Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

From Prison Planet, includes two videos not posted before here:

www.prisonplanet.com...

Lord Monckton: Prosecute the Climate Change Criminals

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
November 24, 2009

Lord Monckton, who challenged Al Gore on man-made climate change and was rebuffed by a gaggle of peevish Democrats, wants the climate “scientists” caught red-handed fiddling with climate stats prosecuted.

“They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers,” writes Monckton. “With Professor Fred Singer, who founded the U.S. Satellite Weather Service, I have reported them to the UK’s Information Commissioner, with a request that he investigate their offenses and, if thought fit, prosecute.”
*SNIP

Original article here

MOD NOTE: Please review the guidelines for Posting work written by others in particular:

...post NO MORE THAN 15% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least)...

Thank you

[edit on 24-11-2009 by burdman30ott6]

Originally posted by makeitso
Which is it?
Were they hacked, or did someone post a link to the files in the comment section?

Can you post the link showing the claim that RealClimate was hacked?

Thanks.

I think someone else already did...but if you need further, from the 'CRU Hack: context' post:

156.There seems to be some doubt about the timeline of events that led to the emails hack. For clarification and to save me going through this again, this is a summary of my knowledge of the topic. At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server. They then created a draft post that would have been posted announcing the data to the world that was identical in content of the comment posted on The Air Vent later that day. They were intercepted before this could be posted on the blog. This archive appears to be identical to the one posted on the Russian server except for the name change. Curiously, and unnoticed by anyone else so far, the first comment posted on this subject was not at the Air Vent, but actually at ClimateAudit (comment 49 on a thread related to stripbark trees, dated Nov 17 5.24am (Central Time I think)). The username of the commenter was linked to the FOIA.zip file at realclimate.org. Four downloads occurred from that link while the file was still there (it no longer is).

The use of a turkish computer would seem to imply that this upload and hack was not solely a whistleblower act, but one that involved more sophisticated knowledge. If SM or JeffID want to share the IPs associated with the comments on their sites, I’ll be happy to post the IP address that was used to compromise RC.

It's exactly as I said. Someone hacked realclimate and attempted to make a post linking to the information. Not a comment. I've also seen the post on Climate fraudit a few days back, but you can waste your own time looking for it. It's linked to in a few places, IIRC. Other people noted that RealClimate was down for a time on that day.

Post = made by realclimate authors
comments = replies to post made by realclimate users (and RC authors)

Originally posted by MaxBlack
When any scientist, doctor or medical group uses manipulated computer programming source code in such a manner to manipulate the truth on such a scale as to declare a planetary crisis is without a doubt a crime of huge aspects.

Manipulating data in such a criminal fashion to comit fraud and to distill the end result is a crime that should be brought to justice.

Well, when you find evidence of such a crime, do let the authorities know.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by prof-rabbit
Meanwhile the importance of looking after resources for future generations disappears.

On the contrary: things like pollution and deforestation might finally regain their legitimate significance and real (as opposed to imagined) issues again be discussed in public. I'm not holding my breath, though, because social engineering activism is so much sexier:

it's called lusting for power for a reason

This is not even the first time climate "scientists" have been caught out.

Twice before this (at least that I can remember) GISS were caught blatantly fudging the figures.

This whole thing stinks.

I see some argue about the use of language in private emails - to which I pose this question; Would you be so forgiving if, say, an oil company exec had been caught using the very same words?

To which of course, the answer is no.

The good thing is that we are starting to get some real debate on the subject, and who knows, the media may even report on some of the opposing points of view one of these days.

The timing of this also doesn't surprise me, with the Copenhagen carve up coming up - no doubt it's a real body blow for AGW proponents, who of course will stick to their mantra and ignore any opposing POV in the name of grant money, erm sorry, science.

reply to post by Shirakawa


Is it really necessary to quote every single new article on this topic in its entirety?

reply to post by vox2442


People are lazy and links often expire.
I haven't received any complaint in this thread until now, but if really necessary, yes, I could make quotes shorter or quote only the headlines.

I'm not quoting every new article, by the way, only a selection of them giving priority to new content, articles from popular news media/websites, and opposite views.

[edit on 2009-11-24 by Shirakawa]

reply to post by Shirakawa


If you were waiting for complaints, maybe I should have said something sooner. My bad. I figured a mod would have stepped in by now.

Originally posted by melatonin
you can waste your own time looking for it.

Thanks for the help.

reply to post by vox2442


What's your problem with this exactly?
Please back up your complaint with a valid reason.

Originally posted by makeitso

Originally posted by melatonin
you can waste your own time looking for it.

Thanks for the help.

lol, if you're being snarky - I answered your request. It's just stuff I've read and can't be bothered looking for. Read a lot of stuff on this over the last few days and I have other more important things to do.

If you're bothered that much have a look on climate fraudit. The post is there somewhere, Gavin notes the time it was posted and the post thread it was in.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Shirakawa

What's your problem with this exactly?
Please back up your complaint with a valid reason.

