From FOIA2011.org

This website is provided as a research resource for mining the recently leaked climate communications. Every effort has been made to redact personal contact information such as email addresses and telephone numbers. The redaction algorithms are currently tuned to be quite stringent, and they will inadvertently obfuscate other details as well. We will continue to tune the software to improve the quality of the results.

This database was assembled in a very short space of time, and at present only provides the most rudimentary tools for exploring this vast trove of material. We will be improving the quality of the search tools and adding further metadata to the database over the course of the next few weeks.

The released documents included the following explanatory file labeled README.TXT: LINK

/// FOIA 2011 -- Background and Context ///

"Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day."

"Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes."

"One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true.

"Poverty is a death sentence."

"Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize 
greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels."

Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on 
hiding the decline.

This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few 
remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning 
to publicly release the passphrase.

We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such 
as...

/// 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.

---30---

READ … Much, Much more

First Batch of Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Emails: LINK