## Wednesday, March 13, 2013

### Climategate 2013 is here: FOIA

Off-topic, Rome: Argentinian chemist Jorge Bergoglio was elected as the new Pope, Francis I
Tom Nelson has already leaked the news so I will follow:
Mr. FOIA speaks: "It's time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair" (full text of the main e-mail from FOIA to a select group of skeptics)
The page above became the "story of the day" at ClimateDepot.com (I can't forget Jo Nova, Donna, Bishop Hill, Cheefio, James Delingpole, Jeff [Id] Condon, WUWT, Climate Audit, JunkScience, ClimateScam.SE, Soylent Sage) so I don't think it's a secret anymore although some of us prefer a much more secretive, confidential approach.

Yes, your humble correspondent was among a dozen of people in the world who received the e-mail above directly from Mr FOIA – and yes, we have learned it was one person who lives outside the Anglo-American world, we hear (if there's no alien at UEA, then FOIA is a hacker of a sort, not a whistleblower). I have verified that the password works but I won't reveal whether I have read some e-mails or not and whether I have deleted all traces of the password-protected file once I verified that the password was genuine. It's my strong belief that all my actions so far have been compatible with the laws of my country.

Recall that ClimateGate 2009 was a complete explosion that explained the character of the climate debate to many people and ClimateGate 2011 was still powerful even though most people had already had an idea about the not-so-noble inner workings of the climate alarmist community.

The ClimateGate 2011 files included a huge (133 MB) password-protected archive, all.7z. I guess that many of the climate-oriented TRF readers have spent a long time – perhaps many hours – by attempts to guess the password. That was hopeless, we know today, because the password is an extremely long sequence of gibberish characters.

Be sure that I couldn't memorize it so if you catch me on the street, you will learn nothing from me. ;-)

Now, in March 2013, the password is finally here and you may guess what can be found in those 220,247 e-mails (800 MB unpacked) which I haven't read in their entirety yet. ;-)

Together with another recipient of the e-mail from Mr FOIA, we agreed that it's unreasonable to turn this leak into just ClimateGate 3.0. It may be better to extract ClimateGate 3.0 through ClimateGate 220,002.0 – many affairs although the number is almost certainly exaggerated – out of it.

Who is interested in this potential blast? Who has some questions about some of the previous climate research and its stories and who thinks that a collection of 220,000 e-mails could be hiding the answers? You may try to contact others but I am sort of confident that the TRF readers as a set won't hear the password from myself so Al Gore et al. don't even have to try to bribe me so that I really remain silent. :-)

I can't tell you whether it's because of my reading but I already know that there is some interesting background in the e-mails explaining why some of the proxies before 1400 AD were "censored", Mr Rahmstorf's moralizing recommendations to reduce references to the alarmists' own literature in the IPCC reports, Hughes' advice to Michael Mann to omit Mann's paragraph starting with "It is reprehensible" from their scientific paper, and so on, and so on, and 805 MB of extra so-ons. ;-)

Let me mention an early e-mail from this huge collection that was found by Steve Milloy and that amused me. I would agree with the alarmist Tom Wigley who figured out that Naomi Oreskes' work is useless much like the work by other writers who don't understand the scientific discipline. I would surely use much stronger words but the essence of our opinions about her work is nearly equivalent. ;-) Well, she doesn't even understand (or is honest about) her own "discipline" but that's a different story.

Bonus

A pretty cool artist's impression of "time in the black hole" – there is a way to interpret this picture as proper physics. Via Soylent Sage.

#### 23 comments:

1. After this witch hunt turns up nothing, will you denialist fucktards just STFU?

2. Thanks, Mr Krugman, for your valuable and polite contribution. There isn't any witch hunt although the same negative proposition about witches would probably be invalid.

3. I'm loving this.

4. That's not going to be the case. There's such a large volume of material that even if the concentration of incriminalia is low, the likelihood of finds is high. And the password will soon be common knowledge.

5. Are you concerned, Mr. K? The other two er, "wich hunts" turned up quite a bit of usueful information, don't you think? Hopefully this will add to the growing suspicion that the AGW fraud was just that.

