tallbloke’s blog that there has been another email release. Again, the same caveats apply: we don’t know if these emails are authentic, and, we […]

  31. J Bowers says:

    “One of them is that it shouldn’t be cooked up behind closed doors whilst spending vast sums of money being extracted from the public.”

    I hope you’re not referring to the Met Office. Look up Trading Fund, and find out how much money the Met Office makes in dividends for its owner, the Ministry of Defence.

  32. tallbloke says:

    I thought the MET office was about to be floated off to the windfarmers?

    Probably so they can hide the decline in electricity production by not reporting heavy icing…

    By the way:

    “By Oct 1 I might have more news from the Met Office. They are wanting to do as little as
    possible as they have just lost all the MoD money for climate science, which was £4M per
    year.”

  33. PhilJourdan says:

    I first read it over at The Air Vent. Just in time for our Christmas shopping! This will take a while to digest. Thanks for the posting. Will check back soon.

  34. J Bowers says:

    By the way, have you not considered that you might be committing a crime right now by linking to this set of emails?

  35. tallbloke says:

    I have no problem standing shoulder to shoulder with the owners of the other blogs who have had comments placed on their sites by ‘foia’.

    Providing pointers to where people can find information they paid for in the first place is a great deal less heinous than conspiring to delete or hide it IMO.

  36. J Bowers says:

    “Providing pointers to where people can find information they paid for in the first place is a great deal less heinous than conspiring to delete or hide it IMO.”

    Would that be any worse than selectively quote mining the emails to support a predetermined political or economic POV?

    You do know the emails are a redacted set, right?

  37. Niklas says:

    3791.txt

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

    Hi Phil!

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

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

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

    Cheers

    Tim

  38. […] have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/ Strange. Penn State investigators said they checked all this out and Mikey’s work was […]

  39. J Bowers says:

    So, does anyone know for sure if these emails are genuine?

  40. tallbloke says:

    Ask Phil Jones 🙂

  41. tallbloke says:

    Niklas, good spot! Prima Facie dynamite!

  42. diogenes says:

    as a thought experiment, how would you set about faking all these emails? What would be the nmotivation of anyone trying to do that? Preumably they would fake them for financial gain rather than just release them on the internet.

  43. J Bowers says:

    Actually, you should be asking Phil Jones and a number of others. You’re disseminating their emails here. Is that legal in the UK? Have you asked a solicitor? Have you verified that what you’re actively encouraging to be published here is the genuine article?

    So much for your scientific training, I guess.

  44. tallbloke says:

    J Bowers says:
    November 22, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    “Providing pointers to where people can find information they paid for in the first place is a great deal less heinous than conspiring to delete or hide it IMO.”

    Would that be any worse than selectively quote mining the emails to support a predetermined political or economic POV?

    Feel free to mine them yourself for whatever you want.

    You do know the emails are a redacted set, right?

    I din’t know that, no. Who redacted them under what law?

  45. PhilJourdan says:

    J Bowers says:

    November 22, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    By the way, have you not considered that you might be committing a crime right now by linking to this set of emails?

    Dunno J – want to ask the NYT if they are breaking the law by linking to the Wikileaks trove of documents? Indeed, even Assange is not in trouble for posting those – just for raping women.

  46. J Bowers says:

    “as a thought experiment, how would you set about faking all these emails?”

    You could do a lot in two years. I’m not saying they’re fake, nor saying they’re genuine. Interesting to see how so many here just accept them on face value. Whatever happened to scepticism?

  47. hunter says:

    The AGW true believer will find a way to pretend it is all just part of a big hoax by the denier conspiracy.

  48. tallbloke says:

    It’ll be interesting to see if any of the protagonists state that any of them are faked.

  49. J Bowers says:

    “I din’t know that, no. Who redacted them under what law?”

    So they’re the original set released for the second time? Or were these ones missing from the original set?

  50. Bowers

    We’ve been asking the question longer. What happened to your skepticism?

  51. tallbloke says:

    That doesn’t look like an answer to my question?

  52. Jit says:

    Do these mails overlap the original release – or are they an entirely different set?

    Reply The dates overlap, plus there are many more encrypted ones…

  53. Charles Bourbaki says:

    Ah, J Bowers, the self-confessed non-scientist appears full of angst and complaint. He who penned about 500 of the 962 responses to entry 32 in The New Statesman’s Steve McIntyre – 50 people who matter in 2010

    A zealot who should be ignored. Please feel free to do so whilst you read the emails.

  54. J Bowers says:

    It’s more pointing out that self-declared sceptics tend to actually be fake sceptics.

  55. kim says:

    ‘vexatious use’. I love it.
    ===========

  56. Cumbrian Lad says:

    This set looks like it will fill in a lot of the background networking behind the scenes, and it will be fascinating to see how the various answers to questions to the various investigations stand up to this. Could be some very nervous people out there, and some angry MP’s.

  57. diogenes says:

    so we have to imagine a gang of people working for 2 years to fake a set of emails for no apparent gain – at least the guys who faked the Hitler diaries tried to sell them! The sceptic would simply assume that these are genuine emails from the named individuals. The alternative is too hard to believe

  58. tallbloke says:

    Come on Kim, a Haiku please

  59. J Bowers says:

    @ Diogenes, you don’t have to imagine anything. I will note that climate “sceptics” (sic) do tend to imagine a lot of things, though.

    Reply Hush J We’re trying to read. 🙂

  60. J Bowers says:

    Well, TB, it’s not as if you don’t have past form on disseminating correspondence you’re not even supposed to have 😉

  61. tallbloke says:

    True enough. “No-one blabs it faster” is my motto. 😉

  62. SayNoToFearmongers says:

    Mr Bowers, you’re looking rather exposed here without your Komment Macht Frei cadre. Never mind, I’m sure you’ll enjoy their company later when you decide how to ‘quote mine and spin’ this lot – unfortunatley the claim that FOIA2009 contents were ‘out of context’ is a bit scuppered when the full context is supplied. And no doubt the passphrase for the remainder will surface at some point, so you can forget that ruse.

    And your use of (sic) is erroneous – ‘sceptic’ is the correct spelling.

  63. hunter says:

    For the legal eagles: publishing something one finds on the street is never illegal.
    The NYT and other American media never hesitated before in publishing stolen material even if they were materially involved in the theft.
    The excuse to ignore climategate v1.0 because of theft claims was always a transparently bogus excuse by those who made it.
    It was made for strictly partisan issues.

  64. Jit says:

    “so Peck (and Keith) you can deal with McIntyre and McKittrick and all the other paleoloonies out there.”

    My hat’s off to Steve Mc. They really don’t like him, do they?

  65. Phillip Bratby says:

    “you’re not even supposed to have”. I thought we paid for these guys through our taxes. Excuse me if these “scientists” are amateurs.

  66. Jit says:

    Sorry – put the email number in angled brackets – d’oh! 2806

  67. J Bowers says:

    @ hunter. Tallbloke’s British.

  68. tallbloke says:

    Fri Aug 4 10:32:07 2000
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: Some food for thought re the MWP and the LIA
    to: tom crowley

    Dear Tom,
    Keith and I don’t have the Sierra tree-ring records. We presume you
    mean the Sierra Nevada ones (unless you’re thinking of other Sierra’s,
    which is just like saying mountains !). In Mann et al (99) in GRL they
    described a correction to the long bristlecone series to ‘deal’ with
    something odd in the series. This might be the same thing you’re finding.

    5005

  69. Niklas says:

    2368.txt

    date: Wed Dec 3 13:31:06 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: FW: FOI_08-50 ; EIR_08-01
    to: “Palmer Dave Mr \(LIB\)”

    Dave,
    Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond?

    With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting
    numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have
    virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent.
    There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time
    going through these.

    Cheers
    Phil

  70. diogenes says:

    that email 2368 might be interesting reading for the FOI registrar!

  71. tallbloke says:

    Lol, the Christmas season is nigh upon us, and Kevin Trenberth has written a song. No need for herald angels here, Kevin’s busy blowing his own trumpet:

    date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:58:09 -0700
    from: Kevin Trenberth
    subject: The first Nobel and other Christmas greetings
    to: IPCC-group

    Seasons greetings to you all, my fellow Nobel Laureates (even if we did not get to go to
    Oslo).
    I just want to wish you and your families all the best for the holiday season, and Merry
    Christmas to those of you who celebrate that festival. As part of IPCC we have achieved
    something to be proud of. Thankyou for being a part of it with me.
    At NCAR at the Christmas party a group made up a song that mentions by name all the NCAR
    LAs in AR4. The song is below. You may appreciate it. (or not).
    All the best for 2008.
    Kevin

    Sung to tune of The first Noel

    Our First Nobel

    Our First Nobel, for the IPCC,
    Goes to Beth, Bette, Bill, Jerry, Kathy and Guy.
    Kevin, Linda, Paty, Re-to and so many more,
    And we’re sharing the honor with Mister Al Gore.
    Nobel, Nobel, a story to tell,
    We hope our coworkers’ egos don’t swell.

    The First Working Group said to sound the alarm,
    Rising CO2 levels are causing great harm.
    Temperatures and greenhouse gas are racing up neck and neck,
    Soon the whole Earth will be hotter than heck.
    Nobel, Nobel, the planet’s unwell,
    This is the future the models foretell.

    The Second Working Group said that change is assured,
    >From the melting of glaciers to migration of birds.
    >From loss of land and crops to habitats,
    How can they make it much clearer than that?
    Nobel, Nobel, the oceans swell,
    Polar bears search for new places to dwell.

    We must work to mitigate, tells us Working Group Three,
    Change from fossil consumption to clean energy.
    If we all do our share in reversing the trend,
    Our children might have a clean Earth in the end.
    Nobel, Nobel, sound the warning bell,
    Let’s make a future where all can live well.

    Nobel, Nobel, we are stars for a day,
    Can an Oscar be far away?

    ****************
    Kevin E. Trenberth

    0462

  72. J Bowers says:

    Hey Tallbloke, you were asking about redactions.

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

    FOIA.org on their latest handiwork, over at Jeff Id’s.

  73. glacierman says:

    Mail Number 3500: Rigging the peer review process:
    “cc: “J. Salinger” , James Annan, Gavin Schmidt , Mike Mann ,
    date: Wed Aug 5 16:14:34 2009
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming – paper in JGR
    to: Kevin Trenberth , Grant Foster

    Hi all,
    Agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi
    retired and like Mike Wallace may not be responsive to requests from JGR.
    We have Ben Santer in common ! Dave Thompson is a good suggestion.
    I’d go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling.
    To get a spread, I’d go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe.
    So Neville Nicholls and David Parker.
    All of them know the sorts of things to say – about our comment and
    the awful original, without any prompting.

