November 22, 2011 1 Comment
Here we go again! The emails appear genuine but have to be verified.
“Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.”
Climategate 2.0 – They’re real and they’re spectacular!
“It happened again. I woke up to find a link from FOIA.org on a thread. Thousands of emails unlocked with 220,000 more hidden behind a password. Despite the smaller size of the Air Vent due to my lack of time, there were twenty five downloads before I saw it once. As before, there are some very nice quotes and clarifications from the consensus. Below is a guest post in the form of a readme file from the FOIA.org group. – Jeff
/// FOIA 2011 — Background and Context ///
“Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day.”
“Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
“One dollar can save a life” — the opposite must also be true.
“Poverty is a death sentence.”
“Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.”
Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
hiding the decline.
This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.
The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
to publicly release the passphrase.
We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such as…”
UPDATE1: November 23, 2011 (11:30 AM GMT) Searchable database here.
UPDATE2: November 26, 2011 (12:30 PM GMT) Editorial from The Australian.
“The second round of so-called Climategate email revelations has been released for maximum political effect, on the eve of the UN’s Durban climate change conference. The timing indicates that those promoting climate scepticism have an eye for public relations and political management. But the emails themselves reveal, most clearly, the extent to which climate change scientists have been involved in the same game of spinning for their cause of global warming, and working towards greatest political impact.
This newspaper always supports a rational approach to climate science, accepting the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions are warming the planet, and supporting market mechanisms to reduce emissions — while favouring stringent analysis of alarmist claims. When climate activists from Al Gore to the local school teacher have implored us to “respect the science” we now know they have often been referring to a cleverly manipulated and exaggerated public impression of the science.
Scientists should be dedicated, even passionate, but by definition they need to be focused on empirical science, rational analysis and facts. By cherry-picking data — promoting that which suits their cause and downplaying or ignoring that which doesn’t — scientists have been doing more than simply putting a gloss on their work. Some have conscripted their work into advocacy to shape the public’s views about climate. In the 5000 leaked emails there is a range of exchanges between scientists, from unsurprising professional rivalry to justifiable efforts to win publicity for projects. But it is clear that time and again they cross the line. A phrase such as “we’re choosing the periods to show warming” cannot look benign in any context. Or an email suggesting data might be selected not on its merits but on its conclusions; “paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW (global warming) is having an effect on TC (tropical cyclone) activity.” There are references to “the cause” and notes such as “thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming”.
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary report has demonstrated an increasingly rational and cautious approach to climate science. It had been embarrassed by mistakes in earlier reports, such as the erroneous claims that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Those revelations and the impact of the first Climategate leaks have encouraged more debate and greater intellectual integrity. Transparency, as a rule, is something this newspaper views as a guiding principle because it fosters open-mindedness in the contest of ideas. Yet we cannot fail to notice that some sections of the media that have worked themselves into an unquestioning lather over various WikiLeaks information dumps or even the minutia of the Hackgate inquiries in London have shown a strange lack of curiosity about the Climategate leaks — even though they have provided a window into the science, politics and spin in the pre-eminent debate of our time. The ABC and Fairfax press might be embarrassed about how years of alarmist climate stories, and tokenistic gestures such as Earth Hour, might have fuelled the global warming hyperbole that has helped to create a sceptical backlash. There is no doubt such reporting has hurt the debate. The way to resolve that is not to avert their eyes, but to share the new information and encourage a rational approach.”
Rational approach on climate
UPDATE3: November 27, 2011 (12:00 PM GMT) via Jo Nova, an insight into the Climategate whistleblower/s.
“In the high powered risky game of whistleblowing there are ways to make the the leaker a less attractive target.
Pointman analyzes the ClimateGate whistleblower’s tactics and explains why he, she or they probably released those other 200,000 emails but kept them hidden behind the 4000-8000 character almost unbreakable password. He points out there are no emails released yet between key scientists and people in power, hence the worst, most damaging emails may be kept under a ” dead man’s hand detonator”. If politicians are afraid of what might be in those released-but-hidden emails, they may not want to expose or attack the whistleblower for fear of unleashing the other emails. The hidden emails buy the whistleblower protection.
Pointman — A dead mans hand detonator on hidden emails may protect ClimateGate whistleblower
WHY CLIMATEGATE WAS NOT A COMPUTER HACK.
Climategate: Follow The Funding
Climategate: The Five Stages Of Grief (Stage 2: Anger)
Climategate: It Won’t Go Away
Climategate: The Five Stages Of Grief
A Real Global Warming Conspiracy?