2011-11-22 23:36:35Climategate 2.0
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
143.238.130.246

Have no idea what this means but more quote mining and diversions, I expect:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/

2011-11-23 00:02:31
Kevin C

cowtan@ysbl.york.ac...
144.32.72.165

Oh no not again.

2011-11-23 00:07:56
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.118.175

Maybe they can get on top of this situation more quickly this time.

2011-11-23 03:01:55
perseus

owlsmoor@googlemail...
188.220.205.42

And just before the Durban talks, how cynical!

2011-11-23 03:11:00
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.220.217

Can only echo Mann's words: 'truly pathetic'.

Not sure how bad it will be this time round. Some of the quotes just seem like scientists talking about uncertainties - it actually felt like some of these quotes could be used to support our position.

2011-11-23 03:12:33
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

More emails:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562

2011-11-23 03:17:26
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Not sure that some of the quotes are really all that exciting. Similar comments could be found anywhere in any discussion.

2011-11-23 03:19:22
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.220.217

Quite balanced from the BBC - they've become too Daily-Mail-lite recently, in my opinion, but that's not a bad article. Good to see them mention the timing, as perseus has already pointed out here.

2011-11-23 03:22:13
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.220.217

Agree with you, Paul - it's scientists discussing science, disagreeing with each other, raising questions and putting forward ideas on how to improve research... I don't think it looks half as bad as Climategate 1.0, but time will tell.

2011-11-23 03:23:39
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Richard Black is a lone reporter at the BBC these days that tells it as it is.

2011-11-23 03:26:01
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

The only people I ever see still quoting from the faux Climategate thing are deep diehard deniers.  People who will never be convinced that this is anything but a massive secret plot from the Illuminati to install a communist world government.  

Just got a tweet that Mike Mann has commented on this Gardian article.

2011-11-23 03:26:07
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

The question is, does this mean the university has been hacked for a second time or is this just boring stuff that wasn't released the first time?

2011-11-23 03:29:10
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

The timing proves that both releases are political in nature and not anything to do with science.

2011-11-23 03:29:14
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Ah, they just quote him in the article.

2011-11-23 03:30:47
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

No, Paul, they're saying in the original hacking they took 220,000 emails and are just releasing select batches.

So now these emails are even older than two years ago.  They're becoming more and more pointless.  Doesn't mean Anthony et al aren't going to try to make hay out of it.

2011-11-23 03:33:58
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

In the Guardian article they point out that there is more information this time coming from the hacker(s).  They include some comments.  In specific it is noted that they use dots instead of commas to denote thousands places, i.e. "5.000 emails."

Dollars to doughnuts says Motl is tied up in this somewhere.  

2011-11-23 03:40:33
thingsbreak

things.break@gmail...
66.7.151.194

Rob H.,

 

Please elaborate. You think Motl is involved in the hacking? Based on what?

2011-11-23 03:46:55
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Thankfully all the media in the UK are focused on the Leveson inquiry and the phone hacking scandal.
This looks like being a minor story here, fingers crossed.

The likes of the Daily Mail are to busy spreading dirt on the celebs that are participating. Could change tomorow I guess.

2011-11-23 03:58:56
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Gotta love the denialist blogs these stolen emails were posted on - WUWT, CA, Air Vent, and Tall Bloke (not familiar with that last one).  Frankly I'd be embarrassed to be on that list.  It's like being an accessory to a crime.

Doesn't look like there's much to this set of emails - even less than the first.  It'll be interesting to see what the deniers do with it.

2011-11-23 04:01:56
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.118.175

The impression I get is that this is of the same vintage as the earlier release; so unless they originally held back for a "second course", there may be little of real interest.

2011-11-23 04:44:01
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

This is truly pathetic. They made the mistake of adding a readme file which shows them to be opposed to taking meaninglful action on reducing GHG emissions, so it is not about the science.  They say "Poverty is a death sentence", that sounds like something the Cornwall Alliance would say--Spencer, McKitrick and Michaels are supporters.

The hacker/s also used commas instead of periods in their numbers, so most likely continental Europe or Eurasia.....unless there is something incredibly juicy in there, i fail to see that this will be a win for them, they had their chance two years ago and trying it agan just makes them look mean-spirited and incrediby desperate.  Wow, BEST really did upset the apple cart, and then there is Durban of course....

Motl the hacker?  You know he might just be crazy enough and talented enough to do that!  RobH, maybe you should share this with Norfolk police...it is worth putting out there. [Updated to correct error]

Hopefully this second round will be their undoing...

2011-11-23 04:50:54
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

thingsbreak...  I've got nothing to go on, really.  Just a gut sense.  

1) Motl is a freakshow loon.  

2) The comments on the latest email release shows that the hackers are coming from a country where they use dots for thousands seperators, i.e. NOT the US and NOT the UK, but maybe somewhere in central Europe or possibly eastern block.  

3) Motl is really really crazy, has no morals, and likely has a circle of close friends who are very technologically savvy.  

4) Motl is a freakshow loon X2.

2011-11-23 04:55:17
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Wasn't there discussion somewhere that Motl had provided the wordings of the questions to be put to Phil Jones?

2011-11-23 05:15:53
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Daniel...  It either came from Lindzen or Motl, not sure which.  Motl definitely made a statement in a blog comment somewhere to the effect that, "1995 was chosen because that is the year statistical significance fails the 95% confidence level."

2011-11-23 05:19:34
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

I had a big blow out with Motl on Peter Sinclair's channel when Peter mentioned this comment from Motl.  Lubos came over fuming mad saying he was going to sue people and all kinds of stuff.  He was arguing that something that didn't meet the 95% level in fact didn't exist.  I guess string theory doesn't require much in the way of statistics.

2011-11-23 05:21:49
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Reminds me of when I worked on software for weighing equipment. There were usually micro switches on the circuit board which were used to customize the machines for different countries. One switch would be used to change between comma and point.

2011-11-23 05:24:31
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

DeepClimate covered the origin of the 95% fiasco.  It probably originated with Lindzen in an email to Watts (it was posted at WUWT).  Dick to Tony:

"Look at the attached.  There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.  Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?  (Incidentally, the red fuzz represents the error ‘bars’.)

Best wishes,

Dick"

 

2011-11-23 05:34:48
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

On his blog Motl sure makes it sound like other people are doing this, not him.  But who knows.  

2011-11-23 05:55:43
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2064826/New-leak-hacked-global-warming-scientist-emails-A-smoking-gun-proving-conspiracy--just-hot-air.html

Interesting comment by a Daily Mail reporter:

"The emails have been released in the form of quotes carefully 'chosen' to show bias, or that scientists were pursuing a particular agenda in their research."

Then they appease the readers:

"It is still unclear what effect - or combination of effects - is causing the current warming of the atmosphere, which has risen around one temperature in the past 50 years"

The article certainly doesn't shout 'This is big!'.



2011-11-23 06:18:28
perseus

owlsmoor@googlemail...
188.220.205.42

REAL CLIMATE

Two-year old turkey
The blogosphere is abuzz with the appearance of a second tranche of the emails stolen from CRU just before thanksgiving in 2009. Our original commentary is still available of course (CRU Hack, CRU Hack: Context, etc.), and very little appears to be new in this batch. Indeed, even the out-of-context quotes aren’t that exciting, and are even less so in-context.

A couple of differences in this go around are worth noting: the hacker was much more careful to cover their tracks in the zip file they produced – all the file dates are artificially set to Jan 1 2011 for instance, and they didn’t bother to hack into the RealClimate server this time either. Hopefully they have left some trails that the police can trace a little more successfully than they’ve been able to thus far from the previous release.

But the timing of this release is strange. Presumably it is related to the upcoming Durban talks, but it really doesn’t look like there is anything worth derailing there at all. Indeed, this might even increase interest! A second release would have been far more effective a few weeks after the first – before the inquiries and while people still had genuine questions. Now, it just seems a little forced, and perhaps a symptom of the hacker’s frustration that nothing much has come of it all and that the media and conversation has moved on.

If anyone has any questions about anything they see that seems interesting, let us know in the comments and we’ll see if we can provide some context. We anticipate normal service will be resumed shortly.

2011-11-23 06:23:40
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

WUWT surprised me.  I honestly didn't think they would be impressed with this junior varsity version of Climategate, but their headline is:

Climategate 2.0 emails – They’re real and they’re spectacular!

Apparently what they think is "spectacular" is the use of the phrase "the cause."  Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.

2011-11-23 06:33:18
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Perhaps Anthony is in need of a moist towelette.

2011-11-23 06:33:27
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

I think minimizing the suffering that billins of people are and will be subjected to by agw is an admirable cause ;)

Yawn.  You can tell from Anthony's headline that they are trying way too hard to sell this.

2011-11-23 06:38:13
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.194.4

2 year old turkey is spectacular?

2011-11-23 06:39:47
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.194.4

I think we (SkS) should take a leaf out of the deniers playbook and always refer to it as "Two year old turkey."

2011-11-23 06:39:49Hard hiiting critique!
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

"Climategate 2.0? New Emails Hacked -- Pay No Attention to the Energy Industry Behind the Curtain" by Shawn Lawrence Otto. Author, 'Fool Me Twice'; science advocate; filmmaker; co-founder, Sciencedebate.org, posted on The Huffington Post, Nov 23, 2011 

2011-11-23 06:41:00Climategate 2.0 is a huge opportunity
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
143.238.130.246

A summary of the Debunking Handbook is this: the best response to a sticky idea is an even stickier idea.

We blew Climategate because we didn't respond properly with a compelling alternative narrative. Here's a second chance to get it right. I think the alternative narrative is Climategate reveals the desperate attack on climate science by climate deniers. There's no science to back up the climate denial position so they resort to hacking, quote mining emails and attacking scientists. Their position is intellectually bankrupt.

Climategate 2.0 is taking more emails from the initial hacked batch and release them just before Durbin. It's so transparent, it's laughable. We need to shape that into a compelling narrative, paint a vivid picture of exactly what they're doing. Don't get into the nitty gritty of the details of each email - paint the big picture.

SkS should definitely do a post on this ASAP but I'm not available to do it as I'll be at a conference all day today. So someone else will have to take this job on. I recommend doing it sooner than later, ride the wave and get in front of this, put this narrative out into the public discussion fast.

Best quote so far, Gavin Schmidt: "Two-year old turkey from Thanksgiving 2009"

BTW, here are some links so far:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shawn-lawrence-otto/climategate-20-new-emails_b_1107704.html

 http://climatecrocks.com/2011/11/22/been-there-done-that-got-the-delta-t-climate-hackers-try-again/

http://www.desmogblog.com/climategate-hackers-slither-again-night

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/22/374530/climategate-20-have-journalists-learned-their-lesson/

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111220013

http://www.shawnotto.com/neorenaissance/blog20111122.html

http://www.carbonbrief.org/

 http://getenergysmartnow.com/2011/11/22/climategate-redux-an-opportunity-to-show-learning/ 

http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/statements/CRUnov11

2011-11-23 06:41:21
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188

Delingpole

The meme here is that "what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism". 

We all know that climate activism is driven by scientific knowledge but the opposite dierection causal relationship is hard to disprove. The activism-->climate science causal relationship is the bedrock belief of denialists that enables all their contradictions to appear to them to be internally consistent.

The public image of the scientist as a disinterested truth-seeker (never completely true as anyone who has been on the inside of any research controversy knows) has been blown apart by the original Climategate emails and these latest ones won't help. In the cultural background, there's huge and growing public cynicism about anybody with power over information; politicians, journalists, cops, physicians, bankers, CEO's and now scientists.

I wonder if it's better for all prominent scientists to come out publically on their views on policy. After all, someone like James Hansen hasn't been particularly affected by Climategate, perhaps because he wears his policy heart on his sleeve.

In any case, it's all very depressing. I'm coming to the conclusion that if the Durban process craters that may be all to the good. The twenty-year war on CO2 has been about as effective as the war on drugs and for similar reasons.

2011-11-23 06:47:41
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi John C.,

Agreed, one small quip, you say, "Their position is intellectually bankrupt."