    Cheers
    Phil
    At 15:50 05/08/2009, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

    Hi all
    I went to JGR site to look for index codes, and I see that the offending article has
    been downloaded 128 times in past week (second). All the mnore reason to get on with
    it.
    see below
    Kevin
    Grant Foster wrote:

    Gentlemen,
    I’ve completed most of the submission to JGR, but there are three required entries I
    hope you can help me with.
    1) Keyword
    Please provide 1 unique keyword

    global temperatures, statistical methods, El Nino-Southern Oscillation, global warming

    2) Index Terms
    Please provide 3 unique index terms

    1600 GLOBAL CHANGE
    1616 Climate variability
    3309 Climatology
    1694 Instruments and techniques

    3) Suggested Reviewers to Include
    Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give
    an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates,
    collaborators, or family members. (this requires name, email, and institution).

    Tom Wigley [1] NCAR
    Ben Santer [2] Lawrence Livermore
    Mike Wallace [3] U Washington [May not be most
    responsive]
    Dave Thompson [4] Col State Univ
    Dave Easterling [5] NCDC

    Sincerely,
    Grant
    ___________________________________________________________________________________

    Windows Live: Keep your life in sync. [6]Check it out.


    ****************
    Kevin E. Trenberth
    Climate Analysis Section,
    NCAR

  74. tallbloke says:

    Thanks J, it’s in the text on this post too. The context differs from your earlier remark however…

  75. Shevva says:

    Mr Bowers you’d be better of jumping up and down pointing in a random direction and shouting ‘looking over there, look over there’

    Think I’ll learn something not of the sciience but of the man(n) behind the curtain.

  76. Jason says:

    Link from the RU file site does not download – any other locations?

    Reply: I would imagine their server is getting a lot of requests right about now… No other locations yet. I’m sure people with less of a well known profile than me will be uploading it to many places on the net, just keep checking the blogs.

  77. tallbloke says:

    Richard Black comments:

    “Reviews of “ClimateGate” in the UK, of the IPCC, and of Michael Mann’s work by Penn State authorities, have all cleared scientists of fraud and malpractice, although recommendations were made on increasing openness.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562

    Hmmm. Like the Oxburgh enquiry Richard?

  78. Tallbloke – when I refreshed your page, the FOIA page flashed momentarily across the screen. Weird.

    Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin.

    Reply: I put up a screenshot of the d/l page

  79. […] find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke's website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air […]

  80. Not to worry, my download is chugging along and has about ten minutes to go. I imagine the server is getting some use.

  81. orkneylad says:

    Great job tallbloke. 🙂

  82. tallbloke says:

    Thanks OL, spread the word. 🙂

  83. suyts says:

    TB, did you run into a security code that you needed to input?

  84. Anteros says:

    Suyts –

    It’s sitting right there on the page [to the left] – I missed it too 😉

  85. […] Great post over on tallblokes talkshop: Breaking news: FOIA 2011 has arrived […]

  86. Harriet Harridan says:

    Ohhhhh! Wan’t to see! But the server is obviously taking a bashing and won’t as yet let me download. Can people who have downloaded set up a torrent please? Instructions here: http://torrentfreak.com/how-to-create-a-torrent/

    Then we can all enjoy a nice quick download as more people join.

  87. fenbeagleblog says:

    Twice?!!!…..That’s starting to look careless.

  88. ferd berple says:

    0021.txt

    date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:51:44 +0200
    from: Manola Brunet
    subject: Re: Omar’s email
    to: P.Jones@xxx.xx.xx

    Hola Phil,

    P.Jones@xxx.xx.xx escribió:
    > Hola Manola,
    > I’ve saved emails at CRU and then deleted them from the server. Now
    > I’m at home I just have some hard copies. I also don’t

  89. kim says:

    Our hero’s upset
    At heavy chains on the poor.
    They weigh on me, too.
    ==============

  90. kim says:

    Vexatious these chains
    From curious questioners.
    Loose FOIA.
    ==========

  91. J Bowers says:

    They also refer to temselves as “we”. So much for the whistleblower hypothesis.

  92. Of course, these emails are fake. Just like the Nixon tapes were manufactured by his enemies. Just like the spot on Monica’s blue dress was put there by agents of the vast right wing conspiracy.

  93. J.H. says:

    I’m pretty sure this email that Niklas has just posted was in the first batch of climategate emails, I recollect reading something similar…… So these must contain both old emails we’ve seen and new ones?…… There are definately news ones?…. Just checkin’ is all. 🙂

    Niklas says:

    November 22, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    3791.txt

  94. Phillip Bratby says:

    J Bowers; It was always considered that there were at least two whistleblowers involved.

  95. […] left me a little note…… James:If you have not seen this link:https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/breaking-news-foia-2011-has-arrived/You should check it out.I could not figure the down load game out so was not able to retrieve the […]

  96. […] Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere: […]

  97. J Bowers says:

    “J Bowers; It was always considered that there were at least two whistleblowers involved.”

    Oh, how convenient. How did you arrive two, then? By the way, pre-Copenhagen pre-Durban. Enjoy being manipulated with an incomplete, redacted, set of data. Pure comedy.

    Reply: Indeed, watching the writhing and wriggling begin is quite funny

  98. SayNoToFearmongers says:

    @Bowers,

    “Pure comedy”

    Right, so why are you squirming like a maggot impaled on a fishing hook over here rather than chortling with your cabal elsewhere?

    I smell fear, not amusement.

  99. J Bowers says:

    @ SayNoToFearmongers, I’m not in the emails. Why would I be afraid? Watching you guys fawn over redacted data is pure comedy, though, given comments containing “hide the decline” further upthread. Come on, surely you can see the funny side and the irony?

  100. kim2ooo says:

    Any chance of getting these on a server like this?

    http://www.au.agwscam.com/cru/search.php

  101. kim says:

    The Gates of Hell swing
    Open, gaping at the mail.
    ‘Anything for me?’
    ==========

  102. tallbloke says:

    Kim2ooo: I’m sure the people who run that server will oblige in due course.

  103. J Bowers says:

    Oh, and ye who favour the whistleblower/s hypothesis missed this detail:

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

    The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons….”

    Not “5,000” and “220,000”. They use a period.

    I take it then that the whistleblower is not only two+ whistleblowers, but also two non-British/non-native English speaking whistleblowers, as well?

    What are the odds.

  104. tallbloke says:

    J Bowers: Well I’ve been looking through quite a few and haven’t seen anything marked as redacted yet.

  105. JJ says:

    J Bowers says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    They also refer to temselves as “we”. So much for the whistleblower hypothesis.

    Yeah, because no one who is keeping their identity a secret would EVER consider using a misleading pronoun. And ALL whistleblowers work alone.

  106. SayNoToFearmongers says:

    @ J Bowers,

    No, I see rank, foetid and despicable dishonesty – as Ed Cook exposed in 2009 with his call to revisit the antiscience drivel known as dendroclimatology: “what we know for certan is that we know f***-all”.

    Despite this, your buddies chose to defend the indefensible, despite knowing that the edific was rotten to the core:

    Wilson:

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

    Bradley:

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

    No funny side, no irony, just corruption and stench. You have no shame.

  107. kim says:

    I want J Bowers to square the contents of the emails with his conscience.
    ===============================

  108. Harriet Harridan says:

    @ Tallbloke: “Harriet and Kim, let us know if it works.”

    It’s working! The bitorrent client seems to be windoze only, so I fired up the machine in the downstairs dungeon and it’s working. Jump on chaps.

  109. diogenes says:

    good work J Bowers… not only do you want us to believe that a group of people spent 2 years faking all these emails, now you think they are non-British too. I think I’ll stick with scepticism.

  110. kim says:

    kim2000 is not me. He/she is a young promising upstart, though.
    ==============

  111. J Bowers says:

    JJ — “Yeah, because no one who is keeping their identity a secret would EVER consider using a misleading pronoun. And ALL whistleblowers work alone.”

    My word, the plot just gets more and more complicated. You’d be better off explaining it by implicating royalty.

  112. J Bowers says:

    “I want J Bowers to square the contents of the emails with his conscience.”

    Go look for the one from the first set that had a grandfather genuinely concerned for his grandchildren. Geoengineering was a keyword, if you could have been bothered to shy away from the confirmation bias search terms.

  113. J Bowers says:

    “now you think they are non-British too. “

    My bad. Clearly they meant they released 5 emails from a full set of 220.

  114. Latimer Alder says:

    J Bowers is here as a sacrifcie. The grauniad has not yet deigned to notice this event so he has nowhere else to post. And he does not know what the party line is, so he has to troll about with trivia, hoping somebody will notice him

    He must find it a very alien and threatening place without the opportunity to press the destruct button on any post he disagrees with

  115. Tucci says:

    Pennsylvania State University is currently getting scandal-to-the-jaybirds treatment in the (old, moribund, bankrupt, and increasingly irrelevant) “mainstream” media over the eyeball-grabbing salacity of events more than nine years ago in the shower facilities of the school’s Division I football program (the only real reason why the Commonwealth’s former agricultural high school in Centre County has any national prominence at all).

    With this antique but gonads-groping story occupying every third minute of the news cycle throughout the nation (all these nominally orthosexual men and women so lickerishly fixated upon allegations of a grown man in unnatural coitus with little boys…), and in light of the fact that the MSM “journalista” types desire desperately to shove the preposterous anthropogenic global warming fraud figuratively up the public tochus for their own left-“Liberal” political purposes, this FOIA2011.zip archive is going to get studiedly ignored to death.

    Looks as if we’re going to have to hammer this one home ourselves, just as we did with FOIA2009.zip.

  116. J Bowers says:

    Latimer Alder — “J Bowers is here as a sacrifcie. The grauniad has not yet deigned to notice this event “

    Bzzztt!

    Guardian: Fresh round of hacked climate science emails leaked online

  117. kim2ooo says:

    @ kim says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    kim2000 is not me. He/she is a young promising upstart, though.
    ==============

    I’m a girl 🙂

    Love your poems.

  118. Joe Public says:

    Torrent

    tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7

  119. […] From what I’ve read of it, the new email dump dates from similar time periods as the original. They look much like the original emails, with the same cast of characters. A few sample extracts: […]

  120. […] a few links to commentary on the emails, which have just begun to be […]

  121. J Bowers says:

    Mail Number 5001
    date: xxxxxxxxxxx
    from: The Wife
    subject: Urgent!
    to: The Hubby

    Pick up some milk on the way home. I need to take the dog to the vets.

    XX

  122. […] Tall Bloke has more excerpts HERE.It is clear the climate thugs are still trying bamboozle the world for their AGW cause. Share […]

  123. tallbloke says:

    From: Keith Briffa
    > >> >Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:07 PM
    > >> >To:
    Palmer Dave Mr (LIB); Mcgarvie Michael Mr (ACAD); Osborn
    > >> >Timothy Dr (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV)
    > >> >Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act request (FOI_08-23)
    > >> >
    > >> >Hi Dave
    > >> >Holland acknowledged receipt – and said he would read my
    > >letter over
    > >> >last weekend. I have heard nothing since. I am happy for you to send
    > >> >the query but I suspect he will still pursue the original request. I
    > >> >would prefer that we simply answer that his request is
    > >unreasonable –
    > >> >and decline. We could also state that virtually all Chapter
    > >6 authors
    > >> >have declined/prohibited the release o their correspondence. This is
    > >> >a matter a principal as far as I see it and we should not fall into
    > >> >the trap of claiming time constraint, which would imply likely
    > >> >compliance with further , less demanding requests.
    > >> >cheers
    > >> >Keirth
    >

  124. Don’t know what is up but the comments here are now going on right through the “Leave a Reply”. I will not be able to read this post, at this rate, when it’s posted.

