Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

When it comes to analyzing averages, isn't the KISS method the simplest? As in (a+b+c.....)/number of values=answer. I realize that there are some mitigating temperature conditional values that require factoring in to equations, but seriously, the math coming from these people looks ridiculous. Are we sure the ICPP doesn't have a bunch of EU accountants who have been cooking the books for years doing their math? Sure looks that way to me.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by OverSword
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.

Ah ha
I see you have taken this matter in hand.
I will go back through the thread and see if I can learn something. Thanks.
PS see two post back

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Donny 4 million]

This is what Mediamatters writes:

mediamatters.org...

Limbaugh distorts apparently stolen emails to falsely claim global warming is "made up"

November 20, 2009 8:04 pm ET

Rush Limbaugh -- who had previously condemned the "thugs" who hacked then-Gov. Sarah Palin's email account -- joined right-wing bloggers in touting a series of emails that were apparently stolen from the UK's Climate Research Unit [CRU]. Limbaugh proceeded to distort at least one of the emails in order to falsely suggest that it is evidence that global warming is "made up" and that leading climate scientists have been engaged in "substantial fraud."

Limbaugh distorts email apparently stolen by hacker, claims global warming is "made up" and scientists are engaged in "fraud"

On his November 20 radio show, Limbaugh referenced the alleged theft of CRU emails by what he described as a "hacker." Limbaugh went on to read from an email sent in 1999 by CRU director Phil Jones. Limbaugh falsely suggested that a phrase in the email -- "hide the decline" -- was somehow "evidence" of "substantial fraud."

From the November 20 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: By the way, folks, I want to give you a website to go to when you get a chance. It's called climatedepot.com. Something fascinating has happened, and I was first alerted to this today by our official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer. A hacker has gotten into the computers at Hadley CRU. That is Britain's largest climate research institute. They are a huge proponent of global warming.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: I don't know if the jury's still out on that, but more and more people are picking up on this. The whole thing as we've -- I've instinctively known this from the get-go 20 years ago. The whole thing's made up. And the reason I know it is because liberals are behind it. When they're pushing something, folks, it's always bogus. It's never what they say it is. There's always a hidden reason behind the objective. The objective -- stated objective is just designed just to get you feeling guilty, responsible, frightened, scared -- and your kids as well. But it looks like substantial fraud, a lot of evidence of substantial fraud in reporting the evidence on global warming. And Clarice Feldman at the AmericanThinker.com is posted one this, and she's got a sample of the purportedly hacked materials on here -- of the 1,079 emails and 72 documents, and they are available online -- the hackers put them up.

"Dear Roy -- or Ray, Mike, and Malcolm, Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years, i.e., from 1981 onwards, and from the 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline in temperature." To hide the decline in temperature. "Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-September for NH land N of 20 north. The latter two are real for 1999 while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is --" blah-blah-blah-blah-blah.

NASA scientist: Emails do not show that "global warming is a hoax"

NASA's Gavin Schmidt: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way." Schmidt is a contributor to the Real Climate blog, which has stated that some of the stolen CRU emails "involve people" at Real Climate.

Email Limbaugh read was distorted, "pulled out of context"

Real Climate: Jones email "pulled out of context." In a November 20 post, Real Climate's staff, which is made up of several working climate scientists, cited Jones' 1999 email -- which Limbaugh read -- as "one example" of "instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded 'gotcha' phrases [being] pulled out of context." Jones' November 16, 1999, email reads:

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.

LSE Prof: Scientists use "trick" to mean "a clever way of doing something." A November 20 Guardian article reported that Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said of Jones' email: "It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating. ... You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."

Real Climate: "trick" Jones referenced is a method for making the "context of the recent warming ... clear" and isn't "problematic ... at all." Noting that "[s]cientists often use the term 'trick' to refer to a 'a good way to deal with a problem,' " Real Climate explained:

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.

Real Climate: "hiding the decline" refers to method that is "completely appropriate." Real Climate further explained:

[...]

(out of characters)

Continues in the original article with working links and a video

Originally posted by Shirakawa
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

The download I have is the same size as the wikileak download - 61.9 MB, which unrars to around 150 MB.

reply to post by john124


Yes, the file is the same - I actually meant that if the hacker/insider/whistleblower has more data (as he implied with his first and last message), then he should upload it to wikileaks than posting a link in a blog where it would be subject to deletion.

[edit on 2009-11-20 by Shirakawa]

From the Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Data breach at climate research center in U.K

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 20, 2009; 8:35 PM

Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world's foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate skeptics.

Climate skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to look as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, contend the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.

University officials confirmed the data breach, which involves more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents, but said they could not say how many of the stolen items were authentic.

"We are aware that information from a server in one area of the university has been made available on public websites," the statement says. "We are extremely concerned that personal information about individuals may have been compromised. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm what proportion of this material is genuine."

Michael E. Mann, who directs the Earth System Science Center at the Pennsylvania State University, said in a telephone interview from Paris that skeptics are "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious."

In one e-mail from 1999, the center's director Phil Jones alludes to one of Mann's articles in the journal Nature and writes, "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."

Mann said the "trick" Jones referred to was placing a chart of proxy temperature records, which ended in 1980, next to a line showing the temperature record collected by instruments from that time onward. "It's hardly anything you would call a trick," Mann said, adding that both charts were differentiated and clearly marked.

But Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said this and other exchanges show researchers have colluded to establish the scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change.

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

In another e-mail Ben Santer, a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and a climate skeptic, out of sympathy for Jones.

Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.

The original article

www.megaupload.com...
For all those that don't want to mess with a bit torrent client.

Originally posted by Gamma MO
reply to post by nydsdan

 

"Intellectual property" means inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs, etc. I don't think this really fits.

So, if someone had hacked into Bernie Madoff's computer and discovered what he was up to, it would be "wrong" to reveal it?

On another thread somebody's signature line reads (more or less):

"Sometimes your morals may have to be overlooked in order to do the Right Thing." (Nobody said it would be easy.)

I found this list from a blog post:

For who is interested, here are the links to MSM publications today including the NYT [covering the CRU leak story]:
www.theregister.co.uk...
www.foxnews.com...
blogs.telegraph.co.uk...
blogs.wsj.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.nature.com...
www.npr.org...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.newscientist.com...
corner.nationalreview.com...
www.nytimes.com...

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.

A secret agreement to violate the FOIA laws.?????????

Is it not illegal to with hold data paid for by the taxpayers requested under a FOIA unless its national security data.

I wish i knew how to do a FOIA to ask for these secret agreements that these scientist signed and who these "people" are.
This in its self would say a lot about who is involved in this global warming scam.

IPR Intellectual Property Rights may also be misused by being used to hide data or information of further conspiracies by hiding these scientist connection with the environmentalist groups pushing global warming.

Smoking gun? More like a blazing armoury!

[edit on 20-11-2009 by ANNED]

One can only hope that MSM takes this seriously and a REAL debate on climate change gets going.

Wow, it's nice to see someone on the side searching for truth to do something incredibly brave (committing several felonies to show us all this info).

This gives me hope... Maybe if more people were too follow this guys (or girls) footsteps and put more effort into vigilante justice - causing problems for the govt. and TPTB (AKA the 'elite) specifically - would start a huge revolution once people find out how many lies are being told to us all. I mean the top of my list of things I want to happen are number one, Enlightenment for ALL of human kind, but closely following that at #2 is for everyone to become 'AWAKE' and do something about what is happening (it would be nice to over throw the assholes in the govt. who are lying/conspiring etc. but also at the same time maintain our constitution and fix things without the fall of the US or any other big countries).

On a side note, you know how at beauty contests they ask you what you wish for (or whatever they say) and people always say crap like "World peace is my number one thing I would like to attribute too and see happen!" (how fake anyway). Well how funny if like Miss. USA won and said something like "I'd truly like to see full disclosure of all conspiracies going on within our govt.!" or to be even more specific "I'd like to to see the elite go down hard, and a total revolution occur and for the SHEEPLE too wake up!"

Ha, I would love to see some beauty queen say something along those lines, it'd be epic (and I don't use that word ever, but it seems fit to use right now).

Originally posted by melatonin

lol, you have no idea what you're on about.

The reconstruction being mentioned is historical proxy data. They use the modern observations to give context.

You wouldn't know the truth if it bonked you on the noggin.

Of course, instead of a substantive response, you resort to the usual personal attacks. You're so cute when you do that.

"Paleo" reconstruction is not the only data creation AGW advocates resort to, to make their data "fit" the models and pre-determined conclusions/"trends."

It is applied to supply missing, or replace "outlier," measurements as well.
Assuming you are correct in limiting the term to paleo proxies, then there is no justification for "reconstruction" of modern data, is there?

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.

www.realclimate.org...

Even the subject of Jones discussion, Mann, employed "reconstructed" data to massage his results to meet his expectations:

When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions "diverge" from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to "pad" the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann's solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards

www.climateaudit.org...

The AGW Team could not produce the "consensus" results they rely on without resort to "pseudo-proxies" and "reconstructed" data to fit their modeling. It is not limited to paleoclimatic periods since the verification data comes from modern measurements, much of which must be "reconstructed" themselves.

jw

reply to post by jdub297

"Paleo" reconstruction is not the only data creation AGW advocates resort to, to make their data "fit" the models and pre-determined conclusions/"trends."

From someone whom uses Matlab, you are correct. They are doing custom programming to make the model fit into a pre-concieved model.

Not easy if you have a variable of different types of information that has to look correlated but is not.

I have done a lot of sequencing to push things in and out of known laws that are pre-texted as a base to the program. It can be done, but it takes lots of work and each model you do is different.

I do it to get a physical result that should not be. These guys are taking a physical result that was, and trying to change it to something else.


In other words, I agree with you.



[edit on 20-11-2009 by j2000]

Too add.

If they are simply trying to track Temp. over time for trends, you can do that with Excel.

"Hide the decline" refers to Mann's manipulation of the data to create his (in)famous "hockey stick" graph. Had he relied on actual data, the "stick" would have turned down in the latter 20th century.

That wouldn't do, of course, so he used a "trick" to provide the necessary result.

(The green line in the linked image is the actual data. "Mike's" result after the "trick" (violet line) hides the decline and completes the hockey stick.)



Reconstruction is applied by AGW advocates for modern as well as ancient times to "fit" data to desired models/projections/graphs.

www.climateaudit.org...

deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 21-11-2009 by jdub297]

To those who have downloaded the documents, read document # 1256214796 in the Emails section. Interesting read!

To those that haven;t been able to download it yet:

From: "Davies Trevor Prof (ENV)" To: "Ogden Annie Ms (MAC)" , "Briffa Keith Prof (ENV)" , "Jones Philip Prof (ENV)" Subject: RE: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:33:16 +0100 Cc: "Summers Brian Mr (REG)" , "Preece Alan Mr (MAC)" WE should make a statement along these lines. We should also stress that McIntyres analysis has not been peer-reviewed (& we need to explain what this means - for the man-in-the street). Given the fact that this campaign is clearly not going to die down & we now have a silly attempt to escalate it locally (dragging Norfolk's reputation thro the mud), I have revised my view & feel we do need to pursue the spectator more vigorously. To me, it seems straightforward - Keith has been accused of fraud on an official Spectator website - that is (wharever the legal word is). Trevor >-----Original Message----- >From: Ogden Annie Ms (MAC) >Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 3:16 PM >To: Briffa Keith Prof (ENV); Jones Philip Prof (ENV) >Cc: Davies Trevor Prof (ENV); Summers Brian Mr (REG); Preece >Alan Mr (MAC) >Subject: FW: Climate Research Centre crisis spreads > >Dear Phil and Keith, >Marcus has just received this message below from the EDP >environment correspondent. He is telling her he knows nothing >about it (true, as he has just returned from China). > >I have just dropped a note to the solicitor asking if she sees >any problem in our warning her to be very cautious in how >anything is phrased and issuing a statement along the >following lines. (I think the last line would have to come >directly from you Keith) > >For info, still no response from the Spectator to the letter. >I have rung three times (fist time PA told me message had been >opened) and emailed. Solicitor is now looking closely at the >piece in the Spectator to judge whether to send a solicitor's letter. >Best, Annie > > >Draft statement >Any implication that Professor Keith Briffa deliberately >selected tree-ring data in order to manufacture evidence of >recent dramatic warming in the Yamal region of northern Russia >is completely false. A full rebuttal is published on the >Climatic Research Unit's website. > >This stems from a report on the Climate Audit blog site - a >site for climate change sceptics. The blog's editor, Steve >McIntyre, has produced an alternative history of tree-growth >changes in the Yamal region by substituting some of the data >used in Prof Briffa's published and peer-reviewed analysis, >with recent data from a more localised origin than the data >analysed by Prof Briffa. While McIntyre's selection produces >a different result, it cannot be considered to be more authoritative. > >This appears to be an attempt to discredit the work of the >Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change in the run-up to the >Copenhagen climate talks.

There's more but I cannot fit in any more text in here.

Let today forever be known as the Day when a Russian Exposed the FRAUD of AGW, and thus forever brought a tad of credibility back to Climatology!

If these guys really were hiding data that disagreed with their notions, that's a serious breach of protocol. That's probably the greatest sin a scientist can commit. Whoever was hiding data will lose all credibility in the scientific community. Chances are they won't be able to get grants any more. They may have thoroughly trashed their careers.

And now, even if there is anthropogenic global warming, no one's going to believe it.

The timing of this crack is very interesting...

Originally posted by ANNED

IPR Intellectual Property Rights may also be misused by being used to hide data or information of further conspiracies by hiding these scientist connection with the environmentalist groups pushing global warming.

Smoking gun? More like a blazing armoury!

[edit on 20-11-2009 by ANNED]

In fact Intellectual Property Rights evolved out of censorship in Britain (I think) in 17th century.

However, if this popular romantic notion is analyzed in any historic depth, it evaporates rather quickly, and the true and unsavory origin of these institutions surfaces. The U.S. system of copyrights and patents goes back to the English system, which in turn is rooted in old practices of the kingdom. In mediaeval times, the English Crown granted patents in order to raise funds and to secure control over industries that were considered to be of political importance. Copyright was granted as a measure for ensuring government control over the printing press, in a time of great religious and political dissent. The historical root for "Intellectual Property Rights" is monopoly privilege and censorship.

Source

I didn't read this paper but it look like very good and worth of reading all. I remember this history from book about media manipulation which I read 5 years ago. Bit lazy to search my paper archive to find notes but it was by respected schollar.