Climategate Hackers Slither Again in the Night

Tue, 2011-11-22 09:41Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Climategate Hackers Slither Again in the Night

Steal More; Reveal Less

The Climagegate hackers appear to be at it again, spraying the internet with dozens of out-of-context quotes from a new batch of stolen emails - in a transparent attempt to disrupt the climate talks starting next week in Durban, South Africa.

The emails, from a source that denierblogger Tallbloke identifies as “Our old friend 'FOIA',” appeared with the same serendipitous timing - and in the same devious way - as last year's more-devastating tranche: accordig to the Guardian, they were “leaked” on a Russian server and then sprinkled into the denieresphere through the usual suspects: Wattsupwiththat, ClimateAudit, AirVent and the already mentioned Tallbloke. We can undoubtedly expect a fresh round of breathless “mainstream media” coverage from the Murdoch empire.

These emails are even more ridiculous than the batch released in 2009. First, the hackers didn't have the decency to release the emails in context - rather they just pulled the quotes they thought would be effective in casting doubt. Second, the thieves, who have had two whole years to sift through what appears to be the same source material have mined only 5,000 of more than 220,000 emails, implying that there may be more “dirt” buried in the remainder. This strains credulity: if there was anything in the remaining emails that was even vaguely incriminating, you can bet they would have found and released it. Third, the “best stuff” that they actually released is worse than trivial:

Take this for example: “<0813> Fox/Environment Agency: If we lose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.”

This is apparently a reference to the Regional Climate Change Impact and Response Studies being conducted out of East Anglia University in the U.K. And the apparent intent of the quote is to say that scientists believe that their work will be wasted if they don't find a way to get people's attention with the considerable evidence that they have discovered that climate change is, in fact, a devastating threat.

It's clear enough that governments like Canada's own are committed to ignoring the climate threat - at least as long as their oily buddies can continue to cash in by making matters worse. It's also clear that Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are desperate to portray themselves as clever contrarians, and they will make whatever allies are necessary to keep up the facade.

But really, is this all there is? They have 220,000 stolen emails and they can't find a single out-of-context quote that would overtake the so-successfully misused “hide the decline” line from 2009?

Mike Mann, quoted in the Guardian story above, is right. This is pathetic.

Previous Comments

Maybe this should be relabeled “Turkeygate”.

 

Seriously, this is the second Thanksgiving “trick” the denialosphere has delivered.  It's pure harrassment, and shows how desparate they are to remain relevant. 

I agree 100%, as some of us are pointing out to the blinkered denialist, James Delingpole,  who’s flapping his wings about it today:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100119087/uh-oh-global-warming-loons-here-comes-climategate-ii/


 

So now “winning” has been redefined as “desperate”?

Sure.

“chance to make climate change a reality to people”

Thats where we are. After 20 years of media reports and movies, major politicians jumping on the bandwagon along with celebrities, climate change is not a reality in the minds of people and scientists are looking for “chance”  opportunities to steer things that way.

That’s just pathetic. Lets blame an email release that nobody is going to read anyway. Whatever we do lets not blame the failed messaging. Lets blame the birds in the trees. 

You know… you are taking a statement completely out of context.

You have no idea why it was written or for what purpose. To me it sounds like a guy who is deperately wanting to help the world.  Nothing more.

Have you ever been in a sales meeting?  In those meetings you talk about stuff as though its desperately important.  With feature X we will gain control of the entire market space! (Been there, done that, and its not true.)

Everyone comes out of those meetings stoked to get it going get it out the door, and contribute to the greater good.

… oblivious the cold realities of a market place.

Either way, its not news, and I don’t want to know which of these guys go home for nooners with their boyfriends.

“That’s just pathetic. Lets blame an email release that nobody is going to read anyway.”

Cmon Rick, we both know the reality of what will happen in the denialosphere. Fox will regurgitate this story from now until xmas. WUWT & other denier blogs will milk it for the next year. Murdoch papers here in Australia will have stories on it everyday for the next few weeks & some nutter opportunist will write a book about it. Publishing the out of context emails, of which deniers will dutifully buy a copy. Watts will include it on his front page, like he continues to do with the last one.

 

I caught most of the republican debate tonight. Didn’t see the whole thing but am totally confident the words climate and climategate were never uttered - not even by the CNN moderator.

It has become a total non issue. 4 years ago they gave the subject lip service but not now.

It won’t be an election issue either. How did you guys let this happen?

Climate change is a reality today to the people in Portland undergoing record rains. Streets have been closed due to flooding today.

As well as all the other people who have recently been subjected to “once in a thousand year” rains. Columbia, Guatemala, North Dakota, Australia, parts of Europe and Britain. Pakistan has had a “once in never” flood. All the cotton crops were destroyed. The fashion in the stores now is tissue-thin blouses. 

Remember the ‘great climate shift of the mid-seventies? Hottest, driest summers in Britain for several decades, 1976 and 1977 for example.

Now we get the other side of the coin as the climate lurches the other way again. The warmth put a lot of water vapour up in to the atmosphere. Now it’s coming down again.

I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”. - Raymond S. Bradley file 3373.

5000 emails released just a few hours ago, and you have read over all of them? Impressive!

This release of more hacked emails, and at this time, is criminal at so many levels and pathetic.

To anybody out there who knows who is involved in this rat on them now, after all it is your future and your progeny’s future on the line too.

They are edited to further remove them from their contexts.

Or maybe remove comments about their wife’s delicious ass.  Not sure.  No one knows.

And do you also consider Julian Assange as someone who is also worthy of being “ratted out”?

Say what you want, and I do agree with Phil that the blogs will run thi into the ground for months,  if you actually read some of these newer emails, many don’t need a lot of context to see exactly what these guys are trying to do/hide/influence. As my grandma used to say, “It ain’t right, it just ain’t right!”

I wonder what percentage of the population reads climate blogs and has spent more than 5 seconds thinking about climategate. I’m thinking 1%.

The whole climate thing is a tree falling in a forest with nobody to hear.

I actually came to desmogblog this evening to tell you climategate was back in the comment section of the Globe and Mail.The english language has failed me utterly in conveying the level of malevolent slime inherent in this fresh campaign

just before another big climate meeting as well.

How well will the diversion work this time?

Another christmas gift and just in time. I was worried all we would get out of global warming would be another brutally cold winter with a decided lack of warming. Isntead we get some literary intrigue as we see more e-mails in which global warming alarmists express their private concerns about the lack of science surrounding the alarmist adgenda. We get to see how politics reigns supreme over science and how the scientific process is secondary to polling results.

It will be interesting to see the sceptics get their points made perfectly salient through e-mail confirmation. A sort of grassroots peer review process where the private doubts are made public.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4

Here is a peer reviewed youtube video to get you all back in the season.

It’s a climategate christmas after all!


 

As with the science itself, rushing to judgement on the import of the as yet incompletely examined evidence is not going to lead to correct interpretation.


 

“As with the science itself, rushing to judgement”

Science built upon since 1896 is rushing to judgment? Just how long a time span would you consider adequate?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

“as yet incompletely examined evidence is not going to lead to correct interpretation.”

How complete would you like it to be before we act? You don’t have evidence that your house will burn down or your Matchless G80S will be stolen, but you probably insure them don’t you?

I don’t believe you’re the “I’ll accept the evidence” kinda guy.

 

We need a better green movement. We need a large group that opts out of carbon voluntarilly. Think OWS movement except with a purpose and with numbers that matter.

We need everybody in this group opting out of all air travel and private car travel and everything else that can be done. It needs to be big and permanent and obvious.

Not a few rich guys with solar panels and an electric car. A large real movement. Nobody is up to that on account of everybody being a bunch of losers.

Thanks for another glimpse into Rick’s world RJ. Disturbing, fought with one sidedness, bereft of logic, devoid of sense & completely delusional.

You never fail to disappoint Rick. ;)

 

Phil will be opting out of the demonstration group. Maybe someone else can pick up the slack.