I'd say "Their position is intellectually and morally/ethically bankrupt".

2011-11-23 06:51:34
KR

k-ryan@comcast...
216.185.0.2

dana1981 - TallBloke is a frequent WUWT commentator, fond of the solar orbital cycle theories. I believe I saw a video of him presenting a T-Shirt to J. Curry with one of those "Josh" comics Anthony Watts loves at a denier meeting a couple of years ago.

He has his own blog - don't bother with it, it's junk and has a tiny impact (Alexa Traffic Rank: 594,680).

2011-11-23 07:01:22
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Thanks KR.

I can whip up a post on this tonight.  Should the post link to some of the ridiculous denialist reactions to the emails (i.e. Watts and Delingpole), or should we not even link them?  On the one hand I like to give examples of what I'm talking about, on the other hand I hate giving WUWT traffic.  But there's no better example of denialists blowing Climategate v2 out of proportion than that WUWT headline.

I could pull a Watts and just give the headline without linking to their site.

2011-11-23 07:17:44Your call, Dana
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
143.238.130.246

No hard and fast rule on whether to link to them or not (but if you do, put a rel="nofollow" on the a href link). If the quotes help strengthen your narrative, use them.

Here was my attempt to reframe Climategate on the one year anniversairy:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-question-that-skeptics-dont-want-to-ask-about-Climategate.html

I don't know if this is too schmaltzy or emotive but if I get challenged about this in my public talk on Friday night, I would probably respond with "if you care about the world that we hand over to our children and grandchildren, there's only one question you need to ask about climategate - is there anything in any of the Climategate emails that changes our understanding of the science?" - that question directs people back to what really matters.

2011-11-23 07:37:08
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.194.4

Dana, I've got an hour or two to spare right now, so I'll re-direct from what I'm working on (ancient coral existing at high CO2 rebuttal) and make a start on this. Make any alterations you see fit. I'll try to keep the tone as Spock-like as possible, but there might be the odd unSpock-like comment.

2011-11-23 08:02:47
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Sounds good Rob, pass it along when you're done and maybe we can co-author it.

2011-11-23 08:05:35
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188

Quark Soup

On a second reading of the stolen UAE emails leaked today, and just reading the README file emails, these sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating. 

Much of this is "inside baseball" stuff, but all of us eat that kind of stuff up and form powerful impressions from it. Cardinal Richelieu said 

"Give me six lines written by the most honest man in the world, and I will find enough in them to hang him."
The caveat, of course, is if these emails are accurate. I’ll assume for now that they are.

To be sure, it’s very easy to take nearly any email out of context and use it for ulterior purposes. Of course, the majority of the public doesn’t care about that and wouldn’t understand the context anyway. And to be honest, I don't either, and neither do you. But that's the problem: we all are tempted to interpret them anyway.

Even trying to guess at the context and keep it in mind, some of these excerpts are inexplicable. Some seem innocuous. Others seem just scientists being people, gabbing and gossiping and blowing off steam the way we all do.

In what I’ve culled below, the ones in red seem, to me, to be the most damaging (damning?); those in green as scientists being scientists and being naturally skeptical, and those in blue as scientists being simply human. 

The red ones strike me as probably devastating. The original release of emails 2 years ago had a significant impact. My guess is that these are going to throw the science off-kilter for perhaps the rest of this decade, and may well lead some people to rethink how they are doing business (including certain journalists). That diversion would be a tragedy, for everyone, because there are still very, very good scientifically proven reasons to think that humans are altering the climate and this will only get more pronounced in the coming decades. 

2011-11-23 08:09:46
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

What's great about this one is the timing.  It makes it clear that the perpetrators are in this for political purposes.  I think most of the general public is going to see through this thin veneer.

2011-11-23 08:21:25
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188

One commenter at RC even fingered one of John Cook's emails in the hack.

He was immediately put straight by Gavin.

Could you put these in context, please?:

[John] Cook: “I am afraid that Mike [Mann] is defending something that increasingly can not be defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the science move ahead.”

[Response: Not "John", Ed, and this was in 2002, related to the Briffa/Osborn perspective in Science 2002. Those were early days in the paleo-reconstruction business and different groups had different opinions about how to proceed and interpret the results. Normal science.... - gavin]

 

2011-11-23 08:36:32
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Those 'red' emails don't seem the least bit damning to me, Andy.  If that's the worst they can come up with, there's really nothing to worry about.  I particularly like the Wilson email, saying that maybe the Sun can explain a lot of the early 20th Century warming.  No duh - we've said the same thing.  I suspect that one was written a decade or so ago.

That's one of the issues with these emails - they're way outdated.  Most of these issues have been long resolved (especially the 'hockey stick' crap).

Good point from Rob H that the timing of the releases clearly show this is meant for political purposes, to distract from the science and efforts to achieve emissions reductions.

2011-11-23 08:52:58
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

In the RC post Gavin is doing a good job of putting some of the emails in context.  This might be a good post for SkS.  Collect the red emails and help put them in context.

2011-11-23 08:59:07
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

You have to laugh that this is one of their "gotcha" emails... "We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest."

Heavens to Betsy!  Honest communication from climate scientists!!  Call in the National Guard!!

2011-11-23 09:38:45
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

A nice explanation of one of the emails by Media Matters.

2011-11-23 09:47:52
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

I certainly don't have the same queasy feeling in my stomach I had two years ago, reading these emails.  There's (again) nothing significant in them, and hopefully the public will both realise they've been fooled before, and also the timing of this.

I had a thought.  When he was trying to distract attention away from BEST a few weeks ago, Watts said something along the lines of "if you knew what I knew", or something vagely along the lines, as if he had some devastating information hidden up his sleeve.  The presumption then was it was about BEST, which clearly he didn't... could he have been talking about this?

I hope the media are savvy enough to not be fooled twice.

2011-11-23 09:52:08
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.118.175

skywatcher,

Could be.

In that case: "The other mouse that roared."

2011-11-23 09:55:12
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Is there any possibility that Watts could be investigated?

