It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:53 AM
reply to post by nydsdan

Intellectual property? Is than supposed to be some sort of joke? Your sad attempt at quashing the truth by imposing your own ethical standards certainly doesn't buy you any weight with me, in fact I'd suggest that the vast majority of the Internet would laugh in your face. No one care about your intellectual property. No one cares about this intellectual property. You just seem to be another of those people who seem to think that copyright can be used as a tool of censorship. Obviously you are sorely mistaken. Your values are all wrong man. But heh, at least now you know you are part of the problem, and you can do something about it, or just carry on being ignorant, your choice.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:54 AM

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

I see nothing wrong in trying to save the planet, but the whole global warming thing in the way businesses and the government are selling it has always appeared wrong to me...

Same here. I think it was the minute people started trying to make money off of saving the planet. The problem is that it is a double-edged sword because unclean energy is the norm and makes a lot of money so unclean energy will remain superior as they have the economic advantage. Initially, conservationists and alternative energy folks thought if they could level the financial playing field they would be able to topple big-oil. The problem is the same folks that were profiting off of unclean energy decided to hop on the clean energy bandwagon and turn it into a commodity with carbon taxes and cap & trade scams.

The key here is inexpensive clean energy. If that exists and comes out then it would be a true game-changer.

Let's face it, we could come up with the most pure, perfect thing in the universe and somebody would try to make a ton of money off of it thus turning it into a steaming pile of crap.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:55 AM
First of all... this is freekin' awesome! Finally some truth comes out which will hopefully send Al Gore back under his rock. F'n loser!
Second... For those of you who are morally against distributing this info, did you ever consider the fact that these 'scientists' have UN-ethically been lying to us for decades in order to make money. And pleaase don't shoot back with "that doesn't make it right".
Third... This just confirms what I've been saying for years that we can't even accurately predict tomorrow's weather! How can we possibly predict what will happen globally decades from now?
Fourth... As many have said, this doesn't mean I want the world to go back to the dark ages. We need to continue to move towards clean energy. However it needs to be based on logic and science... not manipulated to line the pockets of the 'elite'.
Last... Any 'scientist' who has deliberately manipulated data should be stripped of whatever professional titles they may carry.
One more thing... Did I mention this is freekin' AWESOME!

+6 more 
posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:55 AM
reply to post by nydsdan

...and who the hell do you think pays for all the grants, work and data that has been "stolen"? Yep, that's right, us, the taxpayers. This data, emails, the whole damned lot should be a matter of public record. The fact that it isn't is indicative of the effort to suppress and cherry pick to prop up a lie.

If, as might be the case, this data shows manipulation to push an agenda, then the people behind it should be arrested and charged. Surely the misrepresentation of data to promote a political and financial agenda must be worthy of jail time.

Of course, look for this to be played down - those behind AGW have far too much invested to allow themselves to lose a penny.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by nydsdan

Well stolen is a relative term here to be honest. These are documents available through the Freedom of Information Act, and they even talk about that fact in the emails, and dicuss ways to hide it and prevent FOI. One even says he would rather destroy data than release an FOI reuqest.

Considering it is government funded, I will remind you, you are the government, we are the government, thats our information they are playing games with, and for those very reasons, this was bound to happen.

Will be interesting to see how the pro-climate change group reacts to this, I love to observe people. Would be even more interesting to go back in history and see if the people standing against this were all for hacking of Palins' email.

Just sayin..

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 09:58 AM
reply to post by Britguy

The people behind AGW are probably selling their butts off on Wallstreet, too, or will as soon as this light shines into their green little world.

Watch the market, seriously.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by Shirakawa

seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory


"most of the most prominent "

YOu have no idea, This is incredible, I have spent years on this topic, I feel so


let's party!

[edit on 103030p://bFriday2009 by Stormdancer777]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by nydsdan

I think it was the minute people started trying to make money off of saving the planet

Exactly when I saw the politics involved and investigated the Kyoto protocol, red flags went up.

Somebody call Al.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:04 AM
i dont mean to be rude to the OP. if anyone wants to know the truth behind global warning watch the weather forecast. no one can even predict an accurate forecast for the coming week so why should anyone believe that anyone can predict 1,5,10,50 or 100 years into the future ?

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:08 AM
Pretty serious, and very interesting. Thanks for the post

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:08 AM

HadleyCRU says leaked data is real
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….

4 days ago, eh? Means they had plenty of time to go wipe the rest of it out and shred all the docs.

Do hacked e-mails show global-warming fraud?

posted at 8:48 am on November 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly Controversy has exploded onto the Internet after a major global-warming advocacy center in the UK had its e-mail system hacked and the data published on line. The director of the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit confirmed that the e-mails are genuine — and Australian publication Investigate and the Australian Herald-Sun report that those e-mails expose a conspiracy to hide detrimental information from the public that argues against global warming (via Watt’s Up With That):

Great writeup on HotAir

Also here: Fox News may be the first MSM to break it

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:08 AM

Originally posted by william76
i dont mean to be rude to the OP. if anyone wants to know the truth behind global warning watch the weather forecast. no one can even predict an accurate forecast for the coming week so why should anyone believe that anyone can predict 1,5,10,50 or 100 years into the future ?

