Sin tiempo de digerirlo, pero solo informaros. Acaba de ocurrir. De nuevo. Una filtración masiva de emails de los científicos y burócratas internacionales alarmistas del clima. El mismo esquema que el anterior “Climategate”. Un macro archivo comprimido en un servidor ruso anónimo, anunciado en el blog de Jeff Id, The Air Vent. Y también, “casualmente”, justo antes de la conferencia internacional de turno para la alarma del achicharramiento global. Climategate I fue antes de Copenhague, y Climategate II, antes de Duban.
El enlace al comentario con el documento puesto en the Air Vent:
Me limito a traducir la introducción:
Ha ocurrido de nuevo. Me he despertado y me he encontrado con un enlace de “FOIA.org” en un hilo. Miles de emails en abierto, con 220.000 más protegidos por contraseña. A pesar del menor tráfico de Air Vent debido a mi falta de tiempo, ya había habido 25 descargas antes de que lo viera. Como la vez anterior, hay unas citas muy buenas y clarificaciones de “el consenso”. – Jeff
/// FOIA 2011 — Precedentes y contexto ///
“Más de 2.500 millones de personas viven con menos de $2 al día.”
“Cada día mueren 16.000 niños de hambre y causas relacionadas.”
“Un dólar puede salvar una vida” — lo opuesto debe ser cierto.
“La pobreza es una sentencia de muerte.”
“Ls naciones deben invertir $37 trillones en tecnología de energía antes de 2030 para estabilizar las emisiones invernadero a unos niveles sostenibles..”
Las decisiones que tomemos hoy deben estar basadas en toda la información que podamos obtener, no en ocultar el declive [hide the decline].
Este archivo contiene unos 5.000 emails escogidos mediante búsquedas por palabras. Las anotaciones y lo editado están señaladas con una triple barra.
El resto, unos 220.000, están encriptado por varias razones. No planeamos entregar al público la contraseña.
No hemos podido leer cada email, pero hemos tratado de cubrir los asuntos más relevantes, como …
/// The IPCC Process ///
<1939> Thorne/MetO:
Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical
troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a
wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the
uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these
further if necessary […]
<3066> Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it
which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
<1611> Carter:
It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much
talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by
a select core group.
<2884> Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of
dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]
<4755> Overpeck:
The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s
included and what is left out.
<3456> Overpeck:
I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about
“Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been
an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?
<1104> Wanner/NCCR:
In my [IPCC-TAR] review […] I crit[i]cized […] the Mann hockey[s]tick […]
My review was classified “unsignificant” even I inquired several times. Now the
internationally well known newspaper SPIEGEL got the information about these
early statements because I expressed my opinion in several talks, mainly in
Germany, in 2002 and 2003. I just refused to give an exclusive interview to
SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.
<0414> Coe:
Hence the AR4 Section 2.7.1.1.2 dismissal of the ACRIM composite to be
instrumental rather than solar in origin is a bit controversial. Similarly IPCC
in their discussion on solar RF since the Maunder Minimum are very dependent on
the paper by Wang et al (which I have been unable to access) in the decision to
reduce the solar RF significantly despite the many papers to the contrary in
the ISSI workshop. All this leaves the IPCC almost entirely dependent on CO2
for the explanation of current global temperatures as in Fig 2.23. since
methane CFCs and aerosols are not increasing.
<2009> Briffa:
I find myself in the strange position of being very skeptical of the quality of
all present reconstructions, yet sounding like a pro greenhouse zealot here!
<2775> Jones:
I too don’t see why the schemes should be symmetrical. The temperature ones
certainly will not as we’re choosing the periods to show warming.
<1219> Trenberth:
[…] opposing some things said by people like Chris Landsea who has said all the
stuff going on is natural variability. In addition to the 4 hurricanes hitting
Florida, there has been a record number hit Japan 10?? and I saw a report
saying Japanese scientists had linked this to global warming. […] I am leaning
toward the idea of getting a box on changes in hurricanes, perhaps written by a
Japanese.
<0890> Jones:
We can put a note in that something will be there in the next draft, or Kevin
or I will write something – it depends on whether and what we get from Japan.
<0170> Jones:
Kevin, Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does
say that GW is having an effect on TC activity.
<0714> Jones:
Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital – hence my comment about
the tornadoes group.
<3205> Jones:
Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud
issue – on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be
have to involve him ?)
<4923> Stott/MetO:
My most immediate concern is to whether to leave this statement [“probably the
warmest of the last millennium”] in or whether I should remove it in the
anticipation that by the time of the 4th Assessment Report we’ll have withdrawn
this statement – Chris Folland at least seems to think this is possible.
/// Communicating Climate Change ///
<2495> Humphrey/DEFRA:
I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a
message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their
story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made
to look foolish.
<0813> Fox/Environment Agency:
if we loose the chance to make climate change a reality to people in the
regions we will have missed a major trick in REGIS.
<4716> Adams:
Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
<1790> Lorenzoni:
I agree with the importance of extreme events as foci for public and
governmental opinion […] ‘climate change’ needs to be present in people’s
daily lives. They should be reminded that it is a continuously occurring and
evolving phenomenon
<3062> Jones:
We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written
[…] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.
<1485> Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.
<2428> Ashton/co2.org:
Having established scale and urgency, the political challenge is then to turn
this from an argument about the cost of cutting emissions – bad politics – to
one about the value of a stable climate – much better politics. […] the most
valuable thing to do is to tell the story about abrupt change as vividly as
possible
<3332> Kelly:
the current commitments, even with some strengthening, are little different
from what would have happened without a climate treaty.
[…] the way to pitch the analysis is to argue that precautionary action must be
taken now to protect reserves etc against the inevitable
<3655> Singer/WWF:
we as an NGO working on climate policy need such a document pretty soon for the
public and for informed decision makers in order to get a) a debate started and
b) in order to get into the media the context between climate
extremes/desasters/costs and finally the link between weather extremes and
energy
<0445> Torok/CSIRO:
[…] idea of looking at the implications of climate change for what he termed
“global icons” […] One of these suggested icons was the Great Barrier Reef […]
It also became apparent that there was always a local “reason” for the
destruction – cyclones, starfish, fertilizers […] A perception of an
“unchanging” environment leads people to generate local explanations for coral
loss based on transient phenomena, while not acknowledging the possibility of
systematic damage from long-term climatic/environmental change […] Such a
project could do a lot to raise awareness of threats to the reef from climate
change
<4141> Minns/Tyndall Centre:
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public
relations problem with the media
Kjellen:
I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global
warming
Pierrehumbert:
What kind of circulation change could lock Europe into deadly summer heat waves
like that of last summer? That’s the sort of thing we need to think about.
/// The Medieval Warm Period ///
<5111> Pollack:
But it will be very difficult to make the MWP go away in Greenland.
<5039> Rahmstorf:
You chose to depict the one based on C14 solar data, which kind of stands out
in Medieval times. It would be much nicer to show the version driven by Be10
solar forcing
<5096> Cook:
A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.
/// The Settled Science ///
<0310> Warren:
The results for 400 ppm stabilization look odd in many cases […] As it stands
we’ll have to delete the results from the paper if it is to be published.
<1682> Wils:
[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural
fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably […]
<2267> Wilson:
Although I agree that GHGs are important in the 19th/20th century (especially
since the 1970s), if the weighting of solar forcing was stronger in the models,
surely this would diminish the significance of GHGs.
[…] it seems to me that by weighting the solar irradiance more strongly in the
models, then much of the 19th to mid 20th century warming can be explained from
the sun alone.
<5289> Hoskins:
If the tropical near surface specific humidity over tropical land has not gone
up (Fig 5) presumably that could explain why the expected amplification of the
warming in the tropics with height has not really been detected.
<5315> Jenkins/MetO:
would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?
<2292> Jones:
[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.
<1788> Jones:
There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from “recent
extreme weather is due to global warming”] – at least not a climatologist.
<4693> Crowley:
I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships
<2967> Briffa:
Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?
<2733> Crowley:
Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.
