Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

reply to post by Shirakawa

Thanks for the link, I've posted it elsewhere.
It almost deserves it's own thread...

Be interesting to see how NIWA explains that one.

Edit to add the link for people on this page, seeing as this post went over:

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Follow the link for the full article

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Curious and Concerned]

reply to post by melatonin

Unless you think my responding with the actual facts of FOI laws in the UK, in the face of your moustache curling and denigration of scientists and public workers in general, along with inane responses like...


...is not addressing your ignorance of FOI in the UK.

You do not understand the FOI and FOIA, or do you? Th general rule is for disclosure.


Most thieves claim the same privilege. Unfortunately, the FOI and FOIA rule in favor of disclosure.

It is only when you claim to withhold information that you claim an exemption.

What are you hiding, Hadley?

Claim your privilege!
jw

[edit on 25-11-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by Shirakawa


This Global Warming Con was never about the Fragile Earth.
It was always about Control and Taxes.
Just like a good con man they first gain your confidence then
they take your money with taxes.

A new video from Russia Today:

Hot 'Climategate' debate: Scientists clash LIVE on RT

A respected British scientist has admitted that emails taken from his inbox, calling into question many of the accepted truths of global warming, were genuine. The documents appear to show scientists are holding back, or ignoring, evidence. One even suggested using a "trick" to hide a trend of falling temperatures.

More from Fox News:

Even More ClimateGate on Fox News

Also, coverage (in HD) from PJTV:

PJTV CLIMATEGATE: Emails Cast Doubt on Climate Science

S and F

Ok, this is the biggest news I read in my life! Wow, but I still dont understand WHY the Government want us to believe that the earth is getting warmer? Can someone help me to understand?

Originally posted by airlouche
S and F

Ok, this is the biggest news I read in my life! Wow, but I still dont understand WHY the Government want us to believe that the earth is getting warmer? Can someone help me to understand?

The global warming agenda allows greater govt control- govts love intangible scares and crises to facilitate such control (as well as obtain monies)

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You're still defending their deletion practices?

What deletion practices?

You mean deleting private and confidential emails related to IPCC business? Nothing to defend, they can delete them. The FOI request was refused, it would never be allowed for such information.

Here they admit that even the computer code is subject to FOIA, as I do think I recall you claiming it wouldnt be:

Actually is their interpretation. So would be fairer to say they thought the code would be covered. However, note they also talk about IP rights. Even in universities work is still the intellectual property of the author. Just because a researcher is employed by a university doesn't mean that all their work is the university's property. It depends.

Moreover, the idea in science is not to duplicate others research. There is little value in that. The idea is to replicate. When the likes of McIntyre want to contribute to science, they're free to make the effort - although, he seems incapable of producing anything original. He's the self-appointed blog-based climate 'auditor', lol.

Suuuure, oooookay, he can "HIDE" behind certain obligations. But you argue as if there wasnt even intent to keep his numbers and methods secret. And then you talk as if you know what they actually deleted. Breath-taking...

Not breathtaking at all. Why should any researchers want to submit themselves to the whims of a self-appointed Joe McCarthy?

Anti-science would be an ongoing concerted effort to stiffle the scientific method, on matters that just so happens to involve policy that begs for a global government / tax.

What you (and others) are engaged in is ideologically-motivated anti-science. Which currently includes harassment and smearing/swiftboating of a group of researchers that are producing science that fails to conform to your ideological wishful-thinking.

After Jones faces criminal charges and has to give up the millions in personal wealth he's made during this...

You are joking? lol

Millions in personal wealth?

Millions as in money?

lol

Get a clue.

The notion he'll face any criminal charges is further wishful-thinking. He's done little wrong. The hacker, however...

Do you see the REAL significance of this because it is absolutely fatal to the credibility of anything CRU has produced.

It's actually the notes of a programmer trying to upgrade a database for one set of data (HAD CRU-TS). This dataset is now freely available. Isn't that what you wanted? A coherent source of free and open data?

And you whine about that as well?

What we have here is a documented THREE year effort by a CRU programmer, who had access to all the data, access to all the code, access to all the people who developed the code and the models and still HE could still NOT duplicate CRU’s OWN results.

Nope, sorry. It wasn't to do with 'all the code, all the data blah blah'.

Tell me what studies are affected by this database? It was an effort by one chap to combine disparate databases for a new CRU-TS database. Looks like he had hell.

No?

No, not really. Using other people's databases is a pain in the ass.

And for the likes of jdub (back on ignore, you're boring me again), here's the exemptions to the FOI in the UK, as you obviously have issues clicking links and understanding simple information (due to T&Cs, what I have to hide is my disdain for you - perhaps submit an FOI to ATS, I'm sure the three amigos will appreciate it).

