Climategate 2.0 and a Mann with a cause…

So, thousands more emails leaked from the servers of the University of East Anglia (there is still no evidence of hacking despite two years of police investigation) have been released into the public domain.

It is being described on Watts Up With That? as Climategate 2.0.

Interestingly, even before they have had a chance to see what has been released and what is being focused upon by AGW sceptics, UEA and Michael Mann have already declared that extracts of the emails are being taken out of context.  As Jeff Id of the Air Vent puts it:

Out of context before we put them in context.  I suppose that if you aren’t a certified UEA climatologist, you can’t read.

One wonders what alternative context this quote could possibly be in:

What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably

Several Climategate 2.0 emails that stand out were sent by Mann and are note worthy for refering to the his efforts to push the man made global warming narrative as a cause.

It seems strange because I was led to believe that it was about science.  No wonder Michael Mann is so desperate to prevent other emails of his falling into public hands.  There is also more evidence in the leaked emails of Phil Jones encouraging people to delete emails in order to evade scrutiny through Freedom of Information requests, which possibly accounts for the ‘missing’ data he is unable to produce.

There are also some interesting Climategate 2.0 emails on the Air Vent originating from those chaps at our old friend, the Met Office.  These include:

Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others.

And there’s:

My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement [“probably the warmest of the last millennium”] in or whether I should remove it in the anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn this statement

Is this a ‘temporary warming’ phenomenon we have not been told about?  There’s also:

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?

This ‘evidence’ lark seems to be a real pain, especially when it torpedoes some of the most frequently used anecdotes, such as Kilimanjaro’s icecap melting due to human activity.  And another warmist shibboleth, the supposedly irrelevant Urban Heat Island effect  gets a kicking with this observation:

By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer.

There is much more besides.  It is worth a few minutes of your time to sit down and read the selection of emails.  Some of the responses are eye opening.  Enjoy!

13 Responses to “Climategate 2.0 and a Mann with a cause…”


  1. 1 Stuck-Record 22/11/2011 at 10:04 pm

    To my mind the most interesting aspect of this second release (since we already know that Jones, Mann, Schmidt, et al are second rate hucksters) is the proof of perjury.

    At the whitewash Parliamentary inquiries, the usual suspects, and the UEA authorities, defence was ‘context’ and ‘interpretation’. i.e. that the emails didn’t actually say what normal people could clearly see they said. A great many hoops were jumped through in order to create that impression and get it ON THE RECORD so that a tame media could then reference it, as in: “Everyone was cleared by the inquiries.”

    Now it is clear, from even a cursory reading of the second batch that they were all lying through their teeth. Even the UEA FOI man looks caught with his pants down.

    Parliament, even our current shoddy version, doesn’t like to be shown that it has been lied to. Nor does the ICO.

    Questions will need to be asked.

  2. 2 Katabasis 22/11/2011 at 10:19 pm

    “so that a tame media could then reference it, as in: “Everyone was cleared by the inquiries.”

    Yep and I’ve had quite enough of that.

    Now I’m striking back:
    http://i-squared.blogspot.com/2011/11/ammo-churnalism-churning-environment.html

  3. 3 thespecialone 22/11/2011 at 10:27 pm

    I wonder if there will be an enquiry about the enquiries after these latest emails have been analysed thoroughly. Some clever person out there should I imagine be able to crack the passwords to the rest of the emails. I truly hope so.

    Funny how despite what the warmists claim, police have still found no evidence of hacking.

  4. 4 thespecialone 22/11/2011 at 10:30 pm

    Or should the be inquiry into the inquiries?

  5. 5 Andrew Duffin 23/11/2011 at 9:42 am

    You do have to wonder (well I do, anyway), why UEA doesn’t just institute a retention policy that says all emails will be permanently deleted after a week or something. It’s perfectly legal to do that as long as it is your openly stated policy.

    Or why they don’t just carry out all their skullduggery over the phone?

    Not that I want them to get away with it, perish the thought, but really – are they stupid or something?

    Oh, sorry, rhetorical question there.

  6. 6 Katabasis 23/11/2011 at 9:45 am

    @Andrew

    “Not that I want them to get away with it, perish the thought, but really – are they stupid or something?”

    Have you seen this one? Painful – just. Painful:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/kenneth-trenberth-on-nobel-and-religion-at-christmas/

  7. 7 Steve Milesworthy 23/11/2011 at 1:32 pm

    Why is the context of a quote not important?

    The context of the “They’ll kill us” quote is that it was written on a public forum in 2007 by what appears to be a PhD student. There he is trying to see both sides of the argument. He strongly criticises Al Gore and questions whether uncertainty in the science is being sufficiently openly discussed.

    So hardly a private email from a top climate scientist with fixed, alarmist, views worried about being found out to be exaggerating things!

    http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0703&L=ITRDBFOR&P=R3754&I=-3

  8. 8 Katabasis 23/11/2011 at 1:45 pm

    Steve,

    you make a good point about that particular quote.

    However the problem is that the “out of context” excuse has become a universal, not to mention lame, dismissal of many damning aspects of these emails that *only* appear, in fact, *in context* – such as the consistent pattern of attempts to resist FOI requests, destroy evidence etc.

  9. 9 ProgContra 23/11/2011 at 5:02 pm

    While Mann has given up on Judith Curry, Phil Jones thinks she’s got an inferiority complex:

    http://progcontra.blogspot.com/2011/11/climategate-20-phil-jones-on-judith.html

  10. 10 Steve Milesworthy 23/11/2011 at 6:03 pm

    Katabasis,

    I don’t agree that it is an excuse to say context is important. The current context is a wall of quotes that people can pick and choose and say, apparently without any thought, that the chosen quote is some sort of damning indictment.

    Elsewhere we have a (non-“sceptic”) scientist complaining about political motivation in the first version of an IPCC chapter. But universally, everyone takes it to be a criticism of the unknown author of the chapter and by vague implication the IPCC process itself.

    Would it not be more interesting to know what the scientist was complaining about, and whether (given that he is relatively senior and has lots of influential co-workers) he got his way by the time the final version of the chapter was written?

  11. 11 Rereke Whakaaro 24/11/2011 at 8:40 am

    thespecialone,

    “Some clever person out there should I imagine be able to crack the passwords to the rest of the emails. I truly hope so.”

    I truly hope not. Those files are there, protected with a passphrase, as an insurance policy.

    The powers that be know that the original release was a leak, and the police have found no evidence to the contrary. The “hacking” story was merely obfuscation in an attempt to divert attention from the contents.

    Previously, it was all conveniently swept under the carpet by the numerous exonerating inquiries. “Nothing to see here, move along please”. But that ploy will not work a second time.

    Blood will be spilled over the second leak, and hence the need to withhold the majority of the material, just to be sure, to be sure.

    The players in the drama expressed in those files will now live in fear of the other shoe dropping. And they dare not move against any person that they suspect as being the source of the leaks for fear that the passphrase will be released, and the most incriminating material published.

    The players will also be having many sleepless nights trying to remember what was in those emails that have not yet seen the light of day.

    “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably”.

    Oh no, something worse than that …

  12. 12 Stuck-Record 24/11/2011 at 10:06 am

    I have to say I think you might be right.

    Since the 2nd leak I have been puzzled (as have others) as to why the 220,000 e-mails were released but locked with an unbreakable password. It seemed perverse to me. But I think your solution is correct.

    It hints that the leaker believes there is a possibility they may be caught (which would also suggest that they are on the inside) and has put his insurance policy/scorched earth package out there in public so that it cannot be stopped should Norfolk police feel his/her collar.

    I would imagine that he has already uploaded the password to some online location (apparently it needs to be a few thousand digits long). If the 220,000 e-mails are indeed an insurance policy the logical thing for him to have done would be to have set up a timer on the password release. For example, unless he enters/logs on to some remote site every couple of days, or once a week, the password would automatically be released into the public domain..

  13. 13 Katabasis 24/11/2011 at 10:31 am

    @Rereke –

    “The players will also be having many sleepless nights trying to remember what was in those emails that have not yet seen the light of day.”

    There is a delicious irony here isn’t there? They have very likely deleted the original mails as we see them discussing doing in these same mails. They might actually have to go through the leaked email files in order to “reconstruct” what they had said. Heh.

    @Stuck-Record

    “I would imagine that he has already uploaded the password to some online location (apparently it needs to be a few thousand digits long).”

    No it could be any length, though every additional character added increases the amount of computing power required to break it by brute force exponentially.


Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive