Hacked emails from a British university put global warming researchers in a bad light.
The Times front-pages it (OK, Saturday, below the fold, but still...); the Captain has lots.
Here is the BBC: making no mention of the climate fraud allegations but putting their cover-up in perspective:
Andrew Revkin of the Times provides the obvious pushback:
"Erode"? Surely it will erode public confidence, if only a teensy bit. Public confidence will take a quantum leap downwards.
But more importantly, this is not a case where emails where hacked at fifty prominent research centers across the world and suggestions of fraud emerged once. Right now, as best we know the hackers are one for one. Does Mr. Revkin, or anyone else, have complete confidence that if other email servers were hacked we wouldn't find similarly troubling hints of "tricks" meant to "hide the decline"?
If Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe are done tormenting ACORN maybe they can figure out how to pose as underaged climate researchers...
heh heh - globull warming fraud is circling the drain.
Posted by: Bill in AZ | November 21, 2009 at 07:59 AM
-Climate hocus pocus.
-Recovered memory psuedo-theory.
-Self-esteem nonsense.
-Various food phobias (my favorite was the Alar scare).
Supposedly educated folks have signed on to all of the above items, and more. When will it be recognized that modern day progressivism has led us into another Dark Ages?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 21, 2009 at 08:00 AM
The Science Has Been Unsettled
Posted by: hit and run | November 21, 2009 at 08:38 AM
I hate your use of "quantum". A quantum is in reality the smallest possible change.
I think seismic would be better.
Posted by: lonetown | November 21, 2009 at 08:57 AM
Fiddling with the data to produce hockey sticks?
"Naughty boys!" "Hold out your hand for a slap on the wrist!"
"Makes no difference though." "Overwhelming evidence...blah, blah, ... consensus... blah, blah... IPCC settled science... blah, blah, blah... peer reveiwed blah, blah, blah."
Conspiring to avoid FOIA by deleting e-mails, lying about who owns the data, bullying your university to collude in this crime?
"Very naughty boys!" "Hold out both hands for a very hard slap on the wrist!"
"Makes no difference though." "Overwhelming evidence...blah, blah, ... consensus... blah, blah... IPCC settled science... blah, blah, blah." "Anyway, they were definitely the wrong sort of people. Big Oil dontcha know."
Giving the lie to all our 'settled science' blah, blah, blah; all our IPCC overwhelming evidence blah, blah blah; all our 'peer reviewed' blah, blah blah by boasting about how you fixed the peer review system, bullied any journal that published sceptic articles, insured that the IPCC had only true belivers in their panels?
"You blithering idiots! You're fired, the lot of you!"
Posted by: Kevin B | November 21, 2009 at 09:08 AM
"The documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. But the evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so broad and deep that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."
Translation: Let's not let the facts hinder the narrative.
Posted by: ben | November 21, 2009 at 09:08 AM
Global Warming is the confection of Marxist ideologues who just want to destroy the free market system and make us all equally miserable.
Just look at the ridiculous Port Huron statement, and the actions of David Fenton at Fenton Communications over the years.
What do they want? Power baby, power. Over everyting you do.
Posted by: verner | November 21, 2009 at 09:19 AM
Does Mr. Revkin, or anyone else, have complete confidence that if other email servers were hacked we wouldn't find similarly troubling hints of "tricks" meant to "hide the decline"?
E-mails and documents are being deleted at these places even as we speak.
I'm concerned about too much emphasis on the one "trick" e-mail, as opposed to the widespread evidence of lack of objectivity. I haven't followed it enough to be sure, but my sense is this: Where they don't have actual historical temperature data they've used proxies based on tree rings and the like. In recent times, where they have both, the proxies were trending down and the temperature up, so they used the temperature ("instrumental") data in the trend. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that, except that it casts doubt on the reliability of the proxies. But can someone who actually knows something about it clarify?
Posted by: jimmyk | November 21, 2009 at 09:21 AM
"Supposedly educated folks have signed on to all of the above items, and more." And SCAM will be there forever to help them , And wht SCAM doesn't take directly it will get thru govt and charitable foundation largess.
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 09:23 AM
this wasn't a hack, it was an inside job, someone knew where to look
here is the individual posting the file at The Air Vent
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.