Part II

Exempt information

21.Information accessible to applicant by other means.
22.Information intended for future publication.
23.Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters.
24.National security.
25.Certificates under ss. 23 and 24: supplementary provisions.
26.Defence.
27.International relations.
28.Relations within the United Kingdom.
29.The economy.
30.Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities.
31.Law enforcement.
32.Court records, etc.
33.Audit functions.
34.Parliamentary privilege.
35.Formulation of government policy, etc.
36.Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs.
37.Communications with Her Majesty, etc. and honours.
38.Health and safety.
39.Environmental information.
40.Personal information.
41.Information provided in confidence.
42.Legal professional privilege.
43.Commercial interests.
44.Prohibitions on disclosure.

FOI act 2000 UK

And all FOI requests to the CRU by McIntyre and his cronies have been rightly rejected.

As he was told, 98% of the data he wants is freely available, the other 2% is not available due to prohibitions on disclosure (national met services for commercial reasons). The idea is for him to use that data and replicate. But when they try that, we get schoolboy BS blog-'science', lol.

Even when the vast majority of the data and even software is available (see NASA-GISS), we still have groups harassing groups of climate scientists (see NASA-GISS/Gavin Schmidt and the CEI).

This is just political BS - propaganda and swiftboating. All that's left when you have no scientific case. Which is were you are. Embrace those of your ilk - creationists.

Ciao.

bloody cold today

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

reply to post by melatonin


You'll never budge an inch, too much is at stake!

hrmph:

And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons -- but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom.

www.eastangliaemails.com...

So would you aruge that the Pentagon Papers shouldnt have been used to end the Vietnam war and indict Nixon? I'd say TOP SECRET military data far outweighs anything you can muster about CRU.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You'll never budge an inch, too much is at stake!

Too much? I've said this elsewhere, even if you take out all work by Jones and Mann the general conclusion changes very little. A bunch of hacked emails doesn't change physics.

They are just a few researchers involved in one subfield of climatology.

So would you aruge that the Pentagon Papers shouldnt have been used to end the Vietnam war and indict Nixon? I'd say TOP SECRET military data far outweighs anything you can muster about CRU.

I'd also say it's a silly comparison.

One was a whistleblower leaking information to a newspaper about immoral actions of the US administration during a war, the other is a group of scientists being harassed by anti-science ideologues currently motivated by a series of stolen emails released on the interdweebs involving general private chatter and frustration at being harassed by anti-science ideologues and their attempts to subvert the scientific process.

It's nothing to do with releasing data blah blah, that's just a propaganda weapon of choice. See the CEI legal attack on NASA-GISS/Gavin Schmidt (who release almost all data and even software).

98% of the CRU raw data that McIntyre wants is freely available, the other 2% is from commercialised sources. He can pay for it. Perhaps the CEI could have used some of the $2 million they received from Exxon to buy it for him. Suppose much of went to buy their talking heads...

John Christy
Contributing Writer
Source: CEI website, 3/04

Sen. James Inhofe
Co-plaintiff in lawsuit
Source: "Earth Last," The American Prospect, 5/7/04

Sallie Baliunas
Scientific Expert
Source: CEI website, various

Steven Milloy
Adjunct Analyst
Source: CEI Website 5-2006

Chris DeFreitas
Scientist Lobbyist
Source: Amicus brief written by Competitive Enterprise Institute

Bjorn Lomborg
Awarded Julian Simon Award 2003
Source: Bjorn gets Julian Simon Award from CEI

Patrick J. Michaels
CEI Expert
Source: CEI Website (2006)

So what was the story again about peer review and the journal 'climate research' mentioned in the emails?

Oh yeah. Chris DeFreitas was a rogue editor waving crap articles with schoolboy errors from the likes of Sallie Balliunas through weak review into publishing. Leading to several of the other editors resigning in protest. Hmmm, and I wonder why the likes of Jones et al were worried about the veracity of such a journal and the strength of its peer review process.

Oh, and look! There's Inhofe as well. The dude with the swiftboating friend, and at the forefront of the political attack on climate science for several years.

Another article discussed in the emails is this:

David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearsona and S. Fred Singer, “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, Int. J. Climatol. (2007). Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651
Interesting string of emails

This one is labelled with the claim of scientific fraud. And that's Fred Singer of serial shill denier fame (from tobacco to CFCs to global warming). Like Christy and Douglass, associated with a series of free-market think-tanks.

