Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold
Posted by Jeff Id on November 19, 2009
This is the biggest news ever broken here. The first thing I have to say is that I have no connection to the source of these files. It was left as a link on my blog while I was hunting for cloaked deers (fruitlessly) in the Upper Penninsula. These files are real IMO but they cannot be one hundred percent verified as such. How can we be certain but IMO, real. They were potentially scraped from multiple computers in my opinion by a hacker or an insider involved in some of the endless FOIA requests.
I’ll say this delicately – this person risked one f..k of a lot to show us this data.
I need some legal advice regarding the files received today. I’ve verified that the data seems to be true, simply due to the volume of it and knowing the issues – currently the link is offline, I took it down the minute I realized what it contained. I need to understand the legal ramifications of making some of the emails public. In the meantime, a summary of the 62 MB of data is – personal email correspondences between some of the major players Santer, Briffa, Mann, Osborne, Wahl. Data and code, the data SteveM and I will enjoy but I can’t load CA now. The code or a version of it for HadCRUT was released also. The tone of the emails is quite interesting Steve McIntyre is the focus of much of them but there are quite a few references to obstruction and making things difficult for the ’skeptics’. There are also budgetary items and grant monies- you wouldn’t believe how much money these boys play with.
There are several comments about scientists wanting to hide their environmentalist views to promote the best results. Also, some about people being happy with the death of skeptics as well as a lot of rubbish about the latest Yamal results at CA.
What I need to know is what are my legal obligations as to posting a link to this file and what is allowed to be shown from it. In the meantime I see Anthony at WUWT who has more experience than me with media has posted several emails, so in this case there is one particular letter which deserves to see the light of day because of it’s amazing nature.
One of the biggest criticisms of skeptics is non-publication. I think we can put an end to that charade here and now. If someone can find me a lawyer to let this loose I’ll add the rest of the names but let’s just say it’s our favorite ends justify the means group.
From: P
To: “M
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
M,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY – don’t pass on. Relevant paras are the last 2 in section 4 on p13. [snip out of kindness] be careful how you use it – if at all. Keep quiet also that you have the pdf. The attachment is a very good paper – I’ve been pushing A over the last weeks to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also for ERA-40. The basic message is clear – you have to put enough surface and sonde obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! [names removed because I'm giving quarter until legal advice arrives]
Cheers
P
M,
[Snipped again out of kindness. This section had to do with personal feelings and friendships regarding a paper which probably didn't tow the line.]
I can send if you want, but it won’t be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
P
Prof. P
So if we can describe who M, P, K and I really are, this should be pretty interesting. This is one of thousands of emails which IMO seem genuine although there’s no ‘absolute’ proof. Let’s call it a glove too small.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
* EI321 :Biomedical Instrumentation Grades- S5ECE
* Some files
This entry was posted on November 19, 2009 at 9:05 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
183 Responses to “Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold”
1.
vjones said
November 19, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Jeff,
of all the sites I’ve been skimming tonight, you have provided the most appropriately measured response and the juciest tidbit. Well done.
2.
Ryan O said
November 19, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Left this on Lucia’s Jeff. Nice one from Mann to Andy Revkin that relates to us (email 1254259645.txt):
if McIntyre had a legitimate point, he would submit a comment to the journal in question. of course, the last time he tried that (w/ our ‘98 article in Nature), his comment was rejected. For all of the noise and bluster about the Steig et al Antarctic warming, its now nearing a year and nothing has been submitted. So more likely he won’t submit for peer-reviewed scrutiny, or if it does get his criticism “published” it will be in the discredited contrarian home journal “Energy and Environment”. I’m sure you are aware that McIntyre and his ilk realize they no longer need to get their crap published in legitimate journals. All they have to do is put it up on their blog, and the contrarian noise machine kicks into gear, pretty soon Druge, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk (in this case, The Telegraph were already on it this morning) are parroting the claims. And based on what? some guy w/ no credentials, dubious connections with the energy industry, and who hasn’t submitted his claims to the scrutiny of peer review.
3.
photoburner said
November 19, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Steve M confirms on CA that those are real emails from him. He has the link up in the comments of this thread:
4.
Jeff Id said
November 19, 2009 at 9:25 pm
#2 nice, from the conservative himself – he’s like a deer in the headlights. Hey Mikie – incoming!!
Let’s try to leave names out until we get some advice though.
5.
Ryan O said
November 19, 2009 at 9:27 pm
No problem.
But I couldn’t help myself on that one. :D
6.
TerryMN said
November 19, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Jeff, are you able to do (or have you already done) a domain/geography/whois look-up on the ip address of the original poster to the link? Just curious. And wow… Lots and lots of reading material in that thing!
7.
Jeff Id said
November 19, 2009 at 9:30 pm
On second thought, I have just returned from a short perusal of blogs. This puppy’s blown wide open. It would have been better to release it a bit at a time to keep it in the mainstream but whatever.
In a cruel twist of fate, the data is very interesting and should provide fodder for a few more technical blogs to gradually release the implications of ;)
8.
Jeff Id said
November 19, 2009 at 9:30 pm
#5 Proxy server. The boys/girls knew exactly how to work an info war.
9.
Ryan O said
November 19, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Dude, there are some real whoppers in there about “adjustments” to SSTs. Like really big ones. My hope (and suspicion) is that they appear much worse than they are since the emails don’t provide the full context . . . but still . . . they’re whoppers.
10.
Jeff Id said
November 19, 2009 at 9:40 pm
#8 I wanted to release it slowly. It was just too fast, we can’t stop the internet. Today will definitely set a record for tAV viewers.
11.
Ryan O said
November 19, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Teh innertent can no be stopped!
12.
Mariner said
November 19, 2009 at 9:44 pm
How about this?
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for
doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are
likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so
best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want
to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but
don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.
In 1092167224.
13.
Mariner said
November 19, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Sorry Jeff, didn’t see your request to leave out names and don’t know how to edit a post here. Please edit accordingly.
14.
Jeff Id said
November 19, 2009 at 9:49 pm
No need. It’s not my responsibility. After all there have been under 20 edits in 10,000 comments here. Don’t worry, this will be going on for months. CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CBS, BBC, WSJ… it’s big..
I wonder if it’s too late to get out from under this falling rock.
Ya really have to wonder why they chose this blog.
15.
Ryan O said
November 19, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Because you’re so level headed, man. Haha!
16.
Harold Vance said
November 19, 2009 at 9:59 pm
# 14, you are joking about the last statement, right?
Your blog is like Radio Free Europe for skeptics. lol.
17.
magicfingers4 said
November 19, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Incredible.
Smoking guns everywhere.
18.
Ryan O said
November 19, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Damn. In spite of myself, I can’t stop reading the emails. I should be writing the SI . . . but the emails are too interesting. :D
19.
rephelan said
November 19, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Alright… I can’t stop reading either, but I want the people who posted that damn thing to come forward. I’ve been reading a lot about how this was just too big too fabricate, how it would be too big…. I’ve got a one word reply: SOROS. Whether real or not, this needs to get in front of a congressional inquiry.
20.
Harold Vance said
November 19, 2009 at 10:11 pm
# 2, me thinks the Mann doth protest too much. Peer review on the ‘net is far more brutal than any other review process I have ever seen.
Do you think Revkin will verify it?
21.
Tom Fuller said
November 19, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Jeff, good job so far–I think you’re on the right track on how to deal with this. My only comment regards the attachments–I’m afraid to even open them. They’re somebody’s work product and should be treated accordingly.
Examiner.com’s legal department is advising me to go very slowly on this. I think they’d prefer it if somebody else published it all. I’m not going to leave it alone, but I am going to be conservative about my approach–much as you are doing now.
22.
Ryan O said
November 19, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Well, it should be able to be verified by UEA’s IT department. Not sure how to make that happen, though. All of these emails went through UEA’s servers, so they should all be there if they are, indeed, legit.
The question is . . . how do we force that verification to happen (publicly)?
23.
Jeff Id said
November 19, 2009 at 10:18 pm
#21, It makes me nervous in this climate– no pun. I’m hosting nothing so if there were copies everywhere it would be no problem. People were downloading this constantly when I was in the UP and when I removed the link people were still downloading from somewhere else.
Ya just can’t shove the heat back in the engine – 2nd law.
24.
