The Climategate III emails are released

[trysail]

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/13/climategate-30.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/





"Mr. FOIA" has released the 3rd batch of Climategate emails. The first release was crucially important in stopping the momentum of the BAD SCIENCE that was about cause the world to adopt bad policies.

Judging from the message accompanying this 3rd release, it appears very likely that "Mr. FOIA" is an inside whistleblower and not a hacker.

If anybody involved in “climate science” deserves a Nobel Prize, it’s Mr. FOIA, Steve McIntyre, Ross, McKitrick, Anthony Watts, Richard Lindzen, Judy Curry, Will Happer, Freeman Dyson, Tim Ball, Hal Lewis, Ivar Giaever, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Joanna Nova, Burt Rutan, Andrew Montford (“Bishop Hill”) and the rest of the skeptics who, at considerable personal expense, reputational and professional risk, took on the ginormous climate racket.

They are living proof that “Truth Will Out.”



Mr. FOIA:

...That's right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn't plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words...

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science -- on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren't the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn't occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material "might". The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We're dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn's future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can't pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it's not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It's easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our "clean" technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don't have that luxury. The price of "climate protection" with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a "game-changer" could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I'd have to try. I couldn't morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations -- trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far...



http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/13/climategate-30.html

 

[phrodeau]

So, no science to add today?

 

[Killswitch]

we don't believe in math but we do believe in ghosts and we damned well expect to be taken seriously.

I have to drive next to these people on the roadway.

 

[Lord_Nibiru]

I'm skeptical.

Certainly, until governments and industry stop using climate change as an argument for every new policy and process introduced that benefits the elite at the expense of the people, I will not support the sort of ridiculous so-called solutions to the problem.

Tesla discovered how to create energy for free; his work was destroyed. I do not believe that was purely coincidental.

 

[RobDownSouth]

So, no science to add today?

If you routinely wear a tin-foil hat, Trysail's links probably qualify as "science".

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Seems no matter how hard they spin, cherry pick, or break out the statistical sleight of hand.... Both the medieval and Roman warm period is here to stay, for anybody interested in real science or truth that is.

For the rest, the spin will do fine. The amount of spin will be huge. Too much money at stake for it not to be.

 

[Lord_Nibiru]

"New research by anti-poverty campaign group, the World Development Movement (WDM), has revealed that 32% of ministers in the UK government, including top cabinet ministers, are linked to UK finance and energy companies fuelling climate change."

Synchronistic moments are wonderful. Wasn't searching for that at all, honest.

 

[trysail]

Folks in Germany and the U.K. are beginning to comprehend that policy choices based on blind acceptance of propaganda based on unsettled science has potentially deadly consequences:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ected--experts-say-final-toll-horrendous.html
  
  
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...Too-much-green-energy-is-bad-for-Britain.html
  
  
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...ayback-time-for-our-insane-energy-policy.html
  

...Freezing Britain's unusually harsh winter could have cost thousands of pensioners their lives.

This month is on track to be the coldest March for 50 years – and as the bitter Arctic conditions caused blackouts and traffic chaos yesterday, experts warned of an 'horrendous' death toll among the elderly.

About 2,000 extra deaths were registered in just the first two weeks of March compared with the average for the same period over the past five years...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ected--experts-say-final-toll-horrendous.html

by Christopher Booker

...The grotesque mishandling of Britain’s energy policy by the politicians of all parties, as they chase their childish chimeras of CO2-induced global warming and windmills, has been arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history.

Three more events last week brought home again just what a mad bubble of make-believe these people are living in. Under the EU’s Large Combustion Plants Directive, we lost two more major coal-fired power stations, Didcot A and Cockenzie, capable of contributing no less than a tenth to our average electricity demands. We saw a French state-owned company, EDF, being given planning permission to spend £14 billion on two new nuclear reactors in Somerset, but which it says it will only build, for completion in 10 years’ time, if it is guaranteed a subsidy that will double the price of its electricity. Then, hidden in the small print of the Budget, were new figures for the fast-escalating tax the Government introduces next week on every ton of CO2 emitted by fossil-fuel-powered stations, which will soon be adding billions of pounds more to our electricity bills every year.

