Some thoughts and some questions about the Climategate 2.0 release.

Two years ago, I did what can only be described as a highly speculative profile of the climategate leaker. You can find it here. I strongly suggest you read it now or you’ll have some difficulty following the rest of this piece. Reading it again in the light of what more can be deduced about them from the second release, it holds up surprisingly well. Where it falls down very badly is not so much in its broad conclusions, which I think are basically in the ballpark, but in the whistleblower’s intensity. Boy was I wrong on that.

They’ve sat on the new material for two years and apart from one possible communication, the “no deal was done” comment on a blog, we’ve not heard a word from them. In that time, they’ve no doubt seen their motivations both lauded and slandered and have never came forward to either accept the plaudits or defend themselves from the attacks. That shows a level of patience and self-discipline only someone on a mission has. We’re very definitely looking at a person driven by integrity and conviction, someone who can’t be bought or sold, either by common coin or by popular recognition. People like that never give up and they’re nearly impossible to either spot or stop.

Keeping a secret that you know you can’t share with anyone else is a constant background stress. Keeping a very big secret is like having a giant boulder on your shoulders that gets heavier and heavier, grinding you down on a daily basis. It takes a huge toll on your resources but they’ve kept their secret successfully for two years. Believe me, that takes a mental and emotional strength that few people possess.

Looking at the “Background and Context” section of the readme file that came with the latest release, their motivation is plain for all to see, as are a number of other things. They are quite prepared to burn climate science down to its very foundations to stop it being used to justify environmental policies that they believe are killing people in the developing world. It is a motivation and strategy I share with them. My admiration of them is only tempered by my awe at the escalated level of risk they’ve now decided to take on.

A question I’ve always asked myself about the original climategate release and the new one too, is one that as far as I can tell, surprisingly no one else appears to ever have speculated on. I’ve never raised it publically because I feared it might intensify the hunt for them by forces more powerful than anything UEA or Norwich constabulary can bring to bear but as I’m now sure that with their latest release, they’ve taken care of that problem, I’ll share it now.

Yes, they’ve given us all the top-level conspiratorial correspondence between the likes of Jones, Trenberth, Hansen, Mann et al but these are the very people who simply must have been communicating upwards to senior political figures or at least their most trusted advisers. Think about it for a moment, do you seriously think the latter plough their way through huge turgid IPCC reports and then hammer out policy and approach from them? No, of course not. These missing emails are the real dynamite at the secret heart of this release of climategate. We do not have a single one of those high-level political emails but they must of course exist.

I strongly suspect we now have them in our possession.

From the viewpoint of the political establishment, the original climategate was probably viewed as a squabble about the details of a branch of science and it was strictly confined to the blogosphere, since it was never reported on by the mainstream media. It looked like a one-off, so there was no ongoing political liability to worry about. Release 2 changes things, both for the whistleblower and the parties involved in the political emails. I’ve no doubt that at the time of the first release, the “scientists” assured the politicians that no significant political emails had been compromised and after two years of complete silence, it looked to be so.

With release 2, all bets are off. The release of explicit emails between scientists and senior political figures conspiring to deceive the electorate would not only be politically terminal but would also have to be reported on in the mainstream media. There’d be no way of ignoring them. The whistleblower is not going away and this means a real attempt is now going to be made to find them before they release any more emails. The last time, finding them was the last thing anyone wanted. This time, they simply have to be found and fast. Given the greater will and a lot more resources, there’s a real danger they’ll locate the leaker this time.

I don’t do conspiracy theories but have few illusions about what powerful political interests are capable of when they’re threatened, so I’ve no doubt that having located them, a point solution can easily be implemented. It would have to be something suitably grubby to completely destroy the credibility of the leaker. For instance, frame them up for downloading child pornography, try them, jail them and throw away the key. Who’d believe a word from a disgraced scientist sitting in cell because of their disgusting paedophile tendencies? Safely locked away and with absolutely no access to a computer, they’d be nullified. They simply wouldn’t be able to release any more material.

The leaker’s solution to this problem, and I have to say it’s rather neat, is to release all the remaining material now. Release 2 contains the political emails and all it needs is the magic pass phrase to unmask them. It could be uttered at some phony trial on trumped-up charges, it could be uttered to a fellow prisoner, it could be disclosed to their lawyer. It could be left with a few trusted friends with instructions as to who to send it to if anything untoward should happen to them. Allowing for the very worst, it could even be in their last will and testament.

Not only will the pass phrase unlock all the encoded emails but it’ll confirm beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the person who knew it is the climategate leaker, even if they are sitting in a jail cell somewhere. In the parlance of cryptography, the pass phrase authenticates them.

What’s more, there may be more than one pass phrase. Climategate 2 is a bomb with a dead man’s hand detonator attached to it and it may very well be cluster munition as well.


CG2 landed as a complete surprise to us all and for a number of reasons, I felt it important to get a piece out on it as quickly as possible. Reading it again, there’s stuff I should have expanded on and there are a few more thoughts I’d have added, if I’d had the time. Some of them might be possible answers to the questions being raised. I’ll kick them into play now.

I said in the original profile that I thought FOIA started out being very innocent politically and I’d have to stick to that assessment. There’s simply no other credible explanation for trying to offer CG1 to a news organisation like the BBC that’s so chronically biased when it comes to anything to do with the environment. I think they’ve learnt a lot about Realpolitik in the two years since CG1 and it shows. There is a different flavour to the material in the second release and it echoes the transition most of us made on our own journeys into becoming climate skeptics.