Carrick said
November 19, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Ryan O:
The question is . . . how do we force that verification to happen (publicly)?
File an FOIA complaint against Phil Jones and cite the emails.
25.
RomanM said
November 19, 2009 at 10:46 pm
The link to the zip file was posted to more blogs than just yours Jeff. It was on mine as well, but nobody reads mine so it wasn’t noticed. I thought it was spam at the time (the “limited time offer” gave me that impression) and I dumped it without pursuing the matter.
26.
Jeff Id said
November 19, 2009 at 10:48 pm
#25, Thank god. Ground zero is exciting for the first few seconds, then it stinks.
27.
nukemhill said
November 19, 2009 at 11:19 pm
Jeff,
There are some verification techniques that can be applied here, but all the data needs to be catalogued first. It will be a multi-person job, most likely taking weeks. I haven’t looked at the data myself, as I have no time at the moment. But here is what I think needs to happen (and if this has already been suggested elsewhere, my apologies for duplicating!):
1) The raw data needs to be broken up and catalogued according to two general categories: correspondence & data. (there may be other categories, as well; I’m not clear)
2) Once that is done, some heavy cross-referencing needs to happen:
a) All email addresses should be verified;
b) also, IP addresses should be cross-referenced with these email addresses, in order to verify correspondence is going to/coming from the appropriate known IPs;
c) dates should be cross-referenced with various things, like paper releases, blog entries, other email correspondence, etc. This is probably the most important and subtle piece to cross-reference. If the correspondence is being faked, this is the most likely area for slipping up. It would be almost impossible to keep all of this straight, even if multiple people were involved in any such conspiracy to fake.
This will be an enormous task. Any media outlet worth its weight would be able to do it. This is what they live for. Given the current state of the MSM, it is most likely going to fall on an “army of davids” (to quote Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit) to do the heavy lifting.
If you want any additional feedback from me, or just want to tell me to take a flying leap (!), drop me a line at gregory at hillhaven dot info. Like I said, I’m booked. I was just laid off last week, and am working madly to start my own business (and pull in some consulting work in the interim). So, I’m not available to coordinate, or even really contribute more than a meager amount of grunt work to, the process. But maybe I can throw some additional ideas into the mix that will inspire. Stranger things have happened!
This is amazing stuff, if true. But a lot of work needs to be generated by a lot of people in order to verify. Once all the basic groundwork is done, very pointed and verifiable FOI requests should be issued forthwith. Either the lid is going to be blown off a vast conspiracy, or the skeptics camp will be wearing some tasty (and potentially fatal) egg on its face. Better to be pro-active about the verification/validation process than reactive. It will make us look good if we find the holes before they do.
-greg
28.
Carrick said
November 19, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Nukemhill, from what I can tell the email headers are legitimate. The question is whether this paragraph is legitimate (email 1120593115.txt)
Now to your email. I have seen the latest Mears and Wentz paper (to Science), but am not reviewing it, thank goodness. I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept to my usual standards.
This smacks of editing to me.
29.
Carrick said
November 19, 2009 at 11:32 pm
My point being it’s easy to insert material into otherwise legitimate emails.
30.
TerryMN said
November 19, 2009 at 11:42 pm
And so here is the first news article regarding the affair (that I’ve found via a Google news search):
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails
Numbers (or methodology) is a bit off though – the “72 documents” is the count of docs and folders in the documents folder – there are ~3485 docs in those folders.
31.
Tim G said
November 19, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Arrghh! The file is gone from the server now. Anyone mirroring it? I’d like to look at it first-hand.
Thanks,
tim
32.
Raven said
November 19, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Carrick,
What would the point of making the edit you flagged?
Scepticism and due diligence is necessary but it is possible to be too paranoid.
I would look at the list of emails mentioned in the original post. If any have been altered those would be the ones because those are the ones that the hacker pointed everyone at. The rest are likely to be unaltered ‘background noise’.
At this point I suspect that the emails are true and unaltered because the person informed enough to put together such a relevant collection would also be smart enough to know that alterations would be discovered and any good he hoped to accomplish by releasing the emails would be negated.
33.
David Jay said
November 19, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Wow, just wow…
34.
TerryMN said
November 19, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Tim, I think the crosspatch (Comment#23820) on Lucia’s thread about this has encouragement and good advice about making sure you get the actual file.
35.
hunter said
November 20, 2009 at 12:01 am
Please keep this data safe, and redundantly so.
I am convinced that it is real, and important.
If in doubt, post it all in open form, unedited.
To FOIA:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
God bless you.
36.
Daryl M said
November 20, 2009 at 12:15 am
If this is for real, it is a GAME CHANGER!!!!
37.
TerryMN said
November 20, 2009 at 12:17 am
Another (excerpted) interesting note from the (alleged) e-mails….
On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Nick McKay wrote:
The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?
And a later reply:
D et al – Please write all emails as though they will be made public.
And yes, it could be a plant, a fake, an edit, et cetera. There was a corrigendum issued on this, though. Very curious.
38.
SineCos said
November 20, 2009 at 12:27 am
I’m surprised it isn’t on WikiLeaks.
39.
Breaking!: Hadley Climate Research Unit Hacked; Hundreds Of Compromising Files Found « Nice Deb said
November 20, 2009 at 12:32 am
[...] FTP link first appeared on a blog called The Air Vent. The blog’s owner, identified as “Jeff Id”, downloaded the file, examined it, and [...]
40.
kramer said
November 20, 2009 at 12:34 am
So, where can I download this file?
41.
Harold Vance said
November 20, 2009 at 12:43 am
Some of these emails are surprisingly recent. Check this one (1257546975.txt) out, which has a Eudora-specific tag “”:
From: Tom Wigley
To: Phil Jones
Subject: LAND vs OCEAN
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:36:15 -0700
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
See attached note.
Comments?
Tom
42.
Harold Vance said
November 20, 2009 at 12:46 am
The wordpress XHTML processor ate the x-flow tags that were in the message that I just posted. Whatever the case, this is a tag that is specific to Eudora.
43.
Harold Vance said
November 20, 2009 at 12:52 am
Man, these CRU/UCAR guys are really testy about Lindzen and Choi. Reference 1257532857.txt (near the end of the list).
Something to do with GRL and “crap.”
Ouch!
44.
Ian McLeod said
November 20, 2009 at 12:57 am
Has anybody seen any incriminating emails from the Godfather himself, James Hansen?
45.
Harold Vance said
November 20, 2009 at 12:57 am
These guys also can’t stand it that McIntyre hasn’t or won’t publish a tree-ring study.
I just don’t understand this. His criticisms are made in public on the Internet. Anyone can read them and respond to them at their leisure either at CA or on their own blog. So why don’t they respond?
46.
Harold Vance said
November 20, 2009 at 1:01 am
Donald Keiller’s email to Briffa (dated 02-Oct-09) can be found in 1256760240.txt.
47.
Harold Vance said
November 20, 2009 at 1:06 am
Reading this stuff is enough to make your blood boil. What a crock.
48.
Temlakos said
November 20, 2009 at 1:26 am
I am the Essex County Conservative Examiner. I ran with this story after examining the documents for myself.
I see that the FTP server has deleted the file. No matter. I have it.
I’ll take under advisement the suggestion for a coordinated verification project. Can’t promise anything, but I belong to a group that might wish to undertake that project. I can tell you this: Phil Jones’ e-mail is definitely correct; I verified that on the Hadley CRU site.
So I was the first semi-pro journalist to break the news, eh? Well, I’ve already tried to reach Glenn Beck (by e-mail and Twitter) and Judge Andrew Napolitano (by Twitter alone). Let’s see which man responds. Happily, those two men are very good friends. I definitely would like to get “Judge Nap”’s opinion on FOIA defiance, manipulation of data, etc.–not to mention President Obama’s attempt to negotiate a treaty while doing an end-run around the United States Senate.
49.
Kasmir said
November 20, 2009 at 1:31 am
I was about to upload it myself to Wikileaks but I chickened out because I don’t trust the founders politics enough to protect me from blowback. Hopefully someone will be braver than me. This isn’t going to be pretty. I *did* download my own copy however. ;)
50.
Kasmir said
November 20, 2009 at 1:33 am
I also reported the story to both Drudge and Breitbart, as they’re the most likely to actually report and/or investigate here in the USA.
51.
