So now that everything has been made public, a NYT reporter has decided to write about some of it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

I'm sure people will have a hay-day with it.

11/20/2009 11:05:34 PM

Whether you believe humans are influencing climate change or not isn't it simply better to err on the side of caution?

11/21/2009 8:07:11 AM

Depends, do you err on the side of amputation whether or not you believe the paper cut on your finger is badly infected?

11/21/2009 9:30:15 AM

Well of course not but things like renewable energy (ending the oil age etc.) are a good thing even if climate change was not at all human influenced. I personally feel it is a combination of human activity and natural cycles.

11/21/2009 12:04:30 PM

Quote :

"I personally feel it is a combination of human activity and natural cycles."

haha, this is a good “feeling” since it is literally the ONLY thing it could be.

11/21/2009 12:52:56 PM

This is why I am a global warming skeptic. I do not discount the possibility of man made global warming (I am an engineer - I have some common sense), but it is impossible to trust anything coming out of the scientific community right now. I don't care which side of the debate you come down on, you have to acknowledge the extereme politicization of this issue and the real consequences that occur to researchers that do not attempt to hide evidence that does not support global warmist ideology.

11/21/2009 2:18:49 PM

Quote :

"Are they not a public institution? Therefore, should not the data have been public already?"

The UK does have a FOI act similar to ours in the US. However, when "skeptics" have tried to get information from CRU or Hadley they've been met with red tape and all sorts of crap.

When you read things like this:

Quote :

"In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" "

you really have to question the morality of some scientists.

I'm curious though, if these files were illegally taken then why are they free to download on the Wall Street Journal's website? lol.

11/23/2009 2:18:39 PM

because they have now become news.

11/23/2009 2:27:42 PM

These two emails were interesting to me personally:

Quote :

"Thanks for your email regarding Steven McIntyre's twin requests under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act. Regarding McIntyre's request (1), no "monthly time series of output from any of the 47 climate models" was "sent by Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 to NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". As I pointed out to Mr. McIntyre in the email I transmitted to him yesterday, all of the raw (gridded) model and observational data used in the 2008 Santer et al. International Journal of Climatology (IJoC) paper are freely available to Mr. McIntyre. If Mr. McIntyre wishes to audit us, and determine whether the conclusions reached in our paper are sound, he has all the information necessary to conduct such an audit. Providing Mr. McIntyre with the quantities that I derived from the raw model data (spatially-averaged time series of surface temperatures and synthetic Microwave Sounding Unit [MSU] temperatures) would defeat the very purpose of an audit. I note that David Douglass and colleagues have already audited our calculation of synthetic MSU temperatures from climate model data. Douglass et al. obtained "model average" trends in synthetic MSU temperatures (published in their 2007 IJoC paper) that are virtually identical to our own. McIntyre's request (2) demands "any correspondence concerning these monthly time series between Santer and/or other coauthors of Santer et al 2008 and NOAA employees between 2006 and October 2008". I do not know how you intend to respond this second request. You and three other NOAA co-authors on our paper (Susan Solomon, Melissa Free, and John Lanzante) probably received hundreds of emails that I sent to you in the course of our work on the IJoC paper. I note that this work began in December 2007, following online publication of Douglass et al. in the IJoC. I have no idea why McIntyre's request for email correspondence has a "start date" of 2006, and thus predates publication of Douglass et al. My personal opinion is that both FOI requests (1) and (2) are intrusive and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or explanation for such requests. I believe that McIntyre is pursuing a calculated strategy to divert my attention and focus away from research. As the recent experiences of Mike Mann and Phil Jones have shown, this request is the thin edge of wedge. It will be followed by further requests for computer programs, additional material and explanations, etc., etc. Quite frankly, Tom, having spent nearly 10 months of my life addressing the serious scientific flaws in the Douglass et al. IJoC paper, I am unwilling to waste more of my time fulfilling the intrusive and frivolous requests of Steven McIntyre. The supreme irony is that Mr. McIntyre has focused his attention on our IJoC paper rather than the Douglass et al. IJoC paper which we criticized. As you know, Douglass et al. relied on a seriously flawed statistical test, and reached incorrect conclusions on the basis of that flawed test. I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre. I assume that such requests will be forthcoming. I am copying this email to all co-authors of our 2008 IJoC paper, to my immediate superior at PCMDI (Dave Bader), to Anjuli Bamzai at DOE headquarters, and to Professor Glenn McGregor (the editor who was in charge of our paper at IJoC). I'd be very happy to discuss these issues with you tomorrow. I'm sorry that the tone of this letter is so formal, Tom. Unfortunately, after today's events, I must assume that any email I write to you may be subject to FOI requests, and could ultimately appear on McIntyre's "ClimateAudit" website."