The first phase was finally admitting to myself that the science was simply junk; there wasn’t any other word for it. The second phase was realising that even though the science was junk, that wouldn’t stop the madness because at heart, global warming was never about the science. It was always about politics. It doesn’t actually matter if the science is crap. CG1 was a selection of emails aimed at showing the science was crap because at the time, they innocently believed that would be enough to do the job. I feel CG2 is more about showing the dirty politics at work behind the scenes. As people dig into the mountain of emails, I think that’ll become more apparent.

The timing of the release is of course intended to give the coup de grace to the Durban clambake but everyone knew that it was always doomed to be a going down the pan, whatever happened. I have a feeling that they were spooked by something else, possibly a renewal of police investigations. I really don’t know what that might have been.

In response, I think they gave us everything they had to make sure it got out in the event they got nabbed. They hid the rest of the material behind a practically uncrackable wall of encryption and only they know the pass phrase. They’ve had two years to think about how to structure that. If I were in their position, I’d rig it all up with several pass phrases, each of which would release a new tranch of material. I reckon there’s a good chance CG2 contains not only CG3 but CG4, CG5 etc etc. It’s a cluster bomb.

FOIA have put themselves under the big blowtorch once again by releasing CG2 but that would be nothing compared to heat which would have been generated if CG2 contained a single one of the big political emails. eg correspondence between Jones/Blair, Hansen/Obama. Like I said, they’ve learnt a lot in the last two years, not just about politics but about survival, a part of which is knowing precisely how far you can push your luck while still having a bit of insurance.

Think about it and sleep well, you climate masters of the universe.


Related articles by Pointman :

A profile of the climategate whistleblower.

Why climategate was not a computer hack

The README file that came with climategate 2.0 

Click for a list of other articles.

86 Responses to “Some thoughts and some questions about the Climategate 2.0 release.”
  1. scud says:

    Excellent analysis P!
    Can I hear the collective hum of fibrillating sphincters?…You know what?…I think I can!

    • Pointman says:

      Do you mind if I “borrow” that phrase the “hum of fibrillating sphincters” some day Scud? It’s a blinder mate.


      • Scud1 says:

        He he P…fibrillate away to your hearts content! TBH I think I first clocked something similar on a YouTube thread concerning Gordon Brown…something about his arse fibrillatiing like a humming bird. I get the same thing every time I have to go visit my bastard GP…dunno why.

  2. Harry Kal says:

    Great analysis.
    Hope they are forced or willing to give away the password soon.

  3. Edward. says:


    Now I bow to you here P, your grasp of this has always been my go to page, for what is is worth here are my first confused ramblings, written on the hoof as it were.

    I still don’t perceive, better fathom, his/her [call him or her – X] modus operandi, yes, X believes the AGW scam to be just that and this gentleman or lady cannot be praised highly enough – thank you! Wherever and whoever you are, I think you are a remarkable human being.

    Did X believe releasing the first email tranche pre Copenhagen would be enough? Probably not, I would surmise. But then, why not release the whole lot there and then?
    Thinking back, one forgets the potency and formidable power of those first revelations, boy oh boy did they spike the guns of the UN agenda 21, IPCC, EU, Brown and Britain’s Labour lunatics and all the other boys and girls on the climate gravy train. I remember feeling exhilarated by the collapse of the talks, it was a good feeling and Lord though, how close it all was!
    The fanfare and hype over the Obama arrival was supposed to seal the deal – true to form – nothing accrued except ……………….hot air.

    BUT [incredibly]…………………… could there be further and greater scandal to be revealed? And yes P, as you say, there most probably is.

    I believe X to have one or two close and very trusted associates/colleagues/good friends more likely – and they must be people of Saintly repute with unquestioned records of probity, X must, no, has to have a back-up and stuff hoarded in secret all over the world and who knows where X actually is – could it be in Reading, Exeter or in Pennsylvania – more likely in Norwich but who knows?

    Yes P, you’re probably correct about the series 3 – it will have to be by far the most explosive revelations and E Mann, Jones, Trenberth et al are in cahoots with some formidable political allies – they must be – the pathetic stitch-up inquiries [CRU] were a sham and deliberately so – that takes some clout to organise.
    I am sure that these emails contain some spicy stuff and link in some really big names and political players…………….but who?! An ecstasy of speculation it is.

    In Britain, the Nu scum administration must have been steeped in AGW backroom dealings and political shenanigans, as to other world figures, your guess is as good as mine.

    And wouldn’t X be hating every minute or………………….. ?

  4. Edward. says:

    Or, is it Jones himself?

  5. Mack I Avelli says:

    Thanks Pointman for your incisive analysis. The timing of this release is very interesting. Was it a second anniversary present to scuttle Durban or was it that the hunters were getting closer. Durban appeared to be dead in the water. The Bishop was just one who had recently nudged the Norwich plods,which coincidentally prompted my enquiry to you on a recent post as to whether you had any news. They probably guessed who “deep throat” was anyway, but finally realised that it was not going to be forgotten as their masters had hoped and restarted their enquiries. We know FOIA had not done any deal from their post on CA and so it was time to take the next step to protect him/her/themselves and/or put FOIA in a position to make a deal. Is fact stranger than fiction. Its like being in the middle of a Steig Larsson or a Dan Brown thriller. I just hope FOIA survives and wins. If your analysis is correct FOIA could be in real danger. FOIA will probably never realise just how many people, particularly here in the blogosphere, admire and respect he/she/them.

  6. Vivi Evans says:

    Excellent analysis, pointman.

    I agree that one of the driving forces behind both releases must be the anger about the exploitation of the people in developing countries, which, like you, I share.
    The anger at the destruction of natural habitats – something the green brigade professes to love so much – may also have played a role.
    I also admire how they have studiously avoided any publicity – a great feat in these days of cheap celebrity fame.

    The political string-pullers and the helpers in the MSM are slowly being revealed now that people have started to dig into the files.
    See the thread about the involvement of the World Bank at WUWT, see the threads about the involvement of the BBC at the bish’s place.

    This is going to be far more damaging to far more people in power than what we found in Climategate 1. Lots of people aren’t bothered about proper science, but lots and lots of people will be very much bothered when they learn that their high energy bills are due also to the fact that the BBC pushed ‘the cause’ by stealth, politicians playing along.

    Cliamtegate 2 is not “just more of the same” – we can already see that it plays at a much higher level.

    As everybody, I wonder what is in the encrypted file. One thing is for sure, when they become available, the bang will reverberate even further and wider.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome Vivi. Like you, I think “the bang will reverberate even further and wider.”


    • Westie says:

      This CC2 release reminds me a lot of Andrew Brietbart’s SOP in his battle against the Corrupted Media Elite….bravo to Pointman for a terrific analysis. I’m already dreaming of a Christmas with Climate criminals doing the perp walk!

  7. Pointman, I agree with pretty much everything you say here. Most important is the motivation we share of the deadly effect of irrational yet self-righteous green dictates on the developing world – or more particularly on the bottom billion, as Paul Collier delineates it. If I do a blog post of my own this week it will be called “The Criminal that Cares”, reflecting the mass media’s incomprehension over this fundamental point about our friend FOIA.

    The main question I have on what you’ve argued is whether FOIA has the higher-level political emails. They’ve not made that claim but I suspect that by now it is known one way or the other to the powers that be. I agree that if so, we already have the encrypted version.

    Not only will the pass phrase unlock all the encoded emails but it’ll confirm beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the person who knew it is the climategate leaker, even if they are sitting in a jail cell somewhere. In the parlance of cryptography, the pass phrase authenticates them.

    That’s a very good point and a very neat trick.

    What I’ve been thinking about, in addition to the amazing self-control of FOIA, is whether they had the foresight and brilliance to draw the Russell, Boulton, Oxburgh level into their net with Climategate 1 so that on release 2 all these hangers on and sycophants would be exposed as the hopeless frauds they are. I’m not saying our hero could have known all the names that would be chosen but did they foresee the cover-up process that well? I’m inclined to think yes. The timing may have to do with allowing the dust to setlle and the sceptics to have identified the main troublemakers. But I also think Durban and Copenhagen were highly symbolic for the whistleblower somehow.


    FOIA will probably never realise just how many people, particularly here in the blogosphere, admire and respect he/she/them.

    And pray for them. I know it’s a controversial word but perhaps this will help: an atheist I once met online suggested Prayer As True Thought (it was a thought instantiated in a wiki page in a wild discussion I once tried to lead). It’s stuck with me because that is at the very least a strict superset of what I would mean by prayer. And I like its inclusivity. Whatever, FOIA deserves every good thing our worldviews would allow us to send, bless em.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome Richard.

      If there’s one thing about FOIA I admire, and probably frightens the Bejazus out of a lot of people, is that they don’t do “claims” or manifestos or any other grandstanding stuff.

      I’m not a religious man but this blog is at heart an act of faith. Here, you don’t have to excuse yourself for believing in something.


      • cali says:


        You too have done a great service to us! Thank you!

        Whomever the leaker(s) are, hopefully they know how much we appreciate their risky actions, having faith in their safety; their principles of exposing this fraud in different parts, and the building up to the ultimate bomb – exposing these corrupt rascals by name. By now I’m sure these power players are sweating, frantically searching for the leaker(s), hoping as you said catching him/her/them before the final blow. This is bigger than we can imagine!

        Pointman, your site was linked by Ace of spades; otherwise I would not have known about your site; that too was not by accident. Please keep continue to keep us informed!

  8. MikeO says:

    Before Copenhagen the BASIC group of countries met in Beijing to discuss tactics. They signed a nonbinding agreement with the USA. It has all the usual mantra but it is non binding and asks for the developed countries to pay the developing countries to reduce GHG. China before Copenhagen asked for 2% of GDP. This will never happen but a good tactic. The BASIC group wants to make sure any future agreement does not commit them. It is an advantage if the West continues the climate madness so damage but not destroy. Climategate is good to do this so are they behind it? I think most probably they are and it is espionage so we have cat and mouse game. An insider would have been found by now but probably knowing who will not help!

  9. meltemian says:

    Aargggh! Pointman, you’ve done it again! You’ve managed to pull together all the vague thoughts I’ve had floating round my inadequate brain for the last few days.
    You and Edward have got me pondering again,
    ….and Mack – it’s definitely Steig Larsson!!
    I just hope FOIA has got all the exits covered.

  10. meltemian says:

    You’ve probably seen this already, judging by the comments nobody much wants to help.

    • Pointman says:

      Yup, saw it Mel. LOL. With an Inspector Clouseau like that idiot after me, I wouldn’t be putting on any running shoes. Quite the reverse actually. Hit me again barkeep, keep ’em coming and have one yourself while you’re about it …


    • Labmunkey says:

      I like that the guardian calls the release a ‘hack’ as a general term, not because inf act they have any evidence that it was a hack.

      But hacks a good enough term, just as good as say, leak.

  11. Green Sand says:

    Hi Pointman, your mind still working well I see!

    I have a little niggle; the reason for the disquiet and questioning of climate science gathered pace when information was withheld. The team seemed to closed ranks to deny the outside world.

    Now in a very bizarre juxtaposition we have another “entity” withholding information, censoring (if only by omission) what is made available and when. Why?

    I would like to think that this is to allow orderly “corrections” to be made without bringing down the whole edifice with a potentially detremental crash?

