Climategate - 3.0
Back in November of 2009, a zip file was released through a Russian download wares site. That
file contained over 60MB of numerical data and programs as well as 1,073 emails that had been harvested from private communications between the most prominent climate researchers. They appeared to have come from England's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
Then, in November of 2011, a
second tranche was released. This one was 5,292 emails and 23 documents. This was Climategate 2.0 Part of this package was a large zip file that was encrypted.
Well, this morning is Climategate 3.0...
From Anthony over at
Watts Up With That:
Climategate 3.0 has occurred � the password has been released
A number of climate skeptic bloggers (myself included) have received this message yesterday. While I had planned to defer announcing this until a reasonable scan could be completed, some other bloggers have let the cat out of the bag. I provide this introductory email sent by �FOIA� without editing or comment. I do have one email, which I found quite humorous, which I will add at the end so that our friends know that this is valid.
Update � the first email I posted apparently was part of an earlier release (though I had not seen it, there are a number of duplicates in the all.zip file) so I have added a second one.- Anthony
FOIA's email:
Subject: FOIA 2013: the password
It�s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.
Indeed, it�s singular �I� this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural ;-)
If this email seems slightly disjointed it�s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven�t decided yet on).
The �all.7z� password is [redacted]
DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like.
Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn�t want to keep the emails lying around.
I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.
Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.
To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.
And why?
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.
Someone needs to nominate FOIA for the Nobel Peace Prize. Restore some credibility to that office. I am looking forward to the new materials over the next couple of weeks...
Posted by DaveH at March 13, 2013 12:54 PM