I bet they have more :)
Posted by: windansea | November 21, 2009 at 09:25 AM
I read some of that stuff yesterday and my take was the same as Charlie's this a.m. at PJM: the stuff that I saw seemed "too good to be true." In other words, I suspect alterations. It just doesn't have the ring of truth, the kinds of things these people would say in emails. Wish it were true, but be careful with this one. Go read Charlie.
Posted by: anduril | November 21, 2009 at 09:30 AM
windansea! Hi! Oh, I hope you're right and we have a Brit Breitbart at work.Perhaps that's why Hadley hasn't yet reported this to the police and why James immediately confirmed the emails seemed genuine.
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 09:31 AM
I should clarify my previous message when I said "I'm not sure there's anything wrong with that." There is something wrong: the lack of transparency, and the exaggeration of the certainty. But it may not rise to fraud.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 21, 2009 at 09:31 AM
I meant "Jones" not "James"
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 09:33 AM
anduril-
The head of Hadley said that the hacker's post are their files, yesterday morning. That's what ripped this from a simmer on Wednesday to a full boil Friday.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 21, 2009 at 09:36 AM
jimmyk,
Jeff Id at the Air Vent, (LUN), points out that everyone in the game knew what the 'trick' was. It was to cover up the 'divergence' problem. The proxies they chose that didn't show the Medieval Warm Period also didn't show the Modern Warm Period, so they truncated the proxies and tacked on the modern instrumental readings. (Not caring that this might just show that their proxies weren't temperature proxies.)
Jeff's been banging on about this for quite a while and has quite a few posts about it.
His latest beef is that Jones wasn't entirely forthcoming about this in his latest statements.
Posted by: Kevin B | November 21, 2009 at 09:38 AM
"It just doesn't have the ring of truth, the kinds of things these people would say in emails."
Yeah, right, just like Acorn would never advise prostitution rings to bury cash in the backyard to avoid taxes.
These people are arrogant zealots on a mission. They OWN the truth. It absolutely has the ring of truth in it, so much so that the messenger is being attacked, just like Acorn never disputed the contents of the tapes, it was all on how they were obtained illegally.
The fact the shills are saying the contents of the emails are irrelevant because the "evidence" is a strong indication they are for real.
Posted by: ben | November 21, 2009 at 09:39 AM
"I bet they have more :)"
Of course they have more. They are just waiting for the first round of denials to release it. Remember how Acorn immediately came out with the "isolated incident" defense before the next tapes were released.
Posted by: ben | November 21, 2009 at 09:44 AM
John Hinderacker, who downloaded the whole file set, has been reading this stuff with a sober eye (ie; less biased than mine)and offers some good insight as well LUN.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 21, 2009 at 09:45 AM
But you're right jimmy. The FOIA shennanigans and the corruption of the peer review process are probably the big stories for now.
(I feel sure that the likes of Steve McIntyre are probing the data and software in the 'inadvertantly released' file even as we speak, and that they may well produce some more information relating to data manipulations in due course.)
Posted by: Kevin B | November 21, 2009 at 09:45 AM
Here's at least one email that we can find a direct link to--the "American Stinker" email:
[quote]
And we now know that on the very day our expose of the Briffa scandal, UN Climate Reports: They Lie, appeared here at AT, Jones forwarded this email response from Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research to Briffa: [my emphasis]
It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which surely is the only way to go - complex and wordy responses will be counter productive). But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less often that M&M say - but where did they get their information? I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely - but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons - but many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something, and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.
[/quote]
It would take a super creative person a lot of time to write an email so detailed the day after the AT article appeared. I'd put my money on it being both genuine and incriminating to Hadley CRU
LUN
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 09:47 AM
Drudge has it up, but is using The Guardian's post (facepalm).
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 21, 2009 at 09:48 AM
There's a fine line between faking evidence and doing what they did. I'm reposting this from an earlier inactive thread, which was my response to Charlie's nitpick that they weren't faking evidence:
[Syl]
You see, the measurements are a mess anyway, so it's a perfect excuse to make sh*t up.
[Charlie]
Yeah, that about sums it up.
[me]
So how is "making sh*t up" different from "faking the evidence." It's not fabricating data, but it's still fake as far as I'm concerned. When you know the answer you want to get ahead of time, you will get that answer.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 21, 2009 at 09:50 AM
But if the Hockey Team instead creates email proxies to substitute for the emails, then public confidence in AGW and its supporters soars! Bristlecone emails.