    Don’t know, before the email releases I had the feeling we were being played and now I have this niggle that we are being played yet again and we can only guess why. Time will tell…

  12. MikeO says:

    I will bet that FOIA represents a government. If a government wanted to dig into what was actually happening in “Climatological Science” (an oxymoron?) then you need someone one on the inside. You can not get someone to pose as scientific friend it would take too long so you look at communication. Wegman’s report on the Hockey Stick showed who the key players are and how they are connected. The CRU then becomes obvious so then you get someone into the IT area. This person must to be effective get access to the central mail server. There is at least one email from Jones asking that mail be deleted, surely he would have deleted that also. The mail came from the central system where he could not delete it. This all means the focus of who did it is on very few people. After two years they do not know who it was, come on pull the other one they must know but can not take them into custody. Or do they have someone and CG 2 is to throw doubt into the mix. Pointman your thought that the hidden mails involve people very high in the political hierachy I think is right. Obama’s action at Copenhagen is explainable if some other pressure was being applied to him. The whole CG story is a game that FOIA as an individual could not play the opposing forces are too large.

    Do not forget all of you on this and other such blogs we are most likely watched. My brother asked for information from the Communist Party for a Uni essay way back. Years later he found because he had reached a position of political power that there was an ASIO dossier saying he was a communist sympathiser.

    PS. I think that most of you think there is little worth in my view that it was espionage so I will say no more.

  13. illumidata says:

    New arrival – via a somewhat circuitous route (a twtter timeline, that guardian post linked above, your “great white” profile, FOIA profile 1 and finally this). Would it be presumptuous to conclude that, given the patience, mental fortitude & IT literacy you’ve alluded to, FOIA fits at least part of the uber hacker profile (I’m unsuccessfully resisting the temptation to promote ethical hackers to the level of modern folk hero). Also, is it possible that the original recipient of CG 1.0 was targeted precisely because he was a junior BBC reporter, i.e. someone with the capacity to fly in the face of Aunty Bignose’s editorial policies who might just have been able to get the message out on mainstream media before getting flyswatted by his elders and betters? Given his subsequent behaviour, I don’t think political naivité is on our man’s CV, so was it actually a strategic move designed to validate the subsequent RU server hosting?
    Amateur musings I know, so I’ll just conclude by thanking you for the incisive commentary – I’ve sat on the fence long enough re. AGW (lack of investigation / too busy surviving) – feels good to have a position based on solid facts! Off to read everything else here now =)

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome illumidata. That was a hullava route but you tracked me down in the end! Always nice to meet someone with an open mind. Enjoy your reading.


  14. Edward. says:


    “I get the same thing every time I have to go visit my bastard GP…dunno why.”

    I always wondered what the England openers felt like in Summer 84 v Windies – a similar experience – remember Andy Lloyd?

    • scud says:

      Wotcha Ed!
      You know I’m getting a lovely warm feeling of déjà vu here. Those halcyon days over at the emerging greatness of the Delingpole blog.

      He he, Andy Lloyd! I wasn’t much interested in cricket during this era (though my brother never tires of reminding me of what I missed) but I’ve just looked him up…

      ”After making ten runs, and batting for thirty three minutes, he was hit on the head by the West Indies fast bowler, Malcolm Marshall. Despite wearing a helmet, Lloyd spent several days in hospital, and played no further cricket in 1984.[1] He never played for England again. He is the only Test Match opening batsman never to have been dismissed.”…
      …poor chap! and indeed ‘fibrillating material’.

      More on CG 2: Lean has attempted a riposte and boy is it pathetic… …but check out the comments! Our old friend ‘Catweazle’ has posted a show-stopper but there’s a jaw dropping discovery from ‘Welietoyouandwereproud’ that’s been picked up by WUWT who says:

      Allow me to share my favorite mail so far. I guess this is what you mean by a damp squib. The complete and utter destruction of the BBC’s claim to be impartial on the issue of climate change?

      This is the BBC’s Alex Kirby replying to Phil Jones of the climate research unit. Its part of the climategate 2 email releases.

      “Yes, glad you stopped this — I was sent it too, and decided to spike it without more ado as pure stream-of-consciousness rubbish. I can well understand your unhappiness at our running the other piece. But we are constantly being savaged by the loonies for not giving them any coverage at all, especially as you say with the COP in the offing, and being the objective impartial (ho ho) BBC that we are, there is an expectation in some quarters that we will every now and then let them say something. I hope though that the weight of our coverage makes it clear that we think they are talking through their hats.”

      What IS the beeb gonna do?

      Oh joy! Great weekend to all.

      • Edward. says:

        Hiya scud,

        Good on yer mate!

        “What IS the beeb gonna do?”

        Now scud, between Pointy, your good self an’ me, I am sure we could come up with summat!?

        Have a good weekend to all!

      • Pointman says:

        Wow! That’s a great email Scud. Keep digging folks. Maybe it’s time to do a special on the BBC?


  15. Apoxonbothyourhouses says:

    I find it most curious that we have the names of the Gravy Train Riders (Mann, Jones etc.) but not one bureaucrat or politician. 1000% agreement that this obscene waste of taxes could be so much better spent on the genuinely disadvantaged – think schools, electricity, clean water in Africa for starters. However to reverse this nonsense action will eventually have to be at a political level not a scientific one. Could “Whistleblower” not have used his ammunition to initiate such a reverse?

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome APOBYH. I think if they’d released any big names, they’d be sitting in a cell by the end of the week. They know they’re on very thin ice.


      • Apoxonbothyourhouses says:

        Cannot agree on this one. I would have thought that a PM / cabinet minister “sitting in a cell” would be EXACTLY what “Whistleblower” would want / need to get this farce onto the front page of the Guardian. Would that not also initiate a complete review of where the money is being allocated? Do we have the name of the bureaucrat who encouraged Jones (?) to write a “strong” statement. If so the trail must lead back to the minister?