Within seven years this new tax will rise to £30 a ton, and by 2030 to £70 a ton, making it wholly uneconomical to generate any more electricity from the coal and gas-fired power stations that last week were still supplying two thirds of our electricity. Put all this together and we see more starkly than ever the game the Government is playing. It knows that no company would build wind farms unless it is given subsidies that, in effect, nearly double or treble the price of its electricity. The Government will only get CO2-free nuclear power if it promises it an equal subsidy. And now the Coalition is also hell-bent on driving our much cheaper and more reliable coal and gas-fired plants out of business, by imposing a carbon tax that will not only eventually double the cost of their electricity, but also make it impossible for them to survive. So mad is this policy of “double-up all round” that it is driving even the largest and most efficient power station in the country, Drax, capable of supplying seven per cent of all the power we use, to switch from burning coal to wood chips, imported 3,000 miles across the Atlantic from the US. And how has the Government forced Drax to do this? By giving it a subsidy on wood chips that doubles the value of its electricity, while putting an increasingly prohibitive tax on coal.

This is all insane in so many ways that one scarcely knows where to begin, except to point out that, even if our rulers somehow managed to subsidise firms into spending £100 billion on all those wind farms they dream of, they will still need enough new gas-fired power stations to provide back-up for all the times when the wind isn’t blowing, at the very time when the carbon tax will soon make it uneconomical for anyone to build them.


So we are doomed to see Britain’s lights going out, all because the feather-headed lunatics in charge of our energy policy still believe that they’ve got to do something to save the planet from that CO2-induced global warming which this weekend has been covering much of the country up to a foot deep in snow. Meanwhile, the Indians are planning to build 455 new coal-fired power stations which will add more CO2 to the atmosphere of the planet every week than Britain emits in a year.

Thank you, David Cameron, leader of “the greenest government ever”. Thank you, Ed Miliband, father of the Climate Change Act, the most expensive suicide note in history.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...ayback-time-for-our-insane-energy-policy.html

 

[mustang200]

But... but... but... climate change policy is for the children, doncha know...

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'll stick with the loony left on this one...if it were up to folks like trysail and others the entirety of the US would look like Beijing shortly after they got rid of that pesky EPA holding business back by not letting them dump toxic shit wherever the fuck they want as long as it's not in the rich neighborhood/water supply....amirite?? OIMSORITE!!!

GOP environmental policy in action^^^ that ain't water vapor

 

[KingOrfeo]

And who exactly is this "Mr. FOIA"?

 

[trysail]

I'll stick with the loony left on this one...if it were up to folks like trysail and others the entirety of the US would look like Beijing shortly after they got rid of that pesky EPA holding business back by not letting them dump toxic shit wherever the fuck they want as long as it's not in the rich neighborhood/water supply....amirite?? OIMSORITE!!!
GOP environmental policy in action^^^ that ain't water vapor

Pollution (NOx, SOx) is one thing.

CO2 is something else.

Know the difference.

 

[mustang200]

Dear Botany,

Again, you are so wrong.

The air and water were being cleaned up by the "evil" corporations well before the EPA was even a wet spot in the libs bed.

The amount of cleaning that has taken place since the EPA was formed is miniscule when compared to what took place before, even though the amount of money wasted has been enormous.

It is simply good business practice to have clean air and water, you idiot!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Pollution (NOx, SOx) is one thing.

CO2 is something else.

Know the difference.

Oh, yes . . . that one again . . .

Nature generates more CO2 than humans

While it is true that natural sources of CO2 release represent a much higher percentage of CO2 output, natural carbon "sinks" that take up that CO2 balance it out. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been relatively constant for hundreds of thousands of years due to output and input being equal. What humans are doing is burning and releasing sources of CO2 without adding additional carbon sinks - plus the double-whammy of removing them instead. This means the net amount of CO2 is increasing over time due to our involvement even though our total output is less than natural sources.

One of the interesting things is that the natural outputs of CO2 and the human-made outputs contain different isotopes. Fossil fuel burning outputs CO2 that has less 14C and 13C than do natural sources. Using tree ring dating it can be shown that the proportion of 14C-containing CO2 in the atmosphere decreased substantially prior to the 1940s, when the largely defensive weapon of atomic bomb actually negated our ability to use that test. But 13C testing confirmed the 14C testing and showed that fossil fuel burning is the number one contributor to the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere.[32]

Volcanic activity, specifically underwater volcanic activity, is often cited (usually drawing on the writings of Ian Plimer) as producing more CO2 than humans. This, however, is demonstrably false.

Oddly enough, some denialists also point out the significant amounts of CO2 created by livestock, and somehow totally ignore that these animals are bred and kept by humans, ergo making it human-made emissions. Clearly it is (anthropogenic) burning of fossil fuels that is responsible.

A stranger claim was made by Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center, namely that trees actually give off CO2 instead of absorbing it. He also claimed that environmentalism was the work of Communist leaders bent on destroying the freedoms of the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which indicates that live audio and Dunning-Kruger often go hand in hand.[33]


CO2 levels lag behind temperature increases

There have been several major changes in the Earth's climate over its 4.5 billion year history. These have included spectacular effects such as the snowball earth and periods of intense global warming. These periods of warming and cooling all have a range of causes mostly involving positive feedback loops, such as ice reflecting the sun back to space causing more ice, reflecting more sun, and Milankovitch cycles, variations in Earth's orbit that have an effect on climate. The warming had similar positive feedback loops, which initially could have been caused by one of many factors but eventually the warming increased the levels of CO2 which then caused even more warming. The fact that CO2 level increases have not been responsible for the start of a 100 percent of all global warming events on the planet does not negate the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere does cause warming.


Water vapour is a more important greenhouse gas

Water vapour is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere and accounts for a substantial portion of the greenhouse effect that raises the Earth's temperature from an inhospitable 19 degrees below zero to a more temperate 16 degrees above zero. Global warming denialists have used this to claim that carbon dioxide is an unimportant gas in the greenhouse effect - and this can be coupled with the fact that burning fossil fuels (oxidation) results in the release of water vapour in addition to carbon dioxide.

However, this argument that CO2 is not the cause of global warming misses (possibly intentionally) several key facts. Firstly, water vapour is often saturated in the atmosphere, and this leads to rain. Adding water to the atmosphere may alter weather patterns but its concentration does not differ on the scales considered by climate scientists. As it is removed from the atmosphere on a fast time scale, it can cause short lived but extreme changes in temperature, and so is the cause of much freak, but short-term, weather. Carbon dioxide on the other hand has a much longer life-time in the atmosphere and its concentration is not capped by saturation in the atmosphere. This makes the effect that CO2 has on the Earth's climate a considerable force.[34]

 

[JohnnySavage]

Dear Botany,

Again, you are so wrong.

The air and water were being cleaned up by the "evil" corporations well before the EPA was even a wet spot in the libs bed.

The amount of cleaning that has taken place since the EPA was formed is miniscule when compared to what took place before, even though the amount of money wasted has been enormous.

It is simply good business practice to have clean air and water, you idiot!

I generally agree with you, but this is flat-out wrong.

The three major environmental pieces of legislation: CWA, CAA and Superfund have drastically improved the environment.

 

[trysail]

Oh, yes . . . that one again . . .

You mean people dying from cold-related causes?

You're right; humanity has been trying to stay warm and avoid hypothermia for millenia.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Pollution (NOx, SOx) is one thing.

CO2 is something else.

Know the difference.

Yes they are different chemical compounds with varying properties....what is your point?

Dear Botany,

Again, you are so wrong.

