Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

reply to post by lpowell0627


Yes, I posted it a few pages ago.

By the way, here's more from the Examiner (the initial news source I posted) which confirms that now the story is getting attention from the mainstream media:

www.examiner.com...

CRU files scandal reaches print media

The scandal involving the anonymous, presumably Russian, hackers who first shared highly damaging information from the Climatic Research Unit on the blog called The Air Vent, has now reached the print media.

The story broke in several places at once during the last twenty-four hours. From The Air Vent it spread to the Climate Audit site (presently crashed, presumably by sheer demand overload), The Blackboard, and Watts Up With That. Ian Wishart's Investigate magazine and Briefing Room blog picked it up in New Zealand, while this page picked it up here and reviewed it here twelve hours later. (At the same time, the Climate Change Examiner also reviewed the story, up to the point at which Dr. Jones was forced to admit that the files were genuine.)

From the climate-skeptic blogs, the story next spread to Hot Air, Pajamas Media, and National Review's Planet Gore blog--and from these sources, and this page, it spread to the blog page of The Wall Street Journal.

What made the story a scandal was that Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit has been filing Freedom of Information requests, according to British FOI law, for years, according to the journal Nature, which took note of these requests as recently as three months ago. That, plus the sensational nature of the revelations, combined to give the story ever more prominence. And now the on-line pages of the Herald-Sun (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) and the Daily Telegraph (London, England, UK) have picked the story up. (The story now appears also on WorldNetDaily and Reason online.)

Reason points out that the CRU had earlier denied repeated accusations of falsification, and even destruction, of data deemed less than favorable to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) scenario. That denial ran in The New York Times about five weeks ago. The Times at first cited "scientists familiar with the data," but later specifically named Phil Jones of the CRU.

The site RealClimate.org left this defense of the CRU and their condemnation of the initial hack late this afternoon (UTC/GMT):

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’, no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

A cursory examination of multiple examples of the e-mails reveals that the above characterization is true--as far as it goes. However, that characterization ignores the actual tone of those e-mails: of a group of scientists desperately wishing their theory to be true, figuratively wringing their hands when the data suggest otherwise, and certain unscientific behavior that no one can defend. This demonstrably includes manipulation of data and a conspiracy to conceal unfavorable data from other scientists who express skepticism of their theories. Furthermore, Jones' use of the phrase "to hide the decline" does indeed suggest falsification of data.

More to the point, whatever mind-set the e-mails did or did not reveal, the presence in the archive of a five-page PDF file titled The Rules of the Game that radical activist Saul Alinsky could have written begs explanation.

The file continues to be available for download from MegaUpload and FileDropper, and from Pirate Bay's torrent servers. Several commentators on multiple sites boast of participating in the torrent as "seeds."

The original source

Originally posted by anelegantchaos
Hi guys, I am the creator of the searchable link to the story @ www.anelegantchaos.org...

I rattled it off in an hour when I get home, it's not prefect, but it is searchable now, single word or at least a chain of relevant words best, I'll spend a little time improving the algorithms to filter out better results.

Enjoy!

H

Magnificent, thank you.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Well now, all scientists have to do is duplicate the results using the technique that he mentions. If the look at the true numbers (which I hope they can now get through FOIA) and add the real temps over 20 years. If they get the same averages, this dude is done.

reply to post by lpowell0627


I know that there is software out there, IBM has a program, that can track an email and verify authenticity. it is used extensively with large corporations in litigation, in particular, to prove or disprove tampering of email.

reply to post by SunnyDee


Some of the already answered questions on this matter were originally as confusing before they were answered by real climate, as those that yet still have to be correctly straightened out.

That's what happens when things can be taken in whatever context you wish.

Does anyone else get the impression that the coverage by the mainstream has the air of a damage limitation exercise?

It will probably work too ... since Joe Public, who nowadays has the attention span of a gnat, will see all the reassuring statements ... stuff like 'all smoke and very little fire' and the evocative 'scientists versus a small number of so-called sceptics'... and Joe public will accept the mainstream 'analysis' and go back to watching 'Strictly come Dancing'

Personally, for something as important as Climate Change (real or not), and the fact they are using it to raise taxes (as a tool for behavioural change, or so is the excuse), I get ROYALLY pissed off that scientists are starting off with a premise, then trying to make the data fit when the observational data goes against their premise. Even down to blaming their observational method, rather than admit their premise might be wrong in the first place.

What sort of science is THAT?