      • Pointman says:

        Sorry mate, i meant FOIA sitting in a cell. Apologies …


  16. alexjc38 says:

    Pointman, this is one of the most interesting and intriguing analyses of CG2 that I’ve read yet. I’m wondering what “We are not planning to publicly release the passphrase” implies, though. Could it be a bluff, i.e., that there is nothing particularly special in the encrypted emails but simply the threat that there might be something there might be enough to create an effect? Or could it be that the passphrase will be released to a select few who will then release it publicly? Just guessing, really. But I really like your “bomb with a dead man’s hand detonator” idea. No wonder the Guardianistas are in a bit of a tizzy over this!

  17. I always wondered why they released a bunch of encrypted mails. Your explanation sounds both plausible and logical. Thanks

  18. thojak says:

    Great post, Pointman – many thanks! 😀

    I agree w your analysis that there have to be some rather ‘important’ with hidden agenda who are ‘pulling the strings’, granting the ‘exclusive’ so called ‘scientists’ large financial + other benefits in order to more/less ‘corner’ the world. After re-reading the work of J. Nordangård “Thoughts leading to Action”(*) + various in depth going analysis, i.e. Jeff Id’s, the ‘puzzle’ is coming to completion, however really scary!

    Have a nice weekend!
    Brgds from Sweden
    (*): link:

  19. Interesting stuff, nicely done.

    Just one small detail: There’s no cluster-bomb; the encrypted archive (all.7z) contains a single directory and the directory contains a little over 220,000 files, the largest of which are of the ordwer of a couple of Mb in size – almost certainly too small to be another archive of any substance. This, then, is almost certainly the balance of the leaked information, and I suspect it is entirely made up of emails – just as it says in README.txt.

    In my opinion, once the bolt is shot, it’s shot – which probably means it never will be. I think all.7z is an insurance policy to guard against scenarios such as you mention (not that I necessarily believe they are likely, but if I was the whistleblower I’d probably do something similar just in case).

    I suspect other releases might follow separately, but I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for the passphrase for all.7z – it’s just not going to happen unless the whistleblower feels threatened – and only as a last resort.

    Just my UKP0.02.

    • Pointman says:

      Hello and welcome Derek.

      I’m aware of the structure of the encrypted files. Even if there is one pass phrase that frees up the contents of the directory, there’s simply no guaranteed that what you’ve just freed up is just nothing more than a collection of individual files which have been encrypted themselves. Double encryption is common. It’s a bit like the extra wheel added to the Enigma machine by the Kriegsmarine.


      • Good point, and one I’d overlooked.

      • Atomic Hairdryer says:

        I think the file sizes leave little scope for multiple encryption. They do leave more scope for sphincter fibrillation though.

        CG1 gave us the FOI issues and inquiries clearing Jones, give or take the ICO’s prima facie evidence. Jones also told UK government he did not delete emails. CG2 gives us emails telling us he did delete mails pertaining to Hollands request, meaning Jones lied to government. Russell didn’t look very closely at these accusations, and we don’t know if the ICO saw any of the emails released in CG2. But they contradict statements made after CG1. We also know from Russell that:

        “The further emails provided for analysis amounted to 7.95Gb”

        The encrypted file is only 180MB. The UEA’s sphincter owners might be wondering which 180MB given the total release is still <5% of their email archive. How might they contradict themselves this time, with the sword of 7z hanging over their heads?

  20. creeper00 says:

    Now I understand why Gore did not run in 2008.

    Fascinating series, Pointman. Thank you.

  21. sunnygirl says:

    Know nothing about all the ins and outs of CG1 or CG2 other than the expose that I am grateful for. Most of this feels like I am learning a foreign language by immersion and it is overwhelming but I cannot stop my reading of the details and commentary.

    One day, with the help of you Point, WUWT, and ClimateAudit I may have at least a partial understanding of the manipulation of data the went on for years.

    Thank you for your analysis.

  22. SkiPhil says:

    Hi, great blog and analysis. I’m new to and fairly distant to all this (only following a bit casually at Climate Audit and WUWT), but I’d just like to offer a couple of points (there are merely my own speculations and not from any particular knowledge of these events):

    1) FOIA may well have ‘known’ how unlikely it was that offering CG1 to the BBC reporter would go anywhere, but may have thought it worth doing to show he/they had tried more normal ‘whistleblower’ options before resorting to sending CG1 to a Russian server and blogs etc. It also served to dramatize the intellectual and moral corruption of the BBC and major media, which normally would jump at leaks and revelations if said leaks were more ‘welcome’ to the party line.

    2) putting out the encrypted packet of 220,000 or however many emails need not preclude separate CG ‘releases’ in the future, i.e., debate about levels of encrypted packets within the (7z??) do not really matter much if FOIA remains free and able to make separate CG releases in the future, one can only hope and dream! ha ha

    Anyway, thanks for the fascinating analyses and I look forward to reading more of your blog and all of this CG info.

  23. Pointman says:

    Hello and welcome creeper00, sunnygirl, Atomic Hairdryer, Westie and SkiPhil. Forgive me for not doing it individually but I’m getting a bit overwhelmed by the numbers. Your thoughts and contributions to the debate are all welcome. Enjoy yourselves here.


    • creeper00 says:

      Thanks for the warm welcome, Pointman. This is an outstanding blog.

      I should have expanded a bit on my comment about Gore. First off, credit for understanding what actually happened there belongs to hubby. I was reading your post aloud to him when halfway through he said “Why didn’t Al Gore run in 2008?” (That was his subtle way of getting me to think.)