Originally posted by Springer

Going forward, if you post something that is not 100% your own writing or work you must use the QUOTE BOX TAG, post NO MORE THAN 15% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least), and GIVE A LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL. If the work you are posting is not on the internet, from a book for example, you MUST give a credit for that Book ( the title), its Author and Publisher.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Read that 15% part again. Valid enough for ya?

If not, take it up with Springer. His rules, not mine.

reply to post by vox2442


I meant: in which way this thread did damage or is damaging you, since you have never posted in it since its start except for complaining?

For Terms&Condition violations, there's an "ALERT" button to warn moderators; if you feel I have made any, click it (but I'd expect moderators to read often threads in most popular section of ATS anyway, especially large ones).

Okay, from what I have seen of these leaked emails, this is what I"m seeing. (I could very well be wrong)

CRU used altered or withheld historical data to ensure the predictive models produced results within a set parameter that supports their scientific theory of Man-Made Global Warming. In effect, they skewed the data to fit their agenda and last time I checked, this is not how science worked.

Now if this is the case, then each of the scientists invovled should be held accountable for their actions because their actions will have a negative effect on the entire scientific community.

And to be clear, I do believe that humanity needs to take better care of the earth by doing their part to limit their individual impact. Recycling, reuse & less use of resources are all things I stand behind. I don't however buy that Global Warming is real in the respect that we are causing it. At best, I think it is a natural process of the living Earth that has been going on since the begining.

In regards to the fact these emails and docuements were hacked, I choose to stay neutral. If CRU had complied with the FOI requests, then this all would be available to the public. On the other hand, that does not excuse that someone broke the law to obtain the data and emails. Is either side really in the right here?

MODS: Please delete this post. In retrospect, I feel that I was going after the player and not the ball, and have removed the original comments.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by FellowTraveler]

Proliferation of media articles about climate change.

In one of the leaked e-mails, the AGU climate scientists are encouraged to be present at the Copenhagen negotiations (Dec. 7-18). Their presence will permit answers to questions that the journalists may have on climate change. Also, it talks about a Pew Center's October poll (here's the link for the poll) that reports that the
American public's "belief" in climate change (man-made) has waned down to 36%, compared to 47% a year earlier. It also stated that December's media blitz provides an opportunity to reverse the trend.

So, the media will be used on a mass scale to change the trend on the belief of man-made global warming, with the help of these scientists that will be present.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e20a9933d8fa.gif[/atsimg]





[edit on 24-11-2009 by lagenese]

reply to post by melatonin


Thanks for that info, it has definately helped me understand climatology a little better.

So far this is how I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong:
Dendroclimatology is the study of tree ring widths, with the argument being that generally the widths are wider when conditions favor growth and narrower when they don't.

As I see it this science would have major limitations, for instance there would have to be a point when the model fails, ie at 1 million degrees the rings dont grow a foot per second... the tree burns. Also there would be many other conditions other than the temperature which effect the data, ie if you increase temperature but spray the tree with round up the model fails.

So for any particular tree, or any region there may be other factors which effect the data, however dendroclimatology counters for this by averaging the data from various regions all over the world to get an estimate of the conditions at that time.

So during the 60's there was a divergence with what was measured instrumentally and what dendroclimatology predicted using its model?
Perhaps this could have been due to wide spread DDT use at the time, which was banned in the early 70's?

I'd like to see a study, perhaps you know of one, in which the divergence is explained. If there is a reasonable explanation then I think the ommition of that data by CRU is waranted, if not then I find it hard to believe CRU findings.

As for claims of cover up, you said that CRU had already said that they would treat the data this way, i know it's annoying to dig up stuff when your trying to argue ignorance, but in this case where you made a claim, i hope you can indulge me! (not everyone makes up their mind before seeing all the evidence).

And as for the folks claiming that the climate isn't warming up based on this story, remember there are still many other independent studies, from times before making such a claim would garner funding or grants. (ie Ice, sedimentary content, sedimentary facies, corals, and instrumental measurements since 1860's )

Also I'd also like to say, science is full of bad science. I've seen articles published in journals which misuse statistical data, and science history is rife of occasions where everybody has got it wrong. At this point in time, with what I know so far, it is possible that dendroclimatology is invalid, and possible that the CRU have conspired to publish a piece on climate change in their interest.

However I'm very skeptical that the climate is not warming globally considering the various other sciences and methodologies used outside of dendroclimatology which all compliment the same argument, AND open to scrutiny of the scientific community.

Even when there is doctored evidence in a science anyone can come around and take their own measurements and challenge earlier findings. This happens all the time! Even if they (CRU) were corrupt and this info wasn't leaked it can still be criticised quite easily, the allegations shouldn't warrant much worry to the discipline but to the organisation or individual whoms practice is corrupt.

reply to post by melatonin

when you find evidence of such a crime, do let the authorities know.