Posted by: Barry Dauphin | November 21, 2009 at 09:51 AM
The global warming zealots have been under pressure. The data has not been "favorable". The polls show increasing doubts about the "official narrative", more scientists and experts have begun to question what before was "unassailable".
So it would make sense that some would feel compelled to fudge data.
Posted by: ben | November 21, 2009 at 09:53 AM
It was to cover up the 'divergence' problem.
Yes, that's what I was alluding to. When you have proxies for some time periods, and accurate data for others, the correct technique involves using the periods where they overlap to estimate the relationship between the two, and apply that to the periods where you only have the proxies. You don't just use the proxies and then splice the actual data on where you have it.
But the real issue is the lack of transparency.
Posted by: jimmyk | November 21, 2009 at 09:54 AM
Fake but true! There is only the ends; the means mean nothing, don'tcha know.
Watch carefully as our dear friends in the MSM and the global enviro-mafia make this about how the information was obtained and whether the culprits cant be prosecuted rather than what the emails actually say.
So wait...I guess the ends only justify the means for the Left.
Posted by: Soylent Red | November 21, 2009 at 09:56 AM
The public here and in Europe ws increasingly sceptical because they can see it's getting colder. There are only so many times you can argue that weather isn't climate and still inspire confidence. To those paying attention the lack of transparency and the inability to duplicate these results was discrediting.
And then there's the non-scientific stuff that was turning folks off: How much money was being pumped into the pockets of those promoting this and how much more they'd be skimming off of a world already reeling from similar schemes in banking and finance.
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Melinda, the hack undoubtedly occurred--I was of course aware of that. The question is, were any of the files altered? It's not that they had to be fabricated from whole cloth, so to speak--they could have been altered. I agree with Hinderaker in general about the scientists' true believer mentality. However, I would combine that with Charlie's view (and my own immediate reaction yesterday) that the "incriminating" portions sound "to good to be true": that is, they just don't sound like the kind of things true believers would say. I say, be careful. I think global warming is a crock, but that's not the issue here. I assume that in Britain as in America such hacking is a violation of law. I would therefore be very circumspect in accepting the veracity of what a criminal is presenting. We will undoubtedly see.
Posted by: anduril | November 21, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Does this mean Al Gore will have to give his Nobel Prize back?
Posted by: ben | November 21, 2009 at 10:08 AM
But it may not rise to fraud.
Really? Altering data that doesn't correspond to the narrative; it's hard to imagine what's more fraudulent than that. Anybody with a semi-functioning BS meter has been on alert since day 1 with those nutjobs's secrecy regarding the underlying data; if the facts were on their side there would be complete transparency.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM
I had the same reaction about the emails seeming too good to be true.
However, if they aren't genuine, I think we'd have heard from their authors (and the authors' lawyers) by now.
I think. I hope.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 21, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Altering data that doesn't correspond to the narrative;
It's not altering data, it's using dicey statistical methods. If that were fraud, you could indict half the world's scientists (especially the social scientists).
Posted by: jimmyk | November 21, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Porchlight, there is an enormous volume of material to be gone through.
Posted by: anduril | November 21, 2009 at 10:16 AM
CHACO's cautionary remarks are well taken. However, folks do tend to put down amazingly candid thoughts in emails. Too bad we can't get a peek at Algore's emails!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | November 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM
anduril,
Yes, but they'd have signaled by now if they had found anything hinky, even if they weren't yet done looking. Which means (I hope) that what we've already read is genuine.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Savor the irony--at 10:17 a.m. EDT, Greenpeace has an ad on the left bar of JOM urging we "Help Stop Global Warming/sign the petition.'
They did get the memo. Or memoes. Har-de-har-har.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | November 21, 2009 at 10:20 AM
If that were fraud, you could indict half the world's scientists (especially the social scientists).
You state that as if it was a bad thing....
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 21, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Ben,
The hacker must be Identified.
He/she can collect Nobel Prize directly from Al Gore.
Posted by: J2 | November 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM
We need a commission & lengthly jail terms for all believers of this man made BS.
