Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« More CRU revelations to come | Main | Phil Jones confirms that CRU has been hacked »

Climate cuttings 33

Welcome Instapundit readers! Hope this is useful for you. If you are interested in more on global warming material, check out Caspar and the Jesus Paper and The Yamal Implosion, or check out the forthcoming book.

General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.

In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

  • Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
  • Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
  • Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
  • Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".(1075403821)
  • Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
  • Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series" hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
  • Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
  • Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
  • Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
  • Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
  • Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
  • Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
  • Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
  • Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
  • Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
  • Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
  • Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
  • Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
  • Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806)
  • Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
  • Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
  • Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
  • Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
  • Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
  • Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
  • Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
  • Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
  • Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
  • Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
  • Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
  • Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
  • Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
  • Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
  • Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
  • Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
  • Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
  • Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
  • Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
  • Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
  • Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
  • Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
  • Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
  • Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
  • David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
  • Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
  • Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
  • Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

References (10)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    If you want to see how different the world now is from how it was before the internet, look no further than this story (now bouncing energetically around the world): It is claimed that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has been hacked and there is a ...
  • Response
    Response: Wow. Just Wow.
    Is global warming truly a fake? New evidence suggests it might be...
  • Response
    A. W. Montford posts a great list of 33 of the more outrageous emails from the Climatic Research Institute over at Bishop Hill Blog. Here are the first ten: Climate cuttings 33Welcome Instapundit readers! Hope this is useful for you....
  • Response
    The "hacked" (or maybe released by some insider) e-mails and files of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia make intoxicating reading. As a minor member of the crowd which has been saying for years that fishy stuff is going on, the schadenfreude is just yummy. A ...
  • Response
    Bishop Hill summarises the many of the discoveries succinctly - I've pulled off a few relevant to my theme (click to read), but do read the original:
  • Response
    From the Bishop Hill summary - "Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!" Plus: " a crude fax from Jack Eddy became the...
  • Response
  • Response
    For those of you who don’t know of the blog Bishop Hill, let me say that he is a succinct and careful writer who has earned praise from many (including myself and Steve McIntyre) in taking a difficult niche subject such as the Hockey Stick and paleo
  • Response
    John Gormley Live and SDA - doing the job the CBC won't do! Welcome JGL listeners: some links to bring you up to speed. Because if you've been relying on your trusty network newsguys to deliver the goods, you're being...
  • Response
    Response: The Bottle Genie
    Well, it finally happened. Much of Canadian media broke radio silence on Climategate today. There really wasn't much choice but to report it, now that Environment Minister Jim Prentice had officially described the allegations as "serious", coupled with the day-old...

Reader Comments (179)

Thanks, a very helpful list.

Nov 20, 2009 at 8:27 PM | Unregistered Commentercogito

At one point Michael Mann writes : "PS be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what e-mails you you copy him in on. He's not as predictable as we would like."

It seems like it's just a few core people who are doing most of this. makes a lie out of thousands of scientists agree doesn't it.

Nov 20, 2009 at 8:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterChrisM

Which Andy is that - Revkin?

Nov 20, 2009 at 8:42 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Sorry, don't have the number, but Wigley criticizes an activist group sending out a letter to scientists, asking them to sign that it is imperative we act now.

Wigley points out how that is not supported by the science, as it is poorer countries and poorer people in rich countries that bear the brunt of mitigation policy, and that the difference between a go slow sooner and go fast approach are minimal.

Nov 20, 2009 at 9:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeN

The used car salesmen must be pleased that a lower form of life has been identified.

Nov 20, 2009 at 9:40 PM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

From 1210367056.txt:

You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.

Nov 20, 2009 at 10:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterrich



Nov 20, 2009 at 10:17 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Not sure which Andy, it's in 1256735067

Nov 20, 2009 at 10:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterChrisM

Bishop, thanks a lot for your overview in these caotic moments. Seems there is a major earthquake in the blogosphere, and it's leaking into the main street media. These latter seems to be deaf and blind when it comes to "climate change" - but what true "bloodhound" journalist can resist a true scandal?

The hockeystick affair, the Yamal implosion, the CRUgate - how much will it actually take? I mean, to make people see that the "climate crisis" is not settled at all.
One can only wonder, but sure these are interesting days.

Nov 20, 2009 at 10:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterFeedback

I would say that Trenbarth comes out of this looking like the lone scientist and critical thinker among propagandists. He gives good argument in private but tows the party line, or at least keeps his mouth shut, in public.

I have a high opinion of him as a result of these emails.

These emails are very damaging to Jones and Mann, others are not nearly as damaged. I suggest that they were likely specifically targeted by FOIA2009.

Nov 20, 2009 at 11:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterEric

While not a direct mention Bishop Hill does get referenced in 1254751382.txt

Note how the likes of Gavin Schmidt are burying themselves with their own responses:

“There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax,” he told Threat Level. “There’s no funding by nefarious groups. There’s no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There’s nothing hidden, no manipulation."

It is implausible for Schmidt to have read through the 61MB of, mainly text data, in a day. While he starts with silly strawmen (hoax, nefarious groups) he then goes on to talk about there being "no politics" and "no manipulation", oh dear.

Thanks for all the good work Bishop Hill.


Nov 20, 2009 at 11:29 PM | Unregistered Commentermoonbat nibbler

"Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709)"

I have graphed the astounding difference this truncation makes:

But the biggest scandal of all is not even a part of this uproar, one I have graphed as well:

Nov 21, 2009 at 12:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterNikFromNYC

"Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709)"

You should try plotting up these data without truncating at 1960. Whoops!


Nov 21, 2009 at 12:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterGerard Harbison

Reminder: Fortress CRU 2008

David Holland has also made FOI inquiries to Keith Briffa, a lead author of AR4 chapter 6. Here's a progress report documenting: May 5 - FOI request
May 6 - CRU Acknowledgement
June 3 - CRU Refusal Notice
June 4 - Holland Appeal
June 20 - CRU Rejection of Appeal

May 5 Holland FOI Request to CRU

Dear Mr Palmer,
Request for Information concerning the IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment Process

Drs Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn of your Climatic Research Unit served as lead authors on the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which by international agreement was required to be undertaken on an comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis.1 On 31 March 2008, I asked Dr Briffa for important specific information, not so far released, on his work as a lead author to which I have had no reply or acknowledgement, but have, through other FoI enquiries, been given a copy of his email dated 1 April 2008, to several other IPCC participants including Dr Philip Jones, and to which my letter was attached. He told his colleagues his response to me would be brief when he got round to it. Also included in the documents released to me is an email dated 14 March 2008 to Dr Briffa, among others, from Susan Solomon, Co-Chair of WGI, advising the addressees not to disclose information beyond that (which I consider inadequate) already in the public domain.

Accordingly, I hereby request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004:

Phil Jones, three weeks after David Holland's FOI request:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008


Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

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

Nov 21, 2009 at 12:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterJobius

from 1255553034

>>> The Figure you sent is very deceptive. As an example, historical
>>> runs with PCM look as though they match observations — but the
>>> match is a fluke. PCM has no indirect aerosol forcing and a low
>>> climate sensitivity — compensating errors. In my (perhaps too
>>> harsh)
>>> view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
>>> results by individual authors and by IPCC.

Nov 21, 2009 at 12:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterRyan


The best synopsis I have read to yet. Thank you.

Is there anyway you could update this page, so I can book mark and come back, with further revalations?

The comments with further quotes could be moved perhaps.

Apparently these emails are true. Just like the 'Oil for Food' scandel, so should the IPCC be sent to the considerable trash heap piled up by the UN.

Nov 21, 2009 at 12:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterEJ

Great summation of what has been learned so far. Thanks.

Loved dearieme's characterization regarding new life forms.

Meanwhile the cadaver of AGW begins to twist slowly in the wind.

Nov 21, 2009 at 1:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterF. Ross

November 20, 2009 | dearieme


Nov 21, 2009 at 1:54 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter S

1210367056 & 1210341221 intrigue, e.g.:

Jones to Mann, Ammann and Bradley:

You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this."

Nov 21, 2009 at 3:15 AM | Unregistered Commentermoonbat nibbler

Bishop: Great summary. The quick summary makes it like one of those old fashioned stack of cards that if you fan them it makes a movie - a horror pick that is tragically funny.
The key issues for Jones et al IMHO are the FOIA obstruction and the corruption of the peer review process.

Nov 21, 2009 at 4:02 AM | Unregistered CommenterBernie

This one is going to run and run. Keep up the good work.

Nov 21, 2009 at 5:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterMr Eugenides

To Bishop Hill: Your Grace, perhaps you could chase up the email where one of the CRU crew says he will only give McIntyre data in a raw and unorganised form. We can use this to test the documents for authenticity. For McIntyre in Climate Audit some time ago complained vigorously over precisely this practice. Unfortunately I cannot get in to Climate Audit to locate McIntyre's complaint - the blog is jammed with callers. Maybe me being in Australia is a factor too. But if you can find the McIntyre complaint in CA about bad data presentation by the hockey stick team, and compare it with the CRU email on the same topic, and the names and dates match up, it would support the authenticity of the documents rather well, methinks.

Nov 21, 2009 at 5:58 AM | Unregistered Commenterdavid elder, australia

Moonbat nibbler it is 165mb and I agree reading through it in a day is not possible. There is much in it that smells of corruption. It may not prove AGW is a hoax but has Schimdt charged that all of it is a fabrication? If not he has validated it! This at the very least means their research is unreliable.

Nov 21, 2009 at 6:22 AM | Unregistered Commenterdhmo


Mick Kelly writes asking how to explain recent lack of warming in a public talk. Phil Jones says blame it on La Nina. Kelly says he may also just chop the last few years off the graphic he's preparing.

Nov 21, 2009 at 6:40 AM | Unregistered Commenteravid reader

In case some of our American cousins are unfamiliar with the British penchant for understatement, I should explain that "Mann .....should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces" means something like "Mann may look like a testicle but really he's a prick".

Nov 21, 2009 at 9:17 AM | Unregistered Commenterdearieme

Someone needs to pester the right authorities to have the hard drives and servers seized and reconstruct as many deleted e mails as possible. It should be considered as a high level investigation at this point.

Nov 21, 2009 at 11:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterK

I've decided to save the casually curious from the need to download 61MB of stuff, unzip etc. by sticking the emails (with addresses futzed and some phone numbers ditto) on my webserver along with a fairly basic search engine.

Now anyone can search for "M&M" or "FOI" and see everything that shows up - no need to rely on journalists or bloggers potentially selectively quoting emails. Also if you see a quote on a page with a somewhat cryptic reference such as "1103647149" or "1103647149.txt" you can paste the numbers in to the "Open" box and get the file displayed for you.

The tool is here

Nov 21, 2009 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterFrancisT

Great! World Leader's Tax Hoax BUSTED!!!

Shame we can't get whizz hackers to hack the EU Commission and expose them, as frauds too!

Nov 21, 2009 at 2:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterIsherwood

Someone needs to make a documentary about the emails and surrounding events.

Nov 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterxbbd2

thanks for this - I have cross posted you :

Nov 21, 2009 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterpeter_dtm

"Andy" is Andrew Revkin of Dotearth.

Nov 21, 2009 at 3:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterDishman


I thought it must be but wasn't sure.

Nov 21, 2009 at 4:08 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

[November 21, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterJobius]

Jobius, the last sentence of the FOI request that you posted says,

"Accordingly, I hereby request the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and/or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004:"

Can you post the remained? What exactly did Holland request?

Nov 21, 2009 at 4:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterPR Guy


I'm not thinking straight. It makes far more sense to have
password-protection rather than IP-address protection. So, to access
those pages

Username: steve
Password: tosser

That is priceless!

By the way, anyone know why most of the headers have been stripped? The txt files (why txt, why not eml?) just have the barest rfc850 headers. There is no Message-Id (which will be added by the mail server) nor References, nor In-Reply-To. I am particularly interested in the Received headers to see the route used. But someone has been very diligent in removing them. I wonder why?

Nov 21, 2009 at 5:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterRichard Blogger

The compliant media are giving cover by spinning the notion the data can’t be relied on because fraudulent data may have been added to the files.
The concern these people should have is, who gave sworn testimony and the data shows they lied. I am sure Al Gore would not enjoy the thought of being buggered by a cellmate named Bubba.

Nov 21, 2009 at 5:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterewestender

If (hopefully) these are authentic, they will cause extreme global warming for those involved.

Nov 21, 2009 at 6:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterClaude Hopper

I'm a geoscientist but haven't been very active lately. This Mann fellow. Would that be Michael Piltdown Mann?

Nov 21, 2009 at 6:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Donley

And these paranoids are supposed to be "scientists"?

Gives the profession a bad name.

Nov 21, 2009 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered Commentermanacker

Funny how easy it is to grow a conspiracy when one acts politically rather than scientifically. One distortion begets another begets another. Steve McIntyre deserves credit for exposing this conspiracy. His desire to apply the the basic scientific test of replicating results has brought much needed sunlight to this infected industry. The timing could not have been better. Copenhagen should be nice and muted.

McIntyre shows that one person, hard work, and intelligence can make a tremendous difference. He has probably prevented the implementation of regulations that would have cost us trillions of dollars and kept billions mired in poverty. He is Normal Bergland great, but he'll never get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Nov 21, 2009 at 6:53 PM | Unregistered Commenteraclay1

Has anyone begun to think about what recourse the organizations who funded all this research may have, given prima facie evidence of misuse of their funds in order to perpetrate a fraud?

I'm not being hyperbolic, the fraud would include justifying future grants with misleading or false information, so I reall do mean financial fraud, both misusing fiunds already granted, and lying on applications for future funds.

In the USA it's a felony to knowingly make a misstatement to a Federal official in the performance of his duties, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, and this includes applying for and reporting on the work status of grants.

I assume the UK has something similar, plus Hadley may have received US govt funds and is corresponding with recipients of US funds.

It's not enough to just hoot and holler, these people need to be punished and shut down.

Nov 21, 2009 at 6:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterMarty

Steve McIntyre is a gadfly who will twist any data or communications to maximize his political -- not scientific -- aims. It's no suprise that scientists were incredibly wary of providing him with any ammunition whatsoever for his political crusade.

If you're willing to take stolen, out-of-context personal e-mails presented by the media at face value, I can only hope that the internal communications of the causes you support are also hacked and released to the world at large.

If Steve McIntyre wants to prove something, why doesn't he release an unedited corpus of all his e-mails for the world to review?

Nov 21, 2009 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterCurtis Fields

Curtis Fields:

You might want to re-examine your stand.

After a certain point a snowball becomes an avalanche. All is destroyed in its path. You'd be wise to get out of the way while you still can.

Nov 21, 2009 at 7:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaniel Ferry

1048799107 is interesting.

It's entitled “Formation of Earth Government for the good of all.”

Nov 21, 2009 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterRyan

Is there anyone who believes the story that this release was the result of hacking? Obviously someone was worried about the criminal implications of destroying information requested by an FOI request.

Nov 21, 2009 at 7:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterjon


The threat of "an avalanche" is not an argument.

Nov 21, 2009 at 7:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterCurtis Fields

After a certain point, Curtis, rational irrationality croses over into insanity. The red herring you offer is not a counter-argument nor an excuse for the crimes commited by Mann, et al. Should the motives of the McIntyres of the world be examined? Yes. Should they be prosecuted for hacking someone else's computer systems? Yes.

However, the facts contained within the emails which have been revealed also reveal malfeance and criminal activities of several sorts and kinds. Such behavior should also be punished with the full authority of the law.

To mash metaphors and analogies, McIntyre committed misdemeanor petty theft.

Mann, et al, have committed felony grand larceny and conspiracy to commit grand larceny.

Simple justice requires that if the petty criminal is punished for revealing the greater crime of the master criminals, as you have advocated here, then the master criminals should also be punished more severely for their greater crime.

Nov 21, 2009 at 7:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterWarren Bonesteel


No, just and observation...

Nov 21, 2009 at 7:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaniel Ferry

"Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929) "

I read that one as Cook(as a peer reviewer) asking for Briffa's help to cut down an "ugly" statistical paper that was based on Briffa's own published work, going so far as to point out that Briffa's paper is the "whipping boy".

Cook needs to kill this paper, despite the math being correct, to fall in line with another peer reviewer, whose negative review he already knows about, and because this paper being correct would "harm" the cause.

Some of them are rather interesting, and for science discussion, there is a lot of talk of politics, policy and optics.

Nov 21, 2009 at 7:51 PM | Unregistered Commentermitchel44

This must be followed up with action - I suggest all contact mainstream media with a demand they investigate, verify and report on what is turning out to be the planet's greatest scandal for decades. Suppression of the climate skeptical view by MSM must end. They have been and continue to be complicit in this conspiracy.

Nov 21, 2009 at 8:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterFJF


I'm a simple contrarian.

If so much money (trillions) is being considered by self-serving governments in the form of cap and trade and international treaties, etc., I by nature must be skeptical.

Before that albatross is hung, there had better be crystal clear transparency as to the threat and what causes it. Humanity cannot afford to get this wrong. At this point, no one has offered any PROOF, and the power brokers who have presented the most compelling EVIDENCE to date have just lost credibility in the iPublic.

I sense a backlash of unprecedented proportion is swelling, because these very same power brokers brought the world to the brink of accepting the albatross, as if we had no choice, when in reality the science is not only unsettled, it is frankly unknowable with today's technology. As this scandal spreads,I think the average person will not be very happy about this deception.

Nov 21, 2009 at 8:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterDaniel Ferry

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>