“Phil will be opting out of the demonstration group. Maybe someone else can pick up the slack.”

No mate, count me in. You’re an ideas man you are. There is just the small thing about the tab before we get started. Here is some of it & we can get the ball rolling ok?

$70B in fossil fuel subsidies over say the last 50 years = 3 Trillion , 500 Billion.

http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

Tax payer funded oil spills for the past 35 years ( will let you off with the rest) = $500B to be conservative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

Coal economic & health costs, $500B Annually:

http://www.fastcompany.com/1727949/coal-use-costs-half-a-trillion-dollars-each-year-in-health-economic-environmental-impacts

Cost of illegally invading Iraq to steal oil = 2 Trillion

Oh & see what you can do about getting back 103,725 deaths from the stealing of oil in Iraq, including 4801 of our own soldiers who died for oil profits.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://icasualties.org/

Let’s get that small tab sorted out first eh & divert that money into renewables & climate change mitigation & then we can get cracking on the ol “opt out of carbon voluntarilly.”. I know your a fair guy Rick, & your believe in a fair fight, so let’s balance up the investment first & I can get started.


 

See those investments created the infrastructure that makes up the soft and luxurious western lifestyle. The top 5% of folks like we all are are the beneficiaries. True the energy companies are also beneficiaries of the system but they’re all cold hearted money grubbing capitalists and the governments are all in their pockets. I say we need a couple billion Mahatma Ghandis to to passively opt out of the consumer system and create a bongo drum revolution. (drums have to be made with natural materials of course)

“See those investments created the infrastructure that makes up the soft and luxurious western lifestyle.”

Yes, they have served us well & while we didn’t know for sure, we continued to research the theory of AGW more & more……just to be sure. When experiments in 1896 showed that CO2 trapped heat. It didn’t take long to join the dots & predict that adding more CO2, would trap more heat.

Unfortunately, we need to change that. But cheer up. Look on the bright side. We can stop burning stuff like neanderthals for energy.

 

ýes, okay. Was just reading about one of the efforts to go green, the Volt. A car that comes with a $7500. incentive. A car that is only owned by rich people and corporations that have to be bribed with tax payer money… and they still don’t want it… it’s going to be a long road to green paradise Phil.

Everybody wants someone else to foot the bill.

“Was just reading about one of the efforts to go green, the Volt”

I noticed you didn’t bother with the link. It’s ok. It’s safe to assume that it’s from the Murdoch press or some other right wing publication.

“A car that comes with a $7500. incentive. A car that is only owned by rich people and corporations that have to be bribed with tax payer money… and they still don’t want it.”

Rick, there is always two sides to a story. Naturally , your conservative position, confirmation bias & tender love for oil, means electric isn’t going to get a fair hearing at your court. But as I say, there is two sides to the story.

http://www.green.autoblog.com/2011/09/22/chevy-volt-sales-whats-the-real-story/

From all the comments I’ve read. Republicans, Ford lovers & people who don’t own one….they hate them. For those that own them…it’s a different story:

“tp101056

I have had my 2012 Volt for one month. I have 1600 miles on the car now, and I have only used 7 gallons of gas. I think this is the best car on the market period. My secretary has a IS 350 Lexas and she parks it next to the volt. They have the same lines and she perfers the Volt.
I drive 19 miles to my office, and I charge at home and at work. The car is smoother than any car I have ever driven. This car is cutting eage tech, and I am proud it is US company that has developed the Volt. I really did not buy the car for the green tech. I just enjoy the freedom of telling big oil to kiss my a@#!!”

“Tina

The Volt is the best car I have owned, and my first American made car. After 6000 miles, I am still thrilled every day I drive it. Library quite, Extremely comfortable heated leather seats, gorgeous full color LCD dash and a second full color LCD screen for navigation, radio, etc. Kick butt Bose sound system, top safety test ratings, 273 pound-feet of acceleration at 0 RPM, this car competes with BMW’s and Mercedes. Oh, and I am getting 256 MPG, icing on the cake. Sorry haters, I love this car and so does everyone that takes a test drive with me”

“otiswild

My weekly commute is ~30mi per day, M-F. I drive at almost all times in Sport/L. I get 32-40miles per charge, and that’s in >=100F Texas heat.

