Climate Gate Complete Database

Pajamas Media has put together a complete database for the Climategate documents here.  The docs make for fascinating reading.  On a whim I did a search using the term Hitler.  The e-mail that came up is from February 21, 2005:

“From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Fwd: CCNet: PRESSURE GROWING ON CONTROVERSIAL RESEARCHER TO DISCLOSE SECRET DATA
Date: Mon Feb 21 16:28:32 2005
Cc: “raymond s. bradley” , “Malcolm Hughes”

“Mike, Ray and Malcolm, The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here !

Maybe we can use this to our advantage to get the series updated !

Odd idea to update the proxies with satellite estimates of the lower troposphere rather than surface data !

Odder still that they don’t realise that Moberg et al used the Jones and Moberg updated series!

Francis Zwiers is till onside. He said that PC1s produce hockey sticks.

He stressed that the late 20th century is the warmest of the millennium, but Regaldo didn’t bother with that.

Also ignored Francis’ comment about all the other series looking similar to MBH.

The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.

Leave it to you to delete as appropriate!

Cheers
Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act
!”

Italics added by me.  It seems that the reluctance to release supporting data by these scientists has been going on for years.  These documents give us an astonishing look inside a group that has been spearheading the global warming movement.

A search using the phrase freedom of information brought this up:

“Thanks Phil,
Yes, we’ve learned out lesson about FTP.
We’re going to be very careful in the future
what gets put there. Scott really screwed up big time when he established that directory
so that Tim could access the data.

Yeah, there is a freedom of information act in the U.S., and the contrarians are going
to try to use it for all its worth. But there are also intellectual property rights
issues, so it isn’t clear how these sorts of things will play out ultimately in the U.S.

I saw the paleo draft (actually I saw an early version, and sent Keith some minor
comments). It looks very good at present–will be interesting to see how they deal w/
the contrarian criticisms–there will be many. I’m hoping they’ll stand firm (I believe
they will–I think the chapter has the right sort of personalities for that)…
Will keep you updated on stuff…
talk to you later,
mike

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:If they ever hear
there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than
send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within
20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it.
We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried
email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He
has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant
here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhereto it !

Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if
you are.

Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley,
Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz – oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can’t see it
getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the
right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be
the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It
seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer’s
series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel,
so will keep you informed.  Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he’s a paleo expert by GRL statndards.”

Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better
this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is
trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years.”

Italics added by me.  Quite a few other documents come up when doing searches using either “freedom of information” and “foi”.   These documents clearly reveal an intent to not release any data which could be harmful to the global warming theory.  This was not science but rather mere political advocacy.

Have fun perusing these documents!

17 Responses to Climate Gate Complete Database

  • Ugh! That’s abysmal science if you make your supporting information difficult/impossible for others to see. I am a scientist (chemist) and have found that the quality of the research seems to correlate with the quality of the reported supporting information. Articles that do not provide an SI section are not to be trusted…

  • Folks, it’s worse than what’s in the e-mails.

    I’m a software coder, and let me tell you, it’s their modeling software and the data upon which it depends — the duo that’s supposed to produce the results they published to the world — which is the bigger scandal.

    The data is largely missing, and the parts that are present are largely unintelligible.

    The software is largely non-functional, and the parts that work, when executed against any of the few data sets that are both extant and usable, don’t produce the same conclusions as the original “peer-reviewed” conclusions previously published.

    Let me say that again, so it’s crystal-clear.

    Some of the data is missing; a large amount of what’s left isn’t meaningful or intelligible.

    Of the remaining data that [i]can[/i] be fed into the software models used to produce the original results and to justify the original conclusions, [i]when[/i] it is fed into the software models, they often fail to run, collapsing with error messages or producing meaningless output.

    And when they [i]do[/i] run, they don’t reproduce the original results.

    This is NOT a situation of Research Group X conducting research and publishing conclusions based on certain results, and Research Group Y conducting research the same way but not being able to reproduce the same results, and thus support X’s conclusions.

    No, this is a situation of Group X conducting research behind a wall where they don’t let anyone see quite what they’re doing, with data that they don’t share with anyone except by vague description, using modeling software they don’t let anyone review.

    They then publish a set of results, announce their conclusions on the basis of those results, make policy recommendations on the basis of those conclusions, call the whole thing “settled science,” and label anyone who expresses skepticism as the moral equivalent of a holocaust denier, and do their best to destroy their academic reputations and deny them access to influential journals and groups.

    And when Group Y manages to get access to their original data and software, not only can Group Y not replicate the results…but they find a paper trail of e-mails and software-development comments and notes which indicate that, for years now, Group X [i]couldn’t replicate their own results, either![/i]

    It’s not just other folks who can’t confirm the findings that support Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Its that the folks whose work makes up the bulk and core of the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming can’t replicate their [i]own[/i] results a second time, because their [i]own[/i] data is missing or unusable, and their [i]own[/i] software doesn’t actually run.

    It doesn’t actually run.

    Which makes you kinda wonder whether it [i]ever[/i] ran, doesn’t it?

    And if it did run, it might not matter: A lot of the data has gone missing. Makes you wonder what was in the missing data, doesn’t it?

    People talk about Piltdown Man as the scientific scandal that rocked the world. Piltdown Man was smaller than this: One hoaxer and a lot of credulous folk who wanted to believe.

    [i]This[/i] is a [i]larger[/i] scandal: A too-trusting scientific community relying on an inner ring of a few dozen climate research insiders, marching in lockstep banality like Good Germans, collectively steering the world towards increased poverty for little reason other than to maintain their own consensual delusion of certainty long after they should have come to their senses and realized their climate predictions amounted to little more than unprovable hunches.

    Thank God for Information Freedom, the hackers, and the unnamed Deep Throats who probably helped the hackers get this stuff out.

    Don’t tell Al Gore: His worldview just died, and it was his “invention,” the Internet, which killed it. (He’ll probably have to gain a lot of weight and grow a beard again. Perhaps he’ll show up in a hot tub with the Nobel Committee?)

    Ding dong, the hoax is dead.

  • (Aw, fiddlesticks. That was a good post, and here I ruined it by doing the italics all wrong.)

  • R.C.

    Still a great post!

  • Exactly, RC. Another good post on Climategate from a medicinal chemist’s point of view can be found here and here.

  • Sorry – the second link is from Clive Crook, an editor at The Atlantic Monthly.

  • Looks like the Aussie parliament is not going to get an ETS for Kevin Rudd to present to Copenhagen. The Lib/Nat. party coalition, in opposition , has had a leadership spill, and the new leader of the opposition is pulling out all sorts of exposees to discredit AGW, which may well sink the Aussie ETS.

    The MSM down here is no better – all falling into line behind AGW, and not reporting all the data that conflicts with the AGW world view.

    I still think http://www.oism.org has the goods with their petition project – at least their data is produced in an understandable way, and makes sense to this layman, and other, I’m sure.

  • Don, I have seen some rejoicing on Aussie conservative blogs over the new leader, Tony Abbott. I was interested to see that the man is a pro-life practicing Catholic and that as such, is “a hate figure for feminists and militant secularists.” Hmmmm, that sure sounds familiar. I confess, it sounds like Abbott has all the right enemies.

    I realize that Oz is not your country, but do you know much about the new Liberal Party leader? (It seems odd to type that, since “liberal,” of course, has the exact opposite meaning here in the States.)

  • Another guy whose onto all this is Ian Wishart, and his site breifingroom.typepad,com. He wrote a book recently called “Air Con”, debunking much of AGW. I understand its a good read, although I haven’t bought it yet.

  • Hi Donna.
    No I don’t know a lot about him other than what you mention – he was a member of the last Lib/Nat govt. under John Howard.
    Its interesting that the NZ National Party – tending to be centre right and conservative, started in the late 1800’s as the NZ Liberal Party.
    I think “Liberal” may have morphed over time, but I’m not really sure.

  • Also, the student newspaper at Penn State has reported that Mann, he of the Hockey Stick graph, is now under investigation by the university. Telling, isn’t it, that this news is brought to us by the student paper and not say, the NY Times. The Times crack reporters must be busy elsewhere – fact-checking Palin’s book for errors, interviewing Levi Johnson, etc.

    Although I suspect the university investigation will be less than thorough, I can’t help wondering:
    Will Penn State’s Mann end up in the state pen?

    (Sorry.)

  • “Its interesting that the NZ National Party – tending to be centre right and conservative, started in the late 1800’s as the NZ Liberal Party.
    I think “Liberal” may have morphed over time, but I’m not really sure.”

    You are correct Don! Nineteenth century liberals are now Twenty-first century conservatives, while Twenty-first century liberals are often socialists and, usually, social libertarians, if not libertines.

  • “Will Penn State’s Mann end up in the state pen?”

    Ha! Some of those e-mails, especially those exchanging tips on how to foil Freedom of Information requests, could serve as the basis for a prosecution on criminal conspiracy. I don’t expect such prosecutions to be undertaken, but an enterprising prosecutor would have more than enough there to have search warrants issued.

  • Well its happened.
    Tony Abbott, now leader of the Lib/Nat coalition in opposition in the Australian Federal Govt, having changed the party policy on an ETS for Oz, have successfully torpedoed the Labour govt. proposed ETS. Kevin Rudd has nothing to rake to Copenhagen.

    The NZ National Govt. amended an ETS passed by the Labour Govt. in 2008 to make it less drastic, to take to Copenhagen, but there is still much opposition to it here, particularly in view of the recent revelations. I think, however, the govt. is really more interested in protecting our trade and tourism, and the ETS may well turn out to be a damp squib. Certainly, much of the AGW “evidence” is being debunked more and more.

  • Further, Kevin Rudd will probably call a snap election in the next month or so, with an ETS being a prime election issue.

    That’ll be interesting, particularly the way the Aussies get really down and dirty in a situation like this.

    I’m salivating at the thought ;-)

  • I will watch those election results with keen interest Don.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .