Yet More FFT Stuff

Using a variable bandwidth filter (constant % of frequency) and scanning it from low to high frequency should be able to pull any repetitive signals out of noise. I used this in getting a reconstructed HADCRUT3 waveform out of the sum of cosines.


But just how well does it compare to a FFT of the same data.

FFT plot from spice programme (Blackmann-Harris window)

The bandpass plot is based on 4000 points and the FFT on 4096.
All 5 frequencies were found in both Band pass and FFT forms.The FFTs show correct amplitudes but the filtering shows a drop off with frequency

Next a comparison on hadcrut4 NH data 1850 to 2011 data length 1930 months

The interpretation of the band pass filtered for is easier but is it more reliable? The reported frequency needs an offset adjustment

This test at least proves that the bandpass plugin works!

Bandpass plugin is available from Web:reg:

Spice programme:

This site has other useful goodies!


A Free book from before climate politicisation

At last wuwt comes up with something useful:

 Rudolph Geiger “The Climate Near The Ground” 2nd edition 1950?

A very coprehensive book well worth the download. There is too much to quote but of interest is the hot-house effect:

The heat exchange between ground and air and the heat exchange within the air layer near the ground is caused not only by heat conduction (see Chapter 3) and convection (see Chapter 4) but also by the exchange of heat in consequence of the long wave heat radiation of the surface and the air itself.
The absorption of the long wage radiation emitted from the ground during day and night is caused (as has already been briefly mentioned in Chapter 2, p. 13) primarily by water vapor and carbon dioxide of the air. Fig. 19 shows the absorption spectrum of the two gases according to F. Schnaidt (127). In the upper portion (of the figure) the absorption coefficient of water vapor, equivalent to o.oi cm of precipitable water is represented as dependent upon the wave length X. The visible portion of the spectrum (0.4 0.8u) lies on the left side beyond the figure. In this most effective portion of the solar radiation the absorption of water vapor is negligible. The first absorption band is at 3, another, more effective, is between 5 and 9u with the maximum at 6.3 /A. Beyond a comparatively diathermic portion the absorption increases, starting from 12 //,, rapidly and continues remaining high. Carbon dioxide, whose absorption coefficient is represented in the lower portion of Fig. 19 (but in another scale regarding wave length), shows two bands with sharp boundaries, at 4.3 and 14.7 //,. The comparison of the absorption spectrums with the array of numbers shown above for the wave length of the strongest outgoing radiation shows that these fall in the region of rapidly increasing absorption. The absorbed part of the radiation hence varies with the temperature of the radiating surface.
The relationship between the emissivity ' of a body and its absorptivity is constant at a given wave length and temperature, according to Kirchhoff's law, and the air is thus a "band radiator," since it absorbs in bands. It is thus different from solid ground, for the latter is, in the region of long wave lengths, practically a "black body"; as will be shown in Chapter 13 (see page 130), it absorbs all radiation falling upon it. It is thus also a "black body radiator," that is to say it emits at all wave lengths indifferently. This difference between the black body radiation of the ground and the band radiation of the air leads to the phenomenon which G. Falckenberg (//6, 118) has called the wavelength transformation. When for instance the earth's surface is cooled by outgoing radiation at night, heat is returned to it by the warm air next to the ground in the form of band radiation. The ground surface which receives this energy transforms it into radiation with a practically continuous spectrum as it leaves the solid earth which is in effect a "black body." This radiation emitted by the ground meets a two-fold fate. As much of it as falls within that part of the continuous spectrum belonging to the water vapor and carbon dioxide cannot get out. It is absorbed. Part of this energy is given to the higher air layers and passes away into space. Another part gets back to the earth. Those wavelengths, however, which do not belong to the bands mentioned, pass through the air unhindered. Their energy is "effectively" radiated. The ground consequently is cooled, but only the lowest air-layer is cooled, for it can now return energy through band radiation to the once more cooler ground. This, in turn, gives back only a part as utilizable to the air, while it loses a part for good as a result of wavelength transformation, and itself cools off still more.
According to G. Falckenberg (118) and F. Schnaidt (127) the depth of the long wave radiation is very small. It is only a few meters and for some wave lengths even less than 85 cm.! The air layers at a somewhat greater distance from the ground do not cool immediately by radiation towards the cold ground, but by radiating towards the lower air layers, which, on their own part, are already cooled by radiation. Therefore, the cooling process is propagated very slowly upwards. Hence, E. Stoecker speaks of a radiative pseudo conduction] as with the genuine heat conduction, in consequence of the short path of the molecules, the heat is conducted only slowly, also with radiative pseudo conduction heat is transferred slowly in consequence of the small range of the long waves.
The effect of wave length transformation extends, it must be concluded, to the daytime, likewise. Solar radiation causes a rise of the temperature of the earth's surface; this temperature rise leads to an increase of ground radiation, which occurs as an almost continuous spectrum. A part of this ground radiation is taken in by the absorbing bands of the air and this part causes a slowly moving heat wave to rise from the ground, which is therefore attributable to radiative pseudo-conduction. The portion of the ground radiation not absorbed in the air is lost to the earth.


About FFTs - you cannot change the laws of physics

On the use of FFTs to pick out periods:
EXCEL has a maximum count of 4096 points
Other programmes will be different.

Taking EXCEL’s case and monthly time intervals will give you a total of 341 years of data – just about 20 years less than the full CET record Enough you may say to determine any 100 year or less cycles.
However these are the yearly data points above 50 years – you will get no resolution better than these from EXCEL. 341.33 , 170.67, 113.78, 85.33, 68.27, 56.89, 48.76, 42.67

Really not very good above 50 years.
Here are a couple of plots showing the problem:

Note you loose te 65 and 80 year periods into one hump

Add a bit of separation and 2 peaks are produce but at periods of 57 and 85 years not 55 and 90 - you only get output at resolved points listed above.

Most people show their plots with wonderfully rounded curves:
This contains no data extra but the rounding makes it look as if there is more data than before.

Here's some indication of the extraction of data from a noisy signal - first the signal,
3 equal amplitude sine waves added

Next add in some noise

Next use EXCELs built in FFT

And the 3 sine waves become visible (Just) Note that the 90 year signal is much attenuated.

So what about using a different programme for the FFT. Using the same 4096 points from the EXCEL programme and inputting these to a SPICE analysis gives the following un-windowed plot (note the x axis is in 1/year)

Because all FFT generation is looking at a window of the data then any data that has a discontinuity at beginning and end will cause invalid FFTs. The spice programme has a number of available windowing functions to lessen this effect. The plot below shows the effect of a Hamming filter used on the data. Note that the level to the left has been much reduced. Also note that there is no extra data in these plots compared to the EXCEL plots Also note that the vertical scale is logarithmic EXCEL in the plots above is linear

So now try 1500year sequence of the same frequencies:

A lot more detail but still not good detail in the longer periods.

So just how people use records of less than 300 years and claim periods of 100 years. The data is not  there, there is no way of increasing the resolution. If the data is not there then claiming long period "oscillations" are just incorrect and trying to equate periods of 50+ years to planetary motion is just "silly" - there is insufficient data!!. 


The Maths of WUWT

A brilliant headline left uncorrected:

James Hansen’s climate forecast of 1988: a whopping 150% wrong

150% wrong!! Brilliant!
. Be increased according to the Hansen’s forecast, the temperature would have compared to the same level in the 1970s by 1.5 ° C. In truth, however, the temperature has increased by only 0.6 ° C.
It is apparent that the next to it by the Hansen group in 1988 modelled temperature prediction by about 150%. It is extremely regrettable that precisely this type of modelling of our politicians is still regarded as a reliable climate prediction.

Hmm perhaps they are comparing 0.6C to 1.5C

but then this is not true either this needs to be referenced to K

i.e. the error is 0.9K on a temperature of 288K - about 0.3% error

One should not forget of course:

Its snowing CO2 in the antarctic!!


Further thoughts on CO2 Cycle

Found some O2 data for Alert Alaska. Plotting this on the same graph as Barrow give the plot below.
This shows that O2 is the inverse of CO2 with the peak of O2 occurring (as near as can be determined from the sparse data) at the minimum of CO2. They appear to be in synchronism.

To me this shows that the O2 and CO2 are linked to the same process.

From http://www.elcamino.edu/faculty/tnoyes/Readings/10AR.pdf this plot shows that there is a peak phytoplankton growth in summer at the poles which is significantly higher than spring or autumn growths.

Phytoplankton in sunlight photosynthesises using CO2 and creating O2. In the dark O2 is used in phytoplankton respiration and CO2 is released.

Decomposition requires warm temperatures for the bacteria to work.At the end of summer temperatures are falling rapidly so decomposition will not release CO2 rapidly and certainly would not continue into December. This suggests that spring growth and autumn decomposition would not cause the CO2 dip.

The CO2 dip is caused by the action of sunlight on phytoplankton.

The Full O2 record with CO2


WUWT accolytes descend below the gutter.

The thread that should not exist - as it stands at 2012-06-13 22:55
Is there anything more despicable?


