Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace
« St Andrews Green Week | Main | Book Review: ‘Climate Change: Natural or Manmade?’ »
Wednesday
Mar132013

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DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD.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.


Mr. FOIA

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (216)

Over and out.


Mr. FOIA

Norfolk police are expected to announce that they are now in possession of important new evidence- it is understood that they have reason to suspect that the perpetrator is probably male.

Mar 13, 2013 at 10:27 PM | Registered CommenterPharos

Completely O/T (I know everyone is agog with CG3, and I have great respect for FOIA), but:

it is now March 14. Any word from Pat Swords on his Irish High Court case yesterday, please ?

Mar 13, 2013 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered Commenterianl8888

I do not believe a private individual is responsible for these leaks because a private individual would have been caught !! Assange was busted big time in Australia.

Putting Norfolk's finest in charge of the investigation is on a par with Ant and Dec in deerstalker hats. Pure comedy.

Mar 13, 2013 at 10:55 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

not banned yet: A fan of the person, not the handle. As I said almost a year ago:

Note that I want pseudonymity. Because, as Barry has said, some people have to be pseudonymous in the climate area. Those people are heroes to me. But because some heroes are pseudonymous the converse most certainly doesn't follow.

I'd suggest I've been totally consistent on this point

Pharos: That kind of in-depth forensic analysis costs money :)

Mar 13, 2013 at 10:56 PM | Registered CommenterRichard Drake

Does anybody know of a Jorge at UEA in the 2007-2009 time period? You know, like the Jorge who's just had today an unexpected career development...

ps there is no such a thing as a "papal plural". Not since 1978 IIRC.

Mar 13, 2013 at 11:00 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

Does anybody know of a Jorge at UEA in the 2007-2009 time period? You know, like the Jorge who's just had today an unexpected career development..
Mar 13, 2013 at 11:00 PM omnologos

LOL. I know that some catholic priests probably spend a lot of time one the internet but I don't think that climate scientists' email are what they're looking for.

Mar 13, 2013 at 11:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

MI5/ Special Branch/ CIA/ FBI/ NSA/ Glasgow traffic wardens would have busted an amateur in days if not hours. The police said they found no evidence. That is ridiculous.

Mar 13, 2013 at 11:29 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

I wonder if the Norwich 'boys in blue' will be back on the trail - lots more luvvly jubbly overtime?

Mar 13, 2013 at 11:42 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

cross posted at CA

I found this bit interesting -
"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."

"according to script" & later his reference to "the (other cause)" meaning he is trying to expose/inform people to this, imply to me somebody well aware of the Club of Rome & Agenda 21 (maybe involved?) discussions when they were first formulated & the affect this is/will/would have on the world.

but I may only be a consp/theorist so prof Lew can add me to his list.

ps. this part - "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."
the guy/gal is wicked.

Mar 13, 2013 at 11:51 PM | Unregistered Commenterdougieh

Athelstan. I doubt the police wanted to investigate it the first two times.

Mar 13, 2013 at 11:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2

@JEM Mar 13, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Apologies for misunderstanding the backslash business. I've never used anything but a forward slash and mistakenly believed that was called a "backslash." Made the same mistake over at ClimateAudit. I need to read the comments of others more carefully.

Mar 14, 2013 at 12:20 AM | Unregistered Commentertheduke

Possibly of interest that RC has had about 15 comments in the last 24 hours possibly 8-10 since the FOA story broke;not a solitary mention.
How odd.

Mar 14, 2013 at 12:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterRoyFOMR

RoyFOMR

Niet Comrade!

The Politburo, sorry, hierarchy, are at present more concerned with the loss of SKY signal caused by Western incompetence!

Mar 14, 2013 at 1:09 AM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

RoyFOMR: at one point today, maybe 6 hours ago, I checked many of what might be considered "warmist" sites and there nothing on this. I just checked them again: Stoat, Tamino, skeptical science, desmog, realclimate. Crickets.

Let's see how long they remain in lockstep.

Mar 14, 2013 at 1:21 AM | Unregistered Commentertheduke

theduke, silence by the lambs is music to me. I'm sure the opposite is true on their private forum.

Mar 14, 2013 at 1:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterEric (skeptic)

That silence is the sound of the climate stupidity getting driven underground.

Mar 14, 2013 at 2:29 AM | Registered Commentershub

Does this mean I'm not going to have a searchable database, like CG1, to pick through for references to "CSIRO", "Karoly" and all the other big winds in our antipodean climate racket?

A tragedy, if so.

Mar 14, 2013 at 2:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterProfessor Bunyip

Professor Bunyip, if you really are THE Professor Bunyip, can you call a halt to your ten weeks of fishing and drinking and get back to blogging immediately.

Australia needs you.

Mar 14, 2013 at 2:53 AM | Registered CommenterGrantB

There is some automated analysis of earlier ClimateGate emails at:
http://www.tome22.info/TypeViews/Emails.html

The emails and associated people are linked into a larger database covering AR4, NGOs etc. This can be accessed from: http://www.tome22.info/Top/ResearchEntrance.html

The whole database is being rewritten and there are some areas that have obviously never worked.

Is there any potential going further with this approach?
(Cross posted on JoNova )

Mar 14, 2013 at 3:57 AM | Unregistered Commenterpjb253

The use of "\" is totally clear to me. He programs or uses regular expressions in say bash, grep, awk sed etc...

Mar 14, 2013 at 4:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterTImothy Sorenson

Professor, from what I can gather from WUWT comments, there are already a few people who have volunteered to amalgamate the material into searchable databases once it has been cleaned up for personal info and released.

Might take a while though.

And yes, time you emerged from the depths of the billabong. We miss you!

Mar 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM | Registered Commenterjohanna

I may be a little slow, but I cannot understand the significance of using the backslash symbol; does anyone still use a typewriter, where the lonely forward slash key lives without his backward sibling?
My last typewriter went into the bin of history a couple of decades ago.

Mar 14, 2013 at 5:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterAlexander K

Well I, for one, am pleased Mr. FOIA has decided to release the rest of the CG emails in one fell swoop. The whole saga was beginning to look like the Rockie movies and I feared I wouldn't be around for CG27. If FOIA is still around he'll make himself known as soon as the backpeddling on CAGW begins. I certainly won't be around for that. Too much money to be lost by the troughers and their relatives.

Mar 14, 2013 at 6:14 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Alexander K at 5:15AM: here's my take on that. I learned "touch typing" in the 60s and it was easy to hit that slash (aka the "forward slash") key just below my right pinky. So when I type now and form compound words, like "commenter/skeptic" or "warmist/idealogue," I use the slash key because it's conveniently located just below my little finger. It's also the one you use when you are typing a fraction. The backslash key, which I've never used at all, is something I have to go hunting and pecking for should I want to type it. It's up there under the delete key on my keyboard.


FOIA uses the backslash key (\) for the same type of word construction, e.g. "filtering\redacting." Steve McIntyre noticed that he used that key instead of the one that is most commonly used and would be easiest for a traditional typist. Mpaul, a commenter at ClimateAudit, stated that the backslash was a key regularly used by Windows programmers to create code, which re-inforces the notion that FOIA was someone who either wrote code or was highly educated in computer science. It's just another thing that makes him stand out.

If this thing ever ends up in court for any reason, his use of the backslash might connect him to the gathering and release of the Climategate documents.

Mar 14, 2013 at 6:24 AM | Unregistered Commentertheduke

The "\" didn't exist, as far as I know until the 1960's and isn't used in most languages. It's possible the person is using a keyboard map for a foreign language and typing the / key in that keyboard map requires an extra keystroke (say, a shift or a ctrl) but the \ can be typed without one. In that case it may have become habitual as it is just easier and conveys the same meaning.

Mar 14, 2013 at 6:57 AM | Unregistered Commentercrosspatch

The slash could be any number of things, eg it's been the directory separator for MS-DOS since 1981. Maybe it was located more conveniently on the keyboard he first used.

It's pretty quiet because there aren't any actual emails to talk about.

Mar 14, 2013 at 7:10 AM | Unregistered Commenterredc

I dont understand why everybody is trying to out clever each other by doing the internet police's work. Who carez who FOIA is, he\she choose to remain anonymous so let him\her alone and allow to open him\herself whenever she\he feels ready for it.... *sigh*

Mar 14, 2013 at 7:41 AM | Unregistered CommenterHoi Polloi

Mar 14, 2013 at 7:41 AM | Hoi Polloi

It is an exercise in futility anyway. If Mr FOIA isn't from the Anglosphere, he's a very good grasp of Engish, note the use of the word "garner", I reckon 75% of English speakers never use that word.