M. Simon said
November 20, 2009 at 1:33 am
As far as I can tell the document has been removed from the ftp server. Probably due to overload.
I’d like a copy but I guess I’ll have to wait for the news reports.
Blogged it already based on A. Watts’ blog.
And Jeff,
Way to go!!!! Paying attention is a very good thing.
52.
The Englishman said
November 20, 2009 at 1:47 am
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T has the file.
53.
Rich said
November 20, 2009 at 2:09 am
Tried to upload to wikileaks but it keeps timing out. checking with them to see if someone else has already made it available.
54.
Mike said
November 20, 2009 at 2:24 am
Is that megaupload file clean or riddled with virii?
55.
qwerty1 said
November 20, 2009 at 2:24 am
Also on bit torrent at:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/3168330
56.
DaveH said
November 20, 2009 at 2:25 am
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206
57.
Mike said
November 20, 2009 at 2:30 am
This is just awesome beyond words.
58.
Feeding Frenzy « Cruel Mistress said
November 20, 2009 at 2:58 am
[...] server at the Hadley Climatic Research Center. You can read the ecstatic blog-comments here and here. Frankly, it’s hard to compile all of the data, nonetheless make sense of it. Essentially, [...]
59.
Teh cAke Iz A LiE said
November 20, 2009 at 3:32 am
Megaupload link is clean. Good god there is a ton of content! From the likes of Yamal, IPCC, Michael Mann, Phil Jones’ take on everything including something from Gavin Schmidt, etc. I haven’t read them, but the titles of the reviews, papers, etc are all listed in full. Email correspondence is also filled to the brim of topics ranging to getting beer with coworkers, covering up lackluster proof of 20th century warming, etc.
I’m suprised at the hack. Why now? And what is in store for the future? Shall the whole house of cards come falling down in addition? Heh.
60.
twawki said
November 20, 2009 at 4:08 am
Nothing yet from Hadley, its racing across the blogosphere, nothing in the online press – the coming week should be interesting!
Ive sent the story to our pollies in Aus – might make them a little nervous as they are starting to give up on AGW there are way too many holes appearing!
61.
Deer Hunters Net » Blog Archive » Global Warming . . . Undone by a whistleblower?? said
November 20, 2009 at 4:45 am
[...] http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/200…old/#more-6188 [...]
62.
vg said
November 20, 2009 at 5:29 am
Phils Jones has said they are genuine see update in WUWT posting on this
63.
StuartR said
November 20, 2009 at 7:17 am
@ Mike comment 54
This is the md5 checksum for the original russian zip file that a few posters on WUWT (and I) have confirmed is correct:
da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4
64.
StuartR said
November 20, 2009 at 7:32 am
This story is now available on the TGIF site:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/latestissue.pdf
65.
Steven UK said
November 20, 2009 at 8:11 am
Whoever the hacker is, he or she has done a service of great good to mankind.
Its strange, this story is nowhere to be seen on the the BBC, The Guardian and other warmist propaganda arms. I won’t hold my breath, I doubt Monbiot will be writing this up in his smblog. (Smblog is a mixture of smug and blog, its a new word I’ve invented just for Monbiot’s endless nonsense.)
I wonder, how long before we hear the alarmists cry, “This was faked by big oil.”
66.
Tony said
November 20, 2009 at 8:34 am
A recap of the story with a few select excerpts from the emails:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate–Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails
67.
Wissenschaftsskandal oder Fake? « The Outside of the Asylum said
November 20, 2009 at 10:01 am
[...] von califax am Freitag, 20. November 2009 Wenn das kein Fake ist, bestätigen sich auf spektakuäre Weise viele Vorwürfe, die seit langem gegen die [...]
68.
Breaking: University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre Hacked | .....Aaron's EnvironMental Corner..... said
November 20, 2009 at 10:08 am
[...] some overload). A few tried got me through to Climate Audit, where I saw another link back to The Air Vent (a site I’ve never heard of). That site, as far as I can tell, appears to be the one that [...]
69.
BloggersBase Environment said
November 20, 2009 at 11:21 am
Breaking: University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre Hacked…
This broke and I had to pre-empt the planned posts for today to talk about this. It’s flying around the Web like a firestorm and igniting a lot of interest on some of the sites I visit fairly……
70.
R Taylor said
November 20, 2009 at 11:29 am
On behalf of this fat, dumb and happy westerner who has a scientific conscience, and the billions whose only hope for a better future depends on economic growth and fair prices for food and energy, I profoundly thank the person who sent you this information.
71.
The great coverup – Hacker exposes climate science conspiracy | Tony's Rants said
November 20, 2009 at 11:46 am
[...] the Air Vent: Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold [...]
72.
Breaking News: Hadley CRU Hacked – Hundreds of Files Released « The EIW Network said
November 20, 2009 at 12:18 pm
[...] rid of the Medeival Warm Period) Overpeck, Santer, Wahl, Briffa and others here. As Jeff Id on Air Vent where it first appeared notes “There are also budgetary items and grant monies- you wouldn’t [...]
73.
Escándalo en la “ciencia climática”. « PlazaMoyua.org said
November 20, 2009 at 1:12 pm
[...] Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold [...]
74.
Phillip Bratby said
November 20, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Even the BBC is acknowledging that “Hackers target leading climate research unit”. The police are investigating. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8370282.stm Nothing about the contents of the files, just that:
‘A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.
An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.
“We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites,” the spokesman stated.
“Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine.
“This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation.
“We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry.” ‘
75.
Redcodz said
November 20, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
76.
Charlie said
November 20, 2009 at 2:37 pm
#14 Jeff Id “Ya really have to wonder why they chose this blog.”
My guess is that it wasn’t a hacker, but instead was an inside job.
Maybe you have a secret admirer at the CRU.
Maybe he/she was impressed by your Antarctic temp reconstructions, or maybe your posts in August with turnkey code for extracting any arbitrary desired hockey stick out of Mann’s original dataset.
77.
Neven said
November 20, 2009 at 2:53 pm
I’d like to congratulate Jeff ID, Ryan O, Anthony Watts, Stephen McIntyre, Lucia Liljegren and many, many others on having become the climate debate’s version of the KGB. Great stuff. Now you have an even greater responsibility, because if AGW turns out to be a problem after all…
And let’s hope I never win the lottery, because I’d probably hire a bunch of private investigators to find about all sorts of details of your private life and private communication and then leave a few comments/pictures on a few blogs…
No, tempting as it may be, I wouldn’t do that as I’d be disgusted with myself. Besides you might be right and AGW might be a huge scam to divert all our money going to resource wars and the fossil fuel oligarchy to green taxes and a totalitarian one world government. That would make this orgy slightly less despicable.
Party on…
78.
GOOD LORD MAN! « Hypothesis Testing said
November 20, 2009 at 3:13 pm
[...] http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/ [...]
79.
StuartR said
November 20, 2009 at 3:19 pm
@ Neven
I really don’t see how any of the people you list can be justifiably accused of KGB like behaviour.
However if you follow the links here:
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300106817
From an article called
“Andrei Sakharov, the KGB, and the Legacy of Soviet Dissent.”
You may read this about Sahharov’s and his dissident colleagues, which you may find most poignant I think:
“They knew, for example, how the fields of biology and genetics had been devasted by ideological constrainsts; with Stalins’s support, the followers of Tromfim Lysenko, a charlatan biologist, had thoroughly stifled research into modern genetics and plant biology. Lysenko claimed that he could transform one species of plant into another– turn rye into wheat, say — by altering its environment. Perhaps the most notorious consequence of Lysenko’s influence was the arrest of one of the world’s leading plant geneticists, Nikolai Vavilov, in 1940 and his death in prison in 1943. After the war, Lysenko renewed his ideological offensive. By 1948 he was able to announce the support of the Central Committee for his assertions that genes did not exist, thereby preventing any Soviet scientific research based on modern day understanding of heredity”
Since this this FOI2009 file is from Russia and has the status of samizdata, I think it ironic.
80.
The Global Management of our Planet – David Westerfield > Weblog said
November 20, 2009 at 4:03 pm
[...] Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold [...]
81.
Hacker Reveals Hadley CRU Global Warming Hoax | National Institute of Prevarication said
November 20, 2009 at 4:03 pm
[...] I’ll say this delicately – this person risked one f..k of a lot to show us this data. Jeff Id, The Air Vent [...]