They may not know whether or not it's going to rain in three days, but they certainly know the average temperatures of Earth and other planets over the course of the last decade and more.

Whether it rains on Tuesday is not really part of the whole global warming debate.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Britguy
reply to post by nydsdan

...and who the hell do you think pays for all the grants, work and data that has been "stolen"? Yep, that's right, us, the taxpayers. This data, emails, the whole damned lot should be a matter of public record. The fact that it isn't is indicative of the effort to suppress and cherry pick to prop up a lie.

You make the best counterpoint to my argument. Star for you.

Now, if this info was all public domain and an FOI request could have gotten it just as easily, why did we need a hacker to break into a server to steal the info?

All I was saying is although I am happy the info is out there, I do not condone the method in which the info was obtained. I was not passing judgement on anybody, just stating my feelings. I forgot that I should be all like "yeah, stick it to the man!" instead. What a circlejerk this thread has become.

Flame the hell out of me anyway because I have scruples. Whatever.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:11 AM
Just in case anyone doubts the legitimacy of the story, here's the current "Welcome Message" at Hadley CRU:

This website is currently being served from the CRU Emergency Webserver.
Some pages may be out of date.
Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible.

People may criticize the method of "disclosure," but two points well made are

1. this is a publicly funded/owned research center

2. truth trumps fraud, regardless of means and source (recall the "Pentagon Papers" and the WaPo's "Watergate" series).

Claiming protection of "copyright" or "proprietary rights" when the law is manipulated to enrich and defraud an otherwise ignorant benefactor is "the last refuge of the scoundrel."


posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:11 AM
I think the biggest problem with all of this is the fact that the system was hacked into 3 - 5 days ago.

Has there been any discussion as to why it took so long to post?

I just have a feeling that they are going to ultimately end-up saying that the information contained within the emails was altered in that 3 - 5 day lapse.

They've acknowledged the system was hacked, they've acknowledged that the names are genuine, but I'm fairly certain that they are not going to determine the CONTEXT to be genuine.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by nydsdan

I agree with you, tho having implemented some EU wide enviromental directives nothing about them appears really enviormental to me at the practical implementation level. They sound good and businesses/government can put there hand on their heart and tell the general public how wonderful they are (complete BS) while charging the earth for whatever new make beleive service they plan to charge for.

Take the EU WEEE directives (waste electrical and electronic equiepment) which is designed to deal with the heavy metals in electronic goods.. but what about the plastics, since you can not recycle the plastics (to many different additives) so to reclaim the metal you need to use smelting as the ideal method of reclamation..

So you go from posioning the earth to posioning the atmosphere.. while my government and the climate groups tell me to drive less as it prevents polution of the atmosphere.. So all I see is two faced lies.

I don't mind working to save our enviroment, but I could no longer work implementing directives that I felt were false.

[edit on 20/11/09 by thoughtsfull]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:20 AM
reply to post by detachedindividual


I have no opinion on global warming.

However, for all your pretty words, I can see that the fix is being used to keep third world countries from developing. The first world pays the rich and educated of the 3rd World to keep their people dumb and unproductive.

That is not okay.

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:21 AM
OK I've just started quickly skimming over these docs and TBH most of it is over my head... Can any one point me towards some of the more juicy file names? I really don't know what I'm supposed to be looking for here just yet!...

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:22 AM
More coverage from The Guardian:

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists

Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists over the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online. The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege that they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view among the world's climatologists that climate change is real and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind. So far the veracity of the emails has not been confirmed and the scientists involved have declined to comment on the story which broke on a blog called The Air Vent.

The files, which in total amount to 61Mb of data, were first uploaded onto a Russian server, before being widely mirrored across the internet. The emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement, "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."

A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said: "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all of this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and we have involved the police in this enquiry."

Professor Phil Jones, the director of Climate Research Unit, features in many of the alleged emails. In one, dated November 1999, he discusses with three other climatologists how best to present data. This sentence, in particular, has been leaped on by sceptics as evidence of manipulating data, but, as yet, the veracity of the email has not been verified by the alleged sender or its recipients.

The emails also illustrate the persistent personal pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land-and-sea temperature recordings that is "value added" by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.

When the Guardian asked Professor Jones to verify whether these emails were genuine, he refused to comment.

Professor Michael E Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, is another prominent climatologist who features in many of the email exchanges. He said: "I'm simply not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping that the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."

The source

[edit on 2009-11-20 by Shirakawa]

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 10:23 AM
> Mr McIntyre's analysis of the data -
>which he had been asking for since
> 2003 - suggests that scientists at the
>Climate Research Unit of the United Kingdom's
>Bureau of Meteorology have been using only a
>small subset of the available data to make their
>claims that recent years have been the hottest of
>the last millennium. When the entire data set is
>used, Mr McIntyre claims that the hockey stick shape disappears
> completely. [1

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in