Mar 14, 2013 at 7:53 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

"I checked many of what might be considered "warmist" sites and there nothing on this." (theduke)

And of course, no mention yet by The Guardian. Given CG has been one of the biggest climate stories in recent years, its interesting that those who consider themselves 'investigative journalists' have clearly chosen to keep this story low key. No doubt, they want a chance to see what comes out of it, but the release of CG3 justifies a story in itself. The details can wait.

Mar 14, 2013 at 7:53 AM | Unregistered Commenteroakwood

re comment by l8888 on Pat Swords:

it is now March 14. Any word from Pat Swords on his Irish High Court case yesterday, please ?
Mar 13, 2013 at 10:43 PM | Unregistered

Commenterianl8888

Pat Swords web site is Turn180

This currently appears on it:


Pat Swords Vs The State in The High Court -The Latest

Featured,
Media,
Politics

by admin

Following up on the challenge to the legality of the Irish Governments Renewable Energy Strategy, Pat Swords reports on his day in the High Court. Click Here to listen.

The case is adjourned until the 13th March. The State wants to submit a written defense that there was undue delay from the time of the EU’s Renewable Energy Programme coming in being and this legal action. Pat has to prepare a written reply before the 13th March. The States’ case is that Justice Peart should not have granted Pat leave back in November 2012 for the case to be heard . So essentially, the State hopes to get the case thrown out on a technicality.

The States position is this: If objections were not submitted within a certain timeframe, any case against the State on this matter in invalid.

This naturally ignores the later ruling now achieved in the UN that this whole process is non-compliant.

For more infomation listen here to Pat interviewed at Wind Wise Radio from the 54th minute.

This post has no tag

Mar 14, 2013 at 8:16 AM | Registered Commenterpeterwalsh

Windows programmers ... highly educated in computer science

Sorry - these are mutually exclusive sets.

"\" is extremely commonly used by programmers as an "escape" characters - i.e. one that alters the meaning of the character that follows.

I wonder, have any of the select few who received the email had a look at the "From:" field?

More seriously, if only skeptical site owners have access to the password, are we in danger of being accused yet again of cherry picking, once the nice titbits start to be published? Don't we actually need RC to also have access, since otherwise the team can simply claim that the selections would be easily refuted if they could also see the whole archive?

Mar 14, 2013 at 8:33 AM | Registered Commentersteve ta

oakwood like the BBC the Guardian is hopping to kill this story by pretending its not there , its what they first did in the original climate gate only covering it later when it became clear it was not 'going away '

Mar 14, 2013 at 8:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

Re: steveta

"\" is used extensively in LaTeX which is a typesetting language used by academics.

LaTeX even gets a mentions in CG2 files 0580.txt 3907.txt and 5078.txt

Mar 14, 2013 at 8:56 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Re: steveta

> if only skeptical site owners have access to the password

RC have access to the emails. They have the original authors and, via CRU, access to the original computers.

If anything is posted out of context then they can dig the original emails out of their collective mailboxes and put it in context.

Mar 14, 2013 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

Terry, yes the latex possibility had occurred to me. I'm very used to writing things like \sin, \section, \item and loads of other latex commands starting with \ - but I would never write anything like "privacy\career" and it would be difficult to do it by mistake. Maybe the / key on his keyboard is broken.

Mar 14, 2013 at 9:11 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

I imagine that the CG perps have been dreading this moment. Just when they had hoped it had all gone away and were girding their loins for AR5 ('its far far worse than we thought...CAGW will overhelm us by next Tuesday fortnight unless you send more money'), the whole thing will be raked over again. And it won't be to their credit.

The only question is whether they hope for one ginormous release of all 220K e-mails...to get all the pain over in one go. Or as a trickle...lasting for months or years as new juicy bits come to light ,..and as old alliances break down. A continual worry on their shoulders - and a surefire way of getting the Team to break up.

It already seems pretty clear that Mikey Mann has few allies left..no doubt his abrasive super-ego has pissed enough people off.... I wonder how any new releases will affect his court case(s)?

Mar 14, 2013 at 9:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder


Mar 14, 2013 at 8:33 AM | steveta said;


More seriously, if only skeptical site owners have access to the password, are we in danger of being accused yet again of cherry picking, once the nice titbits start to be published? Don't we actually need RC to also have access, since otherwise the team can simply claim that the selections would be easily refuted if they could also see the whole archive?