I just ticked over 1500mi this morning. I have yet to consume _half_ of the tank of gas that came with the car.

BTW, Austin currently offers unlimited charging at public ChargePoint/Coulomb L2 chargers for $25/6 months. Given 600mi of commutes per month, that’s (25/6)/600 = a bit less than 7/10ths of a cent per mile in ‘fuel’ costs. Weekends and home ‘top-up’ with 120V charger run me more like 5 cents per mile.

It’s cheaper to commute in my Volt than it is on my motorcycle.”

“shoretoplease42

One other thing, if your like me, I spend roughly $100.00 a week on gas, That’s $5200.00 a year. The Volt costs around $1.00 a day to charge, That’s $365.00 a year (Just helping in case Sara Palin or Michelle Bachmann are reading this and couldn’t do the math). That’s a savings of roughly $4800.00 a year. Since the battery pack/powertrain is rated for in excess of ten years that would mean that ten years down the road it would save you $48,000.00. Since the car cost $40,000.00, that would mean that you made $8000.00 on the deal. If you replace the powertrain it costs around $6,000.00, so you would still be up $2,000.00. If you ran it for an additional ten years, you would be $50,000.00 ahead of the curve. Of course, there I go being all “smart” and “liberal” like scientists and college professors and economists. Sorry

“carney373

If 40K cars didn’t sell, then every Cadillac, Lincoln, Mercedes, Lexus, etc. dealership would shut its doors. Also, the Volt only costs its buyers $33.5K after federal tax rebate, even less depending on the state (MD chips in another 2.5K to take you down to $31K. And it makes perfect sense to have a tax break accelerating market acceptance of this new technology, since ti helps liberate us from oil. You keep sneering at alternatives, because new tech is expensive, while YOUR head is in the clouds about how suicidally stupid it is to buy jihad juice.”

“Everybody wants someone else to foot the bill.”

Exactly. It’s outrageous. I mean, imagine asking tax payers to pay 2 Trillion in costs to invade Iraq & steal their oil for the benefit of oil companies & award contracts to republican companies like Halliburton, Carlise group, Brown & root etc. Plus over 100, 000 lives lost.

 

those numbers on the Volt may be accurate but the thing is not selling. They are “selling”about half as many as they expected and even the numbers they use for “selling”are really just vehicles delievered to dealerships. Lots of them are just sitting.

THe average Volt purchaser makes $175,000/yr. That income bracket typically will purchase a vehicle of equal or greater value than the Volt.

WIth your usage numbers and the $7500. wefare for rich Volt owner subsidies, those vehicles should be flying out of the dealerships and there should be a big waiting list - there is not. You must be surprised and dissapointed with the lack of green from the rich class.

Rick, I see some good news today.

“Renewable power trumps fossil fuels for first time

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-renewables-20111125,0,2421278.story

“Electricity from the wind, sun, waves and biomass drew $187 billion last year compared with $157 billion for natural gas, oil and coal, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance using the latest data.”

Great news eh?!

“The renewables boom, spurred by about $66 billion of subsidies last year, intensified competition between wind- turbine and solar-panel manufacturers, gutting margins from the biggest producers led by Vestas Wind Systems A/S and First Solar Inc.”

I know, I know, your asking yourself, how did they manage such an incredible feat considering there was only $66B in subsidies, compared to $72 B in fossil fuel subsidies & 2 Trillion in tax payer funded oil theft from other countries, plus they are + 100,000 lives up on you guys. Incredible.

 

The oil was going to flow no matter what.  Even if it couldn’t go directly to the US, it could go to Europe.. freeing up more ethically sound (to US minds) oil to flow to the US.

Everything I’ve read suggests, the Bush and co simply wanted to be a super power. (Sorry brain is failing with old age here.)  I believe this is what I’m thinking about;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

In short, republican’s were upset with the downsizing of the military, and frankly they were the last super power.  So they figured they should go and do what ever they wanted.  Including seeking regime change in Iraq.

Iraq was never about oil.  I was under the impression that Germans, French, and indirectly Canada were into the oil there.  A familiar set of names?

Check out this book; Its by a Canadian Journalist who was run out of Canada by Conrad Black.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Every_Mistake

“The oil was going to flow no matter what.  Even if it couldn’t go directly to the US, it could go to Europe.. freeing up more ethically sound (to US minds) oil to flow to the US.”

Hmmm, I’m more dubious. The USA’s economy & dollar is inextricably linked to oil. The USD is the worlds reserve currency. Most trades in oil worldwide have been until recently traded in USD. Saddam said on many occasions that he wished to trade oil in Euro’s. While Iraq would still sell oil to the world, the trade in Euros would have been devastating to the US.

The doublespeak term of “energy security” became the euphemism that politicians used to describe going to war for oil. Our own prime minister often said it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7t_u641NyM

Alan Greenspan admitted in his book that ““I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”“

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2980

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline

The war IMO coupled with legislation like the hydocarbon law/Iraq Oil law, were designed to help the US economy, plus create more “energy security”, plus stop a potential slide of Arab states trading in petroeuros, instead of petrodollars.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707

http://priceofoil.org/thepriceofoil/war-terror/iraqi-oil-law/

“Everything I’ve read suggests, the Bush and co simply wanted to be a super power.”

Ever since the dropping of the bomb in 1945, the USA has been a super power. The USA’s military is 6 times larger than it’s nearest rival China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

I’m not sure how much more super than that you can get.

“Iraq was never about oil.  I was under the impression that Germans, French, and indirectly Canada were into the oil there.”

I think that would be news to many.



 

Hi Phil,

I’m a thorough, make sure it’s bolted together properly before you sling it round a bend at 80 cranked over to the footrest kinda guy. I make sure my insurance is in order too.

My insurance against being wrong about the climate debate takes many forms too.

I run my home heating with naturally fallen timber hand split with a big axe.

I grow my own veg and my lady makes preserves to get us through the winter.

I use an electric bicycle for local errands, and my Matchless does 80mpg (and 80 mph).

My roof has a solar hot water panel on it.

I make compost for the veg garden.

What do you do personally to keep your carbon footprint small?

” My insurance against being wrong about the climate debate takes many forms too.”

So why the resistance to insurance as a species against a potential threat by AGW?

“I grow my own veg and my lady makes preserves to get us through the winter.

I use an electric bicycle for local errands, and my Matchless does 80mpg (and 80 mph).

My roof has a solar hot water panel on it.”

Sounds similar to myself.

http://www.desmogblog.com/monckton-reaches-new-heights-anti-environmentalism#comment-724170

Although,I’m surprised you have solar when you appear very opposed to it. I would have thought you would be at least morally opposed to having them installed.

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/bill-carmichael-solar-panels-are-a-badge-of-shame/

 

“So why the resistance to insurance as a species against a potential threat by AGW?”

Pensioners are dying of cold in increasing numbers while the EU pours 287 billion down the plughole of the propped up carbon market which does nothing to reduce emissions. Where’s the value for money?

Many billions more is spent on subsidizing inefficent and unreliable energy production from sources which require more energy to create than they can generate within their design life. Where’s the value for money?

“I’m surprised you have solar when you appear very opposed to it.”

My hot water panel is not connected to a hot water grid Phil. No-one pays me for feeding hot water to a central  pool. I don’t want my pensioner-neighbours money for appearing to be ‘Green’.

“Pensioners are dying of cold in increasing numbers while the EU pours 287 billion down the plughole of the propped up carbon market which does nothing to reduce emissions. Where’s the value for money?”

If you are opposed to the theory of AGW, then no solution is going to be acceptable is it?

“Many billions more is spent on subsidizing inefficent and unreliable energy production from sources which require more energy to create than they can generate within their design life. Where’s the value for money?”

So we can never even in the far future use anything but fossil fuels & burn things for energy for the remainder of human existence? We can never even attempt to get another form of energy off the ground because there will be a long R&D time, plus a slow take up time, plus the incumbent energy sources has benefited from massive tax payer funded assistance for decades, meaning any competitor has a distinct disadvantage.

“My hot water panel is not connected to a hot water grid Phil.”

No, but buying it, means you are contributing to bringing the price down for others, assisting to pay for more R&D & by association supporting an industry you appear to oppose. Maybe your story could have contained an endnote explaining the juxtaposition.

“I don’t want my pensioner-neighbours money for appearing to be ‘Green’ ”

But you want them to pay for ever increasing fossil fuel prices for the rest of their lives? Renewables can provide free energy. Fossil fuels can never provide this. Besides natural inflation, fossil fuel prices will just go up. The increase in power consuming items in our homes means the transmission & distribution network needs upgrading all the time, where the costs are passed on. Renewables can provide self sufficiency & insulate against those network upgrades.

Thanks for supporting renewables with your purchase of solar & assisting to bring the price down even further so that your neighbours can hopefully afford it. ;)






 

Phil, I’m a hands on engineer. With me, practicality talks and bullsh*t walks.

PV is a waste of time and money here. It is not a realistic part of the generation mix. The panels degrade too quickly to make them economically viable, and the roofspace they occupy to get a few Kw *while the sun is shining* takes up the whole roof. After five years the performance is halved. Useless.

Maybe, just maybe, if he isn’t trying to pull a scam, Andrea Rossi is onto something. Let’s hope so.

PV is a waste of time and money here. It is not a realistic part of the generation mix”

Your position seems to be an ambivalent one. If it’s as you say, then why buy it yourself? Why not heat your water with coal power?

Many of my most conservative friends who are equally opposed to the theory of AGW, see the economic sense of PV…….even at it’s current expense & efficiency of around 20-30%. The prices & efficiency will only get better from here on in.

 

“Your position seems to be an ambivalent one. If it’s as you say, then why buy it yourself?”

You don’t seem to understand the difference between a PV (photo-voltaic) solar panel and a hot water solar panel. Hot water panels are simple, effective and easiy to DIY. PV panels are expensive, require the mining of rare earth’s which causes river pollution from the spoil heaps and the transportation of heavy equipment halfway round the world. They degrade quickly, and are a disposal problem.

“You don’t seem to understand the difference between a PV (photo-voltaic) solar panel and a hot water solar panel.”

I do, I have both myself. One uses thermal , the other uses photovoltaic. The point is, they both use the suns energy. A much smarter way of energy use. You have the stuff hitting your house everyday, why not take advantage of it? Why draw in power through burning stuff miles away? Why not be self suffiecient as much as possible? It makes good economic sense also. You obviously see the sense in that , otherwise you wouldn’t have gone SHW.

“Hot water panels are simple, effective and easiy to DIY.”

True, did you do yours yourself? Here in Australia, most of the SHW suppliers are also the PV suppliers. By going solar, you break down the mental barriers for others & pave the way for even more consumers purchasing solar, plus help the solar industry to grow. :)

PV panels are expensive, require the mining of rare earth’s which causes river pollution from the spoil heaps and the transportation of heavy equipment halfway round the world.”

Trying to take the moral high ground with fossil fuel environmental damage vs renewables is really quite a feat. Extracting tar sands & building a pipeline across a continent is more sensible that taking the rare earths for what is a really short point in time? R&D into solar is going gangbusters & rare earths will be replaced in no time. Only vested or political interests would want to kill off competition by solar.

“They degrade quickly, and are a disposal problem.”

Can environmental, economic & health impacts from fossil fuels even be compared? Really.

 

[x]

There is no better way to describe self-appointed climate auditor Steve McIntyre than ‘determined’. Highly determined even.

And you would have to be pretty obstinate to try and poke holes in peer-reviewed climate science given that McIntyre claims he does not receive a salary signed by Big Oil. As author of the sceptic blog Climate Audit, all of McIntyre’s work is funded on his own dime.

Of course, his hotel accommodation while in London this August, where our interview was conducted,...

read more