AGW catastrophism Climate Change Global Warming Omniclimate Skepticism

Climategate 2.0: Very Much Focused On Phil Jones

By using a clever UNIX trick (and a slight Mac OS X correction) I have counted the occurrences of all words in every non-encrypted “Climategate 2.0” email, then sorted them in descending order and removed the non-specific words such as “the”, “a”, etc, with some interesting results.

For example Phil Jones steals the show (the word “Jones” is present 12,454 times, and “Phil” 10,030 times). The UEA tops the list with 19,384 mentions, “climate” follows with more than 17,000 mentions, Briffa  appears 7,004 times, Mann “only” 5,971.

Seems clear that whoever did this, is not in friendly terms with Phil Jones. Perhaps they have left mostly non-Jones messages among the 200k encrypted ones.


Total: 19,939,376

19384 uea
17079 climate
15357 data
12454 jones
10030 phil
8352 research
8176 www
8094 change
7963 fax
7790 http
7667 university
7553 time
7464 series
7004 briffa
6772 temperature
6741 am
6671 think
6589 email
6421 global
6265 keith
5971 mann
5007 science
4997 know
4994 please
4848 environmental
4788 cc
4764 model
4698 ipcc
4550 information
4538 mike
4511 cru
4349 sciences
4286 changes
4258 climatic
4101 osborn
3610 tree
3491 warming
3426 mean
3343 tom
3325 professor
3270 david
3011 ucar
2956 michael
2807 earth
2567 models
2555 hulme
2479 john
2462 regional
2334 virginia
2332 arizona
2326 temperatures
2299 cje
2285 reconstruction
2272 effect
2224 record
2214 analysis
2207 reconstructions
2200 issues
2082 metoffice
2032 surface
2028 peter
1994 telephone
1913 nature
1904 energy
1902 world
1756 scientific
1615 jonathan
1595 carbon
1217 international
1175 scientists
1165 article
1163 simulations
1149 santer
1144 jansen
1133 hegerl
1133 impacts
1060 greenhouse
1034 weather
1010 simulation

9 replies on “Climategate 2.0: Very Much Focused On Phil Jones”

Why is it mostly Prof Jones? Could be that the emails where stored on his PC? The email that had me falling around with laughter is from our old friend Prof Jones to Thomas Stocker regarding the Freedom of Information Acts and the IPCC.

Email [2440] from: Phil Jones to: Thomas Stocker subject: Re: Data access and IPCC

“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. Hard to do, as not everybody will remember to do it.”

They think that they have the divine right of kings and are above the law. Because they work for the IPCC, Government, Wet Office and the World Bank, they believe that they can delete all the emails to hide their criminal scam. I’d like to remind Prof Jones that someone did not remember to delete the emails. They are all over the internet and called Climategate 2.0.

Ian – for every known email (6k in total between Climategate 1.0 and 2.0) there are 37 emails locked behind a password. It seems logical to think whoever released the messages, decided to release mostly those mentioning Phil Jones.

Of course they are above the law. Because of their misleading, billions have being spent – people go to jail for $1000 bucks.

Just by using tree rings as evidence; is proof that they are not interested in reality. Tree rings can be affected by 100different reasons – they should have consulted any agronomist. The trees are lying. If they were treated as the mortals – all of them should be in jail by now. Sceptical people should unify and demand jail for the offenders, or all sceptical people in GULAG! CIA / FBI are getting involved in climate; unify, before they start treating honest people for insanity… to justify for silencing them, one by one individually…

Don’t miss this debate next week.

“The Climate Change Act Reconsidered”
1pm-4pm Wednesday 30 November 2011
House of Commons, Committee Room 14
London SW1A 0AA

Come via main – St Stephens (Cromwell Green) entrance
Ask for Sammy Wilson’s (DUP MP) Meeting
Please allow 30 minutes for security

RSVP Eventbrite ticket required
See here:

Chairperson: Dr Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at SOAS the University of London, and was Editor-in Chief of the International Journal of Biogeography.