The accolytes state that these emails are written by the "Team".
However it is a bit of a fail not to have published them 2 years ago!
Why wait for a FOI request??

edited for the best (worst?) ones and defamatory comments

75 Responses to FOI reveals nasty hateful emails sent to Phil Jones right after Climategate

  1. Steve T. says:
    I find these emails very, very suspicious. Terrible spellings and punctuation coupled with correct spelling of a more difficult word. Lack of capitalisation coupled with unusually broad vocabulary. Similar typing conventions on multiple emails (double space after a full stop). A lack of variation in the style of the abuse.
    I’d have an expert look at them…
  2. Bob Tisdale says:
    Oddly, UEA produced documents as a result of this FOI request.
  3. D.R. Williams says:
    Seeing the pattern of Phil Jones behavior and that of the Team in general as exemplified in the Climategate emails, cowards attracting email from cowards is not surprising. It’s clearly a case of “vile and disgusting” begetting the same.
  4. Connifer says:
    I don’t have any sympathy for Phil Jones. You make your own bed of nails, you lie in it. Some of you think the emails he received are disgusting. To me, what is really disgusting is that global warming alarmists continue to label AGW skeptics as “deniers” and the mainstream media continues to accept and promote this–this is hate speech, plain and simple.
    Just because my opinion of AGW doesn’t conform to the views of our political masters, it doesn’t mean I am a holocaust denier. As a Jew whose father fought in WWII, I find this continued use of the term to label AGW skeptics doubly offensive.
    I was especially offended when Barack Obama used this “denier” term to label AGW skeptics in one of his speeches–isn’t it ironic that it’s ok for the first black POTUS to promote hate speech, but a few angry e-mails to scientists falsifying their research gets blown out of proportion. Even the Australian prime minister Ju-liar Gillard used this “denier” term to slander AGW skeptics in Australia.
    This is the true meaning of post-normal science: it’s ok to lie, cheat, and commit fraud because those in power says it’s ok to do so. Just like it’s ok for Peter Gleick to commit wire fraud and not get punished. Just like it’s ok for Phil Jones and Michael Mann to “hide the decline” and not get punished. Just like it’s ok for Al Gore and the IPCC to demonize C02, a harmless gas plants need to make food, and not get punished. But if your views go against the political orthodoxy, you will lose your job in a heartbeat. This is the new post-normal science world we live in now.
    However, history is on the side of truth. Nazi’s came and Nazi’s lost. Dictators all eventually fall. Eventually, all these AGW scammers are going to get caught in their own web of lies and charged for serious crimes against humanity. It will be a long struggle but make no mistake, once the global public awaken to the massive lies and fraud going on in the name of AGW alarmism and carbon taxes, a few angry emails will pale in comparison to what these AGW charlatans are going to receive.
  5. .
  6. AB says:
    Came across this sort of script from time to time in the low socio economic school where I taught for many years. It’s inexcusable behaviour but teachers copped it regularly in it’s verbal form. A scientist leading a sheltered academic life would find it harder to deal with, but as teachers we just had to laugh it off. Considering the importance of climategate to the world the number of abusive emails is in actual fact very very low, in my opinion.
  7. Ric Werme says:
    Well, there’s not as many as I expected, and some writers almost have cogent thoughts. One even alluded to Jones’ Climategate message about John Daly’s premature death, but spoiled the moment with the death threat. Some aren’t even death threats, e.g. “May God punish you severely for your untruthful actions.”
    On the other hand, I have little use for people who think they’re communicating when every phrase has a vulgar word. Give ‘em a copy of Strunk & White! Heck, start a genre of hate limericks to get a little humor to the threats!
    I can almost feel sorry for Phil and his team. It must have been nice back when they had a nice, quiet academic environment where they wrote papers, get them published after pal review, and not bother to file the data someplace because no one bothered to reproduce the work. Then Daly, then M&M, then a flood of interested amateurs, then people screaming that CO2 is a trace gas and therefore can’t have an effect, then Climategate, and then these.
    On the other hand, they managed to set themselves up for the fall, so forgive me if I can’t feel too sorry for them. Who knows, maybe God is punishing Jones for what he said about Daly. Well, probably not, your faith may vary.
  8. johanna says:
    As I said at the Bishop’s place:
    Of course they are vile, but once again I am amazed at the preciousness of people who want to drive major changes in the way we live without any consequences. I have said before, and will keep saying, that Ministers get this stuff all the time, precisely because people think that they have the power to affect the way we live.
    The quoted examples are typical of what a powerful politician gets all the time. No, they are not ‘death threats’, and yes, there are some angry and disturbed people out there.
    It should be noted that these sorts of unpleasant communications are not limited to any particular kind of scientist, professional or politician. It is the perception that these people have the power to influence events that generates the hate mail. Judges get this stuff as well, as do doctors and lawyers, and public servants.
    Judges, lawyers, public servants, doctors and politicians all manage to keep doing their jobs despite the rantings of temporarily or permanently deranged members of the public. What is so special about snowflake climate scientists, whose only crime is to promote policies that make people poorer (at best) based on questionable premises, data, and conclusions?
    They, and their defenders, need to get out more. I’m afraid I don’t share the revulsion of previous commenters, having read this sort of garbage very day addressed to Ministers. Boo-bloody-hoo. An old saying about heat and kitchens comes to mind.
    I suspect that Anthony has been very low-key in his description of the stuff that he gets all the time, especially since the lowlife Appell released Anthony’s personal email details to the blogosphere.
    I deplore abusive or threatening communications from whoever to whoever. But, it is unrealistic to be an advocate of major political and economic change and expect that no-one will notice your name on the justification document. And, no, they weren’t just scientists doing their job, as the Climategate emails demonstrated.
  9. michael hart says:
    Anthony, how do you feel about this comment, posted at the BBC yesterday on Richard Black’s article [comment 68]? I won’t reproduce it here.
    REPLY: Well other than the commenter is too stupid to spell my name correctly, the correct response is to report the comment and see if BBC deletes it. – Anthony
  10. beng says:
    From my perspective, having been in television and radio newsrooms for 25 years, this is pretty run of the mill stuff.
    Anthony, you’re a hardened warrior from the front-lines, yet sympathetic to the sheltered academics. Not sure I’m that magnanimous.
  11. theduke says:
    Vile, of course. But I wonder how many of these type of emails Phil Jones and the others received before Climategate. In other words, I’m suspicious that his depression and thoughts of suicide had more to do with the damning and potentially incriminating content of the emails than the hatemail trash sent by these morons.
    Color me cynical. He’d been in the limelight a long time. Remember his comment to the effect that he’d spent his career collecting the data and why should he release it when all his correspondent wanted to do was find something wrong with it? I’m sure he’s gotten some nasty flak for that over the years.
  12. Max Hugoson says:
    This is SO obvious. These Emails were created by “the team”. This is STRAIGHT out of the “left’s” playbook. Have someone create VILE, disgusting attacks in a public venue. Attribute them to your opponents. Beatify yourself…you are a saint. Your opponents (correctly) deny any connection. BINGO, you’ve won! It is an ADVANTAGE which completely corrupt people have over honest ones, who think that “proper” behavior always wins.
    I have no solution, only an insight.
    PS: The “catch” that they are written in a pseudo neanderthal style but the creators “slipped” and used vocabulary that is not typical of “neanderthal conservative/skeptics” is marvelous.
    The one thing we can count on is that EVIL ALWAYS OVERPLAYS ITS HAND in the poker game of life.
  13. Bill Tuttle says:
    As I’ve always said about the Internet and electronic communications in general, anonymity breeds contempt.
    Anonymity eliminates the necessity for someone to take responsibility — or consequences — for his words. I’ve never said anything in print that I wouldn’t say to someone’s face.
    That said, I agree with Steve T’s assessment. The e-mails are suspiciously akin.
  14. David Ball says:
    How many “victim” cards are in that deck?
  15. jayhd says:
    Given the contents of the Climategate emails, I’m surprised there weren’t more nasty emails. Phil Jones and his CAGW co-conspirators have caused immeasurable economic damage and untold human suffering.
    Jay Davis
  16. mrmethane says:
    I’m sorry, but I’d put most of them, based on their similarity to each others, and the odd style, intio the category of “self-generated” sympathy magnets. In other words, I doubt they came from anyone but Phil or a supporter. Glieckenspool, anyone?
  17. more soylent green! says:
    Max Hugoson says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:24 am
    This is SO obvious. These Emails were created by “the team”. This is STRAIGHT out of the “left’s” playbook. Have someone create VILE, disgusting attacks in a public venue. Attribute them to your opponents. Beatify yourself…you are a saint. Your opponents (correctly) deny any connection. BINGO, you’ve won! It is an ADVANTAGE which completely corrupt people have over honest ones, who think that “proper” behavior always wins.
    I have no solution, only an insight.
    PS: The “catch” that they are written in a pseudo neanderthal style but the creators “slipped” and used vocabulary that is not typical of “neanderthal conservative/skeptics” is marvelous.
    The one thing we can count on is that EVIL ALWAYS OVERPLAYS ITS HAND in the poker game of life.
    If created by “the team” means written by useful idiot lackeys who decided to help out the cause by creating fake threatening emails, then you’re spot on.
  18. Jim Clarke says:
    The emails are vile and ignorant. As a climate change crisis skeptic I completely renounce the views expressed in these emails. There is no place for these ad-homs-on-steriods, or any ad hominems at all, in the debate.
    (sarc) Almost all climate change crisis skeptics agree with the above statement, creating an overwhelming consensus. Therefore, the issue is settled and should not be brought up by David Appell, or any other warmist, ever again! (sarc off)
    Seriously…I do have one question about this that I believe would be of interest. How long did it take for the UEA to comply with this FIO, compared to requests for climate related data and emails?
  19. Aidan Donnelly says:
  20. Cannot read them as it wont DL at the moment.
    But already some are taking them as genuine, others are (with good reason given the Climategate etc), taking the position tha these are ‘false-flag’ attacks by ‘The team’
    So around and around we go, still trying to get the truth to the public in a believable way – truly it was said that the first casualty of war is Truth .. and this is quite definitely a war
  21. gnomish says:
    not nearly as gripping as the videos of blowing up schoolchildren and soccer players, the suicidal animals or little girls clinging the the last tree on earth.
    much less credible than agenda 21
    however, they indicate that at least a few people got mad about being screwed.
    apart from those few, the perpetrators of the fraud and the robbers of your rights have no resistance that matters.
    but talk is just talk.
    40% of american income down the tubes in the last 3 years isnt’ enough to get a true believer to doubt the system he supports. doesn’t even get him mad. that indicates that he agrees that he’s suitable as fodder and has no claim to rights.
    I watched a tsunami vid yesterday. there were some who could not be so undignified as to run like hell. they walked as if they were balancing books on their heads – gracefully. they died.
    i’d hate to have to depend on anybody like that in the trenches, but that’s all there is.
    that’s why a ussr is all but assured.
    the meek shall inherit the grave.
    that’s justice. darwin says so.
  22. John Whitman says:
    Because just the pdf of these allegedly real emails has been disclosed at BH’s blog and nothing else related to the FOI request, then I am skeptical of the pdf file containing the emails. I will remain skeptical until I see:
    1) the original FOI request made to UEA/CRU by the person who made the FOI request
    2) the original UEA/CRU acknowledgement of receiving the FOI request that they are required to send to the FOI requester.
    3) any response by the requestor to UEA/CRU receipt acknowledgement notice
    4) the actual UEA/CRU transmittal letter/email sent to the requestor which contained the release of the requested emails/info.
    Also, I would like to see the Information Commissioner in the UK (I sorry if I got the title wrong) review the credibility that these are real emails.
  23. Markon says:
    “From the perspective of these mild mannered scientists, I know these sorts of things come as a complete shock to them. I can see how Dr. Jones would have been driven to depression right after Climategate broke.”
    Really? You suggesting his actions [redacted!] had nothing to do with driving him to depression? Are you saying that those who defraud the public should not have to endure any pushback by those about to lose their money and liberty?
     [redacted!] .
  24. Tom Moriarty says:
    The emails are vile. But I had to laugh at the illogic of the one that said…
    “I hope you f****rs die slowly and painfully. You are the scum of the earth and should be put in front of a firing squad.”
    So which is it, “slowly” or “firing squad?”
    Holy Cow!
  25. Titan 28 says:
    These emails just don’t ring true to me. Two, three groupings that have similarities, as well as really stupid inexplicable misspellings, the deliberate kind of misspellings you see in letters designed to make the sender appear to be an idiot. I think the Team is perfectably capable of generating this sort of stuff to make themselves appear rightfully aggrieved. I could be wrong. Best thing would be for someone with access and the requisite tools to follow these emails down the rabbit hole, see where they lead.
  26. meemoe_uk says:
    A lot of the emails will be from teenagers. This the norm in many modern sub cultures.
    e.g. Anyone who does online gaming will be exposed to similar constant abuse.
    Personally I can’t take it seriously, and so can find it somewhat funny. Although I wouldn’t post anything like that myself for fear of job security. Kids don’t have that worry, I kinda envy them for their freedom in this respect.
  27. EEB says:
    Hell, I’ve heard worst from my mother-in-law.
    And all I did was take the last chicken leg.
  28. Dave says:
    I think the emails can be broadly divided into three categories.
    There’s one set which is clearly the work of a loon, or several similar loons. Crack-head, meth-head, or merely unfortunately mentally ill, but, whilst distasteful, not subject to rational analysis beyond saying that if you’re in the public eye, you’re likely to attract rants from the odd nutter. Essentially, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the debate. Of course they’re deplorable, and possibly even the highest risk as far as someone actually putting them into action, but they’re not politically motivated in any way that makes sense to sane people. Some of the long rambling rants contain actual threats, but they’re buried in lunatic babble.
    There’s another set which expresses the wish that the recipient would die, or kill themself, but which aren’t actually threatening. There’s one which ends by wishing Phil would crawl away and rot in a ditch, and then adds ‘(Please don’t take the black humour to heart.)’, which whilst not a threat as such is a bit like saying ‘no offence’ instead of avoiding giving offence…
    The third set is the one consisting of the emails which are relatively short, relatively coherent, and have a clear, unambiguous threat. It’s a small minority, but they’re certainly there. As Anthony Watts points out, such things are almost always merely venting, but that doesn’t mean a recipient of them isn’t entitled to call them death threats. Personally, I don’t find receiving death threats to be particularly serious when they’re of this unspecific nature and in this quantity, but there are some there.
  29. cui bono says:
    Where’s Sherlock Mosher?
    Seriously, whoever these people are, they need help beyond anger management courses.
    And why is it assumed they are right-wingers? Several of the mails refer (vaguely, in between the expletives and the spleen) to the economic damage done by the AGW crowd, including “dead children”. This is a common complaint by both right- and left-wing critics of The Cause.
    Ironically, none of this would have happened if the CRU crew had paid attention to FOI requests in the first place.
    Still, utterly sick.
  30. James Ard says:
    I call bs on this. Your typical person who is interested in climate issues generally knows how to spell. These are false flag attacks. This is exactly the kind of thing I’ve come to expect from the team. Like has been said upthread, I’d look for Glieks fingerprints on this.
  31. eyesonu says:
    Max Hugoson says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:24 am
    David Ball says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:37 am
    How many “victim” cards are in that deck?
    Kaboom says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:47 am
    One can only hope for Gleick’s sake that he isn’t getting fingered for writing these, too.
    mrmethane says:
    June 13, 2012 at 7:52 am
    John Whitman says:
    June 13, 2012 at 9:23 am
    As to the comments noted above, count me in this camp. What I would say has been said.
    I agree that this type garbage is out of order. I would also say that if these emails are in fact real and were fabricated for political purpose by someone for the purpose of garnering sympathy for Jones, then heads should roll (this is a figure of speech and not a threat).
  32. John Greenfraud says:
    Death threats are over the line, however, calling for these people [redacted!]  is not. People will be held accountable, regardless of some unverifiable ‘hate’ mail from dubious sources. I have no sympathy  [redacted!] . The cost of this scam to the people of this country is incalculable. We won’t forget or forgive, and they won’t be let off the hook so easily.
  33. BradProp1 says:
    After resorting to cussing and threats; the debate is lost. Either some really stupid people sent the emails, or they are scam emails designed to gain sympathy for Mr. Jones.
  34. I think the well-known pro-AGW troll Vendicar Decarian posts similar messages in tone and quantity every day.
  35. Disko Troop says:
    I have had a Chief Petty Officer stand one inch from my face and hurl expletives and abuse at me for 5 solid minutes and then make me lie face down in the mud while he stood on me and hurled abuse at the rest of the squad. That’s abusive. Three large Gentlemen carrying an axe amongst other things pursued me for about ten minutes in West Wego before I lost them. That is a death threat. A Captain friend of mine was a protestant living in a particular area of Belfast in 1973. Two well dressed men came to his door one night and told him to leave. He moved to Scotland the following day and left everything except his personal effects behind. That was a death threat.
    If a few abusive e-mails from loonies is the worst that these wussy “scientists” have ever had to worry about then pardon me for not feeling at all sympathetic.
  36. hunter says:
    Are there any death threats in this stuff?
  37. James Sexton says:
    Put me in the “false flag” camp as well. As stated earlier, I also see 3 different writing styles, There is a definite American feel for the emails.
    But, these are definitely not the work of the typical skeptic. Recall, that after Climategate emails, skeptics weren’t angry, heck many were darn near euphoric!
    In spite of the content of some of those emails, I had to “LOL” at some of them….. one signed “Chaos Deathwalker”. Aparently, that’s a reference to a Babylon 5 episode?
    But, here’s what really jumped out at me….. bottom of page 7, “dodgy emails that were hacked…“. Uhmm….. oops! That’s not how us skeptics term the “release” of the emails.
    BTW, Anthony et al, the comment referenced earlier at the BBC has been removed.
  38. Yep, the left would never stoop to such levels. http://scoamf.us/Hass
  39. alan says:
    The AGW people are in the business of faking data! Probably an inside job.
  40. Philip Peake says:
    As presented, there is no way of telling anything about these emails.
    If anyone EVER submits an FOI request for emails, you really need ensure that you request emails with all headers intact.
    That’s not just the From, Subject, Date headers, but all the rest not normally displayed in most email clients, which give routing information etc. These are somewhat harder to forge, and are very useful in determining if multiple emails originate from the same individual(s).
    The emails listed here are useless. Just a bunch of nasty words and phrases which have some indications of coming from a very restricted set of originators.
  41. Chuck says:
    My first impression is that there’s something off about them. Reminds me of forum trolls, just trying to get a reaction. They seem to be too contrived to be taken seriously. And I agree that they sound like they came from just a few people.
  42. Jenn Oates says:
    A couple of months ago a FB “friend” erupted into a vile, profane, obscene rant about something that I had posted. She sad many hateful things to various posters on that thread, things that were over the top, out of bounds, and beyond the pale. A relative of mine posted that while she normally would be inclined to support the harridan’s position, she felt that when a person resorts to such angry vituperation to someone else’s opinion, one’s argument is automatically disregarded by rational folk. Debate need not be rude, nor disrespectful to those who disagree.
    I could not agree more.
    Well do we need to remember that.
  43. Neo says:
    Perhaps, we should a FOI to the University of Virginia asking for death threat emails to Michael Mann. If they send any, ask for the other emails.
  44. Owen in GA says:
    Tom Moriarity: Firing squad with bb-guns and an unlimited number of BBs? That’s about the only way I see that one working.
    Some people really don’t think their threats through. We used to see that sort of thing occasionally aimed at government offices and laugh at it. We only got interested when someone said something like “I am going to shoot you”, (or “kill you”, or “blow you up” etc.) that got things forwarded to the federal protection service in a heartbeat. The most common ones were very improbable sexual suggestions – some of which were quite funny when taken literally.
  45. pk says:
    these things are “cooked up” by a small number of probably college students.
    they are not the real thing.
    they fall into the catagory that “if you see the real thing then you know it immediatly for what it is”.
    and these arn’t it.
  46. markstoval says:
    I just can’t work up a drop of sympathy in light of the fact that Jones and his partners in crime are trying to physically hurt the poorest people on the planet by his frauds. Add to that the damage done by his assault on honest science.
    No, he is the scum that several called him. What goes around comes around.
  47. John Whitman says:
    I confirmed that the emails are the product of an official FOI request to and a response from UEA.
    So that leaves me only with a nagging question of doubt about the real source of the threatening emails. I think I am entitled to that doubt given lack of morality by CAGW activists in the past few months wrt Gleick’s perpetration of an email scam and fraud.
    My questions about the real source of the emails can only be answered by a formal investigation of the full email metadata and authors identity. What is the chance of getting that? I will continue my skepticism until that info is made public.
  48. woodNfish says:
    Jenn Oates says: June 13, 2012 at 11:44 am “Debate need not be rude, nor disrespectful to those who disagree.”
    This isn’t a debate. It is billions of dollars, the economy, your job that supports your way of life and your personal freedom. The eco-terrorists are already murdering people in Africa to force this garbage on them. People get angry when what they need to live is threatened, and these “scientists” want to destroy it. I don’t find the comments surprising at all, and I expect at some point some people will carry out their threats.
    Please give up on this “gentle minded academic” nonsense. These people are complete misanthropes and they don’t give a hoot who they harm. They don’t feel your pain. I have a hard time understanding how you can fail to understand that after years of writing this blog and being attacked by them, Anthony. You need to wake up to reality, you really are too kind.
  49. Poptech says:
    What one should immediately recognize is the email reference to Alex Jones, the conspiracy talk show host. I guarantee you that most if not all of these emailed originated from people who listened to his shows. It is no coincidence the comments are closed on all relevant Climategate stories on Info Wars and Prison Planet.
  50. Duster says:
    As concerns the emails, an email arrives with an extensive set of headers that are usually concealed from the user by the email client software. Most of it looks like gibberish anyway, and your average user can’t make much out of it. These can always be used to track back to a source or to evidence that the chain was spoofed. If they derived from a legitimate source, either the owner was the culprit or his account hijacked. Either way one gets a read on the computer sophistication of the sender and their relative criminal leanings. The owners of hijacked accounts should have been informed. So, what did the UEA computer security team do?
    gnomish says:
    June 13, 2012 at 9:17 am

    the meek shall inherit the grave.
    that’s justice. darwin says so.

    Darwin says no such thing. Darwin says, in a reductio ad absurdum, that “survivors survive” – in short, whatever works. What this means is that under many conditions, cooperation among a group leads to enhanced survival within the group; it isn’t anywhere near as simple as “nature bloody in tooth and claw.”
  51. D. King says:
    So, one needs an FOI request to prompt one to send the emails that make one look like a victim?
    Yeah, I wasen’t going to send these out( bad language!), but, since you requested them…
  52. D. King says:
  53. GlynnMhor says:
    All that looks like “business as usual” on open (non-moderated) posting fora.
  54. Nigel Harris says:
    I found the emails distressing to read, but not nearly as distressing as vile, hateful opinions appearing here in the comments thread. I think the WUWT readership has really lost contact with reality. The very suggestion that these emails would be concocted to garner sympathy is beneath contempt. I would very much like to see Anthony weigh in and condemn these speculations.
  55. Gary Pearse says:
    John Whitman says:
    June 13, 2012 at 9:23 am
    “… I will remain skeptical until I see:
    1) the original FOI request made to UEA/CRU by the person who made the FOI request
    2) the original UEA/CRU acknowledgement of receiving the FOI request that they are required to send to the FOI requester.
    3) any response by the requestor to UEA/CRU receipt acknowledgement notice
    4) the actual UEA/CRU transmittal letter/email sent to the requestor which contained the release of the requested emails/info. ”
    Now this is a skeptic talking and with good grammar and spelling. Gleick underestimated the grit of real skeptics in his juvenile attempt to deceive. Mr. Whitman is from Missouri, or he deserves to be made an honorary citizen.
  56. Tom Barr says:
    So, no resisting that FOI, then?: Notwithstanding the moronic undesirability of such a dense innocuous attack (it’s only words after all, not something genuinely damaging like carbon taxation) I’d say the content, construction & credibility of the emails is directly in line with Gore et al’s unscientific musings, albeit with added profanity. “Reaping the Whirlwind” comes to mind.
  57. These e-mails are very interesting, they look at first sight as if they came from loutish thugs, but if you read them for a second and third time, they are well punctuated, grammatically correct, with no spelling mistakes (apart from “neads”, which no-one ever mis-spells!).
    These e-mails are a contradiction, they are full of foul language and threats, but they are obviously the product of someone who is intelligent. Intelligence seldom goes hand in hand with thuggery, unless the person is a psychopath. I do not think that there are many psychopaths who have an interest in the planet or their tax returns!!!!
    I think these e-mails originated from the recepients!
  58. Poptech says:
    The very suggestion that these emails would be concocted to garner sympathy is beneath contempt.
    No it is not, this is perfectly valid speculation and entirely plausible.
  59. G. Karst says:
    As anyone who has many employees working for them knows: One will find worse, written to them, on the bathroom and elevator walls, of the work place. Any unpopular decision or action will require repainting of walls in these locales. I don’t see this as much different.
    Many frustrated, fearful, angry people love to vent in inappropriate ways. Anonymity gives them this ability to indulge, while seething. Nothing more. GK
  60. Jimbo says:
    Bob Tisdale says:
    June 13, 2012 at 6:49 am
    Oddly, UEA produced documents as a result of this FOI request.
    I join Anthony in condemning such emails. They serve no purpose at all no matter how angry you are at these brazen manipulators.
  61. more soylent green! says:
    I’m still more concerned about seeing the original (unadjusted) climate data than I am about these emails.
  62. Owen in GA says:
    Nigel Harris: When one first endeavors to deceive, one should not be surprised that others cease to take anything one says at face value. The fact that Jones et al decided to prevaricate through omission and manipulation of the process means that those of us who caught them in the act are naturally going to be suspicious of anything they put out including (but not limited to) the breakfast menu of the local East Anglian public house. So unlike the old Ronald Reagan line of “Trust, but verify”, with these characters it is “Verify, then take what’s left with a pound of salt”.
    That said, people really shouldn’t wish others harm even if they are perpetrators of the biggest fraud (monetarily at least) in the history of history. It is much more polite, when passing a train wreck of this magnitude, to point and laugh.
  63. John Whitman says:
    Nigel Harris says:
    June 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    I found the emails distressing to read, but not nearly as distressing as vile, hateful opinions appearing here in the comments thread. I think the WUWT readership has really lost contact with reality. The very suggestion that these emails would be concocted to garner sympathy is beneath contempt. I would very much like to see Anthony weigh in and condemn these speculations.
    - – - – - -
    Nigel Harris,
    An experienced hardened investigative journalist, a good defense attorney or tough nosed senior police detective would not take anything for granted if email threats were formally reported to them. They would question the source of the emails themselves as a routine matter and question the recipient just as closely. You cannot assume anything about the motives any of the people involved. You should read some criminal court transcripts.
    In addition, an edited comment from another blog,
    I think it is prudent to trust but verify first, in general, irrespective of whether or not you are looking at UEA/CRU & Phil Jones related matters.
    Why not question everything? Young children do it naturally. It is healthy and beneficial to learning and self-esteem.
  64. eyesonu says:
    Nigel Harris says:
    June 13, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    Could you please identify and be more specific with regards to “… distressing as vile, hateful opinions appearing here in the comments thread”?
    Could you recommend sites that you visit that discuss the so-called death threats where we could read comments that would be more suitable to your liking?
    “I would very much like to see Anthony weigh in and condemn these speculations.” Did I condemn your viewpoint which I don’t agree with? Why would you want the majority here to be censured or condemned?
    Are you a bleeding heart liberal who espouses the politically correct view to the point that you are choking on it?
    Am I simply feeding a troll?