2011-11-23 10:01:12
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

There is such a huge story behind all of this if only someone could expose it.  I'm confident there is a strong network among a top tier of deniers.  I would love to see the emails going between McIntyre, Soon, Watts, Spencer, and the rest of them.  And I'd love to see who they're connected to.

If this ever broke as a story it would be Watergate on steroids.

2011-11-23 10:06:24media matters
Stephen Leahy

writersteve@gmail...
208.74.213.160

Dana, if accurate media matters points to some horrible reporting by the WaPo and AP - cranking out stories without seeing all the emails!? And not putting them into context?! Once again the US media is appears to be working for fossil fuel interests or just plain incompetent...

2011-11-23 10:09:25
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

This was just reposted at RC...

Posted at WUWT

“OK, my skeptic instincts are on high alert. So far, there is no smoking gun in the emails. There are only some uncomfortable exchanges, expressions of doubt, etc., etc. How do we know that this isn’t Mann or another member of the team putting these emails out to try to sway public opinion. . The idea would be to put out a bunch of legitimate emails that put people in a mildly bad light (so as to establish their genuineness), but don’t contain any really damning stuff. There will be a big flurry of press coverage and blogger buzz, but in the end, its all about nothing. The public will then conclude that its all been overblown and that the skeptics are wrong about the degree of dishonesty within the team. Public interest (and the concomitant public pressure) in the UVA emails would subside. This would be a fairly sophisticated strategy (sort of a ‘false flag’ operation), but I’m worried because these emails are not nearly as damning as Climategate I. It all looks very suspicious to me.”

Amazing.

 

2011-11-23 10:11:36
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.118.175

Well, Soon and Spencer are still academics; so it would be likely they're using their academic email addresses; Pielke also, as you mentioned before.

Does McIntyre get any governmental funding? I wouldn't even be surprised if Singer got some bits from some odd corner.

Of course there's Judith Curry; but I suspect that we'd only find that she's crumbling faster than is otherwise apparent.

2011-11-23 10:16:31
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

skywatcher - I recall reading that Watts and co. do have another paper coming out at some point in the relatively near future.  I believe Pielke has mentioned it as well.

Stephen - unfortunately, nothing new about poor US journalism.  Certainly nothing new for the Washington Post.

2011-11-23 10:21:04
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Rob,

"There is such a huge story behind all of this if only someone could expose it."

Pielke's CIRES account could hold the key to that door.  I am not so much interested in his emails, but those he is cc'd on from Watts to God knows who.  But, if he has been conpsiring with Watts et al....well then that is another story.

Look, if the deniers' emails are exposed I have no doubt that what we see will be unbelieveable, mind blowing, maybe even criminal. Why none has tried legitimitely (i.e., through FOIA) to access their emails is beyond me.

There is a journalist in Canada, Mike de Souza, who does not give a hoot about consequences, just the truth and facts.  He might have the guts to pursue this.

 

Neal,

McIntrye has (or had) a University of Toronto account.  Those emails could be accessed using something called FIPPA.

2011-11-23 10:27:39
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

Romm has an article with discussion of a bad article at Washington Post.  Romm's cartoon is funny though:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/22/374559/fool-me-once-shame-on-you-fool-me-twice-shame-on-the-media-more-stolen-emails-global-warming/

Rob @10:09, that's astonishing - conspiracy theorist gets his knickers utterly twisted round his own head trying to paint the "Team" in a bad light! Almost as if they can see there's nothing in these emails, but the cognitive dissonance just cannot allow the natural conclusion from that...

There was evidence of a 'skeptic network' a few years back - somebody found it and linked to it just as it started, before it was suitably password protected, but I can't remember where.  It would tell one hell of a story, and reveal an awful lot about what makes these characters tick. 

I have a feeling we've passed 'peak denial' as Dana has said, and the next round of global records/low ice/extreme weather is going to leave deniers very marginalised indeed.  Sooner or later all these clowns will have a lot of investigative reporters on their backs, poking around and asking some very hard questions.  Would've been sooner but for a deep solar minimum, odd pattern of ENSO and possibly Chinese aerosols, and latterly a big recession, all playing tag to create an environment in which skeptics could flourish.  This will change, unlesss Mother Nature throws in a big volcano to keep temperatures down, and even then it will change after that.  I wish I could say I'm looking forward to the new records, but I'm not.

2011-11-23 10:41:28
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.118.175

What about Bob Carter, John Nichols et al.? Don't a number of them have academic tie-ins? They must have been involved in bringing Monckton over.

2011-11-23 10:43:46
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188

Dana, I don't think those comments are damning at all. The problem about all this Climategate nonsense is not what I (or you) think but about what others think. That's why I posted the Quark Soup link. If we are to respond to this effectively, we have to get inside the heads of people who do actually think this stuff is serious. It's serious because people think its serious, even some people on "our side".

Years ago I worked at a British research institute and we got involved in a number of what were considered major controversies about the geological structure and history of NW Europe (it all seems kind of trivial now). It was amazing how vicious and personal some of the fights were, and all the scheming and back-biting that went on. Thank God there was no email in those days. When Climategate first broke, I imagined the worst but I was genuinely surprised at how polite and careful much of the discourse was in the stolen emails.

What did shock me was some of the over-reaction of people like Monbiot and Pearce. I couldn't believe how naive they were not to know how science was conducted in the real world. 

The truth is that, when you get to know them personally, a lot of scientists turn out to be arrogant jerks.

2011-11-23 11:26:01
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.35.74

Dana, working draft posted in the blog posts section.

2011-11-23 16:23:06
thingsbreak

things.break@gmail...
98.204.66.145

John Cook, re: stickier idea

This incident is different from the first because we now have the first justification/motivation behind the hack/publication of personal emails.

It is the fallacious notion that [paraphrase] "mitigation is taking monies away from the poor/underdeveloped and thus should be opposed."

This is an enormous opportunity for SkS and other groups to reframe the conversation about the emails to intent and show why this is total crap. It's a wonderful opening.

Any attempt to bring this release up can be addressed briefly and redirected to the point that the entire justifaction for the crime was stupid. Mitigation benefits poorer nations.