Ruth Lea, former Economic Adviser and Director of Arbuthnot Banking Group and Director of Global Vision. She was a Governor of the London School of Economics. Ruth will speak on the impact of the Climate Change Act (including the Renewables Directive) on energy prices, manufacturing and business.

Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist (winner of the Hayek prize), will speak on the potential for shale gas.

Prof Ian Plimer is Australia‘s best-known geologist and author of Heaven and Earth, Global warming: the missing science and How to get expelled from School: a guide to climate change for pupils parents and punters.

Donna Laframboise, journalist and author of The Delinquent Teenager who was mistaken for the world‘s top climate expert – an in depth investigation into the IPCC.

See Donna here:

“The Climate Change Act Reconsidered” is of great relevance today in light of scientific scandals and the public’s loss of trust in costly green climate and energy policies.

The Climate Change Act is having huge social and economic consequences, which MPs can no longer ignore. The EU’s and UK’s climate and energy policies are too expensive, too ambitious, too complex – and ineffective. The government’s blind faith in drastically reducing CO2 emissions and liberalising energy markets will profit only a select group of companies and officials at the expense of everyone else. MPs would do well to rethink these policies – before the public rises up in anger.

I look forward to meeting you there.

our dear little Phil needs to be outed as the (…) that he really is…the cuddly little persecuted scientist was a media construct that needs to be exploded.

Not surprised Phil Jones appears so many times; his name is often in the “From:”, “To: ” and “Cc:” lines, and his signature – oft repeated – also includes his name.

I might have misunderstood your intent, but it seems to me that it would be a good idea to filter out these parts before doing the word frequency analysis.

Some hints how to do this:

A standard mail is transmitted as plain ASCII text, comprising a header, a blank line, and then the body of the message. Each line is terminated by a carriage-return/line-feed (CR/LF) pair (this is converted to just a linefeed in Unix/Linux mailfiles but I’m fairly confident the files in the archive will be CR/LF terminated – no, I haven’t checked). The signature is preceded by two hyphens and a space “– ” (although not all mail clients correctly add the space.) Hence the body is the bit between the headers and the signature (if any).

Finding the body in quoted text is harder, but if you look for “To:”, “From: “, “Cc: “, etc. at the start of the line, you are in the headers, find the next blank line (remembering to ignore any quoted line indicators “>”, “> >”, and so on) and what follows is the body. Find the signature in a similar way.

A naive algorithm to go through quoted body text would recurse in a similar way as you might recurse a directory tree, using the number of “>”‘s as a guide to when to recurse and when to drop back out of the recursion. However it is further complicated by people’s email habits – most people “top-post” (the normal convention in email) but some “bottom-post” where the append their response to the end of the email. Some people even interleave their responses inside the quoted sections. This makes it harder to work out where the actual body is. And you won’t know you are in a header until you hit a recognised header prefix (“To: “, “From:” etc.) at which point you need to backtrack and remove all the words you’ve added from the point you began that particular recursion.

Also remember that not everyone uses a signature, or uses it correctly formatted, and also better email clients remove signatures when quoting, so you don’t always have a sig marker to indicate the end of the body. And it’s not unknown for a P.S. to be placed after the signature, but I can’t see a way of catching this.

There will be other edge cases too, but happily the nature of edge cases means there won’t be many of them, so probably not worrying about those.

Sound complicated? That’s because it is. Text processing – especially of text which wasn’t created with the idea of processing it in mind – isn’t always as simple as it appears at first glance.

Thanks Derek – however there is only so much analysis we can do without those DoE funds 😎

So I wouldn’t read absolutes in my analysis, apart from the apparent fact that whoever chose the 5k out of 220k, made sure there was plenty of PJ all over the place (be it in To, CC, signatures, whatever). That’s why I mentioned “focused on”.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.