We've been here before. The 'tobacco wars'. Science couldn't give a fig about your ideological wishful-thinking.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Blah blaah blah... baaah baah baaah

Here's a nice writeup putting numerous Climategate admissions of data manipulation into perspective:
*Beyond Climategate: Virtually all climate ’science’ temp. data is irrelevant and/or PHONY.

reply to post by melatonin


Mel, I think it's a bit rich you talking about someone else's ideological motivation, considering your stance on the famed "hockey stick" a couple of years back, which was shown to be complete and utter rubbish.

You even argued for it when it had been clearly debunked, insisting that it was right.

you defended it to the hilt even when it had been proven beyond doubt to be wrong.

For those who want to see for themselves, use the search function, with "hockey stick" in the top line and "melatonin" in the author line.

Then you'll see that Mel is just as ideologically driven as anyone else.



[edit on 27/11/2009 by budski]

Climategate debate in BBC



[edit on 2009-11-27 by Shirakawa]

Brrrrrrrrrr chilly chilly in Northern Ireland again today!

Originally posted by melatonin
We've been here before. The 'tobacco wars'. Science couldn't give a fig about your ideological wishful-thinking.

i love that kind of non sequitur. tobacco was 'busted' by medical researchers (no one believed that smoke was healthy in the first place, obviously) so everything a particular climatology research team does must be correct? these people are apparently spending an enormous amount of time talking about their evil adversaries and what they might come up with next while sitting on a pile of truely hacked, as in botched, data they jealously guard against the entire world.

have those who studied the effects of tobacco done the same? as far as i can tell, they haven't, in fact only in climatology can people do as they please for years on end with lush funding and exempt from and shielded against criticism in any shape or form. anti-science... well, if they can't reproduce the charts published in every journal with the data they have (they can't, if harry_read_me.txt is accurate) they'll be toast, along with the credibility of every publication that regurgitated this fraud. it's been in the news, millions of people around the world have d/led the material, even more have read the quotes on the web and to top it off, the story was broadcast in the TV news in both the UK and the US, at the very least.

continue in damage control mode and you'll all be looking as guilty as sin by the end of the year, but you'll be in 'good' company, 98% of the MSM, several scientific journals and a couple of millions opportunists with an impaired reaction time will be joining you.


it's one thing to have been duped and used, actively propagating the whole thing with full knowledge of its nature is something else entirely.

[edit on 2009.11.27 by Long Lance]

Great Video on the Climate Scam.
GW Scam

[EDIT] Sorry, I thought it was new, but it actually isn't.
Investigations were announced on November 24.[/EDIT]

I think this is relevant news:

Congress Launches Climategate Investigation

Read article here

Related video:

Inhofe Announces Climategate Investigation on Fox News

[edit on 2009-11-27 by Shirakawa]

[edit on 2009-11-27 by Shirakawa]

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by melatonin

 

Mel, I think it's a bit rich you talking about someone else's ideological motivation, considering your stance on the famed "hockey stick" a couple of years back, which was shown to be complete and utter rubbish.

And I'll repeat the same I would have said then, which hockey stick?

Bud, it wasn't shown to be rubbish at all. Just repeating the same old smears and perseverating on a decade old study doesn't validate your wishful-thinking.

We have a dozen hockey sticks collected since the first. All validating the original Mann et al study (latest IPCC report).



Enjoy the derby.

Originally posted by Long Lance
i love that kind of non sequitur. tobacco was 'busted' by medical researchers (no one believed that smoke was healthy in the first place, obviously) so everything a particular climatology research team does must be correct?

I've no idea how you got that conclusion from my statements.

There's enough information around about what happened in the tobacco wars. The buying of shill scientists to spread FUD.

Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. ... Spread doubt over strong scientific evidence and the public won’t know what to believe

Brown & Williamson (internal memo, tobacco company)

Exactly what Exxon tried to do with climate science. Along with other companies and organisations. I know you're blind to the propaganda, but when you're losing the science, only propaganda and FUD left to protect the $$$$$$ and ideological wishful-thinking.

The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field

Luntz memo for republicans

Committee Report: White House Engaged in Systematic Effort to Manipulate Climate Change Science

The evidence before the Committee leads to one inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming.

No more than a manufactroversy. Perhaps read a few books about the tobacco wars. Then maybe the republican war on science by Chris Mooney.

And I'll highlight again, NASA-GISS release almost all their data yet they and Gavin Schmidt are under legal attack by an ex-Exxon funded think-tank (CEI). Inhofe (lead denier of the GOP) is pushing a new attack on climate science, he who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funding from energy interests (and Koch). No science, just political shenanigans.

Say no more. Ignore the elephant in the room.