2011-11-23 16:52:15
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

I agree TB.  It was a mistake for them (a gift to the good guys) that they attached that Readme file.  We now know this is politically/ideologically motivated crime.  We really, really need to capitalize on this opportunity-- maybe in a follow-up post.  Dana et al have addressed this issue before, so it should be easy to pull all the relevant info together.

Also see my reference to the Cornwall Alliance made earlier.  This latest incident kinds implicates people like Spencer.

2011-11-23 19:17:43Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.163.167.114

Im gonna be honest I'm dissapointed in some of the emails. I have heard behind the scenes about some of this stuff and apparently the opinions of some were more widespread then I had thought.

I urge us all to consider it is about the right science not about just being on the side of the consensus. Some of the reconstruction work we have talked about SHOULD be re-evaluated and perhaps some wording changed.

here's an example:

Raymond Bradley

<3373>

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.



Remember, he is the B in MBH 1998... so maybe we should see if we talk about the paper anywhere?

2011-11-23 19:35:12Comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.163.167.114

<<<Rob Honeycutt

There is such a huge story behind all of this if only someone could expose it.  I'm confident there is a strong network among a top tier of deniers.  I would love to see the emails going between McIntyre, Soon, Watts, Spencer, and the rest of them. >>>


I'm sure there is some sort of network between them all but we have to remember there's a different tier between skeptics out there... Watts, Soon etc... they're the worst of the worse... Spencer/Christy/McIntyre/Pielke I feel are on a different level in that there is *some* science involved there... *some* being the operative word there...

2011-11-23 20:20:09
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.94.242

Rob Way, sure it can be talked about, but don't get bogged down in "skeptic" framing. The evidence that the MCA or MWP was cooler than today has only grown in the last decade. That's why "skeptics" like to focus on the past.

2011-11-23 21:53:55
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

Guardian find that GWPF have refused FOI requests for emails:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/chris-huhne-lawson-think-tank

2011-11-23 22:12:23
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
124.179.95.162

Reality Check. Before I head off to bed.  If this is all new, why are we seeing it now? Who held this terrible, darstardly stuff back, andc why? Its so old and yet so suddenly so portentious NOW?

2011-11-23 23:13:59
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.116.70

Does GWPF have a legal obligation to comply with FOI requests?

2011-11-23 23:27:13
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.154.102

neal, (from the article) the FOI requests where made to John Moores University in Liverpool.   Beny Peiser, director of GWPF, was on the staff of the University until July 2010, and hence his obligations were identical to those of the CRU.  While there is no suggestion of wrong doing by Peiser, there is also no question of a double standard.  Peiser has refused all requests, and had deleted a large number of emails from the university files, including all refering to "global warming".

2011-11-23 23:40:18
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.134.155.184

Glenn: "why are we seeing it now"?

 

I suspect it was a Plan B if BEST didn't work out for them. Witness the following screengrabbed exchange from WUWT on the "discussion" following the BEST findings:

 

If that's not a reference to a forthcoming stunt I'll eat my hat!

Cheers - John

2011-11-24 00:11:05
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.154.102

Robert Way, I do not understand your point.

 

Overall, it is about the science.  That is why we focus on the science, and should try to make our reporting of the science as accurate as possible.

 

But climategate 2 is not about the science.  It is about an unwarranted attack on climate scientists based on innuendo, backed by selective and out of context quotation.  Even if scientists have done some things wrong, and even if the evidence for it can be found in the emails, the method of attack used employing the emails is dishonest, dishonourable and unjust.  We should defend climate scientists against that sort of attack just as we should defend murderers from lynch mobs.

 

It seems to me you have lost sight of that.  Take, for example, your Bradley quote.  Why does Bradley object to Mann and Jones, 2003?  He does not say, and we would be speculating if we conducted a review of our use of M&J 2003.  If we knew his objections, we could consider them and either agree with him, or agree with the authors, editors and reviewers.  But based on the truncated quote we currently have, any review of our use of that paper would be based on innuendo rather than science.  Further, where we to expunge M&J 2003 from our pages based on that quote, we would be setting up a standard based on authority, not science.  And applying it [in]consistently as we do not know Bradley's opnions of other reconstructions.

 

Indeed, if there were a truly compelling case against the use of M&J 2003, why have we heard nothing about it from the deniers?  OK, they have a monomania about MBH 98, but if the paper is scientifically flawed, then the published version plus the closely related Jones and Mann 2004 should have contained adequate information to assess the flaws.  So, if we wish to distance ourselves from M&J 2003, it should be solely on the basis of public scientific arguments against either the data or methodology of the paper.  Not because one carefully culled email from 200,000 contains a critical comment but no detail.

2011-11-24 00:24:12
perseus

owlsmoor@googlemail...
188.220.205.42

Real 'Climategate' Scandal: UK Police Spent Measly $8,843 In Failed Attempt to Identify Criminal Hacker

from DeSmogBlog - Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Scien by Brendan DeMelle

Richard Black at the BBC points to the real 'Climategate' scandal that needs further investigation - why the UK police have done such an astonishly poor job investigating this criminal hacking, as evidenced by their tiny expenditures to date this year. From Climate Emails, Storm or Yawn?:

I have it from a very good source that it absolutely was a hack, not a leak by a "concerned" UEA scientist, as has been claimed in some circles.
The Norfolk Police clearly see it as a criminal act too, a spokesman telling me that "the contents [of the new release] will be of interest to our investigation which is ongoing".
Groups like UCS are, however, beginning to ask where that investigation has got to.
I have been passed information stemming from an FoI request to Norfolk Police showing that over the past 12 months, they have spent precisely £5,649.09 [US$8,843.64] on the investigation.
All of that was disbursed back in February; and all but £80.05 went on "invoices for work in the last six months".
Of all the figures surrounding the current story, that is perhaps the one that most merits further interrogation.

Stay tuned for more information when Black writes further about his (real) investigation into the incompetent police effort to identify the thieves behind the East Anglia CRU hack.

http://www.desmogblog.com/real-climategate-scandal-uk-police-spent-measly-8-843-failed-attempt-identify-criminal-hacker

2011-11-24 00:28:53
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.94.242

$8,843? That's a lot of donuts.