Quote :

"Ben, there are two very different things going on here. One is technical and related to the actual science and the actual statistics, the second is political, and is much more concerned with how incidents like this can be portrayed. The second is the issue here. The unfortunate fact is that the 'secret science' meme is an extremely powerful rallying call to people who have no idea about what is going on. Claiming (rightly or wrongly) that information is being hidden has a huge amount of resonance (as you know), much more so than whether Douglass et al know their statistical elbow from a hole in the ground. Thus any increase in publicity on this - whether in the pages of Nature or elsewhere - is much more likely to bring further negative fallout despite your desire to clear the air. Whatever you say, it will still be presented as you hiding data. The contrarians have found that there is actually no limit to what you can ask people for (raw data, intermediate steps, additional calculations, residuals, sensitivity calculations, all the code, a workable version of the code on any platform etc.), and like Somali pirates they have found that once someone has paid up, they can always shake them down again. Thus, I would not advise any public statements on this. Instead, email you immediate superiors and the director with a short statement along the lines of what you suggest below (i.e. of course you want open science, the data *are* in the public domain (with links) and calls for more intermediate steps are just harassment to prevent scientists doing what they are actually paid too). I wouldn't put in anything specifically related to McIntyre. A much more satisfying response would be to demonstrate how easy it to replicate the analysis in the paper starting from scratch using openly available data (such as through Joe Sirott's portal) and the simplest published MSU weighting function. If you can show that this can be done in a couple of hours (or whatever), it makes the other side look like incompetent amateurs. Maybe someone has a graduate student available....?"

Mostly because I read the Douglass et al. paper closely and found it was a pile of crap. I saw Santer
give a very good talk on this where he demonstrated the complete uselessness of Douglass' 'robust statistical
test' of climate models. Anyway, all this is beside the point.

McI has a megaphone in the media and uses this very effectively to harass scientists. Is there some result you don't like? Well, demand a FOI to get the data released. Oh, it's already publicly available? Well, not the derived values! (which the derivation is described in detail in a paper no layman will read). Another FOI to get the code released! And then complain if the code is written in legacy FORTRAN! And then.....do nothing because people are more interested in controversy than uncertainty quantification of climate models.

11/24/2009 1:27:02 AM

you do realize that these people are refusing to release their code, right? they refuse to release the computer programs. And those emails HIGHLIGHT that fact.

11/24/2009 7:32:42 AM

I bet WWII historians view Holocaust deniers with the same contempt. They probably even shoot emails back and forth about how annoying the deniers are, and might even discuss ways to reduce their influence over public discourse.

11/24/2009 9:17:10 AM

one major difference being that climate science is very inexact and is not NP complete.

the science is not settled. there has been no real scientific debate on this issue.

11/24/2009 11:01:14 AM

If they're so proud of their computer models they should have nothing to fear releasing their code.

11/24/2009 12:07:56 PM

They have nothing to gain either by releasing their work into the hands of intellectually dishonest hacks.

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/24/2009 1:55:30 PM

The history of the Holocaust is not settled. There has not been a serious debate about the Holocaust. Same goes for evolution and the big bang. Also, condoms cause AIDS and the sun revolves around the earth.

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 2:30 PM. Reason : ]

11/24/2009 2:28:05 PM

The specifics of global warming are not nearly as settled upon as evolution, the big bang, or the events of the Holocaust. I see the point you're trying to make, but no.

11/24/2009 2:44:48 PM

The fact that it is happening and that humans are contributing to it is as settled as one could reasonably expect.

Or, you could throw in your lot with those who would tell you in the same breath that the earth's temperature is cooling, staying the same, and warming (as long as the cause is anything but human activity).

11/24/2009 2:55:07 PM

"humans are contributing to it" != "humans are the primary cause of it"

11/24/2009 3:05:03 PM

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10404533-38.html
Congress may probe leaked global warming e-mails

Quote :

"A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the U.S. Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories may have misrepresented the truth about climate change."

I hope this gets followed through on, because I think it will end up vindicating the scientists.

11/24/2009 3:07:58 PM

^^^oh look, someone that hasn't researched the topic at all.

[Edited on November 24, 2009 at 3:20 PM. Reason : not needed]

11/24/2009 3:09:08 PM

^ i think it will vindicate the scientists based on having read the full emails (not just the snippets certain groups wanted you to read).

11/24/2009 3:13:10 PM

ah, well that is a little different. Without having read the emails all the way through it is hard to grasp at the meaning of some things.

11/24/2009 3:20:22 PM

Quote :

"They have nothing to gain either by releasing their work into the hands of intellectually dishonest hacks."

That's not how science works, though. At least, not reputable science.

Quote :

"The fact that it is happening and that humans are contributing to it is as settled as one could reasonably expect. "

Only that's completely and totally false. unless your definition of "reasonably expect" is so ridiculously low as to not be worth anything.

11/24/2009 4:59:44 PM

As I've posted before, when this house of cards that is the global warming hoax eventually collapses--and it will--the perpetrators will defiantly declare that it doesn't matter that they were wrong all along or even fraudulent. The only thing that will matter to them is that they "raised awareness" and that they "care" about the environment more than you do.

And there's this important development:

"Climate Gate" Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA
By Chris Horner, 11.24.09

Quote :

"Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies' refusal - for nearly three years - to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act. The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding 'ClimateGate' scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK's East Anglia University. All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, 'cap-and-trade' legislation and the EPA's threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door. CEI sought the following documents, among others, NASA's failure to provide which within thirty days will prompt CEI to file suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: - internal discussions about NASA's quiet correction of its false historical U.S. temperature records after two Canadian researchers discovered a key statistical error, specifically discussion about whether and why to correct certain records, how to do so, the impact or wisdom or potential (or real) fallout therefrom or reaction to doing so (requested August 2007); - internal discussions relating to the emails sent to James Hansen and/or Reto A. Ruedy from Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre calling their attention to the errors in NASA/GISS online temperature data (August 2007); - those relating to the content, importance or propriety of workday-hour posts or entries by GISS/NASA employee Gavin A. Schmidt on the weblog or 'blog' RealClimate, which is owned by the advocacy Environmental Media Services and was started as an effort to defend the debunked 'Hockey Stick' that is so central to the CRU files. RealClimate.org is implicated in the leaked files, expressly offered as a tool to be used 'in any way you think would be helpful' to a certain advocacy campaign, including an assertion of Schmidt's active involvement in, e.g., delaying and/or screening out unhelpful input by 'skeptics' attempting to comment on claims made on the website. This and the related political activism engaged in are inappropriate behavior for a taxpayer-funded employee, particularly on taxpayer time. These documents were requested in January 2007 and NASA/GISS have refused to date to comply with their legal obligation to produce responsive documents."

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f

Nowhere to run to, baby / Nowhere to hide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRIOKvR2WM

11/24/2009 5:13:28 PM

someone turn up the global warming cause its getting cold.

11/24/2009 5:22:06 PM

NASA releases climate change multimedia:

http://www.physorg.com/news178302542.html

11/24/2009 5:53:12 PM

^ Yeah, but what did they not release?

11/24/2009 5:56:45 PM

All of their personal correspondence revealing them to be enviro-nazi conspirators.

11/24/2009 6:06:19 PM

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? RAWR RAWR RAWR!!!