Posted by: PMII | November 21, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Can't recall where I read it this morning but that CRU had rejected 7 papers and there's nothing more vicious than academic brawls. I am growing increasingly suspicious that this was an inside job. The police are also doing an internal check.
The servers that posted the emails elsewhere are located in Siberia but I understand it's possibel to do that sort of thing from elsewhere.
**
I understand what Chaco's saying, too, though for most non-scientists I'd have to say the distinction seems insignificant. Whether you'r adding hot water to the sample to skew it or simply combining two different tests and always selecting from the test that gives the warmest reading.
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM
these emails are real, its obvious just look at how Mann, Jones are responding:
no comment on emails, these are stolen etc
plus Gavin at Real Climate (PR organ of the Team) is responding to specific emails, trying to explain it all away
Plus there are too many specific time oriented emails responding to many posts and info posted at Climate Audit going back years.
Steve McIntyre who is meticulous in documenting things is undoubtedly pouring over this material and his old posts will roll out new posts exposing the Team.
Plus this is a treasure trove to make specific FOIA requests that will be very hard for Jones, Mann etc to evade now that the spotlight is on their tricks trying to avoid disclosure of data etc.
This will also expose the games the Team has been playing with the peer review process, first hinted at by Wegman.
It's likely the mole copied entire hard drives as fast as possible to limit exposure, then perused the files picking out examples going back 10 years. There are 2000 emails in this file, the mole wouldn't have sat online inside the system picking 2000 individual emails exposing himself to whatever data protection this system has.
Doesn't matter anyway, we now have speciic emails with which a lot more can be uncovered legally through FOIA process.
Just watch what Steve does, he knows more about all this than anyone, as he caused 100s of the emails with his posts.
The jig is up Hockey Team:)
Posted by: windansea | November 21, 2009 at 10:49 AM
"or simply combining two different tests and always selecting from the test that gives the warmest reading"
That sounds like the pseudoscience version of Hillary's cattle futures "windfall".
Posted by: boris | November 21, 2009 at 10:51 AM
The problem with the idea the emails were fakes is, the scientists in question are not dismissing them, they are responding like "I will not comment on something I wrote years ago that was stolen"
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | November 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Exactly, Tops. We'd see a different reaction if there was any indication of forgery or alteration.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 21, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Hey Tops, exactly
Gavin at RC (team poodle) is responding to every email posted from file and doing the usual arm waving, obfuscation, and citing of himself or Team members as proof
there is no question these are real emails
they are sweating bullets believe me, especially since they know that with this info and publicity it will be very dificult to avoid FOIA requests.
Posted by: windansea | November 21, 2009 at 11:08 AM
It does remind me of the cattle futures thingy--remember her varying accounts which began with the preposterous notion that she gamed the system by reading about futures in the WSJ? HEH
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 11:09 AM
windansea, good to see you. Great point about the emails being an index for future FOIA requests. It is truly a treasure trove.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 21, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Lay aside the obvious cherry picking and 'adjustments' of the data sets used to create 'climate models' and consider the fact that current temperatures lie outside the error bars of models less than ten years old. Then consider the effort that Jones, Hansen, Mann, Briffa et al have put into suppressing the publication of differing views in 'peer reviewed' (hack, spit) journals.
If "Climate Science" were a drug or mining company trying to peddle shares the SEC would bar it and send the info to the DoJ for probable prosecution. It does fit rather nicely with the hustling fraud camped at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue though. He would fit right in among the Lysenkoists.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | November 21, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Apparently the insiders think this is an inside job since at CRU they've cancelled all existing passwords @ LUN. Circle the wagons, glowbullists!!
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 21, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Public confidence will take a quantum leap downwards.
exactly TM...the public has already grown sceptical about AGW (see recent polls at bottom of important issues and the climate bill was already put on the back burner, shoving it into an election year is basically kiss of death
The alarmists are trying to spin this as no big deal, and some in the MSM will help them, but the public are like dogs, they can smell the truth.
Posted by: windansea | November 21, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Here is an exchange on the response they prepared to the American Stinker article I believe (I am not pasting boring stuff like where they decide on search tags/terms)
Their unbiased reviewers were friendlies who could be trusted to answer accordingly without prompt
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | November 21, 2009 at 11:25 AM
As a partial correction to my 11:21 post, the CRU people could think that an outsider inadvertently became knowledgeable about a user's password. Although the level of paranoia there must be off the charts as their gravy train is teetering perilously on the edge of the abyss.
