Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 21 Nov '09 16:56
    http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&ncl=dptjkosiFZy_tUMznjfhm7clsvpaM&topic=t

    "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud," climatologist Patrick J. Michaels told the New York Times [NYT]
    more by Pat Michaels - 3 hours ago - Boston Herald (20 occurrences)

    Global warming research exposed after hack
    Computerworld - Robert McMillan - ‎15 hours ago‎
    Innocentious says: Look the sad truth of the matter is not the parts of the emails that did not talk about a... Anonymous says: This is just too funny. [tongue in cheek mode] A request: I would find it interesting to find out what. ...

    E-mail leak turns up heat on global warming advocates
    Boston Herald - ‎3 hours ago‎
    By Herald staff In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming, hackers have posted hundreds of e-mails from a world-renowned British institute that show researchers colluding to exaggerate warming and undermine skeptics. ...

    Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute
    New York Times - Andrew C. Revkin - ‎18 hours ago‎
    Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for ...

    Who leaked the Hadley CRU files and why
    Examiner.com - ‎22 minutes ago‎
    The anonymous tipster, whom many people initially assumed had "hacked" into the computers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (repeatedly called the "Hadley CRU," by mistake), might in fact be a CRU insider who released ...

    Hacked: Sensitive Documents Lifted from Hadley Climate Center
    Wall Street Journal (blog) - Keith Johnson - ‎Nov 20, 2009‎
    The Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain was hacked yesterday, apparently by Russian black hats, and thousands of sensitive documents, ...
  2. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    21 Nov '09 16:58
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&ncl=dptjkosiFZy_tUMznjfhm7clsvpaM&topic=t

    "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud," climatologist Patrick J. Michaels told the New York Times [NYT]
    more by Pat Michaels - 3 hours ago - Boston Herald (20 occurrences)

    Global warming research exposed after hack
    Computerworld - Robert Mc ...[text shortened]... ked yesterday, apparently by Russian black hats, and thousands of sensitive documents, ...
    What's the debate?
  3. 21 Nov '09 16:58 / 1 edit
    http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1213483&srvc=business&position=recent

    E-mail leak turns up heat on global warming advocates
    By Herald staff
    Saturday, November 21, 2009 - Updated 3h ago

    EmailE-mail PrintablePrint Comments(13) Comments LargerSmallerText size Bookmark and Share Share Buzz up!

    In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming, hackers have posted hundreds of e-mails from a world-renowned British institute that show researchers colluding to exaggerate warming and undermine skeptics.

    University of East Anglia officials confirmed the Climate Research Unit’s e-mails were hacked, but were unable to confirm the veracity of posted content, according to British and American news reports. Skeptics of human-caused warming, who note temperatures appear to have stopped climbing, called the news explosive.

    “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” climatologist Patrick J. Michaels told the New York Times [NYT]

    The Times contacted researchers who confirmed they had sent or received some of the most damning e-mails, including a discussion of how to use a “trick” to configure scientific data to “hide the decline.”

    ...

    The e-mail authors also refer to skeptics as “idiots,” fantasize in one case about beating up a skeptic, and discuss ways to prevent skeptics’ papers from being published, London’s Daily Telegraph reported
  4. 21 Nov '09 16:58
    ( boom! )
  5. 21 Nov '09 18:12
    Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

    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.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
  6. Standard member DrKF
    incipit parodia
    21 Nov '09 19:34
    Originally posted by dmr81
    Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2 ...[text shortened]... getarian overlords.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
    Rec'd.
  7. 21 Nov '09 20:32


    here's the link!

    http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
  8. 21 Nov '09 20:35
    Originally posted by zeeblebot


    here's the link!

    http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
    ---

    From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
    To: ray bradley <rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
    Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
    Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx


    Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
    Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or
    first thing tomorrow.
    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) amd from
    1961 for Keith's to hide the decline
    . Mike's series got the annual
    land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
    N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
    for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
    data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
    Thanks for the comments, Ray.

    Cheers
    Phil
  9. 21 Nov '09 22:05 / 1 edit
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01;_ylt=ArTV7U7G7ogcN8HdsTq3kiqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFpNG9tbjdiBHBvcwMzNwRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDdGhlZGF5Z2xvYmFs

    The Day Global Warming Stood Still
    Investor's Business Daily

    Fri Nov 20, 6:40 pm ET

    ...

    Now we have the German publication Der Spiegel, which is rapidly becoming the house organ for climate hysteria, weighing in again with the sad news that the earth does not have a fever so we really don't have to throw out the baby with the rising bath water.

    In an article titled, "Climatologists Baffled By Global Warming Time-Out," author Gerald Traufetter leads off with the observation: "Climatologists are baffled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years." They better figure it out, Der Spiegel warns, because "billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."

    We are told in sad tones that "not much is happening with global warming at the moment" and that "it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year." But how can it be that the earth isn't following all those computer models? Is the earth goddess Gaia herself a climate change "denier"?