<2095> Steig:
He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.
<0953> Jones:
This will reduce the 1940-1970 cooling in NH temps. Explaining the cooling with
sulphates won’t be quite as necessary.
<4944> Haimberger:
It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics
in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is
remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.
<4262> Klein/LLNL:
Does anybody have an explanation why there is a relative minimum (and some
negative trends) between 500 and 700 hPa? No models with significant surface
warming do this
<2461> Osborn:
This is an excellent idea, Mike, IN PRINCIPLE at least. In practise, however,
it raises some interesting results […] the analysis will not likely lie near to
the middle of the cloud of published series and explaining the reasons behind
this etc. will obscure the message of a short EOS piece.
<4470> Norwegian Meteorological Institute:
In Norway and Spitsbergen, it is possible to explain most of the warming after
the 1960s by changes in the atmospheric circulation. The warming prior to 1940
cannot be explained in this way.
/// The Urban Heat Effect ///
<4938> Jenkins/MetO:
By coincidence I also got recently a paper from Rob which says “London’s UHI
has indeed become more intense since the 1960s esp during spring and summer”.
<0896> Jones:
I think the urban-related warming should be smaller than this, but I can’t
think of a good way to argue this. I am hopeful of finding something in the
data that makes by their Figure 3.
<0044> Rean:
[…] we found the [urban warming] effect is pretty big in the areas we analyzed.
This is a little different from the result you obtained in 1990.
[…] We have published a few of papers on this topic in Chinese. Unfortunately,
when we sent our comments to the IPCC AR4, they were mostly rejected.
<4789> Wigley:
there are some nitpicky jerks who have criticized the Jones et al. data sets –
we don’t want one of those [EPRI/California Energy Commission meeting].
Jones:
The jerk you mention was called Good(e)rich who found urban warming at
all Californian sites.
<1601> Jones:
I think China is one of the few places that are affected [urban heat]. The
paper shows that London and Vienna (and also New York) are not affected in the
20th century.
<2939> Jones:
[…] every effort has been made to use data that are either rural and/or where
the urbanization effect has been removed as well as possible by statistical
means. There are 3 groups that have done this independently (CRU, NOAA and
GISS), and they end up with essentially the same results.
[…] Furthermore, the oceans have warmed at a rate consistent with the land.
There is no urban effect there.
/// Temperature Reconstructions ///
<1583> Wilson:
any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will
undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently
have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model
comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.
<4165> Jones:
what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene!
I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.
<3994> Mitchell/MetO
Is the PCA approach robust? Are the results statistically significant? It seems
to me that in the case of MBH the answer in each is no
<4241> Wilson:
I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I
could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures.
[…] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is
precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.
<3373> Bradley:
I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should
never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year
“reconstruction”.
<4758> Osborn:
Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the
middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the
MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data
‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!
<0886> Esper:
Now, you Keith complain about the way we introduced our result, while saying it
is an important one. […] the IPCC curve needs to be improved according to
missing long-term declining trends/signals, which were removed (by
dendrochronologists!) before Mann merged the local records together. So, why
don’t you want to let the result into science?
<4369> Cook:
I am afraid that Mike is defending something that increasingly can not be
defended. He is investing too much personal stuff in this and not letting the
science move ahead.
<5055> Cook:
One problem is that he [Mann] will be using the RegEM method, which provides no
better diagnostics (e.g. betas) than his original method. So we will still not
know where his estimates are coming from.
/// Science and Religion ///
<2132> Wigley:
I heard that Zichichi has links with the Vatican. A number of other greenhouse
skeptics have extreme religious views.
<4394> Houghton [MetO, IPCC co-chair]
[…] we dont take seriously enough our God-given responsibility to care for the
Earth […] 500 million people are expected to watch The Day After Tomorrow. We
must pray that they pick up that message.
<0999> Hulme:
My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a
job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of
God’s planet into research and action.
<3653> Hulme:
He [another Met scientist] is a Christian and would talk authoritatively about
the state of climate science from the sort of standpoint you are wanting.
