FOIA Password Released

I’m probably a bit late to the party on this one, but saw it on WUWT. No idea what the password is (yet) but some folks have it.

Quoting the email from the WUWT posting:

Subject: FOIA 2013: the password

It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.

Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural ;-)

If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).

The “all.7z” password is [redacted]

DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like.

Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.

I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.

Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.

To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.

Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.

I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.

I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.

That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).

Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.

I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.

More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.

Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.

Over and out.


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and GIStemp Issues and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to FOIA Password Released

  1. PhilJourdan says:

    According to Lubos Motl, you will never guess it:

  2. Ian W says:

    If ever anyone really deserves a Nobel Peace Prize it is FOIA. If you read his CG2 release email and this one you can get a glimpse into his motives and his understanding of what was going to happen to the world with an unbridled Kyoto Agreement and Agenda21.
    Is anyone really happy putting food into their car gas tanks when as FOIA quoted “a child dies every 5 seconds from hunger and related causes”
    When international companies buy up tracts of land in Africa and burn the villages of tenant farmers – even if children are in the huts – so that they can plant Eucalyptus and claim carbon credits…. like the Scots Clearances all over again …

    FOIA has rescued the world from more of these ‘green agenda’ horrors – people have been saved that do not even know he exists.

    Its a pity that climate ‘scientists’ do not have his ethics.

  3. John Robertson says:

    An ethical query, why should I care about “Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.”?
    That FOIA had to blow the whistle on these people, twice. Yet they have for the most part continued to twist and lie. None have come clean.
    The cost of this power grab and international scam will take years to be fully calculated.
    The world poor have been deliberately/accidentally made poorer.
    That these tools, useful idiots might now suffer, troubles me not.
    They chose to deceive and enabled the fiscal rape of nations.
    Why should I or any honest person have concerns about embarrassing them or their families?

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    @John Robertson:

    Well, maybe you don’t need to care. But if FOIA sent me the password with a request to honor that, I’d do so.

    I suspect that it’s at least partially a ‘being polite’ and ‘moral high ground’ behaviour. More about FOIA than the folks who wrote the email…

    @Ian W:



    Part of why I didn’t even try. I figured FOIA knew folks would be brute force going at it, and would make it hard to do.

  5. John Robertson says:

    E.M Thanks makes sense in that context.
    Ethics and honour are internal values.
    Having slept on it, I concede I too wish no harm on family members.
    We choose our friends, family is.

  6. E.M.Smith says:

    Well, I appreciate “his” motives, but I’d still rather have the password… ;-)

Comments are closed.