Bet you all this will be nicely buried and forgotten by MOST people in a few days

Originally posted by lpowell0627
/www.realclimate.org/
The hacker apparently had the information from at least last Tuesday. That's way too much time. I have a feeling this is going to become "emails were hacked, edited, and then distributed to the Internet".

The latest file I can see is from last Thursday 12th. The hacking was apparently this Tuesday 17th. The leak was made today, Thurday 20th. So 2-3 days is not a whole lot of time. As yet no one has refuted any of this info as being genuine.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by quackers]

Guess we'll be hearing a bit more from you on this.

jw

Not particularly. I have my cyber-popcorn for a classic comedic version of Much ado about nothing.

Embarrassing for the CRU, but I predict little of real note apart from copious lulz being harvested por moi.

Keep digging guys!

ABE: at the moment, anyone I've come across involved in the emails has said they are were legit with no alterations.

ABE2: I'm pretty disappointed so far, come on! This is the mecca of conspiracy theorists. You have access to thousands of personal and private thoughts of a number of major figures in climate science over a decade, yet all we have are innuendo, ambiguous claims, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, quote-mining, and lots of news articles (almost to link farm levels).

Thousands personal and private emails between major figures in climate science all supposedly involved in one of the biggest conspiracies ever - thousands of scientists all over the world and over a hundred years of research all wanting to take your dummy and form a NWO based on environazi socialist vegetarianism...

yet...nada...

Ho-hum. Took a few months to show oil-stained Bush et al gagging and manipulating climate science, suppose a bit of patience is required. Apologies.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by quackers

Originally posted by lpowell0627
/www.realclimate.org/
The hacker apparently had the information from at least last Tuesday. That's way too much time. I have a feeling this is going to become "emails were hacked, edited, and then distributed to the Internet".

The latest file I can see is from last Thursday 12th. The hacking was apparently this Tuesday 17th. The leak was made today, Thurday 20th. So 2-3 days is not a whole lot of time. As yet no one has refuted any of this info as being genuine.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by quackers]

This is where I got LAST TUESDAY from:

We were made aware of the existence of this archive last Tuesday morning when the hackers attempted to upload it to RealClimate, and we notified CRU of their possible security breach later that day.

Link: www.realclimate.org...-1853

Originally posted by lpowell0627
I can certainly see how many of these emails are taken out of context.

That being said, I'm not really sure what context "remove the data from 1961 so that the pattern remains" would have to be in to be considered appropriate.

Unless, of course, he was joking. But since they still use their perfect little diagrams to show us how the world is warmer, I can't imagine that all of the data was actually included.

Because, according to their own words, had they used all of the data -- the diagram would look differently.

I can't really see how they are going to get out of this -- but I'm sure they will.

They seem to have already provided a reasonable explanation for that particular email:

www.realclimate.org...

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded “gotcha” phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

The timing of this particular episode is probably not coincidental. But if cherry-picked out-of-context phrases from stolen personal emails is the only response to the weight of the scientific evidence for the human influence on climate change, then there probably isn’t much to it.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by john124]

reply to post by john124


So are you a player? You did not answer back from my first request. Your posts sure sound like you are in the know? Come on- talk to us. A little FOI would be nice!

reply to post by Shirakawa


The examiner source is falsely playing it up: www.examiner.com...

A cursory examination of multiple examples of the e-mails reveals that the above characterization is true--as far as it goes. However, that characterization ignores the actual tone of those e-mails: of a group of scientists desperately wishing their theory to be true,

That's not a factual description, it's an opinion based on a lack of context.

figuratively wringing their hands when the data suggest otherwise, and certain unscientific behavior that no one can defend.

Really..... I'm not so sure about that! It's wild speculation because we still don't know enough to make these kinds of claims.

The remaining issues will have mundane answers, just as the other supposedly incredible questions that have been answered have their mundane explanations.

This demonstrably includes manipulation of data and a conspiracy to conceal unfavorable data from other scientists who express skepticism of their theories. Furthermore, Jones' use of the phrase "to hide the decline" does indeed suggest falsification of data.

Sorry, but the examiner is clutching at straws just like their crap articles using hoagland as a source for ufo disclosure. The term "hide the decline" has been explained by real climate.

These emails have so little context on their own, so they could suggest almost anything if you have the right kind of imagination.

More to the point, whatever mind-set the e-mails did or did not reveal, the presence in the archive of a five-page PDF file titled The Rules of the Game that radical activist Saul Alinsky could have written begs explanation.