82.
greengeko said
November 20, 2009 at 4:06 pm
gold for the kings
silver the rich
barter for the peasants &
debt for the slaves
the new world order currency plan!!!!!!
83.
The Distributor said
November 20, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Download and read for yourself!
Original ZIP version HERE (~62MB)
http://rapidshare.com/files/309803421/FOI2009.zip
Original files using RAR (higher compression, ~50MB)
http://rapidshare.com/files/309807184/FOI2009.rar
84.
A major embarrassment for AGW evangelists? « Spin, strangeness, and charm said
November 20, 2009 at 5:19 pm
[...] FTP link first appeared on a blog called The Air Vent. The blog’s owner, identified as “Jeff Id”, downloaded the file, examined it, and [...]
85.
Breaking news – Climate Centre files hacked! « TWAWKI said
November 20, 2009 at 5:23 pm
[...] Audit, WUWT, Air Vent, [...]
86.
Ciboulette said
November 20, 2009 at 5:32 pm
It is proven that we are going in a gradual obscurisation of the sun since the 50’s. Approx 22% less sun energy enters our atmosphere for that period due to planes condensation trails, proven the day after 9-11 when all planes were grounded. It does counter balance the green house effect as less water evaporates. Look it up
87.
me said
November 20, 2009 at 5:37 pm
“I need some legal advice regarding the files received today.”
Well, here you go: You are in violation of US law.
88.
Jeff Id said
November 20, 2009 at 5:42 pm
#87 can you be more specific. I’ve had several lawyers say I’m not doing anything wrong. At the blackboard (link on right) a lawyer cited precedent for that issue.
There are several issues here. First, I deleted and did not host the original file absolutely immediately although I did put the link back up once it was dead. Second, last names are removed from comments. Third, I have no proof of the validity of these posts.
89.
Jeff Id said
November 20, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Also, when the emails are carried by fox, pbs and the guardian not taking my precautions, I get a little more comfort.
90.
hunter said
November 20, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Me,
There is no evidence, other than the claims of Hadley, that there was a hacking or theft of anything.
If an employee decided to dump the files for the world to see, picking them and reading them is no violation.
If they were stolen, unless you are the theif, picking them up and reading them is no crime.
Me, my bet is you are one of the condescending arrogant types quoted in the e-mails.
I have a downloaded copy, and will ahve a ahrd copy really soon.
come arrest me, Me.
91.
So Can We Get Rid Of The Carbon Tax Now? | Vancouver Secrets said
November 20, 2009 at 5:55 pm
[...] Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold [...]
92.
Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate said
November 20, 2009 at 6:20 pm
[...] The stolen cache includes more than 1,000 e-mails and more than 3,000 documents, some containing code. They were posted anonymously to an FTP server in Russia. The hacker then posted a link to the 61-MB file on the blog Air Vent. [...]
93.
Pangloss said
November 20, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Mr Essex County:
“I’ll take under advisement the suggestion for a coordinated verification project. Can’t promise anything, but I belong to a group that might wish to undertake that project. I can tell you this: Phil Jones’ e-mail is definitely correct; I verified that on the Hadley CRU site.
So I was the first semi-pro journalist to break the news, eh? Well, I’ve already tried to reach Glenn Beck (by e-mail and Twitter) and Judge Andrew Napolitano (by Twitter alone). Let’s see which man responds. Happily, those two men are very good friends.”
That’s nice. But before you give yourself an injury patting yourself on the back, could you correct your references to “Hadley CRU” eg “I checked on the Hadley CRU site”?
Hadley and CRU are two different institutions, hundreds of miles apart. The hack was at CRU, not Hadley. It’s like a Brit saying they loved staying in “New York DC” or “San Angeles”.
Get it right – you make us all look dumb.
94.
Hnagtime55 said
November 20, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I wonder if Al Gore was awakened by his aides when the news got out that they were ‘ hacked ‘ !!!
SEE
lol
95.
Hnagtime55 said
November 20, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I wonder if Al Gore was awakened by his aides when the news got out that they were ‘ hacked ‘ !!!
SEE
lol lol
96.
TonyB said
November 20, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Jeff
Hey a mention about you in the N Y Times. This must be your second biggst scoop ever (second to my articles of course!)
You need to go hunting Bambi more often.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1
97.
Top climate scientists discuss hiding contrary data, marginalizing dissenters « Aftermath News said
November 20, 2009 at 7:29 pm
[...] 62 MB of Climate Gold [...]
98.
mike said
November 20, 2009 at 7:31 pm
NEWS FLASH…this just in…- University of East Anglia was going to blame the ice age on the dinosaurs, but then they realized that dinosaurs have no money…..
Modeling is only as accurate as the data input, and the intuition of your algorithms. Let those guys write a math model that correctly picks the Triple Crown winners (hell, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd) for the next 10 years, and I might believe they can do the same for the weather.
Take the $$$ out of the equation and these “chicken little” scientists will go find something else to study. Take the $$$ out of the equation and the politicians will find something else to tax.
99.
jc weiler said
November 20, 2009 at 7:33 pm
nothing in the stolen and published mail disproves anything – simply go to your own personal mails and compare your vocabulary and your turns of phrases – you’re simply hanging on to the flimsiest of straws to keep on pushing your agenda which is worthless – it’s warming, and it’s manmade, full stop.
100.
Cornerman said
November 20, 2009 at 7:36 pm
This (Leaked FOIA Files) was just headlines on Fox News…. Now, an hour later, there is no trace of this news on Fox or CNN. Maybe the files are being researched or given the once over…? Very strange. I thought this would be a dominating news item. Does anyone think it will be in a day or two?
101.
John S, said
November 20, 2009 at 7:37 pm
This does irreparable harm to the skeptics cause. In all the emails there may be one or two moderately controversial bits, but they will change nothing, but from now on you all will be known not only as crackpots but criminals.
102.
Jeff Id said
November 20, 2009 at 7:40 pm
#99, I’ll have a post which demonstrates the error in your thinking shortly.
103.
TheBigOne said
November 20, 2009 at 7:41 pm
This “story” will last perhaps 36 hours in the news cycle.
104.
MJ SoCal said
November 20, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I would love to see how much activity there is right now amongst the Climaterati moving funds to safe havens. The Rev. Gore must be poopin his panties. In the end, this just confirms the corrupting influence of $$.
105.
hunter said
November 20, 2009 at 9:19 pm
I am particularly enjoying how the aGW true believers, instead of dealing with the facts of corruption in the process their leaders have championed, instead want to still blame skeptics for pointing out the problems.
TheBigOne,
You wish it were so. Prepare for a big nightmare.
Desperately, I will bet.
And to all you true believers: There is nothing criminal about what any of us are doing when we are down loading or reading or discussing these letters and data.
So save the ignorant sanctimony for someone who is as gullible as you are on climate.
106.
Ethan said
November 20, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I’ve got a song for the “true believers”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXqSJ9qDQ8
enjoy :-)
107.
DOREL said
November 20, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Whatever you guys are going to do and when , its up to you , of course , but just make sure you MAKE FEW COPIES of all of that info . Just in case ….
Good luck with releasing it !!!
108.
Jeff Id said
November 20, 2009 at 10:42 pm
#107 it’s out. You can find it at WUWT or links everywhere. It’s up to readers to take care of these things.
109.
RadioActive Chief » Blog Archive » Glowbull Warming: The Scientific Fix? said
November 20, 2009 at 11:30 pm
[...] Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold …a summary of the 62 MB of data is – personal email correspondences between some of the major players Santer, Briffa, Mann, Osborne, Wahl. Data and code, the data SteveM and I will enjoy but I can’t load CA now. The code or a version of it for HadCRUT was released also. The tone of the emails is quite interesting Steve McIntyre is the focus of much of them but there are quite a few references to obstruction and making things difficult for the ’skeptics’. There are also budgetary items and grant monies- you wouldn’t believe how much money these boys play with. [...]
110.
dstroy said
November 20, 2009 at 11:54 pm
# 101 This does irreparable harm to the skeptics cause. In all the emails there may be one or two moderately controversial bits, but they will change nothing, but from now on you all will be known not only as crackpots but criminals.
Are “the skeptics” a category chosen for you at birth? …If you are not a skeptic, then you are a sheep. Who is your shepherd John S.? Al Gore?
I think it was Depeche Mode that said: “People are people”. Criminals are everywhere. And crackpots don’t understand this.
111.
Leaked Climate Change Documents [Built on Facts] « Random Information said
November 21, 2009 at 12:28 am
[...] this is just preliminary because ScienceBlogs needs an open thread on these leaked climate change documents. They're all over the web at this point, so you may have seen them mentioned already. (Here, for [...]
112.
rojo said
November 21, 2009 at 1:00 am
!!!!
This was al gores 2 am telephone call. I bet this is a crisis they love crisis its a horrible thing to waste a crisis! It must be a evil right wing conspiracy
113.
Tex said
November 21, 2009 at 1:27 am
How do we convince those that warming is fake when they use the argument that the earth’s glaciers are in retreat? I suggest we say we just haven’t had as heavy snows recently but they will come back. How can I convince my colleagues?
114.
Ray said
November 21, 2009 at 2:18 am
The New York Times has picked it up at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp
115.
Hacked Emails Fuel Global Warming Debate & The NWO’s Conspiracy « The Tonka Report said
November 21, 2009 at 3:06 am
[...] The stolen cache includes more than 1,000 e-mails and more than 3,000 documents, some containing code. They were posted anonymously to an FTP server in Russia. The hacker then posted a link to the 61-MB file of data on the blog Air Vent. [...]
116.
Fear and Loathing in Global Warming said
November 21, 2009 at 3:38 am
[...] the British climate data at the Hadley/CRU climate research unit was hacked and the stolen data posted in Russia then rapidly disseminated on the web. I first thought the story was a hoax, but apparently the CRU [...]
117.
Neven said
November 21, 2009 at 3:46 am
#99, I’ll have a post which demonstrates the error in your thinking shortly.
Really, Jeff? Are you going to release your personal messages to other skeptics for the world to see? Or shall I ask some friends of mine to hack a few servers?
118.
ClimateGate: “Hadley” CRU Emails and Hacked Data: FOI2009.ZIP (62 MB) « The Catastrophist blog said
November 21, 2009 at 5:05 am
[...] blog. – Telegraph.co.uk – Climategate by James Delingpole. – Original leak post on The Air Vent blog. – HSBC & Lord Stern’s Climate Change Model… Possibly related posts: [...]
119.
anonymous said
November 21, 2009 at 6:27 am
F…you, ya right wing crazies!
Hope you like prison food!
[Let's keep the swearing down. Remember we don't have any proof that global warming is wrong here, it's only evidence of people working together to stack the cards. ]
120.
Musing Lew said
November 21, 2009 at 6:33 am
Folks like Neven are so completely brainwashed that you could show them video of Gore spanking a shaved monkey while giving a briefcase full of cash to these deviant scientist and he’d complain you didn’t give the specific specie of monkey. I’m amazed at the level of sheepdom in the US.
ML
121.
Global warming fraud goes public « Jim’s Blog said
November 21, 2009 at 6:51 am
[...] The air vent [...]
122.
El escándalo de los climatólogos alarmistas: primeras conclusiones. « PlazaMoyua.org said
November 21, 2009 at 7:09 am
[...] Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold [...]
123.
Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released | Gazeta Pogranicze said
November 21, 2009 at 7:32 am
[...] FTP link first appeared on a blog called The Air Vent. The blog’s owner, identified as “Jeff Id”, downloaded the file, examined it, and [...]
124.
Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute | Lux Libertas - Light and Liberty said
November 21, 2009 at 9:05 am
[...] Climatic Research Unit. The first posts that revealed details from the files appeared Thursday at The Air Vent, a Web site devoted to skeptics’ [...]
125.
Leonard Weinstein said
November 21, 2009 at 9:35 am
#113 Tex,
Nobody said the warming was fake. Almost all skeptics agree it has warmed the last 100 years or so and that the CO2 has increased. The argument is between human and natural variation. This requires knowing what happened in the more distant past. The level of temperature in the LIA and MWP and previous times indicate the present rise was not unusual, and the present leveling off and even predicted dropping over the near future lays AGW to rest as a cause. In fact, many glaciers are now growing, but if you pick just a few special cases, it appears otherwise.
126.
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Presto! Alarmist Emails Not Such a Big Deal said
November 21, 2009 at 9:47 am
[...] that some of the most prominent climate scientists fictionalizers in the world said some very naughty things about global warming skeptics, but then he promptly cues the [...]
127.
J said
November 21, 2009 at 9:48 am
Are you people believing in Santa Claus as well? Have you learned NOTHING AT ALL over the past few years?
I suppose you just cringe at the mere thought of having to give up any of your commodities for the sake of your grandkids’ having a future..
How can someone be so selfish..!
Your cause leaves me very SAD!
128.
Hacked Email Shows Global Warming Is A Religion « The Universe Exists for My Amusement said
November 21, 2009 at 10:02 am
[...] More at the Air Vent. [...]
129.
john said
November 21, 2009 at 10:24 am
I don’t think the emails are relevant as posted. Some of the emails are over thirteen years old. What data are they referring to? The cache is interesting in that shows some evidence of data manipulation between
a very small number of scientists over a very small framework, but the implications are null and void if the actual data produced and verified by the IPCC and others is not refuted. The problem with demonstrating
that climate change is not induced by human activity is as follows: there are very large bodies of evidence and data which support this paradigm. As my colleague argues, “you have a finite space(earth) with an infinitely
expanding population and infinitely decreasing resources coupled with only 12.3 miles of atmosphere and x amount of heat inducing pollution. The question, therefore, is not whether human activity increases global
temperature changes but whether the changes are statistically significant.” In other words, arguing against climate change is nonsense but arguing against statistical climate change over x amount of time is much more persuasive. As far as they emails are concerned, they will not affect the basic arguments.
130.
As AGW Is Exposed As A Hoax, EU President Tells Us The Real Purpose » Pirate's Cove said
November 21, 2009 at 10:57 am
[...] of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit server was hacked, which was, as The Air Vent put it, 62mb of gold. The files, especially the emails, are very damning to the AGW movement, and could be the final [...]
131.
As AGW Is Exposed As A Hoax, EU President Tells Us The Real Purpose : Stop The ACLU said
November 21, 2009 at 11:00 am
[...] of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit server was hacked, which was, as The Air Vent put it, 62mb of gold. The files, especially the emails, are very damning to the AGW movement, and could be the final [...]
132.
Sly said
November 21, 2009 at 11:30 am
When the US is out of water and uninhabitable I truely hope my governement will erect a deadly wall to keep the Repugnican American Fascist handpuppets like you out. You will harvest your bounty of useless American money.
Go straight to hell don’t pass go just collect your blood money.
133.
Jeff Id said
November 21, 2009 at 11:47 am
#129, I don’t see these emails as having any effect on global warming conclusions. The only points in them seems to be that most of the scientists try hard to be honest. Several of them though are so deeply bought into the AGW system that they will say or do anything to promote consensus. Since these are the people in charge of he Journals and IPCC we can see that we will always get the same results – extremist warming – where there is a strong case to be made for lower levels of warming. Perhaps even non-dangerous or undetectable levels.
Guy’s like Sly are so convinced the world is going to drown yet there is no evidence to support this conclusion. But he’s really angry because in his way of thinking the consensus on this is real. Sly there is just another misinformed individual who feels passionately about his topic. Where is the water going Sly? Do you think there will be less or more water when the Earth floods to it’s doom? It’s funny really but people think they really understand things.
I do feel better about most of the scientists than I did before the emails were released. There are a lot of good people in the field. They are still part of a system designed to reward people with a warmist view so if they are honest and hold that view, they still rise up the ranks.
Others were caught looking for ways to insure the MWP is low enough and the LIA is of the pre-determined amplitude. These are esoteric technical points which are going to make blogging fun for a while. Ya don’t get to choose your conclusion before your study in most cases.
134.
john said
November 21, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Its amazing how utterly blind and stupid people can be. The IPCC has spent forty years studying the matter and most of the worlds leading experts on climate change agree with their conclusions. I suppose if you look
hard enough you could also find people to argue about the relative merits or existence of gravity as well. A few emails from over zealous scientists do not contradict the massive volumes of evidence supporting human endeavors as significantly contributing to climate change. My wife is throwing a dinner party for 8 this evening. As much as I loath these sorts of events, I wonder what the temperature in the room would be if 20 extra friends showed up? Many of the counter conspiracy nut jobs on this site need to get a job and grow up.