11/24/2009 6:09:00 PM

If the CEI suits against NASA move forward, we shall see what may have been withheld.

11/24/2009 6:14:09 PM

And yet, you will still see what you want to see.

11/24/2009 6:17:10 PM

No, just the facts will do.

11/24/2009 6:18:27 PM

Quote :

"No, just the facts [that support my view] will do."

11/24/2009 6:21:20 PM

^ No, I happen to be correct--more and more evidence is proving this so.

11/24/2009 6:26:39 PM

Whatever happened to Global Cooling?

11/24/2009 8:47:02 PM

At any rate, my point was obviously not to compare the science of global warming with the historical evidence of the Holocaust. My point was that it is not particularly surprising, nevermind significant, that a small group of noted academics would speak derisively of their crackpot contemporaries, or that they would conspire to lessen the influence of said crackpots over the public discourse.

11/25/2009 12:00:15 AM

well... the crackpot label becomes pretty circular at that point. he's a crackpot because he hasn't published anything. We won't let him publish anything because he's a crackpot.

REST ASSURED, THIS IS DEFINITELY THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

11/25/2009 12:13:10 AM

Who won't let who publish anything?

11/25/2009 1:14:45 AM

Who said "he's a crackpot because he hasn't published anything," for that matter?

11/25/2009 9:02:02 AM

So McIntyre is a crackpot for taking the same raw data and showing scientists to be wrong?

11/25/2009 9:15:06 AM

^^^ oh i get it, you didn't read the emails.

11/25/2009 9:23:57 AM

^ it seems you didn’t understand the emails.

11/25/2009 9:29:13 AM

ok. how about you explain them to us. Explain how saying you'll "change the definition of peer-reviewed literature" could not be a bad thing. Explain how saying you will "hide the decline [in temperatures]" isn't bad. please.

11/25/2009 1:00:33 PM

NASA releases "The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science," a comprehensive report on climate change:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2380&rn=news.xml&rst=2380

11/25/2009 1:50:50 PM

^ that's not a nasa report, just to clarify

it can be downloaded here:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/download/default.html

[Edited on November 25, 2009 at 3:14 PM. Reason : link]

11/25/2009 3:12:15 PM

Quote :

"ok. how about you explain them to us. Explain how saying you'll "change the definition of peer-reviewed literature" could not be a bad thing. Explain how saying you will "hide the decline [in temperatures]" isn't bad. please. "

I think the line you’re referring to in the former was "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !” which looks more like it was supposed to be a joke between colleagues. If you’re going to take their private emails as a literal reflection of the person, then you may as well also harp on the fact they they have VERY poor grammar and can’t spell the word “they’re” properly, which means they couldn’t have even written the IPCC reports, which means that there is someone else impersonating these scientists, and writing grammatically correct and properly spelled reports on climate change for the IPCC.

Further, the person they were joking about was this guy:
http://www.sges.auckland.ac.nz/about_us/our_people/defreitas_chris/index.shtm

Who clearly isn’t having his voice suppressed, and was even published at least in the 1995 edition of the IPCC report.

Not sure which email youre talking about with the latter quote.

11/25/2009 7:51:19 PM

really? A joke? talking about changing one of the fundamental parts of the scientific process? simply because they disagree with him? Yeah, that's really professional and says a LOT about those people.

and you haven't heard about the other quote? it's been all over NPR, dude. do a little research...
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22hide+the+decline%22

11/26/2009 5:18:09 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, that's really professional and says a LOT about those people."

It does if you generalize.

11/26/2009 7:58:44 PM

so, scientists joking about throwing out a guy's entire body of work because they don't agree with him? really? you think that is in any way professional? Even if it was a "joke," there's a shred of truth in it, and they know it

11/26/2009 8:06:22 PM

It's funny to watch your account of the email get more exaggerated as you go on.

A few out-of-context and facetious remarks is evidence of nothing, except to paranoid cranks like you. It is about what I expect from passionate and frustrated scientists who know the issue is proven, but have been unable to garner the political support needed to take action.

11/26/2009 9:53:43 PM