Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« St Andrews Green Week | Main | Book Review: ‘Climate Change: Natural or Manmade?’ »

Climategate 3.0

This message from FOIA was forwarded to me.

It's time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.

Indeed, it's singular "I" this time.  After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural ;-)

If this email seems slightly disjointed it's probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven't decided yet on).

The "all.7z" password is [redacted]

DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD.  Quote other parts if you like.

Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality.  I didn't want to keep the emails lying around.

I prepared CG1 & 2 alone.  Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.

Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort.  Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.

To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out,  I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.

Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn't require special expertise.

I'm not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven't got better ideas at the moment.  If you feel this makes you seemingly "complicit" in a way you don't like, don't take action.

I don't expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises.  Yet it's possible that the most important pieces are among them.  Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.

That's right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil.  The Republicans didn't plot this.  USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK.  There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words...

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to  garner my trust in the state of climate science -- on the contrary.  I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren't the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never.  Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn't occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future.  The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen.  Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material "might".  The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script.  We're dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn's future life.  It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can't pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it's not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc.  deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit.  No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It's easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our "clean" technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc.  don't have that luxury.  The price of "climate protection" with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a "game-changer" could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I'd have to try.  I couldn't morally afford inaction.  Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations -- trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others.  My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).

Oh, one more thing.  I was surprised to learn from a "progressive" blog, corroborated by a renowned "scientist", that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.

I wasn't aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project.  For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.

More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause.  The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists' repertoire of tricks these days.

Keep on the good work.  I won't be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can't guarantee reading or answering.  I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.

Over and out.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (216)

Tom Nelson says the password works.

Mar 13, 2013 at 1:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterLes Johnson

I guess someone has checked that the password works and therefore authenticated this is defo from FOIA?

Mar 13, 2013 at 1:57 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

Ah right :)

Mar 13, 2013 at 1:58 PM | Registered CommenterThe Leopard In The Basement

For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't get the original email. It came to me second hand.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Well, Mr/Ms FOIA didn't clear up the most important speculative point.

Leak or hack?

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

WUWT seems to be suffering a lot of traffic today..

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterRhoda

The man who saved the world.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPJB

A brave and righteous person Mr FOIA.
Very exciting but only worthwhile if not a single extra windmill is erected - especially in Wales.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterG.Watkins

Wrote about it: Holy Buckets

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:15 PM | Registered Commentershub

"Big Oil" hardest hit! hee hee hee Michael Mann wrong? I can't believe it. <sarc>

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:16 PM | Unregistered Commenterdfbaskwill

The tone of the message fits well with the style of the first two releases. There's the same ironic sense of humour (remember "This is a limited time, very unofficial offer") and the same concern for the poor ("Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day." from the CG2 README file), so even without the confirmation about the password it's convincing.

Gecko, he says he is not from the UK so that suggests hack more likely than leak. Though I expect some people will be poring over lists of overseas visitors to CRU in 2009! It's also clear from the language and para 3 that he's not a native english speaker.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:19 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

> It came to me second hand.

With or without the password :)

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

The Other Cause.

A fitting description for why we do climate stuff.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:20 PM | Registered Commentershub

Incredible saga, this and all of it. I'm not going to try to get into detective work now about CG1 and CG2 emails, but if the password to the 220,000 was truly provided that seems to clinch that this message is really from Mr. FOIA and not any wannabe.

Thank you Mr. FOIA, where ever you may be.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

There will be documentaries about these events one day. It might be called 'The Invisible War' because 99.9% of people are unaware that it's happening. Respect to Mr FOIA.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

Have to confess there is a certain pleasure in reading this now, realising that there are those who should be truly scared but have yet to find out that the lid has been lifted on their dishonesty.

Whilst I take no pleasure in human suffering I can only observe that if you play with fire you can expect to get burnt.

I wait with barely concealed patience to see what will emerge.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobertB

Feel seismic tremors
Rattle foundational skulls.
Cornets off the walls.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

"trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan"

Ha ha ha!

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterBruce

WUWT is not running this story, yet.

Note that it is suggested that the majority of the 220,000 emails may contain nothing, or little of interest. If so CC3 will not be a big event. Anyway, it was CC1 that turned the tide, especially coinciding with Copenhagen and the wintery weather that the delegates (and news reporters) encountered.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterrichard verney

Does anybody know who it was sent to directly?

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Oh, well how can I get hold of it? I'd like to browse them too.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobinson

And not a day too soon.
Of course our major media will ignore this.
Cloud sourcing is the only thing that will work on such a massive data dump.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM | Unregistered Commenterlurker, passing through laughing


Tom Nelson seems to have received the message and password directly:

Tom Nelson received the Mr. FOIA message with password

As he says the PW works and that the message came unsolicited from "a person unknown to me".... and he seems to be the first blogger to publish anything on it that I have seen.....

Tom Nelson has done a lot of work on the CG1 and CG2 emails. Kudos to him!

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:39 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Paul Matthews: It would seem that his first glimpses behind the scenes may well have been at CRU.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:40 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

This may well ruin the weekend of "97% of scientists"

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

No doubt Steven "Sherlock" Mosher will have already analysed the writing style and identified the author.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

"Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn't require special expertise."

....but it does require integrity.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Yes, when you think there may be wives, husbands, lovers, enemies interested?... CG3 is not simple.

People should remember that professional issues might actually be less of concern than personal...

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

I have published on it, and included a single email to demonstrate validity to our friends. I had planned to hold until a more scans could be completed, but it seems the cat is out of the bag now. Apparently FOIA made a wider distribution of his email than done previously.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnthony Watts


No doubt Steven "Sherlock" Mosher will have already analysed the writing style and identified the author.

Given the eloquence of Mr FOIA, I think we can safely dismiss the oft touted theory that the leaker was Keith Briffa or, indeed, anyone from the warm side - their public writings tend to lean predominantly towards "shouty".

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:51 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

I think there right to suggest that people should not get their hopes up to high and that it will take a lot of work to dig through this pile . But even in the more personal stuff there may be nuggets of gold , which 'the Team ' and friends would much rather others , even some in 'the Team', did not see.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

@ Mr Watts, I assume you searched for "Mann" and not "cr@p" ;-)

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterMorph

There'll be a few quivering sphincters in the "Climate Research" industry tonight.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

It'd be interesting if we see any non-official email addresses used that would have run counter to various records-keeping policies...

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered Commentermorebrocato

Encouraging others to delete emails or plotting to deceive is not *personally sensitive*? It was not just what they did but how they did it that was so damning. If the courts won't act then open it all to the court of public opinion. The most expensive fraud in history deserves nothing less the fullest knowledge of its process and progress.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterssat

The email that Anthony posted was a cracker to start with!

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterBuffy Minton

Hat off time. How nice to hear from someone who doesn't put self-interest first (hi there, Messers Cameron, Hague, Huhne, Blair etc etc)

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterIan E

[UPDATE: Paul Matthews tells Anthony that the email below was already in CG2. Ah, well, it's still a good one and I hadn't seen it before.....]

First Climategate 3 email to be published tells the public what should have been known all along, but instead has been covered up, obfuscated, etc.

Aug. 2001, Hadley Centre/Met Office scientist to Briffa and Osborne, re: MBH recon, "we think it is crap!"

[emphasis added]

—–Original Message—–
From: Simon Tett
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 1:36 PM
Cc: ;
Subject: Paleo-Paper

The papers looks very good. Hope these comments aren’t too late…. I
don’t think I need to see it again.


Response to reviewers

I couldn’t read your letter — PS files as attachments seem to get
munged by our firewall/email scanner so I’ve just looked at the paper
to see if I think you’ve dealt with the reviewers comments.

Editors comments:

3) Don’t think you have dealt with the enhanced multi-decadal
variability in the paper.

Reviewer B.

1) Didn’t see a justification for use of tree-rings and not using ice
cores — the obvious one is that ice cores are no good — see Jones et
al, 1998.

2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don’t think we can say we didn’t do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)

3) No justification in the paper for the 9 regions. I think there is
justification in the JGR Briffa paper.

4) That is a good point — I would strongly suspect that the control has
a lot less variance than the observations over the last century –
not the ALL run though!

5) No response to this in the paper. I suspect we are doing better
stats than all the rest though!


Mar 13, 2013 at 3:02 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Would be great if any of the emails that Mann has spent millions keeping secret turn up in here.

Have to say that I'm sure that FOIA's concern for the damage the CAGW scam is doing to the poor of this world is one that all us sceptics also share.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered Commenterstanj

"Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn't require special expertise."

....but it does require integrity.

Mar 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM | Green Sand

Another reason why CG3 was not sent to RealClimate!

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon B

Any expert on the CG emails will instantly recognise that the one quoted by Anthony/Skiphil is 0562.txt from CG2!

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:09 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

> Given the eloquence of Mr FOIA, I think we can safely dismiss the oft touted theory that the leaker was Keith Briffa or, indeed, anyone from the warm side - their public writings tend to lean predominantly towards "shouty".

Perhaps, the twist will be that Mr FOIA = Peter Gleick!

Well probably not, because Mr FOIA never used the word "subset", but I can't help but think that would be the best ending to the story.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterCopner

As our masters silence yet more whistleblowers (Inspector Gadget and Staff's) comes FOIA to remind us why we need them.

The dead from Staffordshire will be dwarfed by the numbers of the elderly and third world poor who will be killed by CAGW.

FOIA is a hero and one day the other CAGWists might join their comrade Huhne behind bars.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

Anybody care to guess when the first mention of "Climategate 3.0" will appear on the BBC website?

Perhaps we should have a sweepstake, with all profits sent to bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

This tweet from Leo Hickman is disgusting and reveals his true warmist's colours.

Leo Hickman @LeoHickman

Climategate hacker tries to paint themselves as a superhero saving the poor. But in reality is touting for money... …

I'm sorry?? The mantra was 'BIG OIL BIG OIL BIG OIL BIG OIL BIG OIL BIG OIL'. Now, when you find FOIA hasn't anything to do with that (like we told you) he's simply 'money-grabbing.'

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

Copner - let's remember that whoever Mr/Mrs/Ms/Herr/Sr/etc. FOIA is, that individual had to have access to all of this material to begin with, and it's safe to assume that from his soapbox and megaphone on the periphery of the climate-alarmism industry Gleick never had that kind of access.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM

Hickman makes a fool of himself with his tweet, without understanding the humour... obviously got them rattled somewhat

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterJiminy Cricket

People will be studying the language carefully for clues. The omission of the definite article (" Majority of the emails are irrelevant", "Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites") is common among people from countries that don't have a definite article - like Russia.
The other clue is the . in 220.000 that was also commented on in the CG2 README file.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:27 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

I can just see Hickman and his ilk combing over SEC filngs from XOM and CVX looking for bitcoin payments.

Mar 13, 2013 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterJEM


Mar 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM | Unregistered Commentermojo

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>