Powered by TypePad

« Saturday Morning | Main | The Topless Ann Althouse »

November 21, 2009


Bill in AZ

heh heh - globull warming fraud is circling the drain.

Thomas Collins

-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?

hit and run

The Science Has Been Unsettled


I hate your use of "quantum". A quantum is in reality the smallest possible change.

I think seismic would be better.

Kevin B

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!"


"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.


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.


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?


"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.


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 :)


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.


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.


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.


I meant "Jones" not "James"

Melinda Romanoff


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.

Kevin B


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.


"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.


"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.

Melinda Romanoff

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.

Kevin B

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.)


Here's at least one email that we can find a direct link to--the "American Stinker" email:

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.

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

Melinda Romanoff

Drudge has it up, but is using The Guardian's post (facepalm).


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:

You see, the measurements are a mess anyway, so it's a perfect excuse to make sh*t up.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

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.

Barry Dauphin

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.


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.


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.

Soylent Red

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.


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.


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.


Does this mean Al Gore will have to give his Nobel Prize back?

Captain Hate

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.


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.


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).


Porchlight, there is an enormous volume of material to be gone through.

Thomas Collins

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!



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.


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.


Captain Hate

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....



The hacker must be Identified.

He/she can collect Nobel Prize directly from Al Gore.


We need a commission & lengthly jail terms for all believers of this man made BS.


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.


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:)


"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".


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"


Exactly, Tops. We'd see a different reaction if there was any indication of forgery or alteration.


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.


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


windansea, good to see you. Great point about the emails being an index for future FOIA requests. It is truly a treasure trove.

Rick Ballard

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.

Captain Hate

Apparently the insiders think this is an inside job since at CRU they've cancelled all existing passwords @ LUN. Circle the wagons, glowbullists!!


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.


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)

From: Phil Jones To: Kevin Trenberth , Grant Foster Subject: Re: ENSO blamed over warming - paper in JGR Date: Wed Aug 5 16:14:xxx xxxx xxxx Cc: "J. Salinger" , James Annan , b.mullan@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Gavin Schmidt , Mike Mann , j.renwick@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi all,

Agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi

retired and like Mike Wallace may not be responsive to requests from JGR.

We have Ben Santer in common ! Dave Thompson is a good suggestion.

I'd go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling.

To get a spread, I'd go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe.

So Neville Nicholls and David Parker.

All of them know the sorts of things to say - about our comment and

the awful original, without any prompting.



Hi all

I went to JGR site to look for index codes, and I see that the offending article has

been downloaded 128 times in past week (second). All the mnore reason to get on with


see below


Grant Foster wrote:


I've completed most of the submission to JGR, but there are three required entries I

hope you can help me with.

3) Suggested Reviewers to Include

Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give

an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates,

collaborators, or family members. (this requires name, email, and institution).

Tom Wigley [1]wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx NCAR

Ben Santer [2] Lawrence Livermore

Mike Wallace [3] U Washington [May not be most


Dave Thompson [4] Col State Univ

Dave Easterling [5] NCDC

Their unbiased reviewers were friendlies who could be trusted to answer accordingly without prompt

Captain Hate

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.


What do you have against that lovely Lysenko,Rick?


Another great comment on a site - Bishop
Hill - that has the most comprehensive summary of the emails LUN

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

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

November 20, 2009 | ChrisM


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:


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


November 21, 2009 | NikFromNYC


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?


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.


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.


"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

Melinda Romanoff


That's a new word I need to use more often.

"Surginally" ;)

Charlie (Colorado)

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.


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.

Charlie (Colorado)

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.

Melinda Romanoff

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.

Charlie (Colorado)

Here's my favorite so far, email #1139521913:

guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you've probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don't go there personally, but so I'm informed).

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you're free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we'll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you'd like us to include.

You're also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We'll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont'get to use the RC comments as a megaphone...


[Emphasis mine, of course.]

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.


here is a searchable online database of the emails etc
email database

Fresh Air


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?

Fresh Air

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.

Charlie (Colorado)

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.


Chaco, I agree..the chair's been pulled out from under them..


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.

Charlie (Colorado)

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.


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.


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.


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.

Melinda Romanoff

Not seeing any posts by kim today, yet.

(brow furrowed)


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.



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".

Charlie (Colorado)

<>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.


Fresh Air

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.



Charlie (Colorado)

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.

Charlie (Colorado)

As you know, I’m not political.

These emails are just a continuing source of amusement, aren't they?


"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.

Charlie (Colorado)

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.


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?


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.

Fresh Air

More fun:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:xxx xxxx xxxx


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 !



"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.


These people are unbelievably stupid to have put all of this in emails.


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.

Uncle BigBad

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.


Are warmists capable of being shamed?

Are whores ever?


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?


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...

Charlie (Colorado)

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.

hit and run

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.


Thanks--but KIM (where is she?) has been on this forever.


Are warmists capable of being shamed?

Are whores ever?

Geez PD, whores everywhere are probably really insulted....


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.