135.
Man in a Shed said
November 21, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Don’t forget the data protection act folks. You can request emails that refer to you by name from CRU under English law and I believe they must provide them.
This could be a fun game to play with a number of organisations based in the UK if you think your name has been used.
@John – the point is everyone, including many scientists, doesn’t agree and the IPCC is very much a political organisation. Remember the hockey stick …..
136.
Tyler said
November 21, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I’m majoring in Renewable Energy Engineering. Can you or someone that downloaded this information write me an email to discuss the information you received further. Tylerross10@hotmail.com
137.
john said
November 21, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Dear Man in a Shed: Rubbish. The IPCC is political only in that they have watered down their findings for public consumption. Your argument that “many” scientists don’t agree is simply false. The vast majority of
distinguished and reputable scientists the world over have a consensus of unified opinion that human endeavors contribute to global warming. Most corporations with any vested interests in how global warming effects their business models agree with the IPCC. These businesses would include: Exxon, Shell, Toyota, ADM and a slew of top level corporations that are concerned with weather. In addition, the Dept of Defense and every single spy agency in every country has global warming analysts working round the clock. A warming pattern in Nigeria that causes a drought affects political tensions with rice producers in Australia which affects US import policy, etc.
If you want to argue the potential timeline of global warming impacts and the relative changes due to global warming, then this is a valid argument. To argue that human endeavors do not induce global temperature changes is akin to arguing that Newton was an idiot or that the earth is just six thousand years old. You can find proponents of both theories. I assume you are aware of the fact that even if fertility and population lines were immediately calculated to be negative or neutral that the inertia of current human expansion will take the world population to 11 billion in the next thirty years. Have you been to Beijing? Have you talked to Alaskan bush pilots about the melting of compression glaciers? I have done both. You won’t find a bush pilot in Alaska that does not believe in global warming. Their evidence is anecdotal, but they all understand
the relationship between carbon, heat, humans and global warming.
My advice: get off your ass and your pompous attitudes, join an expedition to extract carbon data from ice melts, visit Beijing and breath the air and leave your ignorance at home. You may actually learn something. Then again, most of the people with your mindset have never done anything more than try to extract data from the warmth of a computer screen. Anyone that puts any actual effort into exploring the issue would not make the asinine statement that humans do not contribute to global warming. What that might do to mankind is up for debate. The underlying data is irrefutable. Get a life.
138.
Man in a Shed said
November 21, 2009 at 1:43 pm
@John A yet it moves.
Everyone doesn’t agree. Many scientists don’t agree – and some of those who contributed to earlier IPCC reports now disagree with the man made climate change hypothesis. The geological record doesn’t appear to agree with man made climate change either, but does support other forcing mechanisms. It just doesn’t get covered in the media much.
You’ll find large corporations adjust to large global changes in the political landscape. 20 years ago one of Shell’s two main planning scenarios was “Sustainable World” where ecological issues come to the fore. They all play along with the current political mood because they have no business interest in moving against the crowd and their customers. It proves very little other than they want to stay in business.
The science just isn’t fixed or agreed. However there is a campaigning strategy which tries to just ignore those who descent, and advises on the propaganda approach to be taken its worth a look, though the anti-scientific and anti-democratic debate approach might disturb when you see it laid out. Let me quote you from a UK/EU govt document that outlines this.
“The Rules of the Game” as written in appendix C of the Climate Change Communication Strategy
A West Sussex Case Study ( google will no doubt turn it up if you want to check )
Principles of Climate Change Communication:
Forget the climate change detractors.
Those who deny climate change science are irritating, but unimportant. The argument is not about if we should deal with climate change, but how we should deal with climate change.
The arguments should be about the science – which means data and its interpretation, hypotheses and attempts to prove or disprove them with observations.
This is very clearly not what is going on.
139.
john said
November 21, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Good Lord! Your assertions are rooted in pure politics. Your claim that “many” scientists don’t agree is more than vague, it is erroneous. Define “many”. Again, you have over 16,000 scientists from every corner of the globe in convergence of opinion, and not just within the IPCC. This is just one body of scientists. Your claim that corporations are playing to the political winds is really laughable. Exxon, for one, is deeply committed to lowering carbon emissions because petroleum production happens to be their core business model! It’s as if I am speaking with people who are actually functionally illiterate. Further, I noticed in your response that you did answer any of my core questions: have you ever actually discussed carbon core samples from fresh ice drills with an extraction team? Me thinks the answer is no. Really, I don’t want to make things personal, but it is so clear to me that you just don’t have any idea what you are talking about.
As I have said before, the debate must be framed in terms of impact and timelines. It simply can’t be framed in terms of whether humans impact heat modalities in a finite space. This question has been answered long ago. A more appropriate question to ask would be, ” and therefore?” The therefore is highly debatable. Now I’m going to go have a very strong drink.
140.
Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed « UD/RK Samhälls Debatt said
November 21, 2009 at 2:03 pm
[...] the Air Vent: Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold [...]
141.
Musing Lew said
November 21, 2009 at 2:58 pm
John, you’re a moron. And, as is true with most morons, you try to hide the errors of your argument in accusations of others “ignorance”. There are huge numbers of scientists that vehemently disagree with the “consensus”. Take this for example:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/16/32-000-deniers.aspx
But, of course, you’ll have some lame brained excuse for why these “deniers” are not legitimate. You keep asking if other posters have taken ice core samples. Have you? No, I thought as much. You’re relegated to the crowd of completely irrelevant.
ML
142.
Ike Gibson said
November 21, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Why are so many people emphasising a so called ‘consensus’ of scientists ? Consensus and science have little in common – science is about getting it right. Wegener in 1915 suggested the earths crust was composed of techtonic plates that moved in relation to each other. The ‘consensus’ scientific view of the day thought this was nonsense. It wasn’t accepted as correct until the 1950’s. If, now, you don’t believe that Wegener was right (but no part of any consensus)
you’d be regarded as a ‘flat earther’ !! The leaked emails – which I’d love to see – appear to confirm that collusion in promoting the man made GW ideas is more real than the usual slur aimed at the skeptics – that they’re all involved in the oil/power industries !!
143.
Jeff Id said
November 21, 2009 at 3:46 pm
#142, There are links to download everywhere. Check WUWT if you are having trouble finding them.
144.
mike said
November 21, 2009 at 3:57 pm
The distance from the sun varies.
The distance from the moon varies.
The angle of orbital inclination varies.
The output from volcanoes varies.
The output from deep sea vents varies.
NO NO NO…these don’t vary on their own…it’s because of man…there are man made reasons for these changes……
Perhaps it’s because all the people gather to the coasts to enjoy the beach !!!!
Yeah…that’s it…. CAN I GET A GOVERNMENT GRANT TO STUDY THIS ????
145.
Hadley CRU hackat och interna dokument är på vift? « Fria Nyheter said
November 21, 2009 at 4:13 pm
[...] dök först upp på en blogg vid namn The Air Vent. Bloggens ägare, identifierad som ”Jeff Id”, laddade ned den första filen, granskade [...]
146.
Keith said
November 21, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Jeff Id,
Congrats on getting selected as the source of leak du jour. It speaks volumes for you. But to kind of repeat a posting at WUWT, let me put this out there.
The data may have been hid on a server, but was not untouchable. Much of what we are talking about is non-encrypted e-mails that were sent internationally. One hundred percent, these e-mails were available to and “read”/scanned/indexed by just about every major intelligence agency you can name. US, British, Russian, Chinese, French. While they probably flew under the radar for general content (not related to known criminals, Islamists, whatever), you have to wonder at the interest levels of the Russians in particular.
The poor Rooskies have all this natural gas that goes in a pipeline to Western Europe. Darn Western Europeans are discovering shale gas/shale oil, messing up the balance of trade. At what point do the Russians decide to undermine the whole Cap and Trade nonsense by dropping the price of natural gas/petroleum again by declaring Global Warming is “off”? If you shock petroleum/gas back to low levels, you could perhaps make shale resources unprofitable for at least a few more years. While this whole exercise seems like an inside job, it just may be a highly professional OUTSIDE job. Note that the server for distribution of the material was in Russia–sometimes the Russians like to flaunt their work a bit as a warning to others (note Victor Yushchenko and his little problems with dioxin, or perhaps more compellingly, Alexander Litvinenko and his murder by Polonium-210….not something found at your average WalMart).
Regardless, it’s just something to think about. We are reading this for the first time, but there should have been highly educated doctorates in various fields reading these same e-mails years and years ago.
Along those lines, I am really annoyed with the Pentagon and CIA. Back in 2004, the Pentagon was waxing poetic about riots and being destroyed by global warming (see first link, in 2004). What in the world does the Dept of Defense have the Defense Intelligence Agency for if they aren’t going to bother to read the PERFECTLY LEGAL TO READ unencrypted e-mails sent internationally?!?!?!?!?
And the CIA just set up a Climate Change office (second link). I mean, WUWT? Or more like, WTF?!?!?! I thought NSA had these big sniffer programs to evaluate all e-mails, cell phone calls, pager signals, etc (“Carnivore”). While they were at it, they didn’t think to check on the biggest of the big boys of AGW before opening up a special office on climate change? But then, maybe the whole Fort Hood incident shows that there are weird “off limits” areas our intelligence sources can’t check out.
Short story, for those who think there has been some kind of major improvement in our intelligence programs and therefore our safety since Sept 11, 2001; the writing is on the wall. The same clowns are still running the same clownish games.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html
Tuo Amico,
Keith
147.
Benzene said
November 21, 2009 at 5:05 pm
For those who need it fast: http://rapidshare.com/files/310293475/FOI2009.zip
148.
Marc said
November 21, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Why the need to “snip out of kindness”, you fight for openness but keep what you want closed? Hypocrite!
149.
Jeff Id said
November 21, 2009 at 5:39 pm
#148 WTF, if you want the meaningless infighting stuff it’s all there in the emails.
150.
S said
November 21, 2009 at 6:30 pm
File is now on Wikileaks.
151.
Хакери открадват документи от сървър - жесток удар за зелените мошеници. Поръчкови псевдонаучни фалшификации "доказват" глобалното затопл� said
November 21, 2009 at 7:05 pm
[...] first time) SlashDot (a discussion of IT types) Terry Hurlbut (Examiner) Rush Limbaugh’s take Jeff Id (The Air Vent, the first [...]
152.
The Distributor said
November 21, 2009 at 8:31 pm
As much as RealClimate.org pontificates, they are complete hypocrites. Here’s how:
Yesterday, I attempted to post links to the original files on their site, but since posting there is moderated, I knew there was VERY little hope of my post making it through. I was correct. My post of the link to the original email files was never posted on RealClimate.org. The ONLY people privy to the link I wanted to post WERE THE MODERATORS.
HOWEVER, what they didn’t know is, the link I supplied them was completely unique ONLY to them – NO ONE else knows the link other than them and me.
It has sine been downloaded and spread around by them and/or their own moderators, and downloaded many times! Boneheads!
So just for fun and posterity’s sake, my original post from yesterday posted here:
Download and read for yourself!
Original ZIP version HERE (~62MB)
http://rapidshare.com/files/309803421/FOI2009.zip
Original files using RAR (higher compression, ~50MB)
http://rapidshare.com/files/309807184/FOI2009.rar
The Distributor
153.
TC said
November 21, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Which angle will MSM choose?
(1) Deleted data & FOIA requests. CRU made headlines earlier in the year with a bizarre and troubling snub to Freedom of Information requests
The world’s source for global temperature record admits it’s lost or destroyed all the original data that would allow a third party to construct a global temperature record. The destruction (or loss) of the data comes at a convenient time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in East Anglia – permitting it to snub FoIA requests to see the data.
According to Climate Audit blog, CRU undertook an “unprecedented” public data purge in July.
(2) Damning quotes from elite climate eggheads casting doubt on the entire climate modeling project… Kevin Trenberth, head of Climate Analysis at NCAR in Colorado — and a central author of the UN’s IPCC Fourth Assessment (AR4) — is quoted in a late-’09 email [1255553034.txt]:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
(3) CRU: Evidence of anti-scientific deception, suppression of evidence, skewing of data and playing media games…
— too many quotes to paste! Use link below…
(4) “Selling” the Climate Change / Climate Debate / Climate Response message — PR Firms, etc…
ZIP file contains a 2005 Climate Communications document by UK PR-firm Futerra Sustainability Communications, “The Rules of the Game” — now updated as “New Rules: New Game” (pdf) at Futerra’s site. Also check out their “Greenwash Guide” (pdf).
For quotes, Futerra video, more links, (etc) go here…
154.
Chepito said
November 21, 2009 at 9:37 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/21/cru-emails-search-engine-now-online/
What is Nic talking about?
Nic (16:21:44) :
Subject to moderator permission;
The first 10 who send an e-mail to crufoifile@live.co.uk may receive a reply with a large attachment.
(Mod – snip if this breaks your rules)
Do you think there’s more?
155.
Global Warming Proved…False? « One Shot Politics said
November 21, 2009 at 9:59 pm
[...] This is the case according to some e-mail exchanges between scientists at a prominent global warming think tank. Over 61 MB of files were accessed and posted by some hackers as a comment on the Air Vent blog. [...]
156.
Eric said
November 21, 2009 at 11:18 pm
John writes: “Its amazing how utterly blind and stupid people can be. The IPCC has spent forty years studying the matter and most of the worlds leading experts on climate change agree with their conclusions.”
According to the IPCC, the IPCC was established in 1988 and issued its first report in 1990. That makes the IPCC about 21 years old, not 40.
I’m not wading in to a pro- or con- AGW debate as I have demands on my time. Have a nice day.
157.
someone who resembles the Chesire Cat said
November 22, 2009 at 12:16 am
jeff id: monolithic props unto thyself! the comment above about schadenfreude kind of nailed the immense satisfaction i am currently feeling. this cannot be permited to pass. everyone needs to email ofcom about the bbc’s lame (and immensely biased) coverage featuring the bull skull picked clean of flesh in the desert (they changed that when they realised everyone had now read new rules new game i think also their banning of comments on the earthwatch blog smells like censorship to me). write to your mp/senator or whomever. file foi requests until they hate the sight of your name! if its publicly funded you can at least ask for information.
as you may notice from the ‘crazy believers’ (rule 22 label people) they are now using outdated techniques! this rocks so much! rule 8: strike a careful balance in your language. however we should pity them as they are in fact under the influence of insidious techniques of psychological manipulation.
to the person who aquired this info: many, many thanks you goddamn righteous sonofabitch! and to yourself jeff for noticing its significance.
158.
Hadley Hacked: Hadly Science Bogus: East Anglia Climate Research Hacked: Hadley East Anglia Global Warming Hoax « Daily News said
November 22, 2009 at 12:39 am
[...] Id at The Air Vent broke the story today, Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold, after a link was left on his blog, and is now struggling with what to do with the information [...]
159.
Bill Miller said
November 22, 2009 at 12:49 am
IS THIS THE RANDOM EMBER THAT LIGHTS THE FIRE??
160.
john said
November 22, 2009 at 1:31 am
The IPCC is 21 years old. Climate change data has been scientifically recorded with any merit from the early 1960’s, and this data extract is used in initial IPCC reports which makes IPCC data about 40 or 50 years old depending on which report you read. By the way, anyone that doubts the impact of human endeavors on various heat modalities, as related to climate change, is encouraged to present their findings to the IPCC or WMO for peer review. If your findings are empirical and not political you may be surprised at the respect and appreciation you receive. On a personal note, an early query asked whether I had ever been involved in carbon measuring and dating of ice drillings. The answer is yes. On three separate occasions I was asked to verify both carbon and radiation/kvp/mas data from ice streams and ice drills. My work has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. FYI.
161.
Morgan said
November 22, 2009 at 1:43 am
#159:
What is a “heat modality”?
162.
KingPablo said
November 22, 2009 at 4:31 am
Awesome work. I’ve been delving thru the email. The tidbits are being picked out, but boy are these guys paranoid. So much for open peer review. They even have the capability to screen postings on published article feedback. Check out file 1139521913.txt.
“On the other hand, you
might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think
they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d
like us to include.
You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a
resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put
forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our
best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC
comments as a megaphone…”
WOW… control the content AND the response…
163.
CLIMATE BOMBSHELL: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change | NW0.eu Daily News said
November 22, 2009 at 5:03 am
[...] of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science [...]