    I don’t understand people like JBowers who seem to take pleasure in making me feel sick. Well, I suppose there have always been people with no sense of ethics.

    This is the note FOIA opens with, and they are right, exactly right

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

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

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

    “Poverty is a death sentence.”

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

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

  125. Latimer Alder says:

    @jbowers

    So the grauniad was only a coupla hours behind the Telegraph.Quelle surprise!

    But I see that there is still no place for comments where you and your dwindling band of hardline wamistas can decide what party line to take on yet another presentational and political disaster. You must feel like Stalin loyalists after Kruschev’s famous speech to the Central Committee n 1956..betrayed and exposed as fools

    Here’s some ideas for discussion points until you can get together:

    1 ‘ Its all a fake’ (no good – Mikey Mann has admittted they are his in the gardain)

    2. It is the ‘Well-funded Big Oil Denier and polie drowning/will nobody think of the children?’
    conspiracy. Yawn and hard to be convincing after round 2

    3. Its all Judith Curry/Bjorn Lomborg/Harry ReadMe/Steven McIntyre/Anthony Watts fault (delete any not applicable). They keep on banging on about minor details of being wrong which threatens the whole grand and beautiful edifice and must STFU. Bit late for that

    4. Each and every one of the 5500 emails released is taken totally out of context. Tough one to sell

    5. Gentlemen would not wish to read other gentlemen’s private correspondence anyway. It is bad form and not quite cricket. May not work too well with our colonial cousins

    6. Perhaps we should cancel tour trip to Durban and share a half of mild down the Tree Ring and Apocalypse instead? Sounds like a good solution. A nice game of dominoes and you can reminisce about the old days when you thought you had the world in the palm of your hand…just two years and a few days ago…….

  126. tallbloke says:

    Lucy,
    The three ‘R’s for you:

    Reflect, Repent, Reboot.

    (And try a different browser) 😉

  127. […] find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website.Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air […]

  128. DaveS says:

    J Bowers. Pure comedy.

  129. […] en deels nieuwe e-mails online gezet.De eerste blogs die er vandaag melding van maakten waren Tallbloke’s Talkshop en The air vent. Ik heb de 185 MB binnengehaald. Het gaat onder andere om 5349 e-mails, die als […]

  130. Latimer Alder says:

    @jbowers

    How strange that your email number 5001 is so different from my copy, which is between Tim Osborn and Ben Santer.

    Before your revelation I did not realise they were in a marital relationship. Nor is milk mentioned anywhere.

    Perhaps you should download the mails again to make sure you have kosher copies

  131. […] have made their way onto many climate skeptic forums, such as Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air […]

  132. tallbloke says:

    Latimer: Lol 🙂

    J Bowers has the ‘safe as milk’ version which is being passed around the warmista, Helen Keller style.

  133. tallbloke says:

    date: Thu Feb 14 12:45:13 2008
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: Tom Wigley has sent you a news story from
    to: T Wigley

    Tom,
    Dave Bromwich’s papers (one in JGR an done in GRL) in 2007
    are both about how poor Reanalyses are in the Antarctic cf the
    Arctic. Main issue is that both NCEP and ERA-40 rejected
    most of the surface data prior to 1979 and ERA-40 worked hard
    to get mores sondes in from the BAS Reader project, but then
    screwed up getting these in.

  134. wobble says:

    J Bowers says:
    November 22, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    Go look for the one from the first set that had a grandfather genuinely concerned for his grandchildren.

    Genuine concern for your grandchildren is no excuse for faking science.

  135. J Bowers says:

    Latimer Alder — “So the grauniad was only a coupla hours behind the Telegraph.Quelle surprise!”

    You were still wrong. No surprise there.

  136. […] have made their way onto many climate skeptic forums, such as Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air […]

  137. diogenes says:

    Latimer – don’t be silly, J Bowers would not want the purity of his mind to be sullied by other people’s emails

  138. J Bowers says:

    Latimer Alder — “Perhaps you should download the mails again to make sure you have kosher copies”

    But that might technically be a criminal offence here in Blighty.

  139. Harriet Harridan says:

    I must say it’s refreshing to be able to post on a blog without getting 9 out of 10 comments rejected by the moderator – like at the Guardian.

    Torrent’s getting faster if anyone is interested (thanks again Tallbloke. I namechecked you at Wattsupwiththat with the url, hope that’s OK).

    FOIA2011 Torrent: tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7

  140. Latimer Alder says:

    @jbowers

    One hour and nine minutes to be precise.

    I used the phrase ‘a coupla hours’ deliberately as I was not attempting to give an auditable chronology. Regular readers will, I am sure, grant me some rhetorical licence here.

    Any more nits to pick while you wait to find out how to react? Or is your puppet master also running around like a headless chicken (rhetorical phrase = metaphor – look it up) at this time (16:56 GMT)?

  141. glacierman says:

    Number 3493, NASA Scientist acknowledging cosmic ray theory had validity in 2000 –

    [email addresses redacted] – please edit them out before posting, ta TB.
    date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:38:23 +0100 (BST)
    from: Michael McIntyre
    subject: Re: Sunday Times letter
    to: Paal Brekke

    Dear Paal,

    Re:
    > Yes it was better, but still I am puzzled about the last quotes.. “All
    > evidence suggest ….” That does not make much rom for other
    > possibilities..

    Well, no reporter is going to be perfect, any more than the rest of us.
    At least their punchline emphasized the uncertainties. (And they did say
    — I hope it’s true — that IPCC “leaves the door open”.)

    > Also, they missed out mypoint.. the 20% contribution from irradiance only
    > was for the last 30-40 years..it may have looked like I ment the last
    > 150.. And even 20% (from irradiance increaseonly) IS significant

    Yes, it wasn’t very clear — but perhaps this distinction is getting a bit
    fine now, from a public viewpoint, getting down toward the noise of
    uncertainty. At least the BBC article gave the cosmic ray hypothesis a
    reasonable exposure, I thought. I agree with you and others that the
    cosmic ray hypothesis — even if not the Answer to Everything as Nigel
    Calder unfortunately said, presumably to sell his book — must
    nevertheless be taken seriously. Thanks by the way for yesterday’s email
    giving more detail on attempts to assess that hypothesis, clearly still
    difficult. It’s good that it’s being looked at a bit more.

    On the UV question, I’d still like to know whether the estimate of
    increased solar UV luminosity that started all this is derived from
    geomagnetic data.

    M”

  142. J Bowers says:

    @ Latimer Alder.

    One hour and nine minutes? Wow! Grauniad really was dilly-dallying, then! And you were still wrong. By the way, what puppet-masters do you refer to? I’m not the one dancing on strings from hackers who time their releases to distract from the important stuff at climate conferences.

  143. tallbloke says:

    Seems to me the climate conferences are a distraction from the important stuff

  144. Latimer Alder says:

    @jbowers

    Clearly not. You are just hanging around here making trivial points because you haven’t te fiantest clue what to say about the e-mails. So bemused that you haven’t even read them. No comments at the grauiniad means that you can’t find out what the ‘correct interpretation’ to promulgate is.

    Do let us know which of the highly unlikely and unconvincng defences I outlined for you will be the one you wish to go with.

  145. J Bowers says:

    Latimer Alder — “You are just hanging around here making trivial points because you haven’t te fiantest clue what to say about the e-mails”

    Ummm. “More bollocks.” How’s that?

  146. malagaview says:

    from: The Wife
    subject: Urgent!
    to: The Hubby
    Pick up some milk on the way home. I need to take the dog to the vets.
    XX

    The Warmers – An Everyday story of Climate farming folk – Episode 5001

    Scene 1: Mikey’s Kitchen – with lots of steaming pots brewing on the stove.

    KITCHEN DOOR OPENS – Enter Phil

    Mikey Warmer: Morning Phil [spoken warmly]

    Phil Warmer: Morning Mikey. Lovely day for some muck spreading [spoken smugly]

    Mikey Warmer: Certainly is. I have 2,000 tons of manure to spread today. [spoken richly]

    Phil Warmer: Didn’t you get rid of that a few years ago? Just before your holiday in Copenhagen.[spoken fondly]

    Mikey Warmer: No Phil… I only got rid of half of the rich aromatic stuff before my holiday. [spoken sadly]

    KITCHEN DOOR OPENS – Enter Raj – reading today’s newspaper

    Raj Warmer: Mikey go pick up some milk from the shops like a good boy.[spoken firmly]

    Mikey Warmer: Yes Raj. [spoken cowed]

    Phil Warmer: Don’t you have any cows left on the farm? [spoken incredulously]

    Mikey Warmer: Not anymore. You see they produced too much CO2. [spoken proudly]

    KITCHEN DOOR OPENS – Exit Mikey

    Raj Warmer: I think I need to take that boy down to the vets and have him seen to. [spoken jovially]

    Phil Warmer: Good idea. Bristlecones don’t have any nuts either. [spoken laughingly]

    RajaWarmer: Actually, I should send you both down to the vets. [spoken seriously]

    THE END – roll credits with names redacted.

    All characters in this publication are fictitious and any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

  147. […] Update: More on Climategate 2011 here. […]

  148. Niklas says:

    3021.txt. Haha. thefordprefect’s real name is…

  149. […] files, including more than 5,000 emails of as yet unconfirmed authenticity, have been posted on an […]

  150. Jason says:

    So J Bowers thinks an email in which M Mann says he is trying to hire an investigator to find dirt to dish on Mcintyre is “bollocks”.

    J Bowers thinks that this:

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

    Is bollocks?

    He thinks:

    “A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
    during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
    “Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
    in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
    seen in the 20th century”

    is also just bollocks.

    J Bowers is, unfortunately either part of the team, totally brainwashed, or so ignorant he cannot see corruption and uncertainty when it is right in front of him. Fool.

  151. […] Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere: […]

  152. […] files, including more than 5,000 emails of as yet unconfirmed authenticity, have been posted on an […]

  153. Harriet Harridan says:

    No wonder they were hacked! They’re a bit sloppy with their server passwords.. (Asterisks mine)

    date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 11:19:14 +0100
    from: *******
    subject: AR4 Final Input Please check this mail
    to: **** *** *** *** *** ***

    Hi friends:

    We’re writing to get your FAST help with a very important part of our final IPCC chapter
    production – checking the copy-edited text. Please note the the deadline for this task is
    soon, and that we would like to coordinate all edits centrally in Bergen. Please read the
    email from Melinda at the TSU carefully, and send all proposed edits to **** and:
    ******, where we will collate them and get in the final
    suggested edits to the TSU by the deadline.