      The answer hit me like a ton of bricks.

      I’ve never questioned Gore’s sincere belief in what he was promulgating. I watched “An Inconvenient Truth” several times and nothing in it struck me as disingenuous. I’m convinced Gore truly believed what he was saying in that documentary and his position was consistent with his history.

      So he’s cruising toward the Democratic nomination–presidential qualifications in place and Oscar firmly in hand–when suddenly he just quit. Not only did he quit his own campaign, he was not instrumental in Obama’s, either. That never made sense to me.

      But what if he’d found out they’d been lying to him all along? Having staked everything on his environmental credentials he’d be left twisting in the wind, the object of ridicule and without a shred of credibility left. Which is pretty much where he is now, but without the perks of the White House.

      Had Gore been elected, the first document dump would have come less than a year into his term. I think he knew it was coming long before it did and that he had no choice but to bail.

      • Pointman says:

        Hiya creeper00 and thanks for the kind words. I have to admit, Gore always looked like a weasly breadhead to me. He was raking in $100,000 a pop for speaking engagements at the time. All he could see was dollar signs. Do you think the Dems might have nominated him again if he’d indicated he’d run?


      • Pointman says:

        Speaking about Pols believing in global warming, this happened a few months after the original climategate. They always knew it was all hot air. Even he can’t resist grinning …



      • creeper00 says:

        “Do you think the Dems might have nominated him again if he’d indicated he’d run?”

        I think it was at least possible. Gore had the political credentials, though he’d obviously aggravated the Clintons and he sure looked like he was running for a while there. For some reason he seemed to have lost the heart for it. But then I also think some very powerful Dems decided in 2004 who their nominee would be in ’08. It’s likely nothing would have stopped that train wreck.

        It didn’t really matter, of course. Voters were so sick of Bush any Democrat would have won. A registered Democrat at the time, I found myself actually working for McCain/Palin. Politics, bedfellows and all that.

        As for the current occupant of the White House…never mind. I just can’t go there without violating your rules for civility.

        But thanks for that YouTube link. I had not seen that. You can be assured I will be passing it along.

      • Pointman says:

        They could have run a suit on wheels against Bush and won. I think we agree on the current resident of the White House LOL.

        “Every man and his dog on Capitol Hill know that the Obama administration has been an unmitigated disaster. It’s become a classic dead man walking situation headed up by a one administration president who seems to be universally disliked or despised in equal measure. To be fair to the man, he’s been asked to handle a systemic banking crisis but with it, as with so many issues he’s supposed to have been tackling, the response has been abysmal. He talks the talk but he doesn’t rise to the challenges and he’s been found out. ”


      • thojak says:

        Talking about mr. Gore and his ‘pop’ (?) – assume that is appearance/speeches – that ‘man’ was [invited to] in Malmö/Sweden a couple of weeks ago, at $ 100K! No questions nor debate, came, bluddered and left faster than one can blink an eye. No noting mentioned in major Swedish media, apart from one major sponsor.
        Good as such and at same time really sad to notice that the AGW-grip here is still so tight that there are sponsors for such inane things.
        And, btw, the all but honourable Schellnhuber (of PIK, Germany) has been awarded Volvo’s environment medal. Geeeh, think of that when considering to buy a car…😉

        N.B.: Volvo here is the Chinese owned car manufacturer, NOT the lorry/heavy duty Volvo.

        Brgds from Sweden

      • Pointman says:

        Hi Thomas.

        I must have a look through the CG2 emails for anything between the CRU crew and the high priests of PIK. FOIA might not have recognised names like Schellnhuber as important when they split off the political emails. That could yield something interesting…


        ps. “a pop” is English slang for per time, per go or each

      • thojak says:

        Thanks for explanation of ‘pop’, Pointman.

        Yes, it is certainly well invested time to check zee deutsche prof Schellnhuber: This is a good start:

        Lots of ‘hot’ info there, especially in the comments.

        Brgds from Sweden

  24. Apoxonbothyourhouses says:

    Dear Pointman, There is a great deal of scientific debate on this site which is great. However contributors should be reminded that this is not an abstract debate. We are discussing the misplaced use of billions that could and should be used to improve the living standards of those in need. The “cause” these Gravy Train Riders are pushing is slowing down (for example) the introduction of inexpensive coal fired electricity in Africa. Without reliable power hospitals suffer, night-time education impossible – the list is goes on and on. This is not only about a bunch of pseudo scientists propping up their grants; this is denying millions better future.

  25. andycanuck says:

    Canada’s CBC has done this sort of thing too:

  26. Pointman says:

    Hello and welcome andycanuck, cali and Seedtickinohio. Enjoy yourselves here.


  27. bitanphoto says:

    The lack of science is bad enough, but it’s impossible for me to take seriously someone like Michael Mann, whose basic English level is simply atrocious. To wit:
    “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”

    “the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what
    the site [Real Climate] is about.”

  28. ferd berfle says:

    Thank you Pointman, for an excellent commentary which raises a great deal of concern. Those aside, I do have one other concern, which goes to the core of this probable conspiracy. As a scientist (chemist), I am rather appalled at the apparent pencil-whipping of data and/or omission of pertinent data to justify some end. I have asked the question of other chemists and they, too, are confounded. It is one thing to make a hypothesis; it is quite another to prove it. With all this hullabaloo about alleged Global Warming, I am struck that no one felt compelled to ask this very basic question, “If we assume there is Global warming, how can it be tied directly to the activities of man”? If it cannot, then the entire issue of carbon this-and-that becomes moot. Guesses, hunches, a priori beliefs, and lack of direct evidence for the conclusions jumps off the page for me. The short answer, IMO is that GW, even if it exists, cannot be causally connected to the activities of man because the sheer number of variables is too great to adequately exclude no matter how sophisticated a computer program one uses to exclude such. I am of the opinion that this simple fact may outweigh even the fudged GW data because if man is not responsible, then we are going down the wrong damn path to corrective action.