Repeatedly throughout the e-mails that have been made public, proponents of global-warming theories refer to data that has been hidden or destroyed. Only e-mails from Mr. Jones' institution have been made public, and with his obvious approach to deleting sensitive files, it's difficult to determine exactly how much more information has been lost that could be damaging to the global-warming theocracy and its doomsday forecasts.
We don't condone e-mail theft by hackers, though these e-mails were covered by Britain's Freedom of Information Act and should have been released. The content of these e-mails raises extremely serious questions that could end the academic careers of many prominent professors. Academics who have purposely hidden data, destroyed information and doctored their results have committed scientific fraud. We can only hope respected academic institutions such as Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst conduct proper investigative inquiries.

www.washingtontimes.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.washingtontimes.com...

That's a good start, I'd say. Investigations have been undertaken on far less.

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

In many circles a "pattern of conduct" with multiple participants to nefarious purposes is considered "conspiracy.

Good luck, Hadley lackey.

jw

reply to post by lynn112


For the record, I have only read the emails thus far, and a few other items. I have not had time to comprehensively analyze other data included in the archive.

What you describe in your post is the sensation that you get while reading the emails, though there is no explicit means (strictly from the emails) of completely confirming what data may have been skewed. It is also not clear from the emails whether the historical data used in analysis had also been skewed by previous scientists. The core problem here is that from our perspective (the eavesdropper), the data are specious at best and purposefully tainted at worst.

What is not commonly being attacked is the sort of proxy data used in their calculations. Perhaps this is due to my lack of understanding of the usefulness of proxy data in this scenario (I would be most obliged if someone in the climatology community could comment on this). I personally find dendrochronology to be specious, and I think that drawing conclusions about temperature changes based on tree rings is a bad idea for several reasons. One scientist says as much in one of the emails. To my knowledge, there are two main problems with using dendrochronology to determine temperature: 1) The evolution (for lack of a better word) of tree rings over time is driven by many more factors than simply temperature, and temperature changes cannot be accurately deduced from tree rings. 2) The obvious one: trees only grow on roughly 15% of the earth. As a general rule, they do not grow in oceans, on ice, or in deserts. Also, they grow sparsely in tundra/grasslands areas. It is implausible, to me, to use a 15% case to do a 100% projection, but it is unclear from the emails how much dendrochronology data actually made it into later calculations.

Here is a synopsis of the positions that I hold after reading the emails only:

1) There is insufficient information presented in the emails to either confirm or deny man-made global warming.
2) There are clear admissions in email of instances where data were cooked. I cannot attest to the validity of any reasoning attached to the cooking of the data. At best, this to me indicates that the methods and data used by *this particular group of scientists* requires further review and should not be taken as hard truth. At worst, they flat out lied.
3) There is insufficient information to impugn the global warming community as a whole, but the validity of IPCC/CRU data is, in my opinion, called into question by some of the emails.
4) Results produced by this particular group of scientists are in question. While many of their email comments seem to document some abnormal and unscientific practices, we cannot say in all certainty that they are wrong. We can say that their results have an unknown truth value.

Additionally I hold these positions:

1) As yet, there has not been a sufficient and diligent analysis of these emails and the included data/code. Until that happens, no clear conclusion can be drawn in regards to their data/results.

2) It is highly unlikely that any layperson will possess the necessary skill set to produce such an analysis, which leaves us waiting on some other scientist or group of scientists to take up the charge. While I consider myself an intelligent person, I recognize my ultimate ignorance insofar as the sciences necessary for understanding all of this information are concerned. Is there any qualified person here attempting to analyze the information in the archive?

Here's my favorite quote out of everything I've read, which well summarizes the entire issue: "I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found."

-FT.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by FellowTraveler]

reply to post by FellowTraveler


It looks like I may have missed some posts where dendrochronology and dendroclimatology were mentioned. I'll go back through and see if I can locate them -- they may assist my lack of understanding described in the previous post. If anyone has any specific information not previously mentioned in regards to the validity of proxy data in these calculations, please let me know.

Also, regarding this:

Originally posted by lynn112
In regards to the fact these emails and docuements were hacked, I choose to stay neutral. If CRU had complied with the FOI requests, then this all would be available to the public. On the other hand, that does not excuse that someone broke the law to obtain the data and emails. Is either side really in the right here?

Further, it is clear from the emails that Phil Jones resented any FOI requests. In one email he directs others to delete conversations so that there is no record. In another he proclaims that he would rather delete his data and correspondence than yield it to an FOI request. I'll see if I can dig up the file numbers for those emails -- I did a poor job of note-taking while reading these, but I clearly remember reading those comments in some of Phil Jones's emails.

-FT.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by FellowTraveler]

UPDATE: Here's a link to someone discussing this very thing... Whoever wrote this has altered the email headers to remove the full email addresses of senders/recipients, but the text of the quoted emails is otherwise equivalent to the files, except where the author has set some comments in bold. Source: Phil Jones/FOI Emails.


[edit on 24-11-2009 by FellowTraveler]

newsjunkiepost.com...

So if greenhouse gases a now reaching record levels, why has the global temperature been cooling for the last 9 years or so?

Isn't it convenient how this "new" information gets released just before the conference in Copenhagen ie just in time help politicians sell any new agreements to their countrymen?

Tired of Control Freaks