    NOTE: You may access your chapter files at the following ftp site.

    server: http://ftp.joss.ucar.edu

    account: wg1_gnrl

    password: ********* (Please note that these are zeros – not letters.)

    directory: pub/AR4_CopyEditFinal/ChXX

    ……

    Thanks, ********

  154. Harriet Harridan says:

    Oops that should have mentioned the file: 0136.txt

  155. J Bowers says:

    “So J Bowers thinks an email in which M Mann says he is trying to hire an investigator to find dirt to dish on Mcintyre is “bollocks”.”

    Did he dish any dirt? Speaking of “dishing dirt”, what’s this entire post about, again?

  156. […] Some initial snippets floating around a blogosphere: […]

  157. Ecocampaigner says:

    Go easy on JBowers, he’s accostomed to having the Guardian Moderators delete any post which makes him look foolish.

  158. Latimer Alder says:

    @jbowers

    ‘Ummm. “More bollocks.” How’s that?’

    Thanks for your considered and incisive response. That’ll persuade the man in the street that you have a scientific and serious point to make.

    But, as an aside, your continual presence at the highly-moderated blog at teh grauiniad has not prepared you well for a more free-f;lwoing discussion such as this. Not having the facility to simply have deleted posts that do not meet your standard of loyalty and acquiescence with ‘the line’ menas that you occasionally have to debate the issues. It is clear that you are lacking match practice in this regard.

    ‘More bollocks’ is not the response of a player in top form. More perhaps of one in the twilight of his career, playing for a failing team whose confidence is waning by the day …as they slip down the tables of influence from major players to irrelevance. They have never recovered from that disatrous defeat away at Copenhagen two years ago on a snowy pith with the senior layers exposed as shallow charlatans rather than men of integrity…

    Its almost sad….but not quite.

    Please let us know when you have decided what the party line is this time. I will hardly sleep with anticipation of the decision

  159. hro001 says:

    Anteros says: November 22, 2011 at 11:43 am

    It did occur to me that maybe all the available emails weren’t released in the original tranche……. I wonder if any of the participants realised that a lot of their embarrassing emails hadn’t been released and were still in ‘the pipeline’….

    Considering that during the course of one of the 1st anniversary journal spreads, “poor Phil” did mention that they didn’t know if more might be out there (or words to that effect), my guess is that they’ve known all along that there could well be more – and that perhaps this is why the Norfolk constabulary have not closed their investigation!

  160. Jason says:

    J Bowers, a yes or no will do:

    Do you think that Mann discussing hiring an investigator to discredit opposition is ok.

    Yes or no, its that simple.

  161. malagaview says:

    Please let us know when you have decided what the party line is this time.

    I think they are rolling out every cannon onto the portside of their creaking, listing ship…

    …the people behind the release were “agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can’t contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat. Its right out of the tried-and-true playbook of climate change denial.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

    It is like watching the Mary Rose in slow motion…..

    The most common explanation for the sinking among modern historians is that the ship was unstable for a number of reasons. When a strong gust of wind hit the sails at a critical moment, the open gunports proved fatal, the ship flooded and quickly foundered.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Rose#Causes_of_sinking

  162. Jason says:

    I am calling out J Bowers.

    His posts here are very similar to the content of several tweets from Mike Shanahan, who is part of iied.org. So I call you out “J Bowers” – you are Mike Shanahan and you are part of the gravy train.

  163. […] Anthony has a lot of the details here and is updating regularly, as is Tallbloke. […]

  164. tallbloke says:

    @Jason
    Easy tiger

  165. ben says:

    Well Done TB!

  166. Jason says:

    You are quite right, I apologise unreservedly for saying J Bowers is the person I stated.

  167. […] file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. The same tactic was used in 2009 when the first 160MB batch of emails were […]

  168. J Bowers says:

    Ecocampaigner — “Go easy on JBowers, he’s accostomed to having the Guardian Moderators delete any post which makes him look foolish.”

    But I’m not averse to calling you a liar.

  169. J Bowers says:

    “Do you think that Mann discussing hiring an investigator to discredit opposition is ok.

    Yes or no, its that simple.”

    Probably about the same as you think of Monckton having private dicks go through John Abraham’s trash to try and dish dirt on him. At least, that’s what Monckton declared in a documentary.

  170. James Evans says:

    I just went to the iieed.org website. I have no respect for these people. They are having a go at ketchup! That’s one of my five-a-day – the others being tobacco and fermented grape juice (x3).

  171. tallbloke says:

    I’m not averse to moderating comments which overstep the bounds so cool it.

  172. J Bowers says:

    Tallbloke, anyone’s welcome to take a pop. But I’ll call a lie a lie.

  173. […] find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air […]

  174. Ecocampaigner says:

    JBowers: “But I’m not averse to calling you a liar.”

    ——

    I don’t think you are a liar. I think you genuinely believe the climate hysteria.

    Unfortunately for you, it seems that the Scientists may not believe it themselves, since they have to work so hard at keeping all their lies and dirty tricks secret.

  175. kuhnkat says:

    I love the fact that Jones Et Al were initially afraid of further releases and were sounding contrite. After no new releases happened they went back to business as usual. Wonder if anyone will learn any lessons and change their ways with this release?? I include those who still trust these slime!!

    Hopefully they will impact the Mann case against Tim Ball as in getting it dismissed.

    The link seems to be down or overloaded. Anyone know of another source yet?

  176. kuhnkat says:

    ” So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat.”

    It is typical of Leftards to proclaim they are lied about when their own words are played back!!
    They lie so much that replaying their words are a completely new lie. Wonder how that works?

  177. J Bowers says:

    Eco, short of you being a moderator at the Guardian, I fail to see how you would know what I click Report Abuse on at all, the last instance (a seldom event given I prefer to argue the toss or even admit to being wrong) being when a denier suggested a warmist top temselves via a link.

  178. tallbloke says:

    Do an in-page search for torrent

  179. James Evans says:

    I downloaded from here:

    http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37

    Easy-peasy.

  180. Stephen Wilde says:

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

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

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

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

    The so called ’cause’ is evil incarnate.

  181. Stephen Wilde says:

    Hey Rog,

    Congratulations on being one of the four primary blogs to receive this stuff. A mention in the Guardian article along with WUWT is quite a coup.

  182. Stephen Richards says:

    J Bowers

    I take it then that the whistleblower is not only two+ whistleblowers, but also two non-British/non-native English speaking whistleblowers, as well?

    What are the odds.

    I hate to reply to this bonehead but I’m British, not proud of it though, and € 200.000. You see I speak and write 2 languages and use a french keyboard.

    You truly are a pillock. If I was as stupid as you I would be very reluctant to expose my stupidity to the world. Ahhh but then I wouldn’t be as stupid as you, would I.

  183. […] file on at least four blogs popular with climate sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. The same tactic was used in 2009 when the first 160MB batch of emails were […]

  184. Ecocampaigner says:

    J Bowers

    I take it then that the whistleblower is not only two+ whistleblowers, but also two non-British/non-native English speaking whistleblowers, as well?

    In JBowers defense, I believe that these emails are part of the same set as Climate Gate 1, in that there are no newer emails than Nov 2009.

    This would mean there is likely 1 person who is the hacker/whistle blower, not 2.

  185. barker says:

    My first drop-in, what a lovely party!

    Conclusions to draw from “newest” batch of old emails? Same as first time around: scientists are human, and hackers have a cute sense of timing – Durban, anyone?

    I’ll take note when they release years of old messages between Chervon Shell and BP CEOs.

  186. tallbloke says:

    Hey Stephen, thanks for that. I hadn’t realised I was one of such a select small group of blogs to get a visit from ‘foia’. Whoever they are, they have a great sense of drama. No repeat one year on. Then this!

    🙂

  187. Michael H Anderson says:

    Love the True Believers who immediately jumped on the legality issue – because, ladies and gentlemen, that’s the only leg they have to stand on any more.

    Personally I’d LOVE to ask Phil Jones except, oops, he was fired in disgrace after Climategate I, and could even have gone to prison for fraud. 😀

  188. […] on during slightest 4 blogs renouned with meridian sceptics – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit, TallBloke and The Air Vent. The same tactic was used in 2009 when a initial 160MB collection of emails were […]

  189. Michael Hart says:

    Tallbloke,
    It also suggests the FOIA can spot a decent scientist when they read one (or know somebody who does).

  190. […] find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air […]

  191. […] only a few hours old, courtesy of this post to our forum referencing information on a blog called TallBloke, which led me on to Business Insider, and hence to the climate blogs BI […]

  192. RichieP says:

    Let’s ignore Bowers (or Shanahan or whichever of the team he is). He’s only here to waste time better spent elsewhere. Let him get back under his ‘truly pathetic’ bridge.

  193. malcolm says:

    Oh, yes, I remember the dear departed days of Scientology v Usenet. I followed it avidly back then, as the finest spectator blood sport available online. The days when stolen Scientology secrets were posted online, and the clams desperately attempted to stem the flow. IIRC , there was a prolific poster named Woody who appeared to have no life other than sniping, nitpicking, criticising and attempting to derail discussions.

    J Bowers, *you* are “Woody”, and I claim my £50!

  194. RichieP says:

    .Ignore bowers .. or barker (very appropriately named) who has presumably taken over the desperation shift. Lord how I’ve laughed at them tonight!

  195. […] Here’s the read me file (courtesy of Tallbloke) […]

  196. Otter says:

    Tallbloke! Yep, I am quite aware of the ups and downs of the warm periods / cool periods. I’ve been following this since the early 90s and I have a degree in Geology.

    I was just concerned that these new emails might not be what they seem, but I have all the (true) climate sites bookmarked- Watts, JoNova, a hundred etc- and I will be pleased to see what everyone has to say.

    I want to see CAGW flushed down the toilet before I hit 90. Which is about 40 years away…

  197. J Bowers says:

    Stephen Richards — “You see I speak and write 2 languages and use a french keyboard.”

    I’ll let the Norfolk Constabulary know that they should be looking for a UEA/CRU employee who uses a French keyboard. Genius.

  198. Ecocampaigner says:

    The Norfolk Constabulary has no interest in the Climategate Bandit.

  199. tallbloke says:

    The chat I had with the Norfolk constabulary was actually quite enlightening. I think I learned more from it than they did. 😉

    I think they view it as an academic spat and a storm in a teacup.

  200. Jack Cowper says:

    Great work Tallbloke.

    I had some fun with a J Bowers over at Richard Blacks blog recently, when he tried defending hiding the decline. Sad really.

  201. Wez Theaussie says:

    Here in Australia, we are now getting a carbon tax jammed down our throats, that will lay waste to our economy. This ‘Carbon Tax’ is being levied, due to AGW, which is now blatantly a fraud. J.Bowers has been conned (or is an IPCC paid troll) and like millions of others, rather than admit that he/she has been conned, would prefer to continue on the path of destruction. J.Bowers, admit to yourself that you were conned and get angry with the ‘Confidence Men’, don’t try and convince us all, to get on the ‘suicide bus’ with you. AGW is finished. H1N1 is finished. GMO is dangerous and is finished. Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, being destroyed for ‘humanitarian’ purposes, is finished. The scams are over, Government is scum, is full of liars and these liars need to be punished.

  202. Anthony Watts says:

    You just got slashdotted, congrats

  203. tallbloke says:

    Thanks for that Anthony!

  204. […] <3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. […]

  205. junican says:

    If only we could get something similar regarding the tobacco control, alcohol control, salt control, etc scams! Like leaked emails between big pharm and the WHO.

    Would that!

    After a while, you can recognise spoilers like Bowers. They tend to pick out little snippets and highlight them, then try to make arguments about those snippets.

    The trick is not to take him on. Treat him as ASH ET AL treat anyone who dares to contest their junk science. Say, “Right, Bowers” – and ignore him. Don’t waste time arguing with him.

    All this new stuff needs to be examined and appraised. It may mostly be ‘tittle tattle’, but I have no doubt that parts will reveal the conspiracy to hoodwink the public. In fact, some quotes have already done so, haven’t they? Words to the effect, “Make the possible future outcomes real and immediate………..” Bowers and co will say that those statements are unimportant – just publicity – it is the science that matters. Precisely – it is because the science is so weak that propaganda is needed to keep the gravy train rolling.

  206. […] (we all hope).  Who got the link? WUWT, Climate Audit, the Air Vent as before and this time too Tallbloke’s Talkshop and JoNova. Anyone […]

  207. J Martin says:

    @ Roy Martin said
    November 22, 2011 at 11:23 am

    ” Goodness, gracious me!

    When will the committees of enquiry re-convene to consider the new evidence? ”

    Roy, I doubt they ever considered anything, they’ll just do the usual whitewash job.

  208. Three of the 5000+ emails are by me. (I of course forgot to write down the numbers.) These three are genuine.

  209. GrantB says:

    JBowers on 50 People Who Matter 2010 | 32. Stephen McIntyre

    Hockey sticks galore without a tree ring in sight…..The list keeps growing.

    Latest – 4241: Wilson: “I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. […] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.”

    Well spotted in your 30 september 2010 post JBowers! One of very few things you managed to get correct.

    JBowers from the same thread –

    D Macdonald — “its also interesting how the AGW pitbulls come out when anyone tries to praise McIntyre”
    No, this “puppy dog” came out when it saw so many lies about climate scientists who are being witchhunted for simply doing their jobs but finding stuff some don’t like. When plastic sceptics stop uncritically spreading lies I’ll get back in my kennel.

    Kennel time Fido.

  210. J Martin says:

    Given that some of the emails in this batch are quite recent, that and the fact that another 220,00 have been released, albeit password protected, would suggest that the politically correct Norfolk Police must be getting close to closing down the source.

    It also suggests that the UEA didn’t do a professional job of locking down their systems after climategate 1. Or perhaps someone there really really knows what he is doing.

    I must say however, that I find Phil Jones ignorance and naievity of how email servers and backup regimens work to be quite delightful and most entertaining.

    My guess is that whatever password has been used will be easy to crack once the names of the people involved become public knowledge. As surely they would want to be certain that all the emails would eventually become public knowledge. A sort of inevitable insurance policy. With that in mind, perhaps the password is in fact quite simple.

    I look forward to the day when we get all the emails and the whole truth without the redactions.

  211. tallbloke says:

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

  212. J Martin says:

    To Tallloke.

    You said “had a chat with the Norfolk Constabulary” ???

    Did you ask them why on the one hand they are trying to find the source of the leaks, but seem to be doing nothing with regard to Phil Jones asking that people delete emails, and his own and others statements about deleting emails.

    So they are seeking to uphold the law in the interests of the UEA, by prosecuting the person responsible for the email leaks, but not uphold the law in the interests of the ordinary people of this country, by prosecuting Phil Jones and others for issues to do with email deletions.

    Perhaps Phil Jones and others have not broken the law by saying in their emails that they have deleted emails from servers and asking others to delete emails. If so then I would welcome an explanation from someone versed in these matters. Do we have any lawyers reading this blog who can address this ?

  213. Green Sand says:

    J Martin says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:28 pm

    “Given that some of the emails in this batch are quite recent,”

    Could you please give the details behind this statement? So far it is thought that this release is contemporary with the previous.

  214. J Martin says:

    To Stephen Wilde.

    Western cultures limit their fertility. But there are religious cultures that do not. I have read that the average number of children born to Islamic parents in the UK is 5 and in France it is 8. What it is in actual Islamic countries I have no idea.

    Since there are Islamic people in most if not all countries then there never will be a stable and sustainable population anywhere.

  215. tallbloke says:

    J Martin says:
    November 22, 2011 at 11:45 pm (Edit)
    To Tallloke.

    You said “had a chat with the Norfolk Constabulary” ???

    I had submitted FOIA requests. The Norfolk plod interviewed me to see whether I might be the hacker.

    I expressed opinions about the withholding of scientific data during the interview. They seemed sympathetic.

  216. Joseph says:

    Why do you think it is all right to publicly support the illegal actions of a coward? Regardless of how you feel on the climate issue, this break-in was illegal, and you are supporting that by broadcasting the results. You should be ashamed.

  217. tallbloke says:

    Fair question Joseph. I think the public interest over-rides the crime in this case. Billions of public money is being spent on the back of questionable policy decisions. We have a right to know more about what informed those decisions, and about the quality of the data and it’s processing.

    No-one died because somebody copied the contents of a hard disk.

    Thousands more pensioners than normal have died in the last few years in the UK because they can no longer afford artificially inflated fuel prices.

    Think about it…

  218. Konrad says:

    Climategate 2.0? SANTA GOT MY LETTER!!

    “The first Nobel” – priceless 😉

  219. Joseph says:

    @tallbloke: but who is deciding what the greater good requires? You? The mob that is commenting here? Certainly no recognized court of law (anywhere).
    Also, thousands have died? Since when? Maybe we should get someone to break into your mailbox to see if your inflating that number. And how much more has fuel increased due to over-eager and greedy investors versus government taxation? Do you also support breaking into the email inboxes of investors to see how greedy they were or we’re not?
    The point is, the day we decide to sacrifice someone else’s rights for our own cause is the day we agree to have our own sacrificed for someone else’s cause. All’s fair in love and war, right?

  220. Green Sand says:

    Joseph says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:01 am

    Why do you think it is all right to publicly support the illegal actions of a coward?

    Simple:-

    “He who fights and runs away, may live to fight another day”

    Obviously the need to fight another day was justified and as it is the potential for many other days such days still exist.

    I proffer the suggestion that if the “investigations” that have littered the last 2 years had been carried out with due diligence there would be no need for this resultant development?

  221. […] Excerpts of emails cited by Watts Up With That via Tall Bloke […]

  222. […] can take a look at all of FOIA 2011′s releases here. FOIA 2011 wrote in the release of the emails that the thousands of others are encrypted for now […]

  223. tallbloke says:

    Joseph says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:27 am (Edit)
    @tallbloke: but who is deciding what the greater good requires? You?

    In the case of my own judgement and my own publishing space – yes.

    Also, thousands have died? Since when? Maybe we should get someone to break into your mailbox to see if your inflating that number.

    Go and study the stats, then come back and discuss it without the hyperbole.

    The point is, the day we decide to sacrifice someone else’s rights for our own cause is the day we agree to have our own sacrificed for someone else’s cause. All’s fair in love and war, right?

    I’m more concerned about the right to life of cold pensioners than the rights of rogue scientists to hide dodgy algorithms from the people who paid for their production.

    It’s been a fun day but I’m turning in for the night. New posters will have to await moderation. The rest of you, play nice. 🙂

  224. J Martin says:

    To Joseph.

    You would defend the rights of known fraudsters to continue to defraud others ? For that is what you are essentially saying.

    These people claim that the World is going to overheat and that we must do terrible things to our economies, which will have increased death tolls as one of many results. And yet they say we should take their word for this and are not willing to present their evidence for this. Clearly laws of individual protection were not intended to be misused in this way.

    There is here an issue of “the greater good”, a precedent that has been established in many courts of law many times and across many generations.

    My guess is you’ll change your tune or go quiet as the current minimum deepens and it becomes obvious to you that you have been taken in by the global warming “team”.

    By the way, you meant “you’re” not “your”. I would suggest “your” time would be better spent brushing up on “your” English, than commenting on blogs.

  225. Ninderthana says:

    Tallbloke,
    Congratulations on being one of the seed sites for FOIA. I wonder why they chose your blog? It would appear that the Climate Audit and Jo-Nova sites received their postings at 9:09 a,m, UT and Jeff-Id and your blog site received theirs at 9:28 a.m. UT. Was Air-vent in on the act this time too?

  226. Joseph says:

    To J Martin: my “you’re” somehow got auto”corrected”. Sorry that mistake somehow caused my point to be overlooked. That point, by the way, was that no matter how guilty you or anyone else may think someone is, it doesn’t excuse supporting breaking the law.

  227. […] The CSIRO looks for a scary icon: (0445) Torok/CSIRO: […]

  228. […] find the full taster menu of delights here at Tall Bloke’s website. Shrub Niggurath is on the case too. As is the Air […]

  229. tallbloke says:

    1897. Dec 2008.
    Dave (Palmer) to Phil (Jones)

    Phil, you must be very careful about deleting material, more particularly when
    you delete
    it. Section 77 of the FOIA state as follows:
    77. (1) Where
    (a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and
    (b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the [1988 c. 29.] Data
    Protection Act 1998,
    the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to
    communication of
    any information in accordance with that section,
    any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters,
    defaces,
    blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority,
    with the
    intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of
    the
    information to the communication of which the applicant would have been
    entitled.
    (2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is
    employed by, is
    an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority.
    (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary
    conviction to a
    fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
    If information is deleted as part of an ongoing records management retention
    schedule, then
    it can and should proceed. Deleting information in response to a request is an
    offence as
    noted above.
    Cheers, Dave

  230. tallbloke says:

    ‘Arthur Sent at CA says:

    Posted Nov 22, 2011 at 7:13 PM | Permalink | Reply
    In his evidence to the second ClimateGate enquiry by the HoC Select Committee on Science and Technology Professor Acton gave the following reply:

    Q94 Graham Stringer: Right. I shall look at that. Professor Acton, are you satisfied that these questions weren’t asked, that people in your university were sending out e-mails suggesting that e-mails should be deleted and that hasn’t been investigated?
    Professor Edward Acton: It has been investigated. I have asked them and they have assured me that they have never knowingly deleted e-mails subject to a request.

    Thanks to FOIA2011 we now have access to 2368

    Dave,
    Do I understand it correctly – if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond?