- - - - - - - - -


steveta,


At his site Luboš Motl posted on CG3 saying,


Yes, your humble correspondent [Luboš] was among a dozen of people in the world who received the e-mail above directly from Mr FOIA –



So, there are ~12 recipients of Mr FOIA's original email. Apparently none of the ~12 recipients have provided public info about who those 12 were.


We (those who aren't the ~12) cannot say that RC (or any other similar 'consensus' site) wasn't a recipient. Maybe they were but the skeptical blog owners aren't revealing the names of the all the recipients.


Sigh, lack of info sucks especially when sustained by skeptics.


John

Mar 14, 2013 at 9:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Whitman

The double hyphen for a dash also suggests Latex to me. At the very least the writer understands the difference between a hyphen and a dash.

Mar 14, 2013 at 9:23 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

Do not feed the Troll

Mar 14, 2013 at 9:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

I dont understand why everybody is trying to out clever each other by doing the internet police's work. Who carez who FOIA is, he\she choose to remain anonymous so let him\her alone and allow to open him\herself whenever she\he feels ready for it.... *sigh*

Mar 14, 2013 at 7:41 AM | Unregistered Commenter Hoi Polloi


Totally agree Hoi Polloi. Not just that, but it's a bit dull wading through people pontificating about how the semi-colon had replaced the comma in common parlance in the outer Hebrides since the great punctuation schism of 1963... ;-)

Mar 14, 2013 at 9:43 AM | Unregistered CommenterBuck

Searching CG2 emails here http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5571 for “crap”, reveals some interesting dissension in the high ranks of those who write the CAGW meme. If I were looking to turn a disaffected pair of scientists in to whistleblowers, I think I might know where to start. This will increasingly become the only way out for those involved. There will be a significant 1st mover advantage.

From email #102433444, http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=5571 between an Ed Cook and a Keith Briffa, openly criticizing a chap called Mike Mann, and his work (my bold, spelling errors not mine):

“Hi Keith,

Of course, I agree with you. <B>We both know the probable flaws in
Mike’s recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff.</B> Your
response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his
letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this
whole issue is to show in a detailed study that <B>his estimates are
clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you
actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly
stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as
bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit
more objectively.</B>

Ed”

Briffa’s reply …

“Ed

<B>I have just read this lettter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and … (better say no more)</B>
Keith”

Mar 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM | Unregistered CommenterAndrew

Zed and responses removed

Mar 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM | Registered CommenterBishop Hill

My guess is that the whistler-blower fully expects to be named, but decided to have some fun first by making us all guess, and by laying some "red herrings" across his own trail. I'm surprised he (or she) didn't write, "Ve vill haff to see vat ve vill see," though born in and raised at Oxford.

Mar 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM | Unregistered CommenterCaleb

Caleb, yes, I'm sure he's having great fun reading all the comments.

Though if you are reading this Mr FOIA, it is an absolute travesty that you sent the mail to Tom Nelson, Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, Lubos Motl, Steve Milloy, Jeff Condon, but left out Andrew Montford!

Mar 14, 2013 at 10:54 AM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Paul,
The others are not in the UK?

Mar 14, 2013 at 11:27 AM | Registered Commentershub

some are starting to sound quite desperate I notice ..

Mar 14, 2013 at 11:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterJonas N

OK. Take two!

You really wanna know my feelings about all this?

"They waved flags and shouted “Viva Il Papa” — without yet knowing who Il Papa was — as more people crammed into the square."

I had an epic comment about C3 brewing in mind. The Torygraph just wiped it all away.

Mar 14, 2013 at 12:21 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

Stoat wrote a nasty dismissal:

“Apparently, something called “climategate 3.0″ has occurred. This caused massive excitement in the denialosphere for a day, but now everyone has quietly forgotten it. You can tell its a damp squib because the only even vaguely “mainstream” news report of it that WUWT can find is a blog piece by James Delingpole, a man so unimportant I haven’t even bothered call him a tosser.”

...and so on.

Mar 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterNikFromNYC

geronimo said:

It is an exercise in futility anyway. If Mr FOIA isn't from the Anglosphere, he's a very good grasp of Engish, note the use of the word "garner", I reckon 75% of English speakers never use that word.

They just haven't seen The Rockford Files yet.

Mar 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

Mar 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM | NikFromNYC

“Apparently, something called “climategate 3.0″ has occurred.


The emails haven't been released yet. I'll bookmark that article under "examples of desperation"

Mar 14, 2013 at 1:47 PM | Unregistered Commenternormalnew

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):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>