Not really... as people respond to photos of cuddly polar bears and penguins rather than having the science explained to them. Again this can be interpreted as a large-scale conspiracy, or instead it can be interpreted as likely a piece of embarrassing political spin that may be needed to convince people what needs to be done. After all, we are all manipulated by adverts all of the time for the gain of others... why is it suddenly so radical should people be manipulated for a good cause!



[edit on 20-11-2009 by john124]

www.youtube.com...



Man bear pig is dead, I'm serial.

little humor can't hurt.

reply to post by john124


John, I'm posting information as it comes from news sites, from all sides of this debate. The Examiner may be playing with words but it's not, other than blogs, the only source anymore.

Originally posted by Shirakawa
reply to post by john124

 

John, I'm posting information as it comes from news sites, from all sides of this debate. The Examiner may be playing with words but it's not, other than blogs, the only source anymore.

I'm not saying it's the only source - the guardian earlier on was as equally ridiculous at drawing conclusions without considering all of the information given out in response, and only leads to embarrassment later on for those particular sites.

From TimesOnline (UK). It doesn't add anything new, but still:

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Sceptics publish climate e-mails 'stolen from East Anglia University'

Ben Webster, Environment Editor


E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.

The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

The hackers appear to have accessed servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.The university reported the incident to police yesterday after the leak was discussed online across the world. The files were apparently first uploaded on to a Russian server and then mirrored across the internet.

An anonymous statement accompanying the e-mails said: “We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”

The university said in a statement: “This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this inquiry.” It added that because of the volume of information involved it could not yet say how much of it was genuine.

Several of the e-mails were allegedly written by Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit. One, dated November 16, 1999, contained a sentence about temperatures and referred to a “trick” that could be used to “hide the decline”.

The university declined to confirm whether or not this e-mail was genuine. The spokesman said that Prof Jones would not be commenting but confirmed that he had spoken early yesterday to Ian Wishart, a climate sceptic who reported their conversation on his website.

Mr Wishart quoted Prof Jones as denying that he had manipulated data and saying that he could not remember writing the words “hide the decline”.

Original article

reply to post by detachedindividual


You have got to be kidding?!?! Do you not realise that the governments of the world are attempting to use this false data to take all of your money and your ability to travel freely?

I do not disagree that it is alway good to find more environmentaly friendly ways to do things, but I fail to see how giving the rich and powerful of the world even more money and power, will solve our problems.

You sir are either extremley ignorant, or you post here falsley as an agent of the PTB.

Also, the data finally appeared on Wikileaks!
If it's true that there's more than what we've seen, I hope it will appear here instead of in some obscure blog.

http://__._/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009

Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009

Released November 21, 2009

Summary

This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents, computer code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.

The CRU has told the BBC that the files were obtained by a computer hacker 3-4 days ago.

This archive includes contains unreleased computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.
The archive appears to be a collection of information put together by the CRU prior to a FoI redaction process.[...]

Source with download links

I'd pay anything to be able to observe these pseudoscientists, and others such as Al Gore RIGHT NOW. Hands shaking, eyes tearing, nose runnings, screaming at their PowerPC multimonitor arrays, jaws clinching. Oh what a day!

Originally posted by detachedindividual
I think it is time for people to seriously consider their own actions in their personal battle with science.

Commonly, people opposed to the proposition of man-made global climate change completely neglect the core principle.

Whether it is man-made or not, whether it exists or not, the Human race has been a child, spoiled and abusive, violent and greedy.

I do not care what the climate change truth is, all I care about is that Humans now have the chance, misinformed or not, to start being responsible for the way we treat our environment.
Going on a crusade to debunk the very idea in a complete form is not the way to do it.

By all means, debate the truth and get the facts, but acting so irresponsibly as in this case does nothing to promote the idea of responsibility amongst the populations truly responsible for supporting the raping and pillaging of this planet.

Basically, screw both sides of the argument, we have a responsibility to this planet and future generations. This act, regardless of "truth" does nothing beneficial.

I just started in to this thread and read this post. I noticed it had oodles of stars. So I wasted my time rereading it again.
I shouldn' t complain cause I got here late and you guys are already up 9 pages.
What ticks me off here is your self rightous non anylitical approsch to the few post that the thread contianed at the time (4 or 5 posts) It seems to me you just approached it with your own pre concieved ideas.
To date I have been outdoors for most of my waking life. I know nature quite well.
I don't have to think that I am a part of it. I know I am. I have never felt superior to that nature or in control of it. I always thought that those that do or try to be, are soon consumed by the nature that they attempt to be better than. No star for U.