Climategate Part 2

[chris watton]

yahtzee said:

on newsnight ...

Anything concerned with MMCC/GW is simply not worth watching/listening to on the BBC, as it is so one sided it is just a joke.

[The Excession]

Well having taken a few random pot shots into some of these it appears that most is fairly innocous banter.

I did however stumble across a personal email from Tony Blair about the Butler Report, and I can also add Phil Jone's home telephone number to my collection of useless information.

It's going to take a long time to sift through this lot!

[NismoGT]

I expect 99% of the media will "Condemn" hacking the e-mails. Not go into any evidence and say sod all else on the matter.

[Blib]

Have I read this correctly that the latest release is upwards of 5000 emails and that FOIA2011 claims to have 220,000 ?

[The Excession]

There is some talk in the blogsphere of encryption/passwords being used.

Has anyone seen any encrypted/passworded files?

There are several files that have BASE64 encoded email attachements but that's hardly encryption.

[Nuclear Biscuit]

There's a password protected 7-zip file named all.7z. This contains 768MB of files. It looks like 7-zip uses AES-256, unsure of the mode used - pretty secure, unlikely to be cracked soon, if at all.

Edited by Nuclear Biscuit on Wednesday 23 November 01:33

[turbobloke]

Nuclear Biscuit said:

There's a password protected 7-zip file named all.7z. This contains 768MB of files. It looks like 7-zip uses AES-256, unsure of the mode used - pretty secure, unlikely to be cracked soon, if at all.

Could be a warning shot over the bows.

[Bing o]

The Excession said:

Melvin Udall said:

It's quite rare for a sequel to be better than the original.

Aint that the truth, this is hopefully going to be a rollercoaster of death.

Nothing like an impartial mod....

[turbobloke]

Bing o said:

The Excession said:

Melvin Udall said:

It's quite rare for a sequel to be better than the original.

Aint that the truth, this is hopefully going to be a rollercoaster of death.

Nothing like an impartial mod....

As far as I know, Mods are expected to be impartial in judgements on PHers who may or may not break the forum posting rules.

There never has been any sign of Mods not being allowed an opinion on the topics of threads they post in for as long as I've been on PH, so that straight brickbat misses the balls by a country mile.

Ex has always afaics been a climate realist including both pre-Mod and post-Mod elevation but he will no doubt speak for himself.

[Jasandjules]

Ok, what have I missed?

Oh don't worry, I will watch the BBC for a partial viewpoint ;-)

[kji7]

Richard Black spinning like a spinny thing on full spin, comments are not going his way.

Quick before they are 'moderated'.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1584...

Isn't is strange how the name Richard Black keeps appearing among the man made global warming community? How do you still think you can report impartiality on this subject when you are so hopelessly compromised by your efforts to shill for these people

Edited by kji7 on Wednesday 23 November 08:15

[chris watton]

kji7 said:

Richard Black spinning like a spinny thing on full spin, comments are not going his way.

Quick before they are 'moderated'.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1584...

Lovin' some of the comments...

"interested if Richard will now reveal his conversations in full with the people at the centre of ClimateGate 1 & 2?

3969: "I've pointed everyone to the press release, and have chatted with only one person, a guy from the BBC...he kept trying to get me to say what I think the skeptics will think...hope you don't mind that I suggested he could chat with you if needed. His name...: Richard Black,"


"Why do the climatology crew seem to regard you and Roger as part of the team?

How does that fit with your employer's Royal Charter obligation of impartiality?"


"Richard forgive me for asking but the BBC Charter clearly states impartiality in reporting of news items is of fundamental importance. Your report in the news section of the BBC website is not impartial - why not?

I look forward to receiveing your reply in due course. In the meantime have a happy Christmas and an impartial New Year.

Ps. I do expect you to stick to The Charter If I pay my TV tax"

I can't imagine those posts staying there for long......

[nelly1]

kji7 said:

Richard Black spinning like a spinny thing on full spin, comments are not going his way.

Quite an apt picture from the article...

[turbobloke]

kji7 said:

Richard Black spinning like a spinny thing on full spin, comments are not going his way.

Quick before they are 'moderated'.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1584...

Isn't is strange how the name Richard Black keeps appearing among the man made global warming community? How do you still think you can report impartiality on this subject when you are so hopelessly compromised by your efforts to shill for these people

Thanks for the heads up.

As you say, plenty of comments showing how not-stupid people are in the face of junkscience and spin. The few pro-warmism comments are feeble e.g.

An email is not a scientific paper. I'm sure we've all sent emails about our work that don't fully reflect the facts!

No we haven't! And there's more to it than chatting about the weather. Oh...

Manmade climate change is the likeliest explanation for much of the current warming trend

No it isn't

and replacing 'dirty' fuels with 'clean' ones can only be for our benefit

CO2 isn't dirty. Ask the relatives of the winter dead about benefits?

Better safe than sorry, as my Gran would say

Hopefully Gran also said something about the benefits of getting a science education and independent rational thought.

[don4l]

Well, the MSM seem to have picked up on this a bit quicker than they did with Climategate 1.

In the Telegraph's "Most Read" list, Delingpole's piece is currently in third position:-
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

Over 100 comments per hour so far. Surely the editorial staff will take note!

The Daily Mail has the story on its main site:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-206...

I'm sure that the Express will pick up on this over the next couple of days.

Don
--

[Melvin Udall]

Quite telling that Black doesn't even talk about the important content of the emails, instead just seems to garner opinion of how awful it all is, and devious. The guy has no journalistic integrity.

[thinfourth2]

So what do they say about sceptics

OH yeah

"Follow the money"

[Mr GrimNasty]

kerplunk said:

(cont'd from the science thread)

Melvin Udall said:

The world of skepticism is being judged already, and is looked in in not too favorable terms. However, what has come from these emails is a quite revealing picture. Do you really have no opinion good or bad regarding these things? These are the people by which the climate debate is relying on, (on the whole), for their scientific credentials. Of those credentials are being put to one side in favour of an agenda, do you think that needs to be looked at, or do you prefer to disregard because you feel it is distasteful?

Presume you mean If those credentials...

Yes of course that's a concern and probably impossible to avoid to some degree, especially when you've got a bunch of scientists charged with putting together reports for politicians and the world's governments on such a huge subject. It would be miraculous if all concerned were able to completely avoid being influenced by pressure from a variety of directions. Everyone should hold back some trust on account of that but it's a question of degrees and accepting nothing in the world is perfect. I disregard nothing but in several years of watching from my layman's perch I'm yet to see much to make me think the climate science enterprise is seriously out of kilter. YMMV.

None so blind..........

[turbobloke]

thinfourth2 said:

So what do they say about sceptics

OH yeah

"Follow the money"

Is your PH payment late again?!

[Blib]

Melvin Udall said:

Quite telling that Black doesn't even talk about the important content of the emails, instead just seems to garner opinion of how awful it all is, and devious. The guy has no journalistic integrity.

He was on the world service last night. Giving air to the views of the warmists and saying nothing about the content of he emails. He ended with a thinly disguised attack on FOIA2011 .