    The article gloomily notes that a few weeks ago Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research pointed out that the earth had in fact only warmed 0.07 degree Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degree Celsius predicted by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    An even more inconvenient truth, according to the British experts, is that when their figures are adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Nino and La Nina, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degree Celsius. No, that's not a typo.

    As if that weren't enough, it seems hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data.

    While we don't condone theft, the hacked data and e-mails have spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world's leading climate change study centers, aren't scientifically objective at all.

    Indeed, in e-mails, they boast of twisting scientific data to suit their views and to "hide" the truth. At one point, a scientist actually gloats over the death of global warming skeptic John L. Daly, saying, "In an odd way, this is cheering news."

    If true, this is massive scientific fraud.

    ...
  10. 21 Nov '09 22:06
    "the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degree Celsius. No, that's not a typo. "
  11. 21 Nov '09 22:26
    the telegraph weighs in!

    ---

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

    By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

    ....

    Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

    Manipulation of evidence:

    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) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

    Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

    The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

    Suppression of evidence:

    Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

    Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

    Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

    We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

    Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

    Next
    time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
    the crap out of him. Very tempted.

    Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

    ……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

    And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

    “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

    “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

    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.
  12. 21 Nov '09 22:30
    http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=813&filename=1188557698.txt

    Phil Jones wrote:

    > Tom,
    > Just for interest! Keep quiet about both issues.
    >
    > In touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. Just agreed with him
    > that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan
    > has
    > gone to SUNY. Keenan's about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has
    > violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he
    > sent the complaint. WCW has nothing to worry about, but it still
    > unsettling!
    > All related to a paper in Nature from 1990! Keenan ought to look at the
    > temperature data (which he has) rather than going on and on about
    > site moves.
  13. 21 Nov '09 22:42
    http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?page=31&pp=25

    From: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
    To: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tim Osborn <t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
    Subject: [Fwd: Re: GKSS results]
    Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:04:xxx xxxx xxxx
    Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
    Cc: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

    <x-flowed>
    Keith,

    I also figured this might be what you say, and I understand where you've
    coming from. This represents a bit of a dillemma too, as it seems
    unprofessional at best that Zorita and Von Storch have not made their
    code public, when we of course have made ours public.

    There are other sources where we could have gotten the GKSS data--I'm
    checking w/ Caspar for confirmation. I know that the Cane group has it,
    and I believe other groups have it nows too. So frankly, it is
    effectively now 'public domain' whether VS and Zorita like it or not!

    I propose, hoping that their is no loud objection, that we will include
    a line in our response indicating that we have confirmed that we get
    similar results using the GKSS Erik simulation. We'll leave it at that.
    We don't need to show that result necessarily, unless the
    editor/reviewers demand to see proof, and we certaintly don't have to
    reveal where we got the GKSS data. As I mentioned, there are enough
    groups out there that now have it, that VS and Zorita would not know the
    source, and we would not reveal it.

    We feel as if we cannot completely hide the fact that we have confirmed
    our result w/ GKSS, hence the "compromise" suggested above. Meanwhile,
    we can pursue a more thorough, official collaborative effort in the future.

    Thoughts on this?

    thanks,

    mike

    --
    Michael E. Mann
    Associate Professor
    Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC)
  14. 21 Nov '09 23:05
    What are others looking for?

    * hide
    * funding
    * mwp
    * soros
    * lindzen
    * confidential
    * yamal
    * warming
    * moron
    * tamino
    * watts
    * Al Gore
    * delete
    * foia
    * ar4
    * mann
    * bulldog
    * fraud
    * monckton
    * fake
  15. 21 Nov '09 23:19
    http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/11/20/hacked-sensitive-documents-lifted-from-hadley-climate-center/tab/comments/

    comments

    11:44 am November 20, 2009
    Paul wrote:

    Actually most of the emails fall into one of four categories:
    (1) Efforts to rig the peer review process
    (2) Efforts to to circumvent FOI laws
    (3) Efforts to doctor data
    (4) Efforts to mislead journalists


    12:31 pm November 20, 2009
    just the facts wrote:

    FACT: October 2009 was the 3RD COOLEST ON RECORD
    FACT: Summer 2009 was ONE OF THE COOLEST ON RECORD.
    FACT: Global temperatures PEAKED IN 1998
    FACT: We are in COOLING PERIOD SINCE 1998
    FACT: Climate models used to promote global warming hysteria predict much higher temperatures from 1998-2009. THEY HAVE BEEN PROVED WRONG.


    12:47 pm November 20, 2009
    EWCZ wrote:

    I’m depressed how these “scientists” worked hard to prevent any paper that did not toe their line from appearing in the peer-reviewed journals. They pressured editors, asked referees specifically to reject these papers for any old reason, while AT THE SAME TIME gleefully commenting in public on the lack of publications on the side of climate sceptics. Incredible.