    This is one reason why politics is a deadly poison to science and scientists. (And I’m a scientist who works for a government contractor on environmental cleanup, which has its own set of problems.)

  29. bwanamakubwa says:

    Hi Pointman,
    I’m a reasonably long-time lurker here but this is my first post. I’ve read about how your principal concern is the saving lives and the improving if the human condition in so-called “Third World” countries. I grew up, was educated and worked in Northern Rhodesia, Zambia since 1964 and my 90-year old Mother still lives there. If you want to hear invective against the AGW scam you should hear her.
    The average life span of a Zambian male is 37 years. Bilharzia, malaria, trypanosmiasis, Dengue fever, HIV/AIDS and a plethora of other debilitating or fatal conditions are rife. The country cannot afford more than $10 USD per person for health care. The principal fuel for cooking is charcoal which is made from trees in the local forests; the effects of this can be seen around any urban area – the utter devastation of the miombo woodlands. Cheap, dependable power supplies would help enormously in the alleviation of all of these problems. The AGW scam has effectively prevented the development of coal-powered electricity generating plants through the activities of NGOs such as Greenpeace, Oxfam and a myriad of others who all subscribe to the Greenie theology of Gaia worship. Zambia has coal which it has been persuaded not to burn for power generation.
    Whoever FOIA is, he/she/they have done great service to countries like Zambia, exposing the fraud which is Global Warming/Climate Change/ /Climate Disruption. Even the ill-educated Zambian on the street is now questioning why electricity is not more widely available. Why? Because they have computers and access to the Wonderful Web! Those who have such access speak out and, by word of mouth, news spreads far and wide. From what my Mother tells me, the vast majority of Zambians would be classified as “sceptics” by the AGW proponents!

    • Apoxonbothyourhouses says:

      Listen hard “Long-Time-Lurker”. I trust it is very clear from my post that I agree with all you wrote but it is not enough “lurk”. Do you or do not want action? Only through excellent blogs such as these and by bombarding ill informed friends / acquaintances (in fact anyone who will listen) with key pieces of information will the facts become better known. We are competing against government inspired spin so its an uphill battle and we need all the shoulders we can find. PUSH man PUSH.

  30. Pointman says:

    Hello and welcome bitanphoto, ferd berfle and bwanamakubwa. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and enjoy yourself here.


  31. Edward. says:

    See you’ve gone supa Nova!


  32. Pointman says:

    A question to all our new commenters, especially ones from the Americas.

    The feedback from our regular contributers from Australian is that Climategate 2 (CG2) seems to be under a creepy news blackout in the mainstream media (MSM) there, Andrew Bolt being the single honourable exception as usual.

    What’s the coverage like of of CG2 by the MSM where you are?


    • Apoxonbothyourhouses says:

      Dear Pointman, Not my strength but hope this cut and paste works. There is Climategate 2 coverage here in Oz but not, surprise, surprise on the ABC.

      • Blackswan says:

        G’day Apoxonbothyourhouses,

        Perhaps it’s because I’m prone to stronger language in responding to these issues, but it seems to me that Bolt, while addressing AGW Fraud, uses really ‘soft’ terms to describe the utter perfidy of ‘scientists’ and politicians.

        Expressions such as “embarrassing emails” and “seem to confirm” fall way short of the mark IMHO. Embarrassing?? Sheesh, heaven forbid anyone should get all pink-cheeked over being found out as a liar, a thief (of public funds) and a cheat. Seem to confirm?? It’s there in black & white – no ‘seeming’ about it.

        I think we Aussies have always been known for calling a spade a bloody shovel, so the MSM who DO broach politically sensitive subjects give me the pip when they pussyfoot around, anxious not to be too contentious.

        What should be six-inch banner headlines in the print media is now hidden behind pay-walls on The Australian’s web-site. Most Aussies get their information from commercial TV news programs, and they have been spectacularly silent.

        I’m with you – a pox on both their houses, and then some.

      • Pointman says:

        Ta Apox. Is that pretty much the MSM coverage in Oz?


    • Blackswan says:


      I start my day browsing the Oz MSM news sites, looking for detail on what I read at JoNova’s blog, namely that Durban has tanked … It appears nearly anyone with power or influence wants to get out, or delay action on “climate change”.

      What I find is this from the Sydney Daily Telegraph ……

      “CLIMATE change is a threat to the health of Australians and will cause deaths, diseases, injuries and even post-traumatic stress disorder in coming years, a new government report claims.”

      …. and this from the Sydney Morning Herald ….

      “AUSTRALIAN death rates from climate change-related heatwaves will climb steadily this century unless greenhouse emissions are sharply cut, the most comprehensive national report into global warming and health has found…..

      A delegation of Australian doctors is travelling to the United Nations climate-change conference in Durban this week, to argue human health should be central to discussions.”

      A mention on climate is hidden behind a pay wall at The Australian.

      There is no doubt that Australians who want and need factual information on this crucial issue which threatens to drive us into penury, simply must resort to the blogosphere.

      • MikeO says:

        Look in Oz the MSM has responded

        The media owned by Fairfax (Age, SMH, Age and Canberra times) are consistently supportive of anything to the left of politics. News Limited owned by the Murdock Press (Telegraph, Herald Sun and Australian) don’t support the left and you get skeptical reporting We have talkback radio here of which Alan Jones (an avowed climate skeptic) on 2GB is the leader with about 10% of the population. Andrew Bolt (another skeptic) works for the Herald Sun and with his blog, TV and radio appearances is also a major player in the MSM. The worm has turned in the MSM and the current lot of political losers have set up an inquiry into the “hate media” as our leading Greenie calls it. They see a threat and wish to censor the freedom of the press.

