Re: Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate
o.n.0.b.
It is part of the Big Lie technique often applied by
the antis. It constitutes intellectual sabotage.
***
Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate
By DAVID STRINGER (AP) � 58 minutes ago
LONDON < Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected
climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private
e-mails and documents online < stoking debate over whether some scientists
have overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement
Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its
Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change.
The university said police are investigating the theft of the information,
but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.
More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S.
scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on
Web sites following the security breach last week.
Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows
scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the
documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate
data.
The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate
conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding
treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials < including U.N.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon < regard the prospects of a pact being sealed
at the meeting as bleak.
In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to
colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium.
He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline"
in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a
rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other
evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.
Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "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," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was
genuine.
One of the colleague referred to by Jones < Michael Mann, a professor of
meteorology at Pennsylvania State University < did not immediately respond
to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.
The use of the word "trick" by Jones has been seized on by skeptics < who
say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort
evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing
climate change.
"Words fail me," Stephen McIntyre < a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web
site challenges popular thinking on climate change < wrote on the site
following the leak of the messages.
However, Jones denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had
been taken out of context. "The word 'trick' was used here colloquially, as
in a clever thing to do. It is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to
anything untoward," he said in a statement Saturday.
Jones did not indicate who "Keith" was in his e-mail.
Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails < Gavin Schmidt of
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Kevin Trenberth,
of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado < did not
immediately return requests for comment.
The University of East Anglica said that information published on the
Internet had been selected deliberately to undermine "the strong consensus
that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are
potentially dangerous."
"The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out
of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to
engage with this issue in a responsible way," the university said in a
statement.
Seon Ferguson
kerry ann between a climate change skeptic and a alarmist and when the
skeptic brought this issue up the alarmist didn't even address it. All he
said was "well your not a climate change scientist"
"o.n.0.b." <b...@wa.com> wrote in message news:4b09c7a6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
b*o*n*z*o
"Peter Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote in message
news:t7rjg5pvsaivq5oiu...@nntp.frankenexpress.de...
> Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:23:15 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>>
>> > Bill Ward <bw...@ix.REMOVETHISnetcom.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:45:07 +0100, Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 21/11/09 21:51, in article
>> >> >> sfkgg59onppm0i5q1...@nntp.frankenexpress.de, "Peter
>> >> >> Muehlbauer" <spamt...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > WHO SAID it were hackers?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It was headlined as such!
>> >> >
>> >> > I've seen many headlines over the last years, more or less true.
>> >> >
>> >> >> They then published stolen material.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is aiding and abetting to republish it.
>> >> >
>> >> > That says nothing about how this information became public. As I
>> >> > wrote in another thread, it could be a CRU worker just as well who
>> >> > doesn't need to "hack" a computer due to his access level. Media are
>> >> > very sensitive and the word "Hacker" is conjured very quickly out of
>> >> > a hat.
>> >>
>> >> I think of it more as repossession rather than theft. After all,
>> >> taxpayers paid for the data and analysis, then the "researchers" not
>> >> only tried to cover up the shoddiness, but refused to deliver it. The
>> >> taxpayers now have access to what they paid for, and I don't think
>> >> they'll be happy with it.
>> >>
>> >> If nothing else, the emails make it very hard to maintain the myth
>> >> that
>> >> there was ever a "consensus" among all qualified climate researchers.
>> >>
>> >> It's busted!
>> >
>> > The one who fetched the data from the server states, that the 160 MB
>> > are
>> > only a random selection, so there must be more somewhere. I don't know
>> > how much of other files still reside on the server or are deleted
>> > meanwhile. The published files however might only be the top of the
>> > iceberg.
>> >
>> > And, according to realclimate.org...
>> >
>> > "
>> > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
>> >
>> > 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
>> > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/progress-in-
>> millennial-reconstructions)
>> > 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."
>> >
>> > Funny thing!
>> >
>> > Do they really want to make us believe that "probably a poor choice of
>> > words" relates also to all the other files?
>> > In this case I may question, what this kind of science is worth for,
>> > when all the papers and research results are "probably a poor choice of
>> > words". On the other hand, if they relate only to this one file and all
>> > the others are left uncommented, so they must be true?
>> >
>> > I agree, that the real world (not the world those AGWs live in) should
>> > be deeply grateful for pubishing those files. Hacking or not aside,
>> > this
>> > has more public weight than fetching files from a server to reveal the
>> > truth.
>>
>> If the leaked emails aren't enough to start an official investigation,
>> then I wonder how much further the coverup goes up the government
>> ladder. Nixon was forced to resign and Clinton was impeached over far
>> less serious issues.
>>
>> There's already a lot of pent-up political energy, so this next US
>> election year might get very interesting.
>
>
> Jep, let them sing their new anthem
>
>
> Yesterday all my troubles seemed so far away.
> Now it looks as though they're here to stay.
> Oh, I believe in yesterday.
> Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be.
> There's a shadow hanging over me.
> Oh, yesterday came suddenly.
> Why I have to go, I don't know,
> They wouldn't say.
> I said something wrong,
> Now I long for yesterday.
>
> Yesterday fudge was such an easy game to play.
> Now I need a place to hide away.
> Oh, I believe in yesterday.
> Why I have to go, I don't know,
> They wouldn't say.
> I said something wrong,
> Now I long for yesterday.
> Yesterday AGW was such an easy game to play.
> Now I need a place to hide away.
> Oh, I believe in yesterday.
>
>
> And amusing, it originates from UK.
> :-)
21 Nov 2009
1.. Absolutely fake city. Fakest of all fakery.
2.. Partially fake. The files are too large to be wholly fake.
3.. Are you QUESTIONING THE SCIENCE?
4.. Real but no big deal. Warmenism is too big to fail.
5.. Totally real. This will hurt warmenism.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/
Warmest Regards
B0n oz
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville