Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

page: 1
166
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+99 more 
posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails


www. examiner.com

The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:

briefingroom.typepad.com
blogs.telegraph.co.uk...
news.bbc.co.uk...
blogs.news.com.au
www.examiner.com...

wattsupwiththat.com
www.climateaudit.org...
rankexploits.com...

[edit on 2009-11-20 by Shirakawa]




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 04:26 AM
link   
I think this is extremely serious news, with many implications.
It's another hole in the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) theory and further proof of much political and one-sided influence (and adjustments) by scientists and peer-reviewers. The reputation of not only many scientists, but also scientific journals is at stake.

This, just days before the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference.

Hadley Climate Research Unit confirms that the data leaked is real:
briefingroom.typepad.com...


www. examiner.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2009-11-20 by Shirakawa]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
I forgot to add the words from the anonymous guy who posted the (now widespread over the internet) leaked documents:


We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, 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.

This is a limited time offer, download now: [link deleted]

Sample:

0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
So, is the hacker trying to stick up for global warming, or publicly debunk it? I hope the latter. Oh, and does anyone know where i can get that data?
Thanks


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by kingoftheworld
 


The hacker is trying to expose the lies behind it, to publicly debunk the AGW.
The data is easy to find, it's almost everywhere by now: www.google.it...

Be warned though (just in case) that the right file is 61.9 MB big and its MD5 checksum is da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4
Other versions may have been modified or filled with viruses.

[edit on 2009-11-20 by Shirakawa]


+9 more 
posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
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.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
There is no Hadley Climatic Research Centre at the University of East Anglia.

The University of East Anglia has a Climatic Research Unit, which is based at the University, which is in Norwich, Norfolk.

Meanwhile, the British Government's Met Office has a Hadley Centre which looks at climate change. This is not part of the University of East Anglia, and is based several hundred miles away in Exeter, Devon.

Given this fundamental factual error in the article, should we trust any of it?

Edit: I'm downloading the file and hope to take a better look at it myself. But for now I'm sceptical.

[edit on 20/11/2009 by FreezeM]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
The headline of this (which isn't the original source, as the post appeared on a blog, but this was the only "news site" source I could find at a time) news and all other websites covering it (at the moment mostly climate blogs, though) have all written CRU, Climate Research Unit, anyway.

A few people appearing whose names appear in certain emails contained in the file confirm that it's real, such as McIntyre from ClimateAudit (the site is under heavy load so unfortunately I can't copy/paste at the moment).

I also posted a link where it appears that the director of CRU confirms this is real. Here is it again:

briefingroom.typepad.com...


The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

"Have you alerted police"

"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."

Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

"Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn't do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago."

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing "hiding the decline", and Jones explained what he was trying to say…


More on this breaking story in TGIF Edition tonight…


+9 more 
posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

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.


I don't think we miss a thing. I am sure everyone is in agreement that we need to explore alternative, clean energy and stop the mass pollution of the planet, but the current cap and trade idea WILL NOT change anything and was never designed to do so. What it will do is line the pockets of those that created the carbon credit brokerage idea.


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.


Some more than others! Those who best fir the above description tend to be the ones that are making all the money and do not care one bit about humanity or pollution, only the money they can make (and it's never enough).


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.


So what you propose is to just let the robber bankers and their created carbon credit scam run roughshod over us all?


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.


If they hide the truth from us then drastic measures then need to be taken. If that means "theft" of classified data to prove they are scamming us then so be it. Surely those acting irresponsibly are the ones protecting their own jobs and university grants by bending / hiding data to suit a fraudulent agenda?


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 agree, we do all have a responsibility to the environment. However, this act could be highly beneficial in bringing down the scammers and showing people just how they are being screwed by those with a money making agenda. Especially when it is us that are going to be paying!



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
The Examiner posted more about this leak:

www.examiner.com...


ClimateGate - Climate center's server hacked revealing documents and emails


Climatic Research Unit - University of East Anglia
The Climatic Research Unit - University of East Anglia in Britain
suffered an electronic break-in in recent days. In a turn of events
that has the climate change community in an uproar, documents
and emails have been revealed that could cause a great deal
of trouble for climate change alarmists. (CRU)

Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning.

The electronic break in itself has been verified by the director of the research unit, Professor Phil Jones. He told Britain’s Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

The file that has been making the rounds was initially brought to light by the website The Air Vent. The 61mb file contains thousands of documents and emails. As the archive was just discovered within the last 24 hours, its authenticity has not been determined and as such readers should cast a skeptical eye on the contents. [...]


Continued in the original article

The article also contains some excerpts from the mails, edited for clarity, and emphasis added in bold:


From Michael E. Mann:

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.


From Nick McKay:

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?


From Tom Wigley:

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

From Phil Jones:

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.


From Kevin Trenberth:

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.

From Michael Mann:


Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

From Phil Jones:

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

From Michael E. Mann:

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

From Phil Jones:

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.


[edit on 2009-11-20 by Shirakawa]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Thanks for this link, I've downloaded the zip from The Pirate Bay and going through it now. This could be absolutely huge, I'm going to spend some time going through it all.

Oh the torrent link is here if anyone is wondering: thepiratebay.org...



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

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.


While I agree with most of yours views I don't understand why is this act irresponsible. For right decisions on such complex matters like climate and ecology are we need right data. This leakage may provide us with means to demand real data and oppose feed of junk science.

I don't think that many people are in "personal battle with science". Science is historically contingent and still evolving social construct. Geocentric system was scientific view for thousand years. Science isn't holly cow for me and I'm very critical to positivist notion of it. But I'm in no way in "battle" with it. Science is very powerful descriptive system but there are areas where purely scientific notion is not able to grasp reality adequately. Every GOOD scientist is aware of it.

regards
z.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

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.



so, what good have the countermeasures against 'AGW' done so far? i'm hard pressed to find much (even if i counted CO2 as real pollution) and i simply can't see anything that would outweigh the detrimental effects of biofuels alone. wait until the entire house of cards collapses and people find out they've been snookered for billions over the years and many industries moved to Asia, because these factories are so much cleaner there



Only then will you understand how much damage to the environment itself (biofuels, land use, GM crops, etc) and the environmental cause (pretty much any cause tbh) has been done by this bald faced misanthropic lie.

PS:


Originally posted by detachedindividual

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.


this paragraph can be construed to reveal an admission that you consider AGW a vehicle for social alteration ('engineering') first and foremost. it's about climate i thought, not greed (there's also lust... for power which is obviously going strong in many pro AGW /depop people...). just saying.

[edit on 2009.11.20 by Long Lance]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I am Al Gores' twitchy Colon.

*Second line for carbon tax.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
well i for one will not touch or download a document that was supposedly hacked from a email.

so telling people the checksum and the exact size is in a way saying it is ok to hack people's email's.

i for one will not even look or touch the evidence for fear of prosecution later !



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Shirakawa
 


Interesting, but you do realise the examiner is claiming alien disclosure as being imminent during November. Of course they could be right about both stories, or neither, but we don't have long to wait until we find out about the disclosure story, and if it doesn't happen the Examiner loses credibility as a source.

edit: downloading the supposed email leaks
lets have a look

[edit on 20-11-2009 by john124]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I'm surprised that nobody is taking a stab at identifying the hacker...

My fingers are crossed that these emails are shown to be genuine -- although I am fairly certain that the official conclusion is that they were downloaded, edited, and then reposted.

Aren't there several days between the "hack" and the release?

Now, if they are real as written, it seems to me that there is a huge struggle going on within TPTB. Hacking, microphones left on, Obama convicting someone before trial, leaked memos, security breaches, FAA computer glitches, etc.

It seems to me that the lines are being drawn darker every day....



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
anyone else downloading the leaked emails and docs?

If you were the hacker, why would you download it again? So it's not exactly proof that you did anything harmful, as long as you don't upload it anywhere, then they shouldn't be too concerned.

Same with all forms of piracy etc.

The only people at risk are those who post the links such as the examiner, hosts that host the files, those who share using bittorrent. Rather than going after the individuals, so just keep it to yourself if you download it.



[edit on 20-11-2009 by john124]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


I downloaded them and at a quick glance to me they appear to be real.
No viruses found...

Unpacked, there's over 160 Megabytes and over 10 years of data and emails, and I think it would require an enormous amount of work to fake all this stuff making it coherent. The source said it's only a selection of everything.

Many are wondering if instead of a hacking this hasn't been a leak from an insider.

[edit on 2009-11-20 by Shirakawa]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   
This is excellent news. Hopefully, this means we will be able to shine a light on the corruption and lies at the centre of the 'Global Warming' junkie movement.

Before anyone tries to beat me around the head, I'm a genuine proponent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as reducing all other emissions and putting a stop to 'global poisoning'.

I just know that the entire movement has been hijacked and corrupted by big oil, big pharma, and all of the other usual suspects.

The Para.





new topics
top topics
 
166
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join