Posted by: Captain Hate | November 21, 2009 at 11:29 AM
What do you have against that lovely Lysenko,Rick?
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Another great comment on a site - Bishop
Hill - that has the most comprehensive summary of the emails LUN
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | November 21, 2009 at 11:45 AM
No scandal? Really? Check the graphs:
"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:
http://i49.tinypic.com/mk8113.jpg
But the biggest scandal of all is not even a part of this uproar, one I have graphed as well:
http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg
November 21, 2009 | NikFromNYC
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | November 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Shoot, just posted this on the wrong thread:
Last night DrF's first reaction was to point out that the Hockey Team could now claim that the hackers "augmented" the emails, data & programs when they broke into the system. Has anyone seen signs of that argument appearing yet?
Posted by: cathyf | November 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM
ts--thanks for that AT catch--I sent it to the editor who's forwarding it to Marc Sheppard the author of the piece that got the Hadley underwear in tangle.
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Not yet as the thread reveals, cathy..It's all been about out of context, illegal hack, innocent explanation etc. Nothing about a single bit because surginally enhanced.
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 11:56 AM
"He's not as predictable as we would like."
I'm sure they don't have to worry about that with Al Gore and the other politicians that have bought into this fraud.
We need to send someone out to find Kim. It makes no sense to have to dig thru all this leftist tripe just to find out that we had a JOMer who has been right along on this subject
Posted by: Pagar | November 21, 2009 at 12:10 PM
OK-
That's a new word I need to use more often.
"Surginally" ;)
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 21, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Really? Altering data that doesn't correspond to the narrative; it's hard to imagine what's more fraudulent than that.
And had they done that, you'd be right. Go read the "Nature trick" article; I'm on deadline and don't have time to go into detail.
Jimmy, the difference between real fraud and what they were doing is small, but it's the difference between losing credibility and losing tenure.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM
heh--you try typing with a cat on your head, Mel..
A search party for Kim is in order. I do hope she's not in Siberia.
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 12:17 PM
TS9, that's a completely standard thing to do: it's part of any submission form to suggest reviewers. Part of the reason peer reviews are "anonymous" is that it's supposed to let your friends still say your paper is crap.
That's never been completely true; you get to know your friends' style. (How many of you would mistake a narciso or kim post for someone else?) But these guys seem to have suborned the whole process; they share papers they're reviewing in order to create the "team" consensus response.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 21, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I saw her post up at WUWT yesterday. She's probably still wading through the files. I believe she posts as kimw there.
That's my only source, but I'll try ClimateAudit as well.
sombody at sda might have noticed her, I'll check there too.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 21, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Here's my favorite so far, email #1139521913:
Again, this is nothing we haven't known about RealClimate for a while, ie that they filter their comments to suit their purposes, but here it is in black and white.
Honestly, this is one of the ones I thought "too good to be true" — but that was 48 hours ago now. The continuing corroborations, and the lack of denials from the Hockey Team, have been ... interesting.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 21, 2009 at 12:28 PM
here is a searchable online database of the emails etc
email database
Posted by: windansea | November 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM
Anduril--
In other words, I suspect alterations
I invite you to stop bellyaching and start reading the documents. I have personally read over 50 of them. They don't look altered to me; no one has claimed any of them are fakes. These sorts of complaints of yours are beyond tedious. Perhaps you should withhold counsel from time to time instead of revealing your boredom with inquiry?
Posted by: Fresh Air | November 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM
For a look at how an inquisitive layman approaches this subject, in contrast with our resident skeptic, go here to see John Hinderaker's powerful analytical skills at work.
Posted by: Fresh Air | November 21, 2009 at 12:34 PM
By the way, I'm cautious, but here are several bets I'd make:
(1) there's more to come (I agree with above — you'd copy the whole mail spool or archive) and it will turn out to contradict things the Team is saying;
(2) the famous "dog ate my" data is either in this drop, or will appear later;
(3) other climate scientists who have been involved in this will come out and say they were pressured to co-operate;
(4) it will turn out to have been an insider.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 21, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Chaco, I agree..the chair's been pulled out from under them..
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 12:37 PM
Powerline has some very good analysis of a recent email exchange or I should say lack of exchange between a plant physiologist and Briffa, wherein the physiologist asks Briffa to explain his use of certain proxies. Apparently, McIntyre had put his finger directly on the jugular.
LUN
Posted by: laura | November 21, 2009 at 12:38 PM
For a look at how an inquisitive layman approaches this subject, in contrast with our resident skeptic...
Fresh, if there's anything these emails should be teaching you, it's that just because something agrees with your prejudices, that doesn't mean its true. Hinderaker is a good lawyer, but no statistician and no scientist. Pay attention to anything he says about FOIA; take his technical conclusions with salt.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 21, 2009 at 12:38 PM
The emails don't can't be trusted, the politics cannot be trusted, and only the science matters.
Al Gore doesn't matter, because he doesn't know what science is, is impeached by his own financial interests, and has been shown demonstrably misleading.
Following Karl Popper, what is called 'true' cannot be proven to be true, but what is demonstrably false can be pruned away so that we can deal with that which is demonstrably not false. Theories supposedly substantiated by science need to be presented to be examined and retested in public to see that they stand up to scrutiny.
Decisions are being considered based on politics and pseudo-science--correlation needs to be substantiated, correlation does not demonstrate causation, many mechanisms like solar radiation are not factored in and, even if causation is finally shown, misguided remediation may reduce the quality of life more than any ostensible climate change.
The reality is that more people should be calling, "Bullshit! Prove it!" than are; too many playing games are politicians, and now its reasonable to suspect some academics are, too.
Posted by: sbw | November 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Let me suggest not getting too caught up in a pedantic difference between intentional deceit under color of "science" and the legal definition of fraud. Consider the legal definition of "covert" wrt Victoria Flame. Seems to me a jury convicted Libby based on the authoritive assertion that someone who openly drives to CIA HQ everyday is somehow equivalent to a secret operative overseas whose blown cover could get them killed before extraction can be accomplished.
Posted by: boris | November 21, 2009 at 12:49 PM
if there's anything these emails should be teaching you, it's that just because something agrees with your prejudices, that doesn't mean it's true.
Since these emails do agree with my prejudices and they are true, it will be difficult for me to draw that particular lesson from them.
Posted by: bgates | November 21, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Not seeing any posts by kim today, yet.
(brow furrowed)
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | November 21, 2009 at 12:58 PM
Charlie, I agree with all 4 in your 12:38.
My guess is that not only was it an inside job, but it was a fellow scientist behind the hack. Someone willing to risk his career in order to expose fraud.
That's why there have been no edits or alterations. A scientist (as well as many intelligent lay people, of course) would instinctively understand that the risk would be too high and more importantly, there was no need for it. Plenty of smoking guns available as is.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 21, 2009 at 01:04 PM
Chaco,
One of the reasons to trust the emails is that several of them were written by or to Andy Revkin, the fellow who wrote the NYT piece. He actually links to one* at the searchable database in his blog post on the subject.
He likely verified at least those three or four emails as accurate. I think his take on the subject is affected by their comments about him.
* The one quoted by TSK9 above discussing "Andy".
Posted by: Walter | November 21, 2009 at 01:12 PM
<>i>Since these emails do agree with my prejudices and they are true, it will be difficult for me to draw that particular lesson from them.
Since you're exhibiting exactly the behavior I warned about ("... and are true"), I'm not surprised you won't learn anything from them.
Unfortunately.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 21, 2009 at 01:19 PM
An excerpt from one of the emails:
As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers
Phil
Posted by: Fresh Air | November 21, 2009 at 01:21 PM
Walter, I'm absolutely down with increasing confidence in the emails. I would bet they're authentic. (I suppose that's either (0) or (5) on my list.)
But I've lost bets before.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 21, 2009 at 01:21 PM
As you know, I’m not political.
These emails are just a continuing source of amusement, aren't they?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 21, 2009 at 01:22 PM
"But the data were being fixed around the policy."
I paraphrase, of course.
Does anyone remember the "Downing Street Memos" where much ink was spilled over the meaning of the word "fixed"? The right said it meant something other than what it probably meant. Now the left is telling me that "trick" means something other than what it pretty much obviously means.
We've come full circle.
Posted by: Chants | November 21, 2009 at 01:27 PM
Chants, I've done a lot of data analysis, and I understood "trick" in more or less the way the RC folks explain it.
it's the word "hiding" that's suspicious.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 21, 2009 at 01:30 PM
I'm not surprised you won't learn anything from them.
60MB, and the only thing that can be learned from them is your patronizing little 8th grade lesson?
Posted by: bgates | November 21, 2009 at 01:40 PM
Some of the emails have been proven to be genuine. None have been proven fake. (None have even been alleged to be fake, as far as I know.) The proven genuine emails agree with my prejudices. How can it be that the most important lesson I could derive from that is "just because something agrees with your prejudices, that doesn't mean it's true"?
Since you're exhibiting exactly the behavior I warned about
No, your tiresome "warning" was about determining veracity based solely on whether something agreed with my prejudices. I concluded the emails were real because several of their authors said, "yep, I wrote those". If one turns up that is denied by the author, of course my desire to have it be true won't make it so. Let me know if that happens.
Posted by: bgates | November 21, 2009 at 01:53 PM
More fun:
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:xxx xxxx xxxx
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows the’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn’t say any of this, so be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf.
[....]
I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Posted by: Fresh Air | November 21, 2009 at 02:00 PM
"determining veracity based solely on whether something agreed with my prejudices"
Okay, I get to use a favorite Feynman quote again ... "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself ... and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that".
Have we excercised due caution to not fool ourselves here? I'd say yes we have.
Posted by: boris | November 21, 2009 at 02:11 PM
These people are unbelievably stupid to have put all of this in emails.
Posted by: Porchlight | November 21, 2009 at 02:12 PM
TM you posted "underaged climate researchers" but from what I can discern you probably should have used "immature climate researchers" as these e-mails disclose a very juvenile approach quite unbecoming of someone trying to call themselves a scientist. I wonder if Hannah at age 20 is even capable of acting this immature?
Are warmists capable of being shamed? Somehow, after hearing Al Gore claim the Earth a few kilometers below the surface is a million degrees, I think the ignorance arrogance combination will not allow the shame to escape.
Posted by: Gmax | November 21, 2009 at 02:13 PM
I suppose I'm the last to discover--but I just scrolled to the last comment without encountering a page break.
Hooray for Clarice (&TM et al) for pushing this story. Stay on it.
Posted by: Uncle BigBad | November 21, 2009 at 02:13 PM
Are warmists capable of being shamed?
Are whores ever?
Posted by: PD | November 21, 2009 at 02:23 PM
From the above e-mail of "Phil"
I am not political I am SELFISH ( and arrogant I would add ).
This passes for wisdom for the lefty?
Posted by: Gmax | November 21, 2009 at 02:24 PM
On a topic like this I am amazed no appearance by Kim. I would therefore assume he is speed reading the entire datadump and happier than a pig in dung...
Posted by: Gmax | November 21, 2009 at 02:25 PM
60MB, and the only thing that can be learned from them is your patronizing little 8th grade lesson?
Depends. But learning the eighth grade lesson wilol help with the advanced work.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | November 21, 2009 at 02:27 PM
Uncle BigBad:
I suppose I'm the last to discover--but I just scrolled to the last comment without encountering a page break.
The pagination occurs at 100 comments instead of 50 now.
A big improvement.
Posted by: hit and run | November 21, 2009 at 02:31 PM
Thanks--but KIM (where is she?) has been on this forever.
Posted by: clarice | November 21, 2009 at 02:34 PM
Are warmists capable of being shamed?
Are whores ever?
Geez PD, whores everywhere are probably really insulted....
Posted by: bad | November 21, 2009 at 02:38 PM
If you have not seen the Powerline boys have a very long post up that is fascinating reading, as a lawyers the focus the exerpts and the timeline to where its quite clear that while Mann et al were telling the world that McIntyre was a hack, they were busily coordinating their story and trying to cover over Inconvenient Truths.
And the NYT reporter should be furious. He has been made into a stooge and a useful idiot by the propagandists. A journalist so abused by a conservative, would respond with righteous anger and get the last laugh. Lets see if this guy is a weasel or actually had some shreds of journalist integrity.
Posted by: Gmax | November 21, 2009 at 02:43 PM