Replies

Rush just talked about Michael Barone’s commentary and Global Warming.

This is what I sent out to my email lists this morning:

[1] Subject: How climate-change fanatics corrupted science
By: Michael Barone Senior Political Analyst February 3, 2010
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bios/michael-barone.html

[2] Subject: Acclaimed Climategate Analyst points to whistleblower rather than hacker

First this, as an aside:
“.....Thomas Sowell’s wonderful new book, Intellectuals and Society, just eviscerates the pervasive fantasies that uphold leftist thought. I wish someone would drop several thousand copies from helicopters over each of our elite universities — preferably the hardcover edition, so they could inflict maximum damage.” ~ Robert Godwin, Ph.D (clinical psychologist) Here: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2010/02/religious-realities-and-scientistic.html

Intellectuals and Society: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046501948X?ie=UTF8&tag=onecosmos-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=046501948X

Getting back to the specific subject at hand, I wonder if hoaxer and Climategate enabler Gavin Schmidt and his minions over at “UNreal Climate” has provided his hangers-on with any talking points in response to “the latest” (below) that they can run with and post all over the internet. If so, no doubt they will show up on “truth-loving” sites like “asa voices” before long.

RT slams IPPC data manipulation February 4, 2010

It’s so much more interesting to listen to the Climategate story when it’s told by a beautiful woman. 4-minute video: http://www.climategate.com/

Senior U.S. House members go after EPA CO2 limits - Here: http://www.climategate.com/

ClimateGate Feb 03, 2010
http://www.climategate.com/acclaimed-climategate-analyst-points-to-whistleblower-rather-than-hacker#more-3336
Acclaimed Climategate Analyst points to whistleblower rather than hacker
By John ‘O’Sullivan, Climategate (John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website. He offers his services free to the site and is not a site employee.)

Climategate.com can now reveal the details of our exclusive interview with Australian physicist, Dr. John Costella, the acclaimed scientist who authored the accepted expert analysis of the Climategate emails.

Costella wants to dispel doubts raised by those who clearly have not bothered to pay close scrutiny to what those infamous emails prove. Having directed my attention to the evidence cited below, I am convinced our readers will agree with Costella, that Professor Jones, the scientist at the center of the scandal, was having his correspondence closely monitored by the Freedom of Information Officer (FOI) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) before they were certainly leaked.

Costella’s statements will be seen as an embarrassing slight to former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. On Monday, James Delingpole at the Telegraph exposed King for blowing off a lot of hot air about some hunch that nasty Russian or American spies hacked into the UEA’s Internet server. The bottom line is that the Information Commissioner’s Office has had to come clean and admit publicly that criminal conduct has taken place within the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, although no one in authority appears to want to do anything about it.

Dr. Costella, in his analysis, “ Climategate Analysis,” has now published what is widely regarded as the best review of all 1,000+ emails and other documents contained in a 62MB upload to a Russian Internet server on November 19, 2009.

I asked John to comment on whether he believed it was the work of a hacker or an inside whistleblower that broke this most sensational scandal. He replied, “My only speculation on this comes from the following email,” and then directed me to read email 1228922050 of December 9, 2008 in which U.S. climatologist Ben Santer catches onto UEA climatologist, Phil Jones’s strategy of arguing that a greater number of requests implies lower credibility and validity, rather than the opposite:

Santer:

“I had a quick question for you: What is the total number of F[reedom] O[f] I[nformation (FOI)] A[ct] requests that you’ve received from Steven McIntyre?”

Jones:

“[I h]aven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at [the] U[niversity of] E[ast] A[nglia]. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. … I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emailsunless this was “normal” deleting to keep emails manageable!”

Costella comments:

“Unless Jones volunteered this information to their FOI officer, this intriguing email may indicate that the FOI officerwho will generally have system-level rights to read all emails, as part of their jobmay have been monitoring Jones‘s emails, including the one above where he admitted deleting emails. This may lead to the identity of the Climategate whistle-blower, for those who continue to doubt their existence.”

Relatedly, Dr. Costella also confirmed that contrary to widespread misunderstanding, none of the emails were redacted: “The ZIP file I downloaded on December 6, 2009 has the emails intact. The files on my webpage are not redacted either.”

The continued to speculate on the confusion of this issue:

“I think that when some people decided to post them all online, they wrote a program to redact all email addresses to avoid them being picked up by spammers. But by the time I saw them, there were so many unredacted copies on the Internet that I knew it was useless to do that.”

Pointedly, Costella informed me that he found the full email addresses are “extremely useful” in deciphering the affiliations of the alleged climate conspirators. “They are also important in that they show that these people were (almost always) using their OFFICIAL work email, not personal email,” he said.

John left me with a few sobering words that shows that here is a man who thinks with the cool, objective head of a scientist:

“Opinions on likely hackers are mere speculation, no matter how well-respected or honorable the speculator may be… it has been over two months now. Regardless of how the emails were leaked, they have been acknowledged as genuine, and provide evidence of astounding fraud. Investigation and potential prosecution or protection of the leaker or hacker is a separate issue, of no direct relevance to the issue of fraud.”

In this article we have dealt with facts, not the spin that warmists like Sir David King are spouting. Conclusions may only properly be drawn from evidence plainly presented. We have seen very little or any of that from the apologists of climate crime.

Dr. Costella has made a compelling factually-based case that Phil Jones’ unlawful deletion of emails was, he admits, well known to his FOI Officer. Jones was instructed to desist in breaking the law by that Officer. He continued to refuse to comply with the officer’s request. Thereafter, a vast amount of data (62MB) contained within a directory entitled ‘FOIA’ was uploaded onto the Internet. Absent any evidence to prove a hack we may thus infer a conscientious whistleblower, probably the FOI Officer, leaked the emails.” Read more: http://www.climategate.com/acclaimed-climategate-analyst-points-to-whistleblower-rather-than-hacker#more-3336

More here: http://www.icecap.us/