    With the earlier FOI requests re David Holland, I wasted a part of a day deleting numerous emails and exchanges with almost all the skeptics. So I have virtually nothing. I even deleted the email that I inadvertently sent. There might be some bits of pieces of paper, but I’m not wasting my time
    going through these.

    Cheers
    Phil

  231. Latimer Alder says:

    What’s the betting that Phil Jones has gone off work sick again?

  232. tallbloke says:

    Joseph says:

    no matter how guilty you or anyone else may think someone is, it doesn’t excuse supporting breaking the law.

    You are of course entitled to your opinion. I suspect you believe that the same doesn’t apply to protesters outside coal plants or climate scientists who delete emails and bend data because it’s necessary to further ‘the cause’ though.

  233. Joseph

    You’ve used two inflammatory words, and without evidence AFAICT: “coward” and “mob”.

    This seems to shed light on your own mindset. Prejudicial. Emotional.

    I’ve looked back a fair number of comments, and others are not using language like this. How about we stick with the known facts.

  234. Pete Ridley says:

    This is all lovely stuff which may take a little longer for the politicians and their supporters to whitewash over than Release 1.0 did. Hopefully it will scupper COP17 and the IPCC, but there’ll be a hell of a fight to keep it afloat.

    Ref. Niklas November 22, 2011 at 2:00 pm where Jones asks Palmer “ .. if he doesn’t pay the £10 we don’t have to respond? .. ”, is there a response from Palmer?

    Slightly off-topic but related to it, I recently used the FOIA to get information out of the University of Cambridge concerning their Naked Scientists project and there was no fee to pay. When I made a subsequent DPA request I had to pay a £10 fee and when they claimed to be unable to provide me with personal data from the servers used by their project I had to take out another DPA request with the Project Leader, Dr. Chris Smith in person, costing another £10 (and boy did those requests release a lot of interesting internal exchanges involving Dr. Smith and his team of moderators on his “Naked Science” forum (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39934.0).

    Anyone interested in reading about more devious tricks by scientists involved in pushing the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change” (CACC) propaganda should have a look at my “What does Iain Stewart’s CO2 experiment Demonstrate” thread which talks about Professor Ian Stewart and a demonstration that he had rigged for the BBC’s “Climate Wars” series to try to fool viewers into believing that CO2 causes CACC (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.0). There were also some interesting exchanges about the validity of the ice-core record (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38675.0).

    These were “hot topics” that dared to challenge the CACC hypothesis and were locked by the forum’s moderators despite continuing to receive lots of hits even after being locked. My FOI request was regarding the Naked Scientist project funding sources and my DPA request was to find out what was going on behind the scenes. Of course there was significant redaction carried out which I suspect will reveal even more. I intend to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office to review those redactions to see if they complied with the Act. Very interesting stuff which I may get around to discussing on my blog (http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/) although there may be no need after Climategate Release 2.0.

    I see that the big trick now to get around the FOI is to use E-mail accounts that are outside the scope of the Act. Well – we know that we can’t trust politicians or those involved in finance with anything.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  235. I think we’ve all been hoping, in the absence of special knowledge, that the release of emails, code and documents had been made by a leaker rather than a hacker. In UK law, a leaker is given specific and special protections and immunities under “whistleblower” law. A hacker, however, is not so well regarded.

    Although there is an apparent shift away from the perceived source being a leak towards it being a hack, with the accompanying text from the publisher of these files, the fact is that we still know very little more about the landscape of the sourcing of files than we did or have since gathered since the original 2009 release – save perhaps the new hint that more than one individual may be responsible. Whatever any of us might presume, we still do not know if the originator of the content is on the inside or outside of the CRU, and so we still don’t know if a crime has been committed.

    Publishing, sharing, linking or otherwise disseminating even illegally hacked documents, which are in the public domain, is not illegal – an individual or agency reporting the details of a crime cannot be considered to be an accessory to that crime, unless there are specific injunctions in place. In this instance, there are no such injunctions. We are free to examine and discuss Climategate II. With or without J Bowers’ permission or blessing.

    Personally, if given the choice, I’d have rather the scientists implicated not behaved in the first instance in ways that have resulted in the inevitable acute embarrassment that Climategate has caused them. As every good mother teaches their child, “the truth will always out”, “beware, your sins will find you out” and a plethora of other cliché cautionary phrases. Ideologically motivated soft-science academics should have listened to their mothers, just as these adolescent academic environmental science disciplines needed better guidance and oversight from hard science departments at their universities.

  236. Tucci says:

    At 11:54 AM on 23 November, Pete Ridley had begun:

    This is all lovely stuff which may take a little longer for the politicians and their supporters to whitewash over than Release 1.0 did. Hopefully it will scupper COP17 and the IPCC, but there’ll be a hell of a fight to keep it afloat.

    What “afloat” d’you mean? COP17 has been sleeping with the fishes at bathyscaphic depths since the Eurozone’s “sovereign debt” crisis began many months ago, when the last and most tenuous pretense of an inexhaustible well of private First World wealth to plunder disappeared in a miasma of Goldman Sachs creative accounting tricks creeping out of Athens and through the streets of every financial market in the Eurozone and beyond.

    The process of submergence had begun even two years before Climategate iteration one-point-oh this time in 2009, when Congressman (and presidential candidate) Ron Paul was making prescient ornithological observations about the Federal Reserve System’s chickens coming home to roost like a flock of velociraptors, less feathered and clucking than fanged and bloodthirsty.

    How can the pirates of the East African coast hope to set forth with the mechanism of the greatest fraud in the history of the human race when the fraud is not only utterly exposed but the fat freighters whose cargoes they’d been intent upon “redistributing” are swinging at anchor in their home ports, unable even to sail?

    Just a bit earlier this month, there came to light the predations of “Liberal” fascist politician and bankster Jon Corzine, former Senator and failed-of-reelection ex-Governor of New Jersey at his latest venture into fraud, MF Global, where:

    Corzine had pushed his company – stacked with puppet ‘independent’ board members who did not pose any course-correcting questions or obstacles – to buy sovereign debt from Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, totalling more than $6.3 billion.

    His bet on these toxic debts relied on the ‘moral hazard’ calculation that the eurozone’s leaders – Germany and France – would never let the peripheral PIIGS’ economies fully default , and that the latter would repay loans in whole with interest because of this ultimate guarantee.

    MF Global bought European bonds not only from its investors’ money but also by borrowing widely, with a dizzying leverage ratio of 30-to-1 , whereby it handled $40 billion of assets on paper despite owning just $1.4 billion of equity. Wall Street has been shuddering at the prospect of a huge blowback from the eurozone crisis and trying to figure out who will be left on the hook in New York for economies like Greece kicking the bucket.

    Criminally corrupt and politically “connected” highest-rank flim-flam artists like Jon Corzine (“Even before Obama became President, he was quoted as praising Corzine as ‘our Wall Street guy'”) now provide us with a measure of just how truly bankrupt the Western economies are. If there were anybody who could count upon rescue from his colleagues in control of the Democratic Party kleptocracy headed by our Kenyan Keynesian, it was Jon Corzine.

    Instead, he’s now being measured for an orange jumpsuit and the cell nearest Bernie Madoff. Not even the most flagrantly crooked (nominal) President ever to squat on the special toilet just down the hall from the Oval Office is going to be able to mobilize enough U.S. taxpayer rape or engineer sufficient cover-up to keep former Governor Corzine from the consequences of his peculations.

    There being no wherewithal to preserve Jon Corzine’s ultraleveraged con game from cataclysmic decompensation, just what the hell d’you think are the chances of los warmistas in Durban pushing their even less credible “We’re All Gonna Die!” climate catastrophe fraud into any condition remotely capable of prizing loose all the cash for which these NGO graspers and bureaucrats and political prostitutes lust?

  237. J Bowers says:

    2003
    From: Willie Soon
    xxxxxxxxxxxx

    “Clearly they [the AR4 chapters] may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all … But, as A-team, we may for once give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters, especially WG1—-judging from our true expertise in the basic climate sciences …

    Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter down the road but forcefully and effectively … we will really accomplish A LOT!

    In all cases, I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report or to re-direct attention back to science …”

    2003? I thought AR4 wasn’t published until 2007?

    Oh, sorry! Wrong emails! You might find it interesting… though….

  238. I’ve added these emails (and docs) to my original foia archive. You can now search both together at http://di2.nu/foia/foia.pl

  239. Pete Ridley says:

    Regarding Climategate 2.0, you may find this site of interest http://junkscience.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0-is-here/

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  240. J Bowers says:

    “I see that the big trick now to get around the FOI is to use E-mail accounts that are outside the scope of the Act”

    Who could blame them with tea leaves out to get their grubby mittens on anything they can quote mine with?

  241. Tenuc says:

    Just starting to read through the pile and first thoughts are that this is much more damning than Climategate 1 was. I love the way Mann shoots himself in the foot regarding being a real scientist…
    by this comment…

    Mann:
    “…I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause…”

    Good to see you back, Rog and congratulations on being one of the chosen few regarding this further leak. Can’t wait to see the rest of this archive once the password on the zip file is cracked or revealed,,, 😉

  242. diogenes says:

    glad to see that J Bowers is still doing his Norman Wisdom act….”oooo Mr Grimsdale, those dirty people are reading emails…”…and then tripping over the rug.

  243. […] “Climategate”, has made another dump of emails from the unit.  Below are just a few.  Follow this link to read more and download the entire cache of emails. Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout […]

  244. Dave Springer says:

    tallbloke

    email me – I found something in the emails you’re going to want to see

  245. M.A.Vukcevic says:

    from: Michael Mann
    subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
    to: Kevin Trenberth
    Michael Mann wrote:
    extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,
    since climate is usually Richard Black’s beat at BBC (and he does a great job).
    From what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
    We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what’s up here?

  246. J Bowers says:
    November 23, 2011 at 1:49 pm
    ….see message above….

    Selective quotation would appear to be your speciality Bowers.

    This is what we’ve come to expect from Members of Desmog Blog, {J Bowers Member for 1 year 36 weeks}, whose stated aim is to be “Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science”. Seemingly Clearing PR Pollution also includes selective quotations which then become misleading.

    Of course you quote from the message that W. Soon sent to many folks in any case. It was hardly secret, or misleading as you might like to have people think, when you compare this to the shenanagins of those errant “scientists” at East Anglia and their clique. But as stored by Reaclimate and originally a “document obtained by Greenpeace” it is obvious that what Soon makes clear in the original message {~wsoon/ipccFAR03-d/lettoALL1} he sent was that he was asking people to review the specific chapters of the upcoming AR4 report. You may not agree with his reasons for doing so. The fact that this message was stored in the FOLDER … ipccFAR03-d, does not mean that he was discussing a completed report that had been published already.

    Of course AR03 (or AR3) was published in 2001, and AR4 in 2007, but that doesn;t mean however that someone cannot create a folder called “ipccFAR03-d” and then put copies of messages sent on any date at all within it. You assertion that Soon was confused about the dates does not hold water. That message as stored by Realclimate & indeed Greenpeace has NO DATE headers associated with it, and so it isn’t at all obvious exactly when this was originally sent by W. Soon. YOU have assumed that he sent this in 2003 because of the Folder Name, but it was probably sent even later that that.

