Obviously the leaked emails from East Anglia University are quite topical. I don’t have much to say here at the moment that hasn’t already been said elsewhere. And I’m really just putting this up so those that want to comment on the issue have a space to do so. However I’ve had plenty to say about it in comments at the John Quiggin blog. So if you want to know my view then take a look.

Here is one interesting twist on how the leak might have occured:-

28 thoughts on “Climategate

  1. Been emailing every liberal rep and spreading climategate far and wide. This is starting to mess with the “hopenhagen” propaganda. I think Al “carbon prophet” Gore will be having some sleepless nights over this.

    Some coverage:

  2. I work in computer security, and noticed some issues in reports trying to track back the hacker.

    Here is a post on my thoughts on that:

    One thing to note: this kind of hack is not new. And the timing of it I find extremely curious. However, the possibility of an insider being behind it is a possibility, though that would not fit of the MO of these sorts of attacks which have happened in the past.

  3. The leaked emails have been pre processed in that headers have been removed and email addresses have been partially blanked out. The emails have been converted to text files. The dataset is also very recent because it contains recent emails.

    The best theory I’ve seen is that this file ( was created internally in preparation for a potential FOI decision. The official decision was to not provide the information. However somebody then either accidently or deliberately put the assembled file into the wild. Some of the emails contained passwords so that might explain how somebody got the necessary access to upload the file to Realclimate.

    I notice that a lawsuit has now been filed against NASA in relation to a raft of FOI requests that have previously been rejected. These leaked emails are being cited as part of that case.

    Having read ClimateAudit on and off for a couple of years I would never have been surprised by the revelation that some people were being deliberately lazy in providing code and data to support their claims in climate journals. Or that others were being lazy in pushing their collegues to do the right thing. However to find out that obstruction was co-ordinated and orchestrated from the top is indeed a big surprise. It suggests a significant lack of integrity and leadership. Heads should roll.

    My wife has a degree, an MBA and a PHd. She isn’t surprised at all by suggestions that the peer review process is a corrupt game played by insiders.

  4. Will, if you find the timing curious, what do you think about the new report claiming that seas will rise by 2 meters? Isn’t that also curious?

  5. Number 9 is horrifying. I doubt he’s changed his tune much since 1977, I suspect Holdren’s underlying ideology would be the same as when he wrote that book.

  6. Dear Kevin Rudd, Al Gore, IPCC et al


    Now we know why the “climate alarmists” had not been transparent with their raw-data and source-codes.

  7. No wonder we haven’t heard from Jarrah recently! I hope he hacks into his friend’s emails, and tries to find out if they’ve also been selective in their presentation of the data!


    ‘Conversion of AC lines to DC of any form is economic only when the cost of alternatives is extremely high and/or the functional advantages of DC are compelling. If Conversion is an interesting option at all, the tri-pole option may tip the scales in DC’s favor. Even though tri-pole
    converters will cost from ten to twenty percent more per kW than a bi-pole station, that premium is offset by three factors. 1. The real cost of conversion is not based on new capacity but rather on incremental capacity. The ability of the tri-pole to achieve a higher ratio of DC to AC capacity will more than offset the cost per kW premium of the terminals themselves. 2. The tri-pole option has an additional 37% advantage in utilization of the existing transmission asset. 3. The tri-pole’s redundancy has economic value to the extent it permits greater loading on parallel circuits.’

  9. Mark – it all assumes a simple end to end line with no intermediate tapping of power. Tripole retrofits have not been done anywhere that I know of and remain hypothetical. Reliability is also going to be a factor. Obviously for new long haul transmission DC is an option but I don’t see any role for government in deciding between AC and DC transmission technology. Leave it to the engineers who are quite familiar with cost / benefit calculations.

  10. Terje,

    Surely a theoretical halving or better of transmission losses is going to impact the budgetary and ecological goals of a Government with state owned distribution infrastructure?

    It is just amazing we’re not considering this whereas the ETS proposes to subsidise coal into a senile industry status.

  11. Steve,

    An interesting perspective. Given that China has commited to lower it’s energy intensity (energy per unit of GDP) the argument put in your link would seem to be that this will just cause extra growth.

    We have been given a powerful tool in the form of GlimateGate.
    It now has a name and has the potential to get a life of its own.
    So if the mains stream media is not going to report on this then let us use the social Facebook and emails to spread the news.
    Send the following two YouTube videos to two people that you know and ask them to send it onto at least 2 others.


    If you have a Facebook page post the two links.


  13. Will:

    There’s no reason to go in and doubt AGW. We should simply demand the data, source code and methods used.

    Anyone that lied should do face time with Bernie Madoff.

Comments are closed.