The air and water were being cleaned up by the "evil" corporations well before the EPA was even a wet spot in the libs bed.

What history books have you been reading? The EPA was crated because we had a problem with toxic shit in our water, paint, kids toys etc etc.

The amount of cleaning that has taken place since the EPA was formed is miniscule when compared to what took place before, even though the amount of money wasted has been enormous.

Where did you pull this pile of bullshit from? Cite?

It is simply good business practice to have clean air and water, you idiot!

But it only takes one cocksucker to ruin an entire city's water supply for thousands of years. That is why we send the EPA up their ass with a microscope to make sure they are doing it right.

I'm not saying the EPA hasn't been abused....it has. But I would say the net benefit greatly outweighs the pain in the ass it is for business's to clean up their shit according to regs.


Of course you could always disagree that business is altruistic and will just police itself up....but we all know that would be more of a idealistic hallucination than a fact.

Clear cut evidence against you showing the difference between an industrial society that has no regulations (and supposedly regulates itself) with regard to the environment vs one that does....

Here is that self regulating industry that cleans up after itself so well it doesn't need anyone to make it financially detrimental for it to not clean it's shit up and not dump toxic waste all over.

Here is the regulated version.

Man.....heavy industry without the gov telling them to clean up is clearly a healthier and better choice for the american citizenry.

 

[WeedSmoke420]

interesting..

 

[Squibbs]

Dear Botany,

Again, you are so wrong.

The air and water were being cleaned up by the "evil" corporations well before the EPA was even a wet spot in the libs bed.

The amount of cleaning that has taken place since the EPA was formed is miniscule when compared to what took place before, even though the amount of money wasted has been enormous.

It is simply good business practice to have clean air and water, you idiot!

Get your head out of your ass, moron.

Mary poppins is real too!

 

[trysail]

And who exactly is this "Mr. FOIA"?

He is the "Deepthroat" of the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia— but you SHOULD have known that already (and, if not, shame on you, see the OP).


His whistleblowing release of the Climategate emails in 2009 was a very important event. It was those emails that made it obvious to the world that many leading climatologists harbored private doubts about their public pronouncements and that certain bad apples had acted in concert to suppress contradictory opinion and evidence.





http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/13/climategate-30.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/



Mr. FOIA:

...That's right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn't plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words...

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science -- on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren't the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn't occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material "might". The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We're dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn's future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can't pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it's not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It's easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our "clean" technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don't have that luxury. The price of "climate protection" with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a "game-changer" could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I'd have to try. I couldn't morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations -- trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far...



http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/3/13/climategate-30.html

 

[mustang200]

Here is the regulated version.

Really... that is your comparison???? Beijing vs. Seattle immediately after one of their ubiquitous rainstorms?

That is one of the best examples of solipsisms I've seen all week.

Derp.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You mean people dying from cold-related causes?

You're right; humanity has been trying to stay warm and avoid hypothermia for millenia.

Ermm, yes, Alex, I'll take "Meaningless Nonsequiturs" for $100.

 

[KingOrfeo]

He is the "Deepthroat" of the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia— but you SHOULD have known that already (and, if not, shame on you, see the OP).

That does not answer my question. Who is he?

 

[dan_c00000]

If you routinely wear a tin-foil hat, Trysail's links probably qualify as "science".

I remember when they tried this before and failed miserably.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Really... that is your comparison???? Beijing vs. Seattle immediately after one of their ubiquitous rainstorms?

That is one of the best examples of solipsisms I've seen all week.

Derp.

Dude...Seattle has NEVER not ever come even REMOTELY close to the pollution and toxin levels of Beijing. In fact I don't think ANY american city holds a match to it. Not even LA on a still 90F august afternoon during rush hour traffic.

Largely due to EPA regulations.... Thanks EPA for not letting company x dump toxic shit in my water like they used to do here making your existence as a necessity to prevent their continued failure to clean up their shit. Otherwise we would look like China.