164.
Richard said
November 22, 2009 at 7:17 am
Nice Post, I have bookmarked your site and will return again.
Host Business
165.
Dr. Dweeb said
November 22, 2009 at 1:39 pm
#137: Well I went to Beijing and sure, it’s polluted. And this is a climate problem? It is a local pollution problem and the pollutants in question are not CO2 (a naturally ocurring trace gas in our atmosphere).
Your argument is basically that humans generate 60W/Hr of heat and do all sorts of other stuff so we must be the cause of climate change.
This argument is logically flawed, but that is a characteristic of the warming alarmists’ position.
Personally I think its a Jedeo-Christian “guilt” thing for your position and the sun for climate, but hey, that’s just opinion
166.
Truthseeker said
November 22, 2009 at 1:58 pm
The IPCC and their followers are the new Inquisition; they who do not belive shall be burned….
167.
john said
November 22, 2009 at 2:49 pm
#165. My argument is about radiation and heat modalities, but I will address your thoughts as you seem to be educated about the subject matter. Of course CO2 is trace. But pre industrial CO2 levels were about 280ppm or thereabouts. Those levels are now at about 385ppm and rapidly climbing. But this is just a portion of the problem. CH4 levels are now at about 186% of pre industrial levels and N20 levels are rising at about 7% per year. There are about 70 other gases we could discuss which have levels higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. The cumulative effect is potentially catastrophic. Note the word potentially. Your comment that pollution in Beijing is confined locally is patently inaccurate. Particulate matter and gases have about a 45day circumnavigation cycle for most matter.
My my argument is two pronged. To those who contend that global warming will cause the imminent demise of mankind I am in disagreement with such conclusions. There are other mitigating factors which I won’t discuss here. To those that contend that human endeavors don’t contribute to, or in some cases cause, global warming I must say that your conclusions are simply, patently and demonstrably false. These positions are borne from scientific ignorance.
It would be much more productive to work on problem solving that is rational and related to the actual long term effects of global warming. The capital markets are a bit ahead of the general scientific world in this regard. To continue to deny the human factor in global warming is akin to those that deny evolution or gravity. We must focus on how mankind will cope over the next 250 years.
168.
Restore The Republic said
November 22, 2009 at 6:48 pm
[...] of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science [...]
169.
Warmers lobby « route63 said
November 22, 2009 at 7:02 pm
[...] warmer emails (1) [...]
170.
rum said
November 22, 2009 at 7:26 pm
wouldn’t it be nice if more files were released in a similar fashion as the o’keefe/giles (acorn)tapes……..
171.
kirby said
November 22, 2009 at 10:12 pm
John,
I would like to commend you on being what seems to be a shining example of a good human, visa vi a great American. Logical, patient, and knowledgeable.
I am sure this cache of 13 years worth of emails, has loads of “juicy tid-bits”.
I would be much more interested in the past 13 years worth of email from the more “corporate” side of this debate. I don’t think “tid-bits” would work to describe what we would find! :)
The basic question of:
Can we exist in a more efficient/clean manor – is really a no brain’r.
How we get there? Is the root of this whole debate…
Side A) The current “corporations” who control the mechanisms to bring us our way of life. Hey BTW, way to go on that – it’s pretty rad!
- They REALLY want to keep things going as they are, or if there is going to be change they want to manage that.
Side B*) Anything else.
* Side note to the “B” scenario: The folks who are behind side “A” would more than likely still exist. However they would be forced to change, so they might be a bit pissy.
Saying that “We have no impact on anything.” is just stupid.
Even if some how was the case… Saying, we shouldn’t strive to make/do things in the most clean/efficient manor. — Would be even stoopider.
So it comes down to do you support A or B.
-kirby
172.
john said
November 23, 2009 at 12:00 am
Kirby,
Thank you so much for the kind words. I am just wishing for a better world for everyone. Again, thank you.
173.
edrowland said
November 23, 2009 at 1:39 am
Something that strikes as very odd about the archive is that it is almost surgically clean. It seems to be the working results of an attempt to satisfy several well-known FOIA requests file with CRU.
There’s no way some Russian kiddy-hacker could so cleanly and efficiently separate these few hundred email messages from the many thousands of emails that clutter an ordinary email in-box. There’s no social announcments, no birthday greetings, no love letters, no spam. Just mail to and from members of the UAE (Briffa and Jones, particularly), between a select group of people who I beleive were specifically covered in one of the FOIA requests. All the tree ring data (MacIntyre); all the CRU code.
Most telling: none of the emails have routing headers. There’s no reason for a kiddy hacker to remove the routing headers; but every reason for an FOIA officer to do so.
Somebody has put an extraordinary amount of effort into filtering this archive to a very specific set of requirements.
One can’t help wondering whether we would have seen all of this a week or two from now through legitmate channels. And one can’t help wondering whether it wouldn’t have been far more damaging to those involved if it had been released through an FOIA request rather than through a “hack”.
Hmmm.
174.
Jeff C. said
November 23, 2009 at 2:33 am
#171
Kirby – the problem with your argument is that the majority of Americans are perfectly happy with “A”. I realize many others aren’t, but it is up to them to persuade the rest of us why we need to change our ways. If you attempt to do that through corrupt science, don’t be surprised when those of us who like the standard of living “A” has provided us fight back. If you attempt to force it on us with imperious government regulations that limit our freedom, we vote for the other guy. It’s pretty simple.
No one is saying we “have no impact on anything”, of course we do. However, the sustainability argument has been wrong since the days of Malthus and it gives no indication of being any truer today. If you think that is wrong, then prove it without cooking the books. Unfortunately, those in your camp have instead resorted to ridiculous alarmist scenarios and collusion. The ensuing loss of credibility was utterly predictable.
175.
Breaking news!: Hacker leaks thousands of emails showing conspiracy to “hide” the real data on manmade climate change « Wars & Rumor said
November 23, 2009 at 3:05 am
[...] of Information Act in the United States. One of the first sites where the 62 MB file was posted was The Air Vent. It was soon picked up by Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and other climate science [...]
176.
Klimawandel und Klimakatastrophe: Lügen die Vereinten Nationen? | www.tutsi.de said
November 23, 2009 at 3:40 am
[...] Wer sich nicht gleich die ganzen gepackten 62MB der hochbrisanten Datei climactic-research-unit-foi-leaked-data.zip laden möchte, findet die wichtigsten Auszüge der Daten auch bei Air Vent… [...]
177.
giowind.eu » Blog Archive » Climategate: svelato l’inganno ambientalista? said
November 23, 2009 at 5:32 am
[...] Pajamas Media, Gateway Pundit, Tim Blair, Don Surber, Washington Examiner, Townhall.com, Wizbang, The Air Vent, Hit & Run, Shout First…, Sister Toldjah, The Corner, Big Government, Vox Popoli, The Other [...]
178.
Readers Edition » Themenklau im Klimakampf said
November 23, 2009 at 6:50 am
[...] gestohlenen Daten stehen seit dem Donnerstag der vergangenen Woche im Netz, angelehnt an den Zensurparagraphen im Grundgesetz aber hieß es bis gestern “Eine [...]
179.
S&W .45 said
November 23, 2009 at 10:45 am
i contacted my congresman and i also contacted the department of energy,they have a space to file a complaint for fraud and abuse. Also im going to contact the fbi.
180.
Rhonda G. said
November 23, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Does anyone know of a clean site to download these files today (11/23/09). I’ve now tried the pirate and mega download sites and they both have spammed me with massive pop-up windows. I’ve had to shut down my computer and take out the battery to get back online. I have been studying false governmental issues for quite some time now, and would really like to read these emails for myself. Thank you for any help you can give.
181.
Jeff Id said
November 23, 2009 at 1:19 pm
The reference frame has a pile of links. It sounds like you’re already spammed though. Run some anti-spyware like adaware.
182.
Vyse said
November 23, 2009 at 2:43 pm
What is the official time-frame on these emails though?
If these were dug up from the 60-70’s so what? Clearly the impact humans have had on the planet is more evident now? Where is the data and emails from 2000 on?
183.
Anthropogenic Global Warming? « The Secret People said
November 23, 2009 at 5:54 pm
[...] the leaking of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) first reported here and what have we heard reported? “Some naughty hackers have targeted the email system” [...]
No comments:
Post a Comment