        Our real problem is that we have an incompetent government with parts of the MSM that are lackeys because they are more or less of the same culture. AGW is only part of it and yet another sign of our political mess. As a last note I must make you who inhabit the Northern Hemisphere aware that the Greens here are about to cool the planet. Our CO2 measures may lower it by 3 PPB (that’s right parts per billion) by 2020. Makes me feel all cold and fuzzy!

      • Apoxonbothyourhouses says:

        Dear BlackSwan or are you white and in disguise? Easy for you and I to be critical and use “strong” words. However neither of us has been dragged through the courts for weeks on end. We are behind our pseudonyms whereas Andrew Bolt has been vilified by just about all the media except News Ltd. Add huge amounts of money expended defending free speech. Be a little more gentle; the guy will continue to have to pick his words till THAT particular law is changed and until some common sense has returned to Canberra policies.

        In case anyone missed this morning’s gem from the UK Telegraph:

        At the opening of the UN climate change summit in Durban on Monday, the US said it would not consider committing to the EU’s proposals until major developing countries such as China and India do. China, the world’s biggest emitter, is also against the 2015 deadline.

      • Blackswan says:

        @ Apoxonbothyourhouses

        Psssst!! Just between you and me – I AM in disguise.

        I understand why you think as you do – Bolt is a professional spin merchant and turned a conviction for telling sensationalist untruths into a restriction on his right to free speech. For a different perspective on that try …

        Give it some thought. There are many ways to present an idea or concept – he just picked the wrong one. A wander around the Kangaroo Court will give you enough examples of what a high profile investigative journalist could be occupying himself with, without resorting to manufacturing anything.

      • MikeO says:

        Apoxonbothyourhouses I am with on your comments on Bolt. I think for Black Swan to call Bolt a spin merchant is insulting and shows a complete ignorance of the issues involved. Kangaroo court did the same and when I challenged him he proceeded with a personal attack on me. Black Swan knows this but obviously does not want to understand that in Australia an attack on freedom of speech and the press is underway and how Bolt has been persecuted. What he tried to address was a situation where 75000 aboriginals in remote areas live in dire poverty while an increasing number of seemingly white people find aboriginal heritage to access government benefit. Bolt has a readship of around 200000 and tries his utmost to tell it as it is and is certainly not a propagandist that is his brand.

        Pointman I thank you for the opportunity to make comments here but this will be my last. I wish you well with your blog and hope you have every success but this is goodbye.

      • Pointman says:

        I’m sorry to hear that Mike. Like you, I’ve concerns with the curtailing of free speech under the guise of protecting us all from something else. Reading the thread, Swan expressed his judgement of the Bolt situation as he saw it with honesty and with civility. I ask nothing more of any commenter here than those two things; honesty and civility. We’re all here to exchange viewpoints, even if we don’t agree with them.


  33. hro001 says:

    Great post, Pointman … and I agree with most of what you say. Notable exception is:

    I said in the original profile that I thought FOIA started out being very innocent politically and I’d have to stick to that assessment. There’s simply no other credible explanation for trying to offer CG1 to a news organisation like the BBC that’s so chronically biased when it comes to anything to do with the environment

    As I’ve noted in my take on the current state of affairs (in which I engage in some additional speculation of my own!) … this was an early surmise on the part of some in the skeptic blogosphere due to a misreading of Paul Hudson’s Nov. 23/09 post. On Nov 24/09, the BBC’s Hudson was more specific:

    As you may know, some of the e-mails that were released last week directly involved me and one of my previous blogs, ‘Whatever happened to global warming ?’

    These took the form of complaints about its content, and I was copied in to them at the time. Complaints and criticisms of output are an every day part of life, and as such were nothing out of the ordinary. However I felt that seeing there was an ongoing debate as to the authenticity of the hacked e-mails, I was duty bound to point out that as I had read the original e-mails, then at least these were authentic, although of course I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the others. [emphasis added -hro]

    From what I’ve read of Hudson, he seems to be a straight-shooter, and I would definitely be inclined to take him at his word on this.


    • Pointman says:

      Hello Hilary, from a long time admirer of your blog.

      Any imaging I’ve done about FOIA, has been on minimal information, so I’d have to put a few health warning stickers over it. “Which way did he go?” asked the Copper. “Thatta way” said Pointy, pointing in the wrong direction.


  34. thojak says:

    This might also be of interest to you:

    Talking about ‘big oil’, eh? 😉

    Brgds from Sweden

  35. senter says:

    Yes i agree there must be political emals but you kept that thought to yourself for 2 years pointman. FOIAs not the only one who can keep a secret!

  36. First rate, Pointman, as always.

    Two things: 1) you should see about posting similar stuff to and and 2) try on

    Your posts are significantly superior to 80% of most staff-written op-ed conservative and pro-industrial blog posts.

  37. MikeO says:

    I mentioned Alan Jones who has about 2 million listeners in Australia. Here is a link if any one wants to listen He is interviewing Ian Plimer a geologist of the highest standard.

    • Blackswan says:

      G’day Mike,

      That interview is a ripper isn’t it? I heard the original broadcast but glad you offered the opportunity to listen again. Thanks.

      Prof Ian Plimer: “This is the greatest scientific and financial con that the world has ever seen!”

      Jones: “…..this is mongrel stuff”.

      You can say that again.

Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] offers a repost of a profile of the whistleblower. The second, written a few days ago, includes his thoughts and questions regarding […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: