Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

reply to post by melatonin


It effects ALL STUDIES.

If the data is not reliable and they can't figure out what is what, then how can they conclusively say anything? They can't, it comes to a dead in. In science if you collected your data wrong, then you have to recollect the data, you can't just make stuff up to fill in where it screwed up.

The whole thing about this is that it extends further than just the CRU, it extends to NOAA, Giss, etc. If the historical temperature records have been manipulated, which HARRY_README.txt seems to indicate, then you can no longer use the historical temperature record.

Without reliable data you are just playing, you are not conducting real science. My position on this whole thing has always been there is not enough information to prove the Theory of AGW, but CO2 driven AGW was already debunked.

Just compare Climate science to other sciences, ALL data and methods in other sciences are released in the white papers that they publish so other scientist can reproduce their experiments, if other scientist can't reproduce the result then it's on to a new theory.

The fact that it took somebody to leak the computer code and data to actually examine what they hell they were doing is very very telling. The fact that people have sought FOI requests to get this data and have them stall on it is unbelievable.

Now looking at the comments in the code and the data and the e-mails no wonder they didn't want to release any of this stuff, because it's garbage. Honestly it raises more questions in my mind about, whether they continued this to go along with this because high-profile people got involved or because they actually believe the garbage they are trying to shove down our throats.

These people have made a mockery of the peer-review process and Climate Science, that the tax payers have spent Billions of dollars to research, and now to find out that 30+ years of research was just a bunch of advocates playing scientist really makes my blood boil.

Seriously, AGW has become more of a religion than science. Just search around at the analysis of the HARRY_README.txt its appalling.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
It effects ALL STUDIES.

If the data is not reliable...

Which data?

Show me why the data in every single study in climate science is now not reliable. You do understand how ridiculous that claim is?

You said that 'they changed the data and not the models'.

Which data was changed and which models are you referring to?

[edit on 23-11-2009 by melatonin]

I already told you, read HARRY_README.txt. Or at least somebody that has broken it down.

If you refuse to do that, then this conversation is done. You should just bow out because you are just arguing you opinion and not facts. It's starting to look like an argument about religion.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
I already told you, read HARRY_README.txt. Or at least somebody that has broken it down.

If you refuse to do that, then this conversation is done. You should just bow out because you are just arguing you opinion and not facts. It's starting to look like an argument about religion.

lol, you haven't brought any facts, you've just made baseless accusations so far. Indeed, libelous claims of scientific fraud.

I'm asking you to outline the 'facts'. This is how it works in the normal world. You break it down for me.

Which data has been changed and which model are you referring to?

Thought this might be appropriate at this point, and fits the protocol of this thread in the main, from Andrew Freeman at the WaPo:

In order to shed some light on what this scandal may mean for the scientific community and for public perceptions of science, I have contacted several highly respected experts to seek their insight. Keep reading for my first interview (ironically, conducted via email), with Spencer Weart, a science historian with the American Institute of Physics.

...

SW: Back around 2000 leading climate scientists talked to each other mostly about their science--debating one another's data and analysis and negotiating travel, collaboration and other administration--and a little bit about policy. As time passed they have had to spend more and more of their time answering criticism of the scientific results already established, criticism mostly based on ignorance, fallacious reasoning, and even deliberately deceptive claims. Still more recently they have had to spend far too much of their time defending their personal reputations against ignorant or slanderous attacks.

The theft and use of the emails does reveal something interesting about the social context. It's a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.

Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers. In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued by the national science academies, scientific societies, and governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers. Extraordinary and, frankly, weird. Climate scientists are naturally upset, exasperated, and sometimes goaded into intemperate responses... but that was already easy to see in their blogs and other writings.

linky


[edit on 23-11-2009 by melatonin]

I understand most of the jargon as my field is somewhat close to climatology and from what little I read I did not see anything pointing to a conspiracy. Look people, it's really simple. There's this thing called greenhouse effect and CO2 contributes to it. We pump CO2 to the atmosphere and thus contribute to greenhouse effect and by default also global warming.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by rhinoceros]

reply to post by melatonin


What you have just added to this thread from the Washington Post is just another opinion piece and proves nothing. SW's comments are just his opinions and do not show any data.

Good try, but Keep Digging!

reply to post by melatonin


Yep it's pointless to debate with you. I see I'm arguing with a religious zealot. If you refuse to read the document I pointed to you, that will clearly outline the facts for you. Then there is no hope for you.

Until you actually examine what was released for yourself and actually take the time to understand it for yourself this conversation is done.

As you have already stated, you don't find interest is digging through peoples dirty laundry, which means you don't know what you are talking about because you haven't looked at what was in that file, except the spin from the Media.

Have a good day!

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Yep it's pointless to debate with you. I see I'm arguing with a religious zealot. If you refuse to read the document I pointed to you, that will clearly outline the facts for you. Then there is no hope for you.

Of course! I'm meant to support your argument about the unethical action of scientists, lol.

I have already said that I'm not prepared to actively seek out and read stolen emails and documents. I wouldn't appreciate it myself. I'll read whatever extracts you post, though.

Anyway, yeah, ya got nothing. Cheers.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Keep Digging!

I'd rather keep my mitts out of other people's knicker drawers. Sorry, I find it sort of unethical.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by alienesque
hi....if its all pretty harmless..can you explain why someone would say that 'its not about the truth' in a scientific study thats set up find out whats going on with the weather...

i understand one can interpret many things to fit ones view of the world..but i find some of things ive read in these emails beyond the realms of being 'interpretable'....maybe im wrong...

Perhaps you are.

I'm not the type to go digging through others knicker drawers, so you'll need to give me more than 'it's not about the truth'.

perhaps i am..yes..but at least ive looked at the things we are talking about....if you havnt looked..how do you know your right?

Originally posted by alienesque
perhaps i am..yes..but at least ive looked at the things we are talking about....if you havnt looked..how do you know your right?

Until I even see the issue, I know nothing. I don't even have a position.

What I do know is that thus far I've seen a lot of clutching at straws, posturing, quote-mining, and misrepresentation. But if you have a case, and want my opinion/insight, I'll listen.

Up to you, I'm not bothered either way.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by melatonin]

Just to clear this up one more time.

Going through the e-mails and data in what was leaked, is not digging through personal information. Everything that was leaked should be and should have been public information.

The people saying that it is "unethical" to look at the leaked info. is nothing but an excuse to ignore the info. and try to white-wash the evidence of pseudo-science and a clear agenda.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
Just to clear this up one more time.

Going through the e-mails and data in what was leaked, is not digging through personal information. Everything that was leaked should be and should have been public information.

The people saying that it is "unethical" to look at the leaked info. is nothing but an excuse to ignore the info. and try to white-wash the evidence of pseudo-science and a clear agenda.

It isn't leaked info. It is stolen information. Hacking a server is actually a crime in both the US and the UK. Indeed, the police are involved.

And, no, they shouldn't be public information unless the relevant bodies say it should be. You might as well traipse into a military base and try to take a tank. Go try it! Do you think I should be able to walk into a government institution and just take all information about you?

I'm still willing to read what you post, though.

And so far you still haven't told me what data was changed and which models it was referring to. You made the claim, support it.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Why has it been so cold this year then? I think we can all understand the greenhouse effect, but we've been sold the idea that the earth is warming up, when in fact some areas are colder than usual. We can also wonder why some other planets in our solar system are showing signs of change and I doubt our carbon emissions have much to do with that. It could just be that the earth is going through a natural change.

I think it is important to stop pumping our atmosphere with carbon emissions, but I do not think we all need to pay carbon taxes to the elite. That is why I question this whole thing, there is big money, monumental actually, to be made off of GW so it seems that the people that get to create the data to support this theory may have a few people very interested in seeing it proven correct.

There is SO much conflicting data in every aspect of our earth that it's is hard to believe these guys are the answer to a climate change problem. Thought I'd mention that we have been in a solar minimum longer that was expected and though, the sun and it's solar flare activity is supposedly not involved with our weather, it does seem to coincide right now that our weather has actually cooled in the last few years, where it was warming when there was increased solar activity. Oh, so much to contimplate and take into account.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Why has it been so cold this year then? I think we can all understand the greenhouse effect, but we've been sold the idea that the earth is warming up, when in fact some areas are colder than usual.

How do you know that it's been cold this year? Have you looked at global temperature data? It's called global warming, not local warming. Nobody has said that every place will get warmer. We really can't predict with great certainty how this warming is going to effect weather patterns (and thus local climate). They say that poles will warm up way faster and when they lose albedo the warming is just going to get faster and faster. Personally I don't know. For example warmer polar seas mean more evaporation and thus possibly more rain (or snow fall and thus more albedo). These kinds of feedbacks are (I think) impossible to predict with great accuracy. There are just too many variables. By the way it's been really warm here. For example today it was over 8 Celsius. When I was a kid we always had snow on the ground at this time of the year. Not now. Not last year. Not the one before that.. The other winter the sea didn't even freeze.

We can also wonder why some other planets in our solar system are showing signs of change and I doubt our carbon emissions have much to do with that. It could just be that the earth is going through a natural change.

It really can't be just natural since (remember) we're pumping those greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

I think it is important to stop pumping our atmosphere with carbon emissions, but I do not think we all need to pay carbon taxes to the elite. That is why I question this whole thing, there is big money, monumental actually, to be made off of GW so it seems that the people that get to create the data to support this theory may have a few people very interested in seeing it proven correct.

I'm not really interested in the monetary side of this thing.

There is SO much conflicting data in every aspect of our earth that it's is hard to believe these guys are the answer to a climate change problem. Thought I'd mention that we have been in a solar minimum longer that was expected and though, the sun and it's solar flare activity is supposedly not involved with our weather, it does seem to coincide right now that our weather has actually cooled in the last few years, where it was warming when there was increased solar activity. Oh, so much to contimplate and take into account.

"A few years" don't mean anything. It's decades, or centuries that matter here. General trends and such. You know almost all of the 10 warmest years on record have been during the last 15 years. Do you think it's just a coincidence?

[edit on 23-11-2009 by rhinoceros]

From Reuters:

www.reuters.com...

Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer

By Timothy Gardner - Analysis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Revelation of a series of embarrassing e-mails by climate scientists provides fodder for critics, but experts believe the issue will not hurt the U.S. climate bill's chance for passage or efforts to forge a global climate change deal.

Already dubbed "Climategate," e-mails stolen from a British university are sparking outrage from climate change skeptics who say they show that the scientists were colluding on suppressing data on how humans affect climate change.

The e-mails, some written as long as 13 years ago, ranged from nasty comments by global warming researchers about climate skeptics to exchanges between researchers on how to present data in charts to make global warming look convincing.

In one e-mail, according to news accounts, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, wrote: "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."

Climate skeptics seized on the release of the e-mails as a game changer. The documents will speed the end of "global warming alarmism," said Myron Ebell, a climate change skeptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He said research that has been relied upon for official reports "is now very suspect."

Patrick Michaels, one of the scientists derided in the e-mails for doubting global warming, said he thinks the documents will finally "open up the scientific debate."

"That's probably the good news," said Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

But others say the damage may be limited as the evidence is still overwhelming that a buildup of greenhouse gases is melting snow on mountain tops and shrinking global ice caps.

"The issue of scientists behaving badly does nothing to invalidate the science," said Kevin Book, an analyst at ClearView Energy Partners, LLC in Washington. "This does nothing to the U.S. climate bill, which will be decided mostly by economic forces, not environmental ones."

MEAT TO THE WOLVES

Anthony Leiserowitz, the director of the Yale Project on Climate Change, said the release of the e-mails will be remembered mostly as embarrassment to the researchers.

"It shows that the process of science is not always pristine," said Leiserowitz. "But there's no smoking gun in the e-mails from what I've seen."

Leiserowitz, who is a social scientist, said the e-mails would provide fodder for the 2 to 3 percent of the general public that are hard-core climate change doubters. "For that small group it is like meat to the wolves."

At U.N. climate talks set for next month in Copenhagen, the top producers of greenhouse gases are expected to reach political agreements on tackling climate change, but not agree on hard targets for taking action.

The e-mails may serve as good gossip in the halls at the meeting, but will not play a big role otherwise, experts said.

For one thing, the researchers involved were only a handful out of thousands across the world that have contributed to a vast convergence of data that shows the world has warmed.

"Whilst some of the e-mails show scientists to be all too human, nothing I have read makes me doubt the veracity of the peer review process or the general warming trend in the global temperature recorded," said Piers Forster, an environment professor at the University of Leeds.

Analyst Book doesn't see it changing the debate in the U.S. Congress where with few exceptions lawmakers have moved past the issue of whether mankind was warming the planet.

Lawmakers reached that conclusion even before the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued an assessment by thousands of scientists around the world that concluded in 2007 that warming was real and more than 90 percent certain that it was caused by man-made gases.

Book said "there are many reasons why the climate bill could choke, but it won't be about a group of e-mails."

He said the climate bill supporters are pushing it as a jobs bill that could provide employment in nuclear and other clean energy industries. The lawmakers will succeed or fail in passing the bill based on how well they sell those benefits to the public, he added.

(Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe and Tom Doggett in Washington and Gerard Wynn in London; Editing by Russell Blinch)

Original article here

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

Going through the e-mails and data in what was leaked, is not digging through personal information. Everything that was leaked should be and should have been public information.

What Melatonin (and the Left) is doing is hiding behind a facade of ethics or morality and saying they won't look at the email evidence against GW because the evidence was illegally obtained.

Remember the Pentagon Papers, they were illegally obtained and contained condemning evidence against the Nixon Administration about whatever went on in Vietnam and Cambodia during that war. The agenda of the Left at the time was to exit Nam, whatever it took. The Left combed through those Pentagon Papers bit by bit. No moral problem whatsoever then!

But now that their beloved Global Warming is threatened why they have incredible morality! The alternative would be, well, embarassing!

[edit on 23/11/09 by plumranch]

Fox News: Calls for Investigation of Climategate Grow

Also update from CRU:

www.uea.ac.uk...

Climatic Research Unit update - 17.45 November 23

It is a matter of concern that data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites.

The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine. We took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation and have involved the police in what we consider to be a criminal investigation.

The material published relates to the work of our globally-respected Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and other scientists around the world. CRU's published research is, and has always been, fully peer-reviewed by the relevant journals, and is one strand of research underpinning the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous.

CRU is one of a number of independent centres working in this important area and reaching similar conclusions. It will continue to engage fully in reasoned debate on its findings with individuals and groups that are willing to have their research and theories subjected to scrutiny by the international scientific community. The selective publication of some stolen emails 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 raw climate data which has been requested belongs to meteorological services around the globe and restrictions are in place which means that we are not in a position to release them. We are asking each service for their consent for their data to be published in future.

In addition to supporting the police in their enquiries, we will ourselves be conducting a review, with external support, into the circumstances surrounding the theft and publication of this information and any issues emerging from it.

There's also this interesting piece of info from BBC:

www.bbc.co.uk...

'Climategate' - CRU hacked into and its implications

Paul Hudson | 13:07 UK time, Monday, 23 November 2009


Very busy with forecast duties right now, but I do intend to write a blog regarding the UK Climate research centre (CRU) being hacked into, and the possible implications of this very serious affair.

I will add comment on this page as soon as I can free up some time. But I will in the meantime answer the question regarding the chain of e-mails which you have been commenting about on my blog, which can be seen here, and whether they are genuine or part of an elaborate hoax.

I was forwarded the chain of e-mails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the worlds leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article 'whatever happened to global warming'. The e-mails released on the internet as a result of CRU being hacked into are identical to the ones I was forwarded and read at the time and so, as far as l can see, they are authentic.

More later.

[edit on 2009-11-23 by Shirakawa]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by melatonin

 

........
Seriously, AGW has become more of a religion than science. Just search around at the analysis of the HARRY_README.txt its appalling.

Hi Hastobemoretolife,
went through the file you've mentioned. gosh it's big. I cannot see any conclusive evidence of data tinkering, just lot's of code crashing, guys cannot find the data to feed into, models not working correctly, communications problem with other people, documentaions missing - just looks like a normal science to me, big mess everywhere one guy is trying to reproduce the results of another guy, and other stuff. could you point me where you think it looks dodgy please. line number will be fine. thanks. oh, I assume you mean
HARRY_READ_ME.txt not HARRY_README.txt.

From the Guardian:

www.guardian.co.uk...

Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see

The leaked exchanges are disturbing, but it would take a conspiracy of a very different order to justify sceptics' claims

* George Monbiot
* guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 21.00 GMT

It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Yes, the messages were obtained illegally. Yes, all of us say things in emails that would be excruciating if made public. Yes, some of the comments have been taken out of context. But there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.

Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.

But do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.

[...]

The article continues here

Some videos

Glenn Beck on "Climate Gate" Man-Made Global Warming Climate Scam-Actual Proven Conspiracy 11-23-09

Scientists would rather change facts than their theories_MP Peter Lilley for RT

[edit on 2009-11-23 by Shirakawa]