2011-11-24 01:29:01
perseus

owlsmoor@googlemail...
188.220.205.42

Leaked climate emails force carbon dioxide to resign

23-11-11 CARBON dioxide has resigned from being a gas, it has been confirmed.
The move came after a fresh batch of leaked emails between climate scientists showed that CO2 had been lying about what it is and what it does.

According to one of the emails, sent by Julian Cook, a researcher at the University of East Anglia, carbon dioxide had got drunk and admitted it had made the whole thing up.

Cook adds: "He says he's not even a gas, never mind a greenhouse gas. He says his name's Brian and he used to work for Kwik Fit in Norwich.

"He says his application to UEA was turned down 'because he doesn't talk all posh' and he's done all of this just to embarrass us.

"What are we going to do???????"

But Professor Steve Jones replied: "For Christ's sake don't tell the press. In the meantime we have to go back to our notes and work out what in the name of fuck has been coming out of engines and power stations in ever increasing quantities for the last 150 years.

"Then we have to see if this thing traps heat in the atmosphere in the same way that Brian did."

Martin Bishop, who has a PhD in blogging from Delingpole University, said: "At least carbon dioxide has finally owned up. Hopefully David Attenborough will now have the decency to stop machine-gunning my children into a pit."

Meanwhile, carbon and oxygen, the gas's constituent parts, have been suspended from the periodic table of elements pending the outcome of a high-level inquiry.

The chief medical officer is to issue guidelines for people who want to keep breathing and have bodies
2011-11-24 02:21:03
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
212.139.89.48

Got to love the Daily Mash

2011-11-24 03:33:28
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi John M.,

Anthony is probably referring to an upcoming paper.  BUT, let no stone be left unturned.  Has anyone informed Norfolk police about this?  Please let me know, because if not, I will.

2011-11-24 03:47:11
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'm pretty sure Watts was referring to an in-process paper, but I suppose it's possible he knew about the second wave of emails beforehand, given that WUWT was one of the sites that received them first.

A post on the motivations detailed in the READ ME file and why they're misplaced (economically speaking) might be worthwhile.

2011-11-24 03:59:38
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
212.139.89.48

Albatross, go for it. Even if someone has already mentioned Watts to them, it won't hurt to repeat the comment. Since he was one of the first to receive the first batch, I'm pretty sure he's already on their radar - not that this means they have any dirt on him but they must be aware of him.

2011-11-24 04:14:18
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.116.70

Robert,

On your suggestion: "Remember, he is the B in MBH 1998... so maybe we should see if we talk about the paper anywhere?"

Our evaluation and presentation has to be based on the published paper, not on email gossip (which anyway shows only a partial picture of whatever was going on behind the scenes). In the end, it's the impact on the wider community of climate scientists that matters to us, not what people said privately at the time.

Even Einstein made significant mistakes in some of his papers (I remember discovering one); in fact, he was not particularly good at calculations, and usually had assistants to complete the calculations correctly. Nonetheless, he had enormous insights in physics, and his papers made correspondingly enormous impact.

2011-11-24 04:15:29
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Dana,

"A post on the motivations detailed in the READ ME file and why they're misplaced (economically speaking) might be worthwhile."

I think so Dana, see my little rant here.

2011-11-24 04:16:24
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

The readme file is kind of strange in its choice of words:

"Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day."

"Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes."

"One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true.

"Poverty is a death sentence."

"Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize  greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."

Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on hiding the decline.

I presume, based on the quotation marks, that the first 5 comments are quotes from somewhere or another.  Looks like the $37 trillion figure comes from the IEA.  Of course, as usual with denialists, this is only half the picture at best.  $26 trillion of that is just to meet growing energy demands.  The other $10-11 trillion is offset by an estimated $8.6 trillion in health, security, and energy savings benefits.

Basically, we can spend the money to become more energy efficient and build low-carbon infrastructure, or we can use the money adapting to and suffering because of climate change.  The hacker also presents a false dichotomy, presuming that a dollar spent on climate mitigation is a dollar not spent on alleviating poverty.  That's just dumb.  Not to mention the fact that the poor will suffer disproportionately as a consequence of climate change.

Should make for a good post.  I'm thinking a title like "Debunking the Climategate Hacker's Motivational Myth"

2011-11-24 04:18:24
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Dana,

Richard Black has an excellent post on this very issue.

2011-11-24 04:21:06
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Yeah that's a good point that the poor nations are the ones with the loudest calls to mitigate climate change, because they know they'll be impacted the most.  John has a good post on this that I'll reference.

Maybe "Memo to Climategate Hacker: Poor Nations Don't Want Your Kind of Help"?

2011-11-24 04:25:11
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Good title :)

2011-11-24 04:26:12
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Just please don't say "they will be negatively impacted", they have a hard enough time as it is without being "crushed" ;)

2011-11-24 04:47:33
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Dang, Black kind of beat me to the punch here.  But I'll go into more detail on the subject.  He's doing some good reporting.

2011-11-24 04:50:48
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good story on the subject:

African, Least Developed Countries and countries of the ALBA alliance in Latin America have agreed to work together to ensure that the Durban Climate Conference later this year delivers outcomes that strengthen the climate regime, cut emissions and deliver on climate finance...

You can't build a table with two legs", said Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, of DRC, Chair of the African Group". "We're doing our part. We need progress on climate finance and emission cuts by the industrialized countries for success in Durban".

"We call on the developed countries in Durban to close two gaps: the "mitigation gap" by deeply cutting their emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, and a "finance gap" by agreeing long-term climate finance starting in 2013", said Claudia Salerno, of Venezuela, speaking on behalf of the ALBA group.

Enforces the "poor nations don't want your kind of help" narrative.

2011-11-24 06:10:29
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.134.155.184

The mob have been out in droves today. Was firing off sound refutations to deniers @ the Guardian, but many of the claims & refutations got deleted... frustrating when time is spent double-checking facts. Have fired off an annoyed email to Damian Carrington - their environmental editor. The modding over there is getting daft.

Cheers - John

2011-11-24 08:49:13DeSmog Blog Posts
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Real 'Climategate' Scandal: UK Police Spent Measly $8,843 In Failed Attempt to Identify Criminal Hacker” DeSmog Blog, Nov 22, 2011

East Anglia SwiftHack Email Nontroversy Returns: What You Need To Know”, DeSmog Blog, Nov 22, 2011

 

2011-11-24 09:18:51
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Dana - should title stay with the Turkey theme because we are talking about food and starvation?

Something like "Climategate Hacker Says Let The Poor Nations Eat Two-Year-Old Turkey" - to paraphrase Marie Antoinette.

2011-11-24 09:50:00
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Hmm I dunno.  That's a good point Brian - I like that theme, but I also like the narrative that the hacker is pushing for the opposite solution that those he's supposedly concerned about want (hence the "we don't want your kind of help" title).  I might be able to weave a turkey comment into the text though.

2011-11-24 09:59:12
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.212.44

John Mason - the best thing to do on the Guardian is to report posts. It's often a waste of time trying to reply to all the incorrect claims made because they eventually get deleted. Reporting rubbish simply accelerates the process.

2011-11-24 10:01:12
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.212.44

Dana, how about 'We don't want your cold (or leftover) turkey'? Or does that change your message too much?

2011-11-24 10:29:05
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

Robert Way, I disagree with your concerns, at least based on the email you presented.  It shows Bradley, Mann, Jones have disagreements over reconstructions - we should be surprised why?  Bradley I'm sure has very strong views on what he thinks is a good reconstruction, and probably has a decent reason or two why he doesn't like the paper he refers to, but that does not give him power of veto over its publication.  That to my knowledge nobody has demolished the Mann/Jones papers speaks volumes as to how serious Bradley's concerns are - they must have been read by a bunch of skeptics over the past decade, and Bradley himself could have published a comment if he felt strongly enough.  Maybe Bradley has a point, maybe he doesn't, maybe he just got out of bed on the wrong side the day he wrote that email... who knows, and until somebody shows fatal flaws in Mann/Jones, Jones/Mann papers we should not be very concerned, as it's only opinion (albeit one generally worth listening to).

As gavin said at RC in response to somebody bringing up that email: [Response: Oops! There goes the narrative about how the "Team" are all in it together... - gavin]

perseus, gotta love the Mash - brilliant!

2011-11-24 10:34:02
skywatcher

andycasely@hotmail...
122.107.164.176

John Mason, that was the one I was thinking of above - well done for keeping a copy!  A trawl through Watts' emails would be a veritable treasure trove, far more than the sloppy seconds we're seeing here.

2011-11-24 12:05:26
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
109.150.112.198

"Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day."

That quote is traceable to Rabbi Michael Lerner, who said:

"... global climate change, a product of irresponsible forms of industrialization and use of scientific and technological knowledge divorced from ethical concerns, has caused a deepening of the starvation and malnutrition that afflicts our planet.

This is a planet where over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day, 1.5 billion on less than $1 a day. More than 20 million people die each year of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition or inadequate access to medical care and drugs that would be available if they lived in a world that shared resources and food more equitably."

source: Tower of Babel.

2011-11-24 13:22:14
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Thanks logicman, I'll fit that Rabbi Lerner point into the post.

2011-11-24 13:23:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Thanks logicman, I'll try to fit that Lerner quote into the post.

2011-11-24 22:13:16
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.134.155.184

Anne-Marie,

You're likely right on reporting posts. Anyhow Damian got back to me and copied in the moderating team head, so I've opened a dialogue with her. Hopefully some clarification may come of that!

Think I'll have a nice relaxing day in the garden today! Manning the barricades for several hours is a tiring business!

Cheers - John

2011-11-24 23:17:37Result!
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.134.155.184

After some dialogue with the Guardian moderating team my posts and the ridiculous denier points I was refuting have all been reinstated. I have suggested the mods all have the Skeptical Science top 100 arguments at hand in order to spot when someone's trying it on!

One of the daftest comments (with my reply) was this one - worth putting in my collection methinks!

The Ordivician had far less oxygen than now in ratio to c02 and man could survive without a repirator back then,

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here.

Can anybody else hazard a guess?

One of the most interesting things about the Ordovician was the Hirnantian - a period of rapid climate change from Hothouse to Icehouse and back. People might like to note that these climatic fluctuations were accompanied by the second-biggest mass-extinction of the Phanerozoic era.

Cheers - John

2011-11-24 23:31:40
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.115.66

First, congratulations for your victory over the demons of stupidity and bad moderation at the Guardian!

Secondly, isn't it obvious that the Ordivician predated humans by hundreds of millions of years?

2011-11-24 23:44:07
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.134.155.184

@nealjking,

I'm sure most people know that - which is a good reason to leave the post in question up for all to see!

 

Anyway, I have posted a summary:

The current "skeptical" stance in full:

1) There is no global warming.

2) There is warming but it's nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

3) The carbon dioxide causing the warming has all come from volcanoes.

4) errr....

5) That's it.

Cheers - John

2011-11-25 00:47:24
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.212.44

Good work, John - it really is a thankless task. I've stayed away because my health has been dodgy in the past few weeks, and you really need to be on top of things to debate climate issues on CiF. So hat tip :)

I started reporting posts after I started being pre-moderated - I became quite sarcastic with a poster who was posting ridiculous lies and smears and clearly didn't understand the science. I should've just reported him, it would've saved me being pre-moderated which is very annoying when discussing certain topics.

I like your summary of the deniers' stance - spot on. The inconsistency doesn't seem to bother them. Keep up the good work, I might join in at some point.

2011-11-25 03:13:34
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Great work John M.!  I am very grateful for your efforts, now can you do something about the denierfest at BBC? ;)  The threads there are hopeless and infested wth denier drones/trolls.  What i do like now (and something that I was going to suggest they do) is that one has to follow a link to view the comments, so at least most of the population/readers are spared the idiocy of the D-Ks.

2011-11-25 20:10:24
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.134.155.184

That is good news, Albatross. I gave the BBC up as a bad job several years ago - their mods are completely clueless WRT climate change and they will retain the most idiotic troll-posts whilst deleting responses to them. It is therefore a total waste of time. Over at the Guardian we can and do make a difference and none of us pull any punches.

Anne-Marie, which of the trolls were you having problems with? Having been on there for some time I can almost predict their styles and what they are likely to come up with - and how to make them look idiots!

Given that we are not organised as such, and have day-jobs to attend to, the dozen or so of us who are the regular defenders of climate science over there manage to do a pretty effective job most of the time and there's almost always someone at hand to deal with the idiots who trollswarm the place. If we could get funding and become organised then we could likely expand our presence to other sites. We could call ourselves, "Not the GWPF"!

The only other UK forum I regularly visit climate-wise is The Weather Outlook, simply because it attracts a number of characters such as Stephen Wilde (oft seen on WUWT, Bishop Hill etc). He's started spamming there this morning, starting individual threads about individual emails, and has not made himself popular in the process!

Cheers - John

2011-11-25 23:37:52
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.212.44

John, I can't remember his username - I'll see if I come across it at some point, though he could've been banned for his comments. I'd never seen him around before and I've been on CiF for a couple of years - I post as Bioluminescence - and I'd never seen anyone as 'confused' before, i.e. his style was unique, which is saying something.

It is hard work countering the tide of denial - and that's only on CiF, which is, let's say, more reasonable than other news outlets. I don't think I'd ever have the courage to post on the Daily Mail, for example. There are far, far too many trolls and sockpuppets around - it would take quite an effort to fight back.

Never checked The Weather Outlook but will do now. Thanks :) 

2011-11-26 00:05:16
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.134.155.184

Could it be bananachips? We think BC is back under the handle shufflecarrot and is as clueless as ever!

For the DM you would need to counter like with like - i.e. a pro-science Astroturf operation, which is something I would have misgivings about....

Cheers - John

2011-11-26 00:19:36
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.212.44

I think it might have been creepwire - I've had a look at my past comments and the blog in question, and all his comments were deleted. But I'm not 100% sure.

Aye, any Astroturf comes with considerable risks - well not if you're a denier of course, double standards and all... But they would manage to twist it as only they can and I'm not sure it's worth the risk.

2011-11-26 00:33:58
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.134.155.184

Ah yes - Creepwire is hard work.

That Tomwhy's a right pratt too. He posted an entire and completely uninteresting email exchange between Monbiot and Mann. I did let George know in case he fancied popping in to say his piece, but the comment's been deleted now. The man's a waste of bandwidth and I shall tell him next time he posts more crap!

Cheers - John

2011-11-26 00:37:52
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.212.44

Ah, so it might have been creepwire - I'm surprised he's still allowed to post but there you go.

I look forward to it. I see you've already had a word with Tomwhy - the beliefs these people hold is mind-boggling.

2011-11-26 03:00:20FOIA
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I posted a comment on Danas article relating to the file name that was put on the Russian server:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/memo-to-climategate-hacker-poor-nations-dont-want-your-kind-of-help.html#comments

It relates to the name 'FOIA'. In the UK we would probably refer to the FOI Act. FOIA is more typically American.

A bit of Sherlock Holmes thinking!

2011-11-26 06:43:44
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Supposedly the time zone on the original released emails was -5 GMT, which also corresponds to the North American east coast.

2011-11-26 08:44:11The Carbon Brief's take
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The following is from The Carbon Brief's "Weekly Briefing" email for the week ending Friday, Nov 25.

Climategate 2: The Squeakquel

Someone - presumably the hacker who released the original ‘Climategate’ emails  - stuck another batch online just at the UN Climate Summit in Durban is kicking off.

Skeptic bloggers are excited, with James Delingpole seizing the opportunity to call Phil Jones names again. There’s also discussion on The Air Vent. WUWT, Climate Audit, TallBloke, Jo Nova and others, who are busy mining the emails for information. Skeptical Science meanwhile took issue with the hacker’s claim that the emails were released for the sake of the world’s poor. Here’s our list of recommended reading for more.

Despite all of the online excitement, the press has broadly greeted the story with disinterest, to the annoyance of skeptic bloggers. Despite a flurry of under-researched coverage at the beginning - which we fact-check here - the broader reaction has, so far, been muted, with Time calling it a “weak sequel”. We look at the reasons why. There’s also pieces by Phil Jones (and UEA) and the Guardian explaining the cherry-picked phrases.

 

2011-11-26 08:56:28
perseus

owlsmoor@googlemail...
188.220.205.42

This cross post on Joe Romm's site could be a useful list for all the fake 'gate' scandals used to smear climate science and the subsequent apologies and retractions from the media.

The Real Scandal: The Endless Effort to Smear Climate Scientists

2011-11-26 10:58:59
Brian Purdue

bnpurdue@bigpond.net...
60.228.22.178

Sounds like we can ignore what Quark Soup said then http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/11/sorting-through-stolen-uae-emails.html

Sorting Through the Stolen UEA Emails

On a second reading of the stolen UAE UEA emails leaked today, and just reading the README file emails, these sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating. ------------------------------------------------------ The red ones strike me as probably devastating. The original release of emails 2 years ago had a significant impact. My guess is that these are going to throw the science off-kilter for perhaps the rest of this decade, and may well lead some people to rethink how they are doing business (including certain journalists).

But I remember reading just after Climategate emails 1.0 release that they would have little to no impact – that was before denial machine got into full gear and made nothing into blocking action on climate change. Let’s remain very vigilant this time.  

2011-11-26 20:06:14
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I went to A climate science discussion at the Tyndall Centre at Southampton Uni about a year or two ago and it was said there that the CRU got an email (before the 2009 episode) from an American source that said if they didn't release the data that had been asked for then information would be released.

There are two possibilities with the people that released that first batch and the second batch of emails, either the persons or people releasing this info are really stupid or they are really intelligent.
They are stupid if they thought that posting on a Russian server would somehow hide the real location of where they live, having failed to take into account culture and technical signatures on the information they released.
Or they are intelligent, because they have given a false indication that they are American (the cultural and technical signatures are planted to give a false trail).