'New release' of climate emails

BBC News ^ | 11/22/11 | Richard Black

[goodnesswins]

A computer hacking in Russia has lead to a release of more undermining info about "Climate."

Here's one tidbit: "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."

[FreedomPoster]

I am a huge Pournelle fan. His day book (he *hates* the word blog, though he arguably had the first one) is required reading. FR, Pournelle, and Yon are the only places I voluntarily send money for news / analysis.

[FreedomPoster]

Bad link here. If you guys find a good one, place ping me, and likewise.

[FreedomPoster]

Correction - please ping me

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

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

[PA Engineer]

BTTT.

[SueRae]

Yes...and Penn State’s “internal” investigation found no coverup and nothing wrong with his work. So much for the self-policing at Penn State. As if they needed another example. Circle the wagons.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

Try this one. Again.....CHECK FOR MALWARE AND VIRUSES.

https://remote.utorrent.com/send?btih=EBD36AFC51AFEF4486028C1940739E6112964629&dn=FOIA2011.zip&message=&sid=e0c7873&cid=6592169267

Sorry, I don’t have the capability at the mo.

I’ll keep searching for Torrents.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

And another: (CHECK FOR VIRUSES and MALWARE) *sorry to keep posting that. I just want folks to be safe before clicking links..*

https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a6e638f5f62757d6b9b

[Bidimus1]

UPDATE3: 9:25 AM PST – Having read a number of emails, and seeing this quote from Mike Mann in the Guardian:

When asked if they were genuine, he said: “Well, they look like mine but I hardly see anything that appears damning at all, despite them having been taken out of context. I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad.”

Spin Cycle set on FULL

[FreedomPoster]

That one downloaded. It checked out OK with both MSE and AntiMalwareBytes. I’m unzipping it now.

[Personal Responsibility]

Herein lies the problem.

Their models, as advanced as they are, do not (read: can not) incorporate everything which goes into predicting the future of the climate.

Therefore, at best, their models are educated guesses. At worst, they are pure speculation

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

Good. Let us know how it goes.

[FreedomPoster]

Regarding models, their models don’t predict the past, as far as I know. In other words, if you input conditions in, say, 1900 and move forward to today, you don’t get anything like what happened. And yet they want us to believe their models are good enough to predict the future with any level of accuracy? They really think we’re stupid.

[FreedomPoster]

It appears to be 5349 individual emails as separate text files sequentially numbered, plus a bunch of misc. attachment files of various sorts - Word docs, Excel sheets, pdfs, etc.

[Raycpa]

The writer of the “FOIA 2011” file claims to possess 220,000 more emails.

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

[Enchante]

Here is an important US "political" angle which should be incendiary if the right people focus attention upon it. An email from the notorious Phil Jones notes that he has "happy" support from CRU's "main funder" which turns out to be the US Dept. of Energy (!!!) for the policy of "hiding" original station data from public scrutiny. In other words, US federal funding going to CRU with the specific understanding (of unnamed US bureaucrats) that CRU would stonewall all attempts to obtain original station data. Email as quoted by a poster on the Watt blog:

from blog "Watts Up With That"
Ecotretas says:
November 22, 2011 at 7:59 am

Best email till now, from Phil:
Here are a few other thoughts. From looking at Climate Audit every few days, these people are not doing what I would call academic research. Also from looking they will not stop with the data, but will continue to ask for the original unadjusted data (which we don’t have) and then move onto the software used to produce the gridded datasets (the ones we do release). CRU is considered by the climate community as a data centre, but we don’t have any resources to undertake this work. Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data. (…)
Some of you may not know, but the dataset has been sent by someone at the Met Office to McIntyre. The Met Office are trying to find out who did this. I’ve ascertained it most likely came from there,
as I’m the only one who knows where the files are here.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

I’m on my netbook and want to download a bittorrent client. Which one do you recommend? And which link worked for you, BTW? Thanks!

[EQAndyBuzz]

So they are asking for 37 trillion for an “educated guess.”

And no one sees the folly in this?

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

Here’s a Compost piece. Where in the heck is Drudge? I keep sending him links. *shrugs*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/climate-gate-resurfaces-with-a-new-round-of-e-mails/2011/11/22/gIQA7JcHlN_blog.html

[Bidimus1]

From the raw dump. This is NOT confirmed by the claimed author, but if true (and other reports support the statment)
puts lie to the “call to authority “ argument made by IPCC etc...

The great danger of doing things the way we are, in our rush to prepare
these IPCC reports, is that we are not submitting this stuff to peer review
before using it. This makes it even more important that we bend over
backwards to get it right. I know it is a bother, but that is life. I am
genuinely sorry to be such a stickler about it, but there we are.

Best regards,

Barrie.

Dr A. Barrie Pittock
Post-Retirement Fellow*, Climate Impact Group

The bending over backward at least my mann has been show to not be the case.