/// Climate Models ///
<3111> Watson/UEA:
I’d agree probably 10 years away to go from weather forecasting to ~ annual
scale. But the “big climate picture” includes ocean feedbacks on all time
scales, carbon and other elemental cycles, etc. and it has to be several
decades before that is sorted out I would think. So I would guess that it will
not be models or theory, but observation that will provide the answer to the
question of how the climate will change in many decades time.
<5131> Shukla/IGES:
[“Future of the IPCC”, 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be
willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the
projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and
simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.
<2423> Lanzante/NOAA:
While perhaps one could designate some subset of models as being poorer in a
lot of areas, there probably never will be a single universally superior model
or set of models. We should keep in mind that the climate system is complex, so
that it is difficult, if not impossible to define a metric that captures the
breath of physical processes relevant to even a narrow area of focus.
<1982> Santer:
there is no individual model that does well in all of the SST and water vapor
tests we’ve applied.
<0850> Barnett:
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the
modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
<5066> Hegerl:
[IPCC AR5 models]
So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long
suspected us of doing […] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing
correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
<4443> Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low
level clouds.
<4085> Jones:
GKSS is just one model and it is a model, so there is no need for it to be
correct.
/// The Cause ///
<3115> Mann:
By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year
reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> Mann:
They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic
example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted
upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a
bit.
<0810> Mann:
I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s
doing, but its not helping the cause
<3594> Berger:
Phil,
Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.
<0121> Jones:
[on temperature data adjustments] Upshot is that their trend will increase
<4184> Jones:
[to Hansen] Keep up the good work! […] Even though it’s been a mild winter in
the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish – expected though given the
La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!
<5294> Schneider:
Even though I am virtually certain we shall lose on McCain-Lieberman, they are
forcing Senators to go on record for for against sensible climate policy
/// Freedom of Information ///
<2440> Jones:
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself
and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the
process
<2094> Briffa:
UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails]
anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC
task.
<2459> Osborn:
Keith and I have just searched through our emails for anything containing
“David Holland”. Everything we found was cc’d to you and/or Dave Palmer, which
you’ll already have.
<1473> McGarvie/UEA Director of Faculty Administration:
As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to
communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken
that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that
we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)
<1577> Jones:
[FOI, temperature data]
Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we
get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (US
Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original
station data
noviembre 22, 2011 at 1:42 pm
[…] cortesía de Plazaeme (enlace a su blog!), quien es el primero en enterarse y con cuyo permiso publico estas […]
noviembre 22, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Ya estoy bajándome el archivo!
noviembre 22, 2011 at 2:14 pm
¡Yo ya lo había pillado! lo primero 😉
noviembre 22, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Joer, no hemos terminado de hacer leña de un árbol caído y ya tenemos otro en espera. Nos espera un invierno caliente 😉
noviembre 22, 2011 at 3:24 pm
😀
noviembre 22, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Alguno de los presentes sabe como usar los scripts que publica McIntyre?
Aquí, en comentarios: http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/22/new-climategate-emails/
noviembre 22, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Parecen scripts de bases de datos. Creo que va a resultar más fácil (es lo que estoy haciendo), publicarlos en una página web y hacer búsquedas estándar sobre ella… al menos como primera aprox. En un rato os cuento.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Perfecto, entonces espero 🙂
noviembre 22, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Sí, son para “R”:
http://www.r-project.org/
Es el programa que usan todos los “auditores climáticos” de la tropa de McIntyre, para estadística.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Acabo de llegar. Juas! qué bueno! Russel y Oxburgh tienen que estar contentos. Y también he visto al bueno de Cook por ahí 😀
A ver qué encuentro (el archivo ya no se abre)
noviembre 22, 2011 at 5:58 pm
http://tinyurl.com/d7jxlt7
prueba con ese torrent
noviembre 22, 2011 at 6:05 pm
Bah, si no te los pongo en internet por lo directo en un ratito.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Gracias! ¿merece la pena? La otra vez sacaron una base de datos con buscador al día siguiente.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm
Supongo que te merece la pena esperar. Pero si quieres, por el morbo, he puesto separados los emails abiertos, unos 5.200, aquí:
http://cryp.dontexist.org/tmp/emails-foia-2011.zip
Son 30 MB, y el servidor es lento. Pero sirve.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Esa amenaza de los 220000 emails encriptados va a poner de los nervios a mas de un@
noviembre 22, 2011 at 6:48 pm
.
¿Coincidencia? Antón Uriarte sacando las vergüenzas de Hansen
http://antonuriarte.blogspot.com/2011/11/jeta-hansen.html
– Listado de premios, donaciones, viajes, regalos,…de quien dice salvarnos del Atxitxarramiento Universal. No dejan una.
– Por cierto ¿quiénes son esos de Foro Cluster de Energía del Pais Vasco?
Extraños ponentes para un tema climático :
– Ander Gurrutxaga, sociólogo.
– Daniel Calatayud, arquitecto.
– Ivan Muñiz, economista.
– Javier Armentia, astrofísico y showman. Director del Pamplonetario.
¡Vaya tropa de pilla-cachos!
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Bueno, pues yo por mi parte estoy colgando los mails en bloques de 1000 en Internet para que sea más facil hacer búsquedas. Cuesta porque pesan bastante, pero aquí va el primer tocho (del 1 al 999):
http://climategate2i.pen.io/edit
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:11 pm
¡Vaya! No me llegan vuestros comentarios (juraría que me he suscrito).
¡Empieza la batalla! Michael Mann está tuiteando como un poseso:
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:14 pm
La leche! Pero mejor seguirlo todo aquí:
http://twitter.com/#!/MichaelEMann
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Yes 🙂 Es que me ha gustado este del denier´s saloon…
Hashtag de la contra: #CRUHack2
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:17 pm
¡Ja, ja, ja, la confesión desde East Anglia:
As in 2009, extracts from emails have been taken completely out of context.
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/statements/CRUnov11
Pues como sean tan fuera de contexto como en 2009, la han jodido bien.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:25 pm
Parece ser que no hay e-mails posteriores a los que soltaron en 2009. O sea, que se robaron todos a la vez y sólo entregaron parte entonces:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/22/fresh-hacked-climate-science-emails
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:26 pm
Ay, Miguelito Miguelito, si no hunieseis hecho tantas trampas no tendrías que estar matando mensajeros sin descanso.
Si no hubierais trincado tanto y con tanta arrogancia…
¡A la cárcel!
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:29 pm
(Repetido por ahí arriba por confusión, puedes borrar ese Plaza)
Bueno, pues yo por mi parte estoy colgando los mails en bloques de 1000 en Internet para que sea más facil hacer búsquedas. Cuesta porque pesan bastante, pero aquí va el primer tocho (del 1 al 999):
http://climategate2i.pen.io/edit
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Ecleck, pide una contraseña 😦
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Perdón estoy atocinado, el vínculo es este (sin el edit):
http://climategate2i.pen.io/
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:02 pm
Nada, debo estar haciendo algo mal, me sale otra página y otro enlace (con el edit) que me pide otra vez contraseña.
De todas formas descarqué el zip de Plaza y he picoteado algunos y creo que me voy a tomar una aspirina ¡qué locura!
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:08 pm
No, no estas haciendo nada mal, es que resulta que da error cuando termina de cargarlo. Me estoy empezando a cansar así que a lo mejor merece la pena esperar a que alguien haga una herramienta web, y mientras usar Linux como dice plaza o los buscadores Google Desktop o Windows Desktop. De todas maneras si lo consigo colgar en algún sitio sin errores lo pondré aquí.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 7:52 pm
¡Ja, ja! Estaba jugando con los emails, y de repente he descomprimido los 5.200 en el escritorio. ¡Todo lleno de papelitos, hasta el horizonte!
Bueno, yo creo que lo más fácil, hasta que alguien haga una herramienta web, es descomprimirlos todos en un directorio, y usar “grep”, o “find”, etc. En linux o similar, claro.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Eso son palabras mayores para mí. Nada, de momento, sólo inspección general.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:22 pm
La verdad es que me he ido a los enlaces y a los twits que poneis, y es un poco como leer la guía telefónica. Y, como a Cathlyn, me ha entrado un dolor de cabeza espantoso ( resisto mal la lectura continuada en pantalla ).
Supongo que dentro de un par de meses saldrán en forma de libro. Y los podré leer a gusto.
Mientras tanto, y después de una aspirina, me descubro ante vuestra tenacidad. Espero que esa tenacidad sea recompensada, y que encontreis entre todos pruebas irrefutables de que son unos falsos y unos chorizos.
¡Que os sea leve, y Un Abrazo Valientes ! 🙂 🙂 🙂
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Oye, hasta ahora todo para especialistas informáticos. ¿Por qué alguien no se toma la molestia de explicar a la gente normal cómo se navega entre tanto e-mail? Please.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Es que necesitas una herramienta. De eso hablamos. Pero alguien la hará, en versión web, probablemente mañana. Avisaré.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:13 pm
Joer, convertid todo del tirón a PDF (cada uno en un archivo suelto y luego si se quiere se juntan todos) y usando las herramientas de búsqueda en varios archivos (o carpetas) del reader o del professional se encuentra todo. Así hago mis búsquedas con mis miles de papeles.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Leches! y yo trabajando! Sigo vuestros comentarios por e-mail, no os pierdo de vista 🙂
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:19 pm
El problema es que son 5349 mails que en un solo fichero de texto ocupa 68 Mb, demasiado para colgarlo facilmente en Internet. Yo lo he partido en bloques de 1000 y me sigue dando problemas, seguramente porque los ficheros adjuntos que aparecen de vez en cuando se copian en binario o en HEX en el propio cuerpo del mensaje, lo cual parece que no le guste a las opciones de copiar y pegar.
La opción de los PDF está bien pero lo suyo es dejarlo colgado en Internet para que cualquiera pueda buscar y explayarse con estos correos “sacados de contexto” 😉 Seguramente alguien lo este haciendo ya.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Púrguese el PDF y cuélguese. Lástima de liado que estoy.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Cognio, mi epigramatismo ha salido en meneame, todo un bautizo. 😀
noviembre 22, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Plaza o EclectiKus (creo que esta vez he puesto bien tu nombre) o alguno de los entendidos
Para los que no entendemos ni papa sobre el problema pero quisieramos saber algo, quizás podraíais hacernos un resumen y explicar subscintamente la importancia de esos mails.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Sí, intentaré hacer un resumen mañana. Pero tal vez no tenga tiempo. La idea general es que se ve muy bien el ambiente entre los científicos alarmistas, sus emails entre ellos. Y lo que se descubre es lo menos científico del mundo. Son como abogados de parte, obsesionados en probar un caso, pero no en saber lo que ocurre de verdad. Tipo de ponemos a este a este y a este en el IPCC, que son de los nuestros. Hay que conseguir que no salga este estudio, que es una putada. Va a ser jodido deshacerse del Período Cálido Medieveal en Groenlandia. La manera de plantear esto es así y así, para causar más impacto. Ese tipo de cosas.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Gracias
Bueno creo que eso que dices ya da una idea, pero si que estaría bien, sin prisas, cuando tengas tiempo, que nos hagas ese resumen.
Me da un poco de apuro ser tan pedigüeña y a veces tienes bastante paciencia, pero ya sabes que “contra el vicio de pedir hay la virtud de no dar”
noviembre 22, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Lo has escrito perfectamente tmpd. Aparte de lo que muy bien dice plaza, yo añadiría que no parece que haya nada nuevo que no supiéramos ya: que no se ha demostrado nada y que todas las conclusiones se basan en unos modelos que no representan la realidad ni de coña. La verdad es que son muchos correos y como la otra vez los hay con distintos niveles de relevancia.
Yo esta noche o mañana escribiré algo en El Escéptico Climático, amén de poner enlaces a los mails en formato PDF, partidos en cachos para que sea más fácil descargárselos y hacer búsquedas en ellos.
noviembre 22, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Mira, Tmpd, unos ejemplos de Climate Audit:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.
Barnett:
[IPCC AR5 models] clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
Jones:
Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.
Jones:
I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process
Mann:
the important thing is to make sure they’re (los escépticos) loosing the PR battle. That’s what
the site [Real Climate] is about.
Y un resumen de Craig Loehle (climatólogo escéptico):
Those defending the IPCC team seem to be taking the stance that these emails are no big deal, and nothing illegal. Here is why I think it matters:
1) Actively subverting FOIA intent
2) Admitting a) Hockey stick flawed & Steve is right, b) hide decline was dishonest, c) climate models are pretty bad, and d) cherry picking results like Japan hurricanes to emphasize a pre-ordained message
3) Trying to manipulate (and probably succeeding) who gets to be IPCC author
4) Trying to manage the message (PR concern)
5) Viewing science results as helping or hurting “the cause” — Mann especially
All the above subverts the official messages of “overwhelming consencus” and “science is settled”, world’s best scientists just doing their science, and that it would be “absurd” to see a conspiracy.
Esta es importante, pero no la entenderás. También de Loehle:
My favorite one so far is where they admit tuning the models to 20th Century climate, which in debates (e.g., one I had in person with Michael Schlesinger and others at Judith’s) is strenuously denied.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/22/new-climategate-emails/#comments
noviembre 23, 2011 at 12:19 am
Desde esta entrada de El Escéptico Climático se pueden descargar los 5349 correos del Climategate 2.0 en formato PDF. Los he agrupado en bloques de 1000 correos, excepto el último que tiene solo 349. Creo que así son más manejables sobre todo para hacer búsquedas, por palabras o por golfos.
noviembre 23, 2011 at 12:28 am
Espléndido.
Gracias, J.A. Pena que no me pille más libre, lo que me divertiría buscando relaciones, cruces… A veces hace falta ser soltero para estas cosas.
noviembre 23, 2011 at 12:38 am
De nada, ya se van leyendo cosas por ahí que dejan poco margen a la presunción de inocencia. Iremos viendo.
noviembre 23, 2011 at 1:23 am
Pues sí que se lee mucho mejor, gracias! Pero ya casi lo dejo para mañana, que estoy atufada. Eso sí, no puedo resistirme a darle un vistazo al inefable Ferrán, qué menda.
(Ah! Anthony Mann era el de Sara Montiel; el “nuestro” es Michael 😉 )
noviembre 23, 2011 at 6:46 am
JAjjaja cierto, Micharl E Mann. Corregido, gracias.
Lo de Ferran como siempre de psiquiatra. Por cierto Plaza, te menciona veladamente (ergo te sigue):
“…me he enterado casi inmediatamente de producirse el hecho, por la vía de un conocido bloguero negacionista profesional celtibérico sin duda bien conectado.”
🙂 🙂 🙂
noviembre 23, 2011 at 9:15 am
Jajajaja. Sip, yo no vi los comentarios hasta ayer y Plaza va acumulando apelativos 😀 , todo un honor. También dice que se ha aparecido al menos dos veces en forma de reptil, pero yo sólo recuerdo una!!
noviembre 23, 2011 at 8:14 am
Acabo de publicar un nuevo post, más que nada para enlazar a los pdf de Eclectikus.
Regreso al curro… 😦
noviembre 23, 2011 at 9:18 am
Ánimo Luis. De momento la gente sólo está comentando mensajes sueltos y repitiendo cosas de un blog a otro. A ver por dónde salen hoy 🙂
noviembre 23, 2011 at 8:17 am
[…] lo más destacado del nuevo escándalo [–>] de los alarmistas del clima, la gran diferencia con el escándalo anterior (nov 2009), es que […]
noviembre 25, 2011 at 12:24 am
[…] Plazamoyua […]
noviembre 25, 2011 at 11:18 pm
[…] Climategate II. Nueva filtración masiva de emails de los alarmistas del clima plazamoyua.com […]
febrero 19, 2014 at 12:13 am
[…] Climategate II. Nueva filtración masiva de emails de los alarmistas del clima plazamoyua.com […]