    Here is a part of that W.Soon message that you (delberately) left out which make it clear what Soon’s motive was, and which parts of the proposed AR4 report he was writing about…..

    “Attached are four files for your attention:

    (1) Prop-ChapWG1-AR4.pdf
    (2) Prop-ChapWG2-AR4.pdf
    (3) Prop-ChapWG3-AR4.pdf
    (4) Prop-SynRep-AR4.pdf

    They are the proposed chapter outline + strategy
    for upcoming IPCC fourth assessment reports that are
    to be discussed for the Nov 3-7 (COP-9) meeting
    in Vienna.”

    Of course W. Soon means the “Ad Hoc Expert Group meeting in Vienna, Austria, from 3 to 7 November 2008.” which although convened by UNFF8 Bureau, formed part of the COP9 process.

  247. Zeke says:

    Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
    complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
    that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
    Lorenzoni:

    We are now entering elections season here in the US, and one of the major Republican candidates, Romney, has made this his official stance on Global Warming. These leaked emails could not have come at a better time.

  248. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Zeke: Welcome!, it´s good to have you back again!

  249. […] пяти тысяч электронных писем размещено на анонимном российском сервере. Их подлинность пока […]

  250. […] the Climategate scandal, struck again earlier this week. The leaker(s) released an additional 5,000 emails involving the same cast of characters, notably Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at […]

  251. J Bowers says:

    Mr. Grimsdale — “The fact that this message was stored in the FOLDER … ipccFAR03-d, does not mean that he was discussing a completed report that had been published already.”

    I was saying that he was organising an advance attack on AR4. It’s not like I’m the only one to think so. When was Soon & Baliunas published (which resulted in half of the editorial staff of that journal resigning in protest)? They “clearly” decided on the paleo chapter. You have to admit that for an astrophycist he’s somewhat… ummm… “eclectic”. Personally, I suspect that his recent ditty on mercury in fish left the funders a bit baffled about why he wasn’t writing about Mercury the planet.

    “{J Bowers Member for 1 year 36 weeks}”

    Proud of it, too.

  252. Zeke says:

    Many thanks, Adolfo. And cheers to the occasion!

    I think these emails will almost certainly pull us back from the nasty global carbon dioxide taxation scheme, and maybe even help save the Aussies and Brits as well.

  253. J Bowers says:

    #4868

    date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:20:00 +0100
    from: Tim Osborn
    subject: McIntyre and D’Arrigo et al (submitted)
    to: Phil Jones , Eystein Jansen , Jonathan Overpeck

    Dear Phil, Eystein and Peck,

    I’ve already talked about this to Phil and Keith, but for Eystein’s
    and Peck’s benefit the emails copied below relate to McIntyre
    downloading a PDF of a manuscript cited by the IPCC paleo chapter and
    then apparently trying to interfere with the editorial process that
    the paper is currently going through at JGR.

    I think this is an abuse of McIntyre’s position as an IPCC reviewer.

    Rosanne replied to my email below, to say that they *do* want this
    taken further. So…

    Phil has agreed to forward these messages to Susan Solomon and Michael Manning.

    Eystein and Peck: do you want to add anything too?

    Cheers

    Tim

    >Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:08:22 +0100
    >To: “Rob Wilson” , “Rosanne D’Arrigo”
    >
    >From: Tim Osborn
    >Subject: Re: Fw: D’Arrigo et al, submitted
    >Cc:
    >
    >Dear Rob and Rosanne,
    >
    >I strongly agree that this is an abuse of his position as IPCC
    >reviewer! The data archiving issues are a separate issue because I
    >think there’s no need for the data you used to be publicly available
    >until the paper is actually published, and I would hope that the
    >editor would respond appropriately. But the other comments could
    >clearly influence the editorial/review process and this is very
    >unfair when your paper has already been reviewed by
    >others. McIntyre could of course submit a comment after your paper
    >was published if he wished to criticize certain aspects, and that is
    >the route he should have followed. He tried to stop publication of
    >a paper that I was a co-author on, Rutherford et alREDACTEDby
    >contacting the editor of J. Climate with various criticisms –
    >fortunately the editor told him firmly that the route to take was to
    >submit a comment after publication. However, in our case the paper
    >was already in press. In your case, with the editor’s decision
    >still to be made, there is clearly more scope for McIntyre to
    >influence the decision in your case – and this certainly should not happen.
    >
    >The conditions which McIntyre (and all other IPCC reviewers) agreed
    >to before downloading your manuscript were:
    >
    >”This site also provides access to copies of some submitted,
    >in-press, or otherwise unpublished papers and reports that are cited
    >in the draft WG I report. All such material is made available only
    >to support the review of the IPCC drafts. These works are not
    >themselves subject to the IPCC review process and are not to be
    >distributed, quoted or cited without prior permission from their
    >original authors in each instance.”
    >
    >I don’t think that contacting the journal editor with criticisms is
    >”only to support the review of the IPCC drafts”.
    >
    >I will take this issue up with the chapter lead authors and the WG1
    >technical support unit – unless you prefer that I didn’t. Please let me know.
    >
    >Cheers
    >
    >Tim
    >
    >At 08:33 28/09/2005, Rob Wilson wrote:
    >>Hi Tim and Keith,
    >>please see the e-mail (below) from Steve Macintyre to the Editor of JGR.
    >>
    >>This seems a major abuse of his position as reviewer for IPCC?
    >>
    >>In some respects, I don’t mind having to address his comments (many
    >>of which are already adequately explained I think, although a
    >>detailed list of all data used could certainly go in an
    >>appendix), but this just seems a bit off. After all, we have
    >>addressed the reviewers comments and are currently awaiting a
    >>decision. This e-mail may effect the decision greatly.
    >>
    >>Is he going to do this for all papers he does not quite agree with.
    >>
    >>comments?
    >>
    >>Rob
    >>
    >>REDACTED
    >>
    >>
    >>>From: “Steve McIntyre”
    >>><REDACTED>
    >>>To: “Colin O’Dowd” <REDACTED>
    >>>Cc: “Rob Wilson”
    >>><REDACTED>,
    >>>REDACTEDRosanne D’Arrigo”
    >>> <REDACTED>
    >>>Subject: D’Arrigo et al, submitted
    >>>Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:37:06 -0400
    >>>Dear Dr O’Dowd,
    >>>I am a reviewer for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 4AR)
    >>>and am writing in respect to a submission to your journal by
    >>>D’Arrigo et al., entitled “On the Long-Term Context for Late 20th
    >>>Century Warming.” This article was referenced in chapter 6 of the
    >>>Draft IPCC 4AR and made available to IPCC reviewers. In the course
    >>>of my review, I contacted the senior author, Dr. D’Arrigo, for the
    >>>FTP location of the data used in this article or for alternative
    >>>access to the data. Dr D’Arrigo categorically refused and I was
    >>>referred to the journal editor if I desired recourse.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Data Citation and Archiving
    >>>I point out that AGU policies for data citation and data archiving
    >>>(http://www.agu.org/pubs/data_policy.html
    >>>) specifically require that authors provide data citation
    >>>according to AGU standards and require that contributors archive
    >>>data in permanent archives, such as the World Data Center for
    >>>Paleoclimatology. For example, the policy states:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>1. Data sets cited in AGU publications must meet the same type of
    >>>standards for public access and long-term availability as are
    >>>applied to citations to the scientific literature. Thus data cited
    >>>in AGU publications must be permanently archived in a data center

  254. J Bowers says:

    Co-author with Pielke Sr., James Annan, is outraged by the latest leak.

    “I find the whole thing truly shameful, and call upon all those involved to resign. It’s time for a new broom.

    More details can be found…”

  255. diogenes says:

    well done J Bowers…the comedy continues. Maybe they love you as much in Albania as they loved your role model.

  256. Steve Garcia says:

    While the task of compiling climate over decades and centuries is a daunting task – one that I applaud Mann and Jones et al for tackling – there are so many aspects of all this that simply sound like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

    If they didn’t have cover, they would long since all be in great disgrace.

    The journals are giving them cover, not making them toe the line on data and methodologies.

    The governments are giving them cover, with their flatulent mock trials.

    The public is giving them cover, with the Precautionary Principle predominating in my experience. I’ve won face-to-face debates time and again, only to have the other person end up with, “Well, what if they are right?” And me saying they are not right gets nowhere after that.

    The press, most of all, gives them cover, gives them a pass.

    And the police – will they give Phil Jones a pass, after he has admitted in emails that he has deleted emails in violation of the FOIA law?

    That may be one avenue not yet pursued. Is it possible in Norwich or in the U.K. for a prosecutor (or even an individual?) to bring charges against Jones?

    Jones’ total obliviousness of the fact that his hitting the key doesn’t wipe the email off the main server – what a comedian, what a joke. And this is the number one man at the nexus of billions or trillions of dollars to be spent if they have their way? Playing the befuddled and semi-addled won’t play well in a real courtroom – IF they will ever prosecute the bugger.

  257. adolfogiurfa says:

    World-wide political conspiration:
    “….And demonstrations or events are planned in 30 countries around the world on December 3rd (see http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org) This includes a minimum of 15,000 people in Montreal, a protest in Iquitos in the Amazon Rainforest,..”

    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=262

  258. J Martin says:

    to Steve Garcia.

    You said; “The public is giving them cover, with the Precautionary Principle predominating in my experience. I’ve won face-to-face debates time and again, only to have the other person end up with, “Well, what if they are right?” And me saying they are not right gets nowhere after that.”

    ——————–

    Steve, Perhaps try this as a counter reply; ” And conversely, what if they are wrong and we set in train actions that cool the Earth when we have a pending or even overdue ice age at our door. The results of that would be far far worse.”

  259. Tenuc says:

    Joseph says:
    November 23, 2011 at 12:27 am
    “…Also, thousands have died? Since when?…

    Seek and ye shall find…

    Daily Express – ‘DISGRACE’ OF BRITAIN’S 25,000 WINTER DEATHS’

    Link…
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/285402/-Disgrace-of-Britain-s-25-000-winter-deaths

    This is the end result of ignorant politicians believing the shoddy science behing the failed conjecture of CAGW – cold is the real killer and without the use of cheap fossil fuels the death toll will rise. These, so called, climate scientists have these deaths on their conscience..

  260. Steve Garcia says:

    J Martin –

    Thanks foir the reasonable suggestion. I’ve thought of that, but then I would be doing the same thing they are doing. I actually believe that we have the power to do neither warm nor cool. The Earth will do what it does, and we will adapt. How any fool would think that we cannot adapt to a change in temperature as small as 1C or 2C, when most people cannot even sense such a small difference – it makes no sense whatsoever. And there are times when I think the world is fostering madmen, if they suggest our world would boil over. I find it hard to believe that the temperature difference since the LIA is only about 2C. I honestly wonder what they are reading wrong in the proxies.

  261. Steve Garcia says:

    I would also add that with us only 200 years after the end of the LIA, there is no telling what natural warming will take place. Look at how much the Earth warmed up after the last big ice age.

    To assert that a very minor – almost minuscule – greenhouse gas that we all breath out at every exhalation is a going to doom the world is just lunacy. They may have physics theory that says it will do something, but the premise is unverified in the real world. Robert Hooke, co-founder with Newton of the Royal Society, would be turning over in his grave and raging from six feet down, if he knew people who call themselves scientists didn’t even test their premises.

  262. J Bowers says:

    adolfogiurfa — “World-wide political conspiration:
    “….And demonstrations or events are planned in 30 countries around the world on December 3rd (see http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org) This includes a minimum of 15,000 people in Montreal, a protest in Iquitos in the Amazon Rainforest,..”
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=262

    Your first link says the demo’s on “December 3rd 2011”. Your second link’s to a 2005 email talking about a demo on December 3rd 2005. Why weren’t these scientists winning the National Lottery every week?

  263. diogenes says:

    cokme on J Bowers….it’s time for you to fall down a flight of stairs while holding a teapotand shouting….”Mr Grimsdale!

  264. […] to lead the way in sharing the news, here follows a selection of interesting snippets (sourced from here) released as part of Climategate […]

  265. adolfogiurfa says:

    My overall impression of that the paper is that it shouldn’t be published….
    Search Results:4 Results found for “nicola scafetta”
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?search=nicola+scafetta&id=4

  266. tallbloke says:

    From: REDACTED [REDACTEDREDACTED] On Behalf Of SU
    Comms (STU) sucomm

    This is likely the Student Union comms team sending the blurb about
    http://www.globalclimatecampaign.org/index.php?lang=en

    Nothing very damning about it concerning CRU IMO. It’s just a mailing list mail which has ended up lying around in someones inbox..

  267. tallbloke says:

    adolfogiurfa says:
    November 24, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    My overall impression of that the paper is that it shouldn’t be published….
    Search Results:4 Results found for “nicola scafetta”
    http://foia2011.org/index.php?search=nicola+scafetta&id=4

    I don’t find this surprising. There are some notable sceptics who don’t think Scafetta’s papers should be publised either. 😉

  268. J Bowers says:

    “This is the end result of ignorant politicians believing the shoddy science behing the failed conjecture of CAGW – cold is the real killer and without the use of cheap fossil fuels the death toll will rise. These, so called, climate scientists have these deaths on their conscience..”

    Seen the price of coal and gas lately? Shocking. Seriously. No wonder heating bills are so high.

    * Energy bills driven up by battle for gas
    * Coal price reaches new heights as demand from Asia soars
    * WSJ: Oil and Gas CEO Pay Beats Other Industries

  269. Tenuc says:

    Looks like the MSM are stirring – this has just been picked up by the Daily Express.

    “CLIMATEGATE: LEAKED EMAILS SHOW SCIENTISTS MANIPULATED DATA ON GLOBAL WARMING”

    Link to article here…
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/285743/Climategate-Leaked-emails-show-scientists-manipulated-data-on-global-warming

  270. […] blogs are working overtime on the story, so they deserve the linkage. Check out Watts, Junkscience, Tallbloke, Air Vent and Climate Audit, and don’t miss Tom Nelson’s constant updates as he trawls […]

  271. tallbloke says:

    Maybe J Bowers is unaware of the hidden tax levels on fuel in the UK. I’m sure he wouldn’t make so light of the stories of pensioners being driven to burn secondhand books to try to keep warm otherwise…

  272. Tenuc says:

    J Bowers says:
    November 24, 2011 at 3:22 pm
    “…Seen the price of coal and gas lately? Shocking. Seriously. No wonder heating bills are so high

    * Energy bills driven up by battle for gas
    * Coal price reaches new heights as demand from Asia soars
    * WSJ: Oil and Gas CEO Pay Beats Other Industries…

    Yes, price of fossil fuels is high and made worse in England due to our idiot Government(s) grasping for the straw of totally uneconomic renewable energy (solar and wind) and taxing consumers current energy bills to pay for it.

    As with some of the IPCC untrustworthy cabal of climate scientists, politicians will also have to answer for their actions come the day of reckoning. It is complete madness to base long-term policy on a completely unfalsifiable conjecture… :-((

  273. A. C. Osborn says:

    It is interesting visiting each of the Forums with this topic, each one has a “J Bowers” type Troll on it.
    It is almost as if they are autoproduced by computer or evene the same person with the same stock answers.

  274. tallbloke says:

    I think Mr Bowers is doing as good a job as can be expected, given the evidence he’s trying to gloss over.

  275. diogenes says:

    tallbloke, J Bowers cannot even shout Mr Grimsdale while he is falling over

  276. diogenes says:

    maybe J Bowers is not Norman Wisdom after all…I really did think he could shout “Mr Grimsdale” while falling down a flight of stairs, but alas it is beyond his powers

  277. Otter says:

    Could we get him to fall down a flight of stairs, and see if he says Anything?

  278. J Bowers says:

    Stop the presses!

    Leaked climate emails force carbon dioxide to resign

    …According to one of the emails, sent by Julian Cook, a researcher at the University of East Anglia, carbon dioxide had got drunk and admitted it had made the whole thing up.

    Cook adds: “He says he’s not even a gas, never mind a greenhouse gas. He says his name’s Brian and he used to work for Kwik Fit in Norwich.

    “He says his application to UEA was turned down ‘because he doesn’t talk all posh’ and he’s done all of this just to embarrass us…..

  279. tallbloke says:

    Heh, the mash is a fun site. Tim C spotted this on the daily bayonet:
    http://dailybayonet.com/?p=9354

  280. Pete Ridley says:

    Tucci, on 23rd Nov. at 1:27 pm. you said that “ .. COP17 has been sleeping with the fishes at bathyscaphic depths since the Eurozone’s “sovereign debt” crisis began many months ago .. ”. I’m going to speculate that you are a relative youngster. Life has taught me to be most suspicious when an opponent is being very very quiet. I have no doubt that the unseen/unclean employed by the UN/ENEP/WHO clique will be working very hard burying some nasty surprises in the “agreements” to come out of COP17.

    J Bowers sounds as though he could well be one of them. He said in June (http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/questions-the-ipcc-must-now-urgently-answer/ 17 June 2011 at 10:43 am NOT TO BE SENT) “ .. It’s important to distinguish IPCC Working Group 1 (the physical science) from the other two working groups .. With regards to the physical science (AR4 WG1) there have been no mistakes found. Whatever one may believe about adaptation and mitigation, the science itself still stands. ..” but omitted to mention the most misleading document that the politically motivated IPCC produces, their scare-mongering SPMs, which ignore the enormous uncertainties acknowledged in the WG1 reports and get quoted by the MMS. (Barry Wood made a similar response to J Bowers).

    J Bowers proclaims that the IPCC is “ .. an apolitical panel of scientific experts. The only way the panel and the experts are political is in the way they are used as political footballs by politicians and economically vested organisations .. ” (http://skepticalscience.com/The-Phony-War-Lies-Damn-Lies-and-the-IPCC.html 25th September 2010 at 20:07 PM NOT TO BE SENT)

    I am of the same opinion of the IPCC as miekol (25th September, 2010 at 11:30 AM NOT TO BE SENT) “ .. its a political committee, enough said .. ”.

    No matter what evidence is presented to the likes of J Bowers he/she will support the “cause” to the bitter end, just like Dr. Mann, with his numerous reference to the “cause” in Climategate Release 2.0 “ .. I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause .. ”.

    Talking of Professor Curry, there’s some interesting reading on her “Letter to the dragon slayers” thread (http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/#comments). J Bowers will like it because there is an attack on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) sceptics John O’Sullivan and his band of “Slayers”.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  281. Pete Ridley says:

    While checking up on who “Tallbloke” is I found J Bowers at it again in Feb. that time ranting on about Professor Curry, as well as mentioning his fellow “cause” supporter Gavin, chief propagandist at Dr. Mann’s PR team at RealClimate. I wonder when J Bowers will come to his senses and acknowledge that the CACC cause is dead.

    BTW, Roger, why don’t you provide a link to http://www.education.leeds.ac.uk/people/staff.php?staff=141 in your “About” page. It would have saved me an hour’s searching.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  282. […] Tall Bloke har detaljer och exempel på korrespondensen mellan de olika forskarna. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa; alla favoritkaraktärer finns på plats i denna nya såpa. Än en gång tas de på bar gärning, när de avsiktligt överdriver omfattningen och betydelsen av människans påverkan på klimatet, medan de samtidigt i privat korrespondens medger inför varandra att bevisen inte på långa vägar är så övertygande som de skulle önska. […]

  283. Pete Ridley says:

    Hi J Bowers (ref. 24th Nov. at 3:22 pm)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15658278 – Biased BBC defending its misplaced Pension Pot investments?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/01/coal-price-reaches-new-heights – “cause” fanatic Guardians continuing to support the building of wind farms and solar panels which have no hope of competing with fossil fuel generated electricity (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/17/wind-cheaper-nuclear-eu-climate),
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703864204576313381721585032.html – effect not cause, a bit like increasing atmospheric CO2.

    How come you didn’t mention one of the main causes of those energy price increases (next after the normal free-market cause of pricing at “what the market will tolerate”or aren’t you aware of things like

    DIRECTIVE 2009/28/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009
    on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:en:PDF)?

    Tenuc and Roger make similar points but of course that will make no impression on supporters of Dr. Mann’s CACC “cause”.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

  284. tchannon says:

    “tallbloke says:
    November 24, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    Maybe J Bowers is unaware of the hidden tax levels on fuel in the UK. I’m sure he wouldn’t make so light of the stories of pensioners being driven to burn secondhand books to try to keep warm otherwise…”

    Rog, the problem is *not* the taxation as such, it is the gross and callous failure to redistribute by giving those pensioners the money to cover the tax. Yes there is a lot to discuss about meddling and manipulation, tax purposes etc. etc. but the point stands.

    It is this horrendous behaviour by those holding a public duty of trust which is behind so much, moreover is endemic in many layers of society.

  285. Pete Ridley says:

    Hi J Bowers, I’m just preparing a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office about a DPA Subject Access Request that I submitted to the University of Cambridge and their Naked Scientists project and came across a name very similar to yours. I just wonder if it might be more than just a coincidence that Jonathan Bowers, Public Relations at UKFast (which provides server facilities to the UoC’s TNS project) has a lot to say about climate change too. As I recall UKFast claims to be the greenest IT company in the UK.

    BTW That DPA arose from my treatment on the project’s Naked Science forum (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=39934.0) following what in my opinion was very biased moderation by a staunch supporter of the CACC cause, a Swede who hides behind the false name yor_on. The Naked Scientists don’t seem to appreciate hearing the sceptic side of the debate.

    My FOI request which preceded the DPA SAR revealed interesting information about funding for the Naked Scientists project.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley