Climategate 2

I'm away from my desk, so this is just a placeholder until I can get home, get hold of the files, and make some comment.

Comments

[Jason]

"And: how do these emails show that the core science is flawed?"

If you take just a moment from your passage around the goldfish bowl to read the extracts such as these:

"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."

"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."

"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."

then just maybe, if your brain can cope, you might see that behind the "science is settled" lays uncertainty about predictions, political pressure to give the right message and evidence the MWP was actually quite significant.

And thats just THREE quotes from the emails. But then you are not here to defend truth, just the concensus.

[Justice4Rinka]

@ BBD

Your faith is touching and I guess you too can now see that faith is all it is.

You'd have my sympathy had you not chosen this for yourself.

[geoffchambers]

I had a quick look at the comments here to Climategate1. Nothing’s changed. Precisely the same things are being said now, two years on. Yes, the emails really are awful. Are they clowns, con-men, criminals, or little boys seeing who can get his thermometer reading highest up the wall?
I’m with geronimo. This will change nothing. And that’s the real story.

[Stephen Richards]

Err, profits from fossil fuels outweigh profits from renewables by over 100 to 1. Were you really not aware of that simple point?

Nov 22, 2011 at 8:06 PM | ZedsDeadBed

That's because renewable energy is not capable of making a profit and has to be subsidised by the poor, the old, the workers and every energy user. It's why you twats want the Africans to starve rather than develop cheap energy. Go to china and critisise them for emitting CO² by the tonne.

You comment is stupid beyond belief much like UEA and NOAA et al.

[Justice4Rinka]

@ Jason

Zed, Hengist and BBD will be along soon to retort crushingly in the usual way.

"La la la, got my fingers in my ears, can't hear you, so there."

Or something.

[BBD]

Josualdo

And all the rest. And who's paying for all this, and shivering and dying during the winter?

A word of advice. Go to the Discussion threads on this blog, and read what I have to say about renewables.

Any more nonsense like that, and I will bite your little head off.

[BBD]

J4R

I hear you. And as I said earlier, I will be around to watch you eat your words. Which you will, eventually, because you cannot change the laws of physics to suit your beliefs.

This has nothing to do with morality.

[Stephen Richards]

I’m with geronimo. This will change nothing. And that’s the real story

Geoff

I'm also pessimistic but I still believe that these will have an effect or influence. Things have changed since the last release and I believe there is much much more dangerous detail to come. This strikes me, and many others, as a deliberate drip, dripdrip, dripdripdrip, gush tactic. Whoever is doing this appears to be strategically and tactically aware and that is a rare quality these days.

Those involved will now know exactly what is in those emails to come and will be trying very hard to remember them as exactly as they can. They will then have to make a judgement as to whether they can avoid disaster.

[Jiminy Cricket]

@BBD

Maybe you are right. Maybe these emails do not alter the science, mainly because there isn't much science in them after you take away all the politics... ;-)

I think you may need to change pubs if the only drinking mate you can find in this one is ZDB...

[Justice4Rinka]

FOIA 2011 seems to have played a blinder, to coin a phrase.

The Cult have spent the last two years denying everything, insisting that tricks aren't tricks; that hiding the decline was fine; and that nothing in there undermines what BBD, astoundingly, still solemnly calls "the science".

So two years on another 5,000 emails are released that are even more damaging than before. Conspiracy to evade the FoIA, threats against McIntyre while also agreeing with McIntyre, wondering if maybe it's just the natural cycle while telling everyone else it's not, and so on.

Having learned nothing from 2009, foam-flecked nutters like Zed are now attempting to repeat 2009's awesomely successful strategy of insisting nothing's wrong and nothing has changed.

Last time, this arrogance resulted in a second leak. These whackjobs had better discover some humility and conscience soon, otherwise the leaker is going to release some even more damaging stuff.

No wonder Jones was worried. There were we thinking he was worried about his career and all the time what he was really worried about was prison.

[Manfred]

I can’t see how Jones may be held even at an institution like UEA.

While climategate 1 showed prima facie evidence of violation of FIOA laws (according to Norfolk police), climategate 2 looks like a confession.

And FIOA officer Palmer appears to be in BIG trouble as well.

[Jason]

"you cannot change the laws of physics to suit your beliefs."

You are quite right. But then the debate was never about the laws of physics, but it is about sensitivity and what drives our climate, and these emails reinforce the stark fact that actually, we still are not sure even of the role our sun plays. The "CO2 is a greenhouse gas so there" argument is a total strawman.

But again, you don't care about that. Your motivations are purely ideological.

[Pharos]

BBD
They matter a great deal. They confirm that the originating pressure is political, that they are not comfortable, that much of the sceptical case is valid, and that they are obliged to resort to bluff and bluster.

[Hengist McStone]

To summarise; I've asked why is reading these private emails any of my business and the answer I've got is read them and you'll find out. You're asking me to have faith in the skeptic narrative and suspend my moral code. I wouldn't open a letter addressed to someone else , if it contained something incriminating it would be for the authorities to deal with, which numerous official enquiries have already done.

[Latimer Alder]

@geoffchambers

'This will change nothing. And that’s the real story.'

Just think back to the weeks before Copenhagen. Then compare the position of the warmistas and climatology then and now.

Then: imminently expecting a legally binding global treaty to be agreed to reduce emissions. The pinnacle of the warmist dream. A fawning MSM. Goodwill all round apart from a few darned sceptics. Presidents arriving by the jet load. Victory in sight.

Then three things happened..

1. Obama was publicly humiliated by the other big emitting countries.
2. It snowed
3. Climategate

Look now

1. No agreement expected until 2020 earliest
2. No serious politician going to Durban
3. Climatology and climate scientists reputation is falling by the day.

And Climategate 2 revelations will do nothing whatsoever to improve any of these. Climate policy is a toxic chalice ...maybe why Clegg decided to give it to his archenemy ( :-) ). British energy policy is in tatters, the EU is crumbling and nobody serious gives a toss.

Climategate 1 wasn't the only factor that brought about this precipitous decline in fortune, But it sure was an important one.

It was the event that ended forever the argument

'Trust Us, We're Climate Scientists'

Never, ever again.

[Justice4Rinka]

Hengist,[snip: unncessary] are you just doing your Squealer-out-of-Animal-Farm routine?

All these emails are disclosable under FOIA. They have evaded FOIA with the connivance of their FOI officer. They have been outwitted.Which wouldn't matter if the innocent had nothing to hide.

That's all.

[snip]

[Justice4Rinka]

@ BBD

What will be the price of oil in 2100?

What will the world's population be?

What will be the most significant technology innovations between now and 2100?

Without knowing those what can you say about CO2?

There is no science going on here. Voodoo science maybe.

[Latimer Alder]

@hengist

Sorry to hear that your moral code won't let you participate in the discussion any more as you will have no knowledge of the topic.

Do pop back in a few months when we start discussing something where you can make a knowledgeable contribution.

Bye. Please shut the door as you go.

[BBD]

Jason

You are quite right. But then the debate was never about the laws of physics, but it is about sensitivity and what drives our climate

The laws of physics determine climate sensitivity.

You sound... confused.

But again, you don't care about that. Your motivations are purely ideological.

My interest is in the science.

I only go political when we switch to discussions of energy.

[Jiminy Cricket]

@Latimer... well said.
(I confess, my secret is out... I did go to a Genesis concert in 1980.)

[Markj]

It is in the public interest to read them. The first tranche from 2 years ago resulted in several formal enquiries so I don't think the attitude that this is stolen private correspondence and is none of my business is a sensible or realistic one.

[Justice4Rinka]

Exceptional moral cowardice on display here tonight from the usual suspects, who'll discuss anything except what their squalid data-molesting priesthood actually secretly believes.

Says it all really. Moral incompetents and pygmies...

[BBD]

J4R

What will be the price of oil in 2100?

What will the world's population be?

What will be the most significant technology innovations between now and 2100?

Without knowing those what can you say about CO2?

There is no connection between 1 - 3 and 4.

RF from CO2 heats the climate system irrespective of the price of oil, global population and technology innovation.

If you are implying that there may be a breakthrough in energy technology so amazing that it will sweep FFs off the table, well that would be lovely. But it's a rather big if.

[simpleseekeraftertruth]

geoffchambers

I am almost in agreement: it will change nothing - much. The decline has already set in, the imperatives for action are being rolled back and the money that fed the whole debacle is diverting to causes more pressing than 'saving the planet'. AR5 was a wimper, Durban is toothless, BBC has payola to answer to, Huhne is on a sticky wicket, FITs are being slashed (and now in Spain as a priority of the new government), nuclear decommissioning is being delayed by the sensible in the EU and we have the obvious temptation of the benefits of shale. Criminal charges may never ensue but tombstones will have to be discreet.

[Justice4Rinka]

Let me get this straight, BBD.

You think there is no connection between oil price, oil demand and emissions?

[geoffchambers]

Stephen Richards agreed with me when I said: “This will change nothing. And that’s the real story” then he added:
“Things have changed since the last release and I believe there is much much more dangerous detail to come.. Whoever is doing this appears to be strategically and tactically aware and that is a rare quality these days”.
and Justice4Rinka says:
“These whackjobs had better discover some humility and conscience soon, otherwise the leaker is going to release some even more damaging stuff”.

Here we are, relying on the cunning of some unknown anonymous hacker/leaker to overturn a world-wide scientific and political consensus which supports and is supported by a trillion dollar industry. Logic says we’re right. History and everything we know about human nature - plus the events of the past two years - all say we’re being hopelessly naive.

[Atomic Hairdryer]

The vapid rebuttal squad has swung into action

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/chris-huhne-lawson-think-tank?CMP=twt_fd

But Huhne replies: "Let me say straight away that [I] believe that you have been misinformed and that your conclusions are poorly supported by the underlying science evidence." He goes on to say: "It would be perverse to ignore this well attested and thoroughly reviewed body of evidence."

Sorry Chris, we're reviewing some fresh evidence (as hopefully is the CPS). You will no doubt continue to ignore it.

[BBD]

J4R

9 billion, give or take - and it's COAL, not oil, that is and will be the problem. You are muddling.

[meltemian]

This has nothing to do with morality. BBD 8:23

Surely this has everything to do with morality?

[Latimer Alder]

If anybody can still remember back to this morning, you might be interested to know that there is no mention of CG2 on Jo Abesses blog.

Keeps her finger on the pulse, that gel.

[Natsman]

[snip}

[Jiminy Cricket]

Climate Science reminds me of Liverpool - AC Milan in Istanbul...

3-nil down, not a hope, the Milan players getting cocky in the half time dressing room. YNWA singing from the stands. Then suddenly...

3-1 Climategate I
3-2 Climategate II
3-3 ?

And your psuedo moral codes? Good luck with them... we were down and out and now you are frightened.

[Latimer Alder]

@atomic

:-)

Only a man with an ego as monstrous as Huhne could think he could get away with a statement about reviewed evidence while in the precarious position he is occupying

[Salopian]

'It's staggering isn't it. The posters on this website seem utterly unconcerned with the illegal nature of these emails.' Zeds - have the Norfolk Police actually confirmed that these emails were illegally obtained? And even supposing that they were 'illegally obtained' does that mean that AGW is true because the fact that it isn't was because the evidence was 'illegally' obtained.

[Mac]

There is something rotten at the heart of climate science. It stinks, it smells, it is a cesspit.

[Jiminy Cricket]

@mac, like they always put "sceptics" in quotes, you forgot to put the "science" in quotes ;-)

[hro001]

As I had mentioned the other day, I thought that perhaps Norfolk's finest were keeping the case open (with "no comment") in light of a "poor Phil" quote circa the 1st anniversary. My mouse has now retraced its steps - and here's the quote in context (which just happens to follow right on the heels of David Adam's unsubstantiated claim):

Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed.And other climate-research organizations are believed to have told police that their systems survived hack attempts at the same time.

Jones and others connected to the CRU fear the hackers may be sitting on more stolen e-mails, but Jones feels confident the worst is behind him. “It really is not somewhere I would like to go through again. But having been through it once, I think I am a bit hardened to it. [emphasis added -hro]

Source: Climate: The hottest year

Also ...

Nov 22, 2011 at 3:35 PM | TheBigYinJames noted:

As for Richard Black has updated his original story, this time making big noise about "A hacker entered a backup server at the university and downloaded a file containing administrative passwords" -

Hmmm ... to my ear this is somewhat reminiscent of one of the episodes in Gavin's everchanging story.

Speaking of which, isn't it curious that MSM coverage of Climategate 2 includes no mention of any of the many variants of the (decidedly lacking in credibility, IMHO) alleged initial "upload" to RC?!

[BBD]

Zed

You will just get all your comments (and probably mine, J4R's etc etc) deleted. Please stop it now.

[Cumbrian Lad]

The first tranche (to use todays 'in' word) of Climategate emails released two years ago took nearly a week to register in the outside world, despite the enormity of the information released. Today, even with a lot of competitive news about it's headlines all over the world in a matter of hours. We have Bob Ward and the team scurrying around with fire extinguishers and instant interviews by mainstream press journalists. Things have changed.

We have the UK energy policy more or less in disarray, funding for FITS drying up fast, and the population of the UK getting ready to shiver with fuel bills through the roof and petrol prices fit to beggar us all.

Wind farms are now more or less shouted down, and it won't be long before solar panel installers are lumped in with bankers as the public enemy number one.

Where climategate 1 showed how rickety the scientific edifice was, this release paints the background, the incestuousness of the system, the determination to run the thing as a club, the ethical desert that is The Team.

A couple of years ago we were like gnats snapping at statues. Today, we see the statue crumbling and reality dawning on those who have gone along for the ride.

I'm really looking forward to the new year.

[Hengist McStone]

Don't worry Latimer I can still make a contribution but from the high moral ground. Now why does Justice4Rinka reckon all these emails are discloseable under FOI? If the emails were subject to FOI they already would have been released. I suggest section 40 would almost certainly exempt many of them.

[Stacey]

I thought I'd try again to post again at UnReal Climate but their site would not accept the post, maintenance problems?

Here's my attempt:-
Climategate 1 was the middle game this is the end game and you have no credible pieces on the board.

Interestingly you only have 17 posts is that because you are frightened to allow posts of emails that show the discreditable behaviour of the Fiddlestick Team.

Three cheers for "The Cause"

[timg56]

Both in the Nature editorial and again here, I see people make the claim that making public emails produced during the course of one's job, on their employer's email account is

a) illegal

and

b) immoral

Care to explain how this is so? Over at Nature they tried to use the "chilling effect". That doesn't really fly. At least not without some evidence. Another turn of phrase being used is breach of privacy, calling the emails "private". That is clearly not true from a legal standpoint. I'd like someone to provide one example from private industry where the emails one creates on the company account are not subject to review by the employer or, under a court order, to the public. Does being employed by a public institution somehow mean the rules are different? If so, it would be in the direction of even greater openness, as these employees are paid by the public.

For these particular emails one could make the case for illegality on the basis of how they were obtained - if one actually knows how they were. If I am understanding correctly what I've read here, the police investigation is still open from the original release - which tells me there has been no determination as to whether the emails were "hacked" or "leaked". And until a determination is made, playing the "illegal" card is premature.

As for the morality - I'm staying silent until such time as God tells me he's taking a break and wants me to fill in for him on the judging of souls. It's a difficult enough task keeping track of our own moral compass, let alone start commenting on those belonging to someone else.

[Jiminy Cricket]

@Hengist, look at it as living history. You and I didn't take the emails or publish them.

History in the making before are very eyes.

Now you can either read now or read a history book in 10 years. Makes little difference. They ain't going away. Deal with it.

[geoffchambers]

Latimer Alder at 8:31 PM
Well argued. I hope you’re right and I’m wrong.
There are other differences. Two years ago Monbiot momentarily reverted to his role of investigative journalist and demanded Jones’s resignation. The Guardian invited Keenan and McIntyre to a debate. They won’t be making those mistakes again.

Two years on, the BBC has a report recommending only scientists should be allowed to discuss climate science. They’ve taken Cox and Nurse on board. We’ve gained Nick Griffin and Prince Philip.

There’s an idea around that harsh economic reality will cause politicians to drop the expensive fantasy of climate change mitigation. One might also argue that the worse the economic situation, the greater the temptation to engage in pointless displacement activity. When NASA was prevented from exploring space, they started pretending that they could foretell the future. Why should they stop now?

No doubt one day a heat wave will come along, and we’ll be declared non persons. In two years’ time, ZedDeadsBed will still be singing “Tomorrow belongs to me” and we’ll be sitting round here for waiting for FOIA’s next delivery like a load of cargo culters.
See you then. Cheers.

[September 2011]

Some trend-analysts or possible future "spin" here?

Just precautionary (I commented already on the 'wrong' thread):

Twitter claimed today (circa two hours ago) a 'Phil Jones' would be 'trending'. I clicked then "Phil Jones" and saw that the Tweets are linked to another prominent Phil Jones. I followed Twitter the whole day and can say I saw no Tweets concerning CRU's Jones.

Perhaps it would be good if someone else makes some 'photos' of the trendy Twitter-Jones (see above) to show that those Tweets from today aren't about CRU's Jones at all.

[simon abingdon]

@Latimer "Jo Abesses blog" It's worse than we thought. More than one of them.

[matthu]

'We're choosing periods to show warming'
'Science is being manipulated - it might not be too clever in the long run'
'Climate change is a "better label" than global warming'
'Many thanks for your paper - and congratulations for reviving global warming'

Daily Mail has finally latched into the story

They also add this:

The University of East Anglia has not confirmed whether the material is genuine. None of the material appears to be new, either: it seems to date from the first release in 2009.

It also occurs against a rather different scientific background, after the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature review of climate-science data by prominent climate sceptic Richard Muller, which analysed 1.6 billion temperature records, and concluded that global warming was a genuine effect.

[Jonas N]

BBD

"how do these emails show that the core science is flawed?"

What you call 'the core science' was once a tentative scientific hypothesis, partly reasonable I surmise.
It has since become a rudimentary scientific hypotheses and a weaker one.
Thereafter it became a hypothesis with several large and gaping holes in it, and gotten weaker still.
Subsequently, the core hypothesis (now quite tentative, speculative, and relying on several equally speculative ad hoc support hyotheses) has been partly falsified, as have some of the much needed supporting hypotheses.
Since more than a decade, essentially no new observations and no empirical data, past or present, increased the case for the original hypothesis or its evolved derivatives. On the contrary:
Since ~about the TAR 2001, essentially everything new that has been learnt about the climate has further weakened the original scientific hypotheses.

So when you ask what those emails say about 'the core science', the question is ill-posed.

Rather they reveal how very poor the support for the original hypothesis is and was, and both how the 'principal players' were well aware of this and how they conspired to keep up the pretence. And to some extent even their motives for that ...

[Hengist McStone]

@timg56
The original hacking was without doubt a crime, it is being investigated by Norfolk Police. AFAIK reposting them elsewhere and reading them isnt a crime but it's immoral firstly because of something called privacy. These are communications that were intended to be read only by the named recipient(s) , they've fallen into our hands by foul means and how we deal with them says a great deal about whether our judgment on them can be trusted.

@Jiminy Cricket Thanks for the advice. I'm reading them but second hand through this blog. So far I've learnt that it occurred to Dr Mann to hire a gumshoe . Is that illegal or immoral then?

[dave ward]

"Spare a thought for the Norfolk Police - they seem to be no nearer to solving whether they are dealing with a leak or a hack."

Now it transpires they can't be trusted either:
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/politics/staff_sacked_after_security_breaches_at_police_and_councils_in_norfolk_1_1133024

No sign of this story in either the Norwich Evening News or the Eastern Daily Press online editions yet...

Meanwhile a network of local climate change campaigners will meet with Norwich South MP Simon Wright on Saturday:
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/norwich_mp_to_meet_with_climate_change_group_ahead_of_un_talks_1_1133957

Apparently "Norfolk is home to many experts on climate issues" I wonder who they might be?