6. I've offered my time over on his blog, it's what I do a lot of the time already so only too pleased to get this material checked and out there as soon as possible.

7. Dear Jason, you may be underestimating the recipients' respect towards privacy and you may be underestimating how small positive numbers can actually be - see the cosmological constant, for example. ;-)

8. If you can't take the Glowball Warming, get the hell out of our kitchen.

We have no use for single brain cell twits, other than the entertainment value, limited as it is, you provide.

9. I am now older than the Pope! Yikes!

10. "Be sure that I couldn't memorize it so if you catch me on the street, you will learn nothing from me. ;-)"

Unless they beat you senseless and you start talking gibberish? ;-)

11. If you only care about the macroscopic properties of the password, it could work. However, the unpacking algorithm cares about the exact microstate and no beating would make me recall the detailed microstate of the password. ;-)

12. And if they elected Juan Maldacena, you would be 30 years older than the Pope! ;-)

13. Luboš Motl,

If the message you got from FOIA was an email then why did you entirely edit out the email header info? By ‘email header info’ I mean info like: To; From; CC; time/date stamp; etc.

What is your reasoning for editing it out?

I noticed Steve McIntyre, BH, Anthony Watts, Jeff Condon and Tom Nelson also did not include the email header info in their posts.

NOTE: I am trying to get the same response from Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre. I will soon ask Tom Nelson, BH, and Jeff Condon the same question.

John

14. Dear John, I am confused. I haven't reposted the e-mail at all, have I? You may be talking about Tom Nelson's page? He just omitted the header. What's so wrong about it?

I received the e-mail as well, it's genuine, I know every detail of the header, I won't share every detail, and I have exchanged about 3 e-mail pairs with FOIA, too.

15. Dear David, I am not sure whether you appreciate how big this file is. It is 800 MB unpacked. It's like 800 books or so - a text source for The Elegant Universe I started to prepare for the 2nd Czech edition has a megabyte or so.

Have you read 800 books in your life? Clearly, you would have to focus on some search words (or senders/recipients) only, or divide the work among many many many people and calibrate them. It seems impossible for a single person to penetrate into everything here.

16. Luboš,

Thanks for your quick response.

Thank you for pointing out that my presumption was wrong. I now see that although you received the original email directly from Mr. FOIA, you did not actually show it in your post.

It is just that I would like to understand the reason for recipients not showing the email header info when they post the email online. That is all.

Is there any doubt that the email header info will be sought in serious enquires by journalists? And I think authorities may be seriously interested as well.

John

17. Luboš,

Thanks for your quick response.

Thank you for pointing out that my presumption was wrong. I now see that although you received the original email directly from Mr. FOIA, you did not actually show it in your post.

It is just that I would like to understand the reason for recipients not showing the email header info when they post the email online. That is all.

Is there any doubt that the email header info will be sought in serious enquires by journalists? And I think authorities may be seriously interested as well.

John

18. 222,000 emails is long

I suggest you try to create a list of search words. Maybe we should start with money related issues - i.e. grant, expenses and see how much they get. Words like "money", "grant", "expenses", "tax"

Then it would be interesting to look for people like "mcintyre" and "mckittrick". Even "motl" and the other sceptics. Must be interesting to see what they say about you ;-)

And then of course there are words like "Hockey stick" and all sorts of paleoentological stuff.

Seems like you might be busy with "grep". ;-)

19. It already has turned up the bit about Oreskes. But please do indulge me, what exactly do I deny? Specifics, not generalities.

20. Fess up Lumo... we're on to you!

- climate curious... check
- academically connected... check
- technically competent... check check check

My guess is that you sent these "anonymous" emails to yourself and others as a red-herring so that you could claim innocence to any materials found in your possession.

And the 2^256 bit password... brilliant! My password would have been "secret" or "password".

And to clinch the deal, FOIA backwards is AIOF, which is an anagram for "am i only fysicist". Only a Czech would say that!

21. Lubos,
Can you tell me how many characters the password is?

22. Sure, thirty-two. I've mentioned it in the previous comment already.

23. Just curious. How much have you learned about him (insights and such) with your correspondences? No need to post details, just generalities.