Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails

page: 7
166
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
After reviewing some of the files that I have downloaded I am wondering if it is too on the nose with the negative statements and intentions. If this is real the folks that wrote this enforce the growing knowledge of conspiracy in all facets of life. on the other hand if it is a hoax all it will do is push reasonable people away from an important matter.
crossing fingers.




posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by speaknoevil07
reply to post by Goathief
 


piratebay.com is a known virus site, be warned about downloading frm there................fyi


Or use POSIX/UNIX based OS like Linux, BSD or at least MACOS (another corporate beast). Otherwise piratebay.com is just tracker, they are not and can't be responsible for presented contents. Free data exchange require responsible behaviour. If well meant, then still good post. If you prefer to fight malware constantly then stick with M$ WinS# and be proud to prop corp world.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:09 PM
link   
So, I wonder if this is what Al Gore means by an 'Inconvenient truth?'


It hasn't been too many years ago that I was almost ready to buy the whole AGW idea, but when they trotted out the whole carbon credit scam, I knew we were being had and that it was all about enriching the politicians and businessmen who were backing it. Its good to see the truth finally come out and whoever hacked or leaked these documents has done us all a great service.

Now, maybe we can address some real environmental issues instead of wasting our time and resources on gimmicks like this one? Nah, I doubt it. It won't deter the true believers one bit.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
A bit more about how they should tackle the FOI requests...

email 1219239172



rom: Phil Jones
To: Gavin Schmidt
Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper
Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008
Cc: Michael Mann

Gavin,
Almost all have gone in. Have sent an email to Janice re the regional freshening.
On the boreholes I've used mostly Mike's revised text, with bits of
yours making it read a little better.
Thinking about the final bit for the Appendix. Keith should be in later, so
I'll check with him - and look at that vineyard book. I did rephrase the bit
about the 'evidence' as Lamb refers to it. I wanted to use his phrasing - he
used this word several times in these various papers. What he means is his
mind and its inherent bias(es).
Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and
traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to
something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible.
Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our
FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions
not to respond - advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an
aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself
from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with
this hassle.
The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI - the
skeptics
have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info
the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't
have an obligation to pass it on.
Cheers
Phil


and
email 1214229243



From: Tim Osborn
To: P.Jones, k.briffa, ammann
Subject: Re: CA
Date: Mon Jun 23 09:54:03 2008

Hi Phil, Keith and "Confidential Agent Ammann",
At 17:00 21/06/2008, P.Jones wrote:

This is a confidential email

So is this.

Have a look at Climate Audit. Holland has put all the
responses and letters up.
There are three threads - two beginning with Fortress and
a third later one.
Worth saving the comments on a Jim Edwards - can you do this Tim?

I've saved all three threads as they now stand. No time to read all the comments, but I
did note in "Fortress Met Office" that someone has provided a link to a website that helps
you to submit FOI requests to UK public institutions, and subsequently someone has made a
further FOI request to Met Office and someone else made one to DEFRA. If it turns into an
organised campaign designed more to inconvenience us than to obtain useful information,
then we may be able to decline all related requests without spending ages on considering
them. Worth looking out for evidence of such an organised campaign.
Tim



[edit on 20/11/09 by flice]

[edit on 20/11/09 by flice]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
It's MSM news now, on as Fox reports...


Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails
Friday, November 20, 2009


Print ShareThis
Climatic Research Unit


CRU's main building. Since the server was hacked, the center's site reads, "This website is currently being served from the CRU Emergency Webserver"
Hackers broke into the servers at a prominent British climate research center and leaked years worth of e-mail messages onto the Web, including one with a mysterious reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in data about temperatures.

The Internet is abuzz about the leaked data from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (commonly called Hadley CRU), which has acknowledged the leak of 61MB of confidential data.

Climate change skeptics describe the leaked data as a "smoking gun," evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind. The files were reportedly released on a Russian file-serve by an anonymous poster calling himself "FOIA."

In an exclusive interview in Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition, Phil Jones, the head of the Hadley CRU, confirmed that the leaked data is real.

"It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago," he told the magazine, noting that the center has yet to contact the police about the data breach.

TGIF Edition asked Jones about the controversial "hide the decline" comment from an e-mail he wrote in 1999. He told the magazine that there was no intention to mislead, but he had "no idea" what he meant by those words.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Hi guys, I am the creator of the searchable link to the story @ www.anelegantchaos.org...

I rattled it off in an hour when I get home, it's not prefect, but it is searchable now, single word or at least a chain of relevant words best, I'll spend a little time improving the algorithms to filter out better results.

Enjoy!

H



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by anelegantchaos
 


Great work!
Do you plan to put online there the document and data files too?



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
If I get the chance to yes, I have confirmed them all as virus free, problem I have is the MS doc files wont open in Open Office and I only have WordPad, but I will spend a fair bit of time on this tomorrow and Sunday.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by anelegantchaos
If I get the chance to yes, I have confirmed them all as virus free, problem I have is the MS doc files wont open in Open Office and I only have WordPad, but I will spend a fair bit of time on this tomorrow and Sunday.


The doc files open in my OO - odd.


If you need a hand give me a shout.

*EDIT*
As for The Pirate Bay (TPB) being a known "virus" site, please - it's no different to all the other tracker sites/p2p software out there... at least with TPB there are comments that often give a heads up before you even download.

I can confirm that the file I linked to on TPB is virus free and as far as I can tell is identical to the original.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by Goathief]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Dunno what the deal was, I downloaded the thing at work today and could only open the MS files in Wordpad (we only use OO at work v3). It's no biggie. What I'd like to do ideally is make the word docs searchable too.

First thing is to get the search engine working properly, I need to build a decent array of excluded words for the open terms part of it (skipping 'the', 'and' etc the moment, just need to add a few dozen to make the results meaningful).

Anyway onwards and upwards!

H



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I don't know if you guys really think that someone would have gone to such trouble inventing all this stuff but as far as I can tell, what I'm reading is mind boggling. Be patient and read for your self. There is a lot of information and easy to understand what's going on. I hate the secrecy



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
The story made it on Slashdot:

politics.slashdot.org...


Climatic Research Unit Hacked, Files Leaked


on Friday November 20, @02:51PM
Posted by kdawson on Friday November 20, @02:51PM
from the playing-dirty dept.

huckamania was one of many readers to write with the news that the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit was hacked, and internal documents released. Some discussion and analysis of the leaked items can be found at Watts Up With That. The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine. Some of the emails would seem to raise concerns about the science as practiced — or at least beg an explanation. From the Watts Up link:


"[The CRU] is widely recognized as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server. Here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today: '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.' The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files. It contained data, code, and emails apparently from the CRU. If proved legitimate, these bombshells could spell trouble for the AGW crowd."


Reader brandaman supplied the link to the archive of pilfered data. Reader aretae characterized the emails as revealing "...lots of intrigue, data manipulation, attempting to shut out opposing points of view out of scientific journals. Almost makes you think it's a religion. Anyone surprised?" And reader bugnuts adds, for context: "These emails are certainly taken out of context, whether they are legitimate or fraudulent, which adds to the confusion."


Source with working links



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


Those emails just show frustration at papers that he's saying doesn't use science or evidence. If someone hacked into the sceptics email accounts, you'd find the same accusations vice versa. So this doesn't prove really anything.

[edit on 20-11-2009 by john124]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   

If it turns into an
organised campaign designed more to inconvenience us than to obtain useful information,
then we may be able to decline all related requests without spending ages on considering
them. Worth looking out for evidence of such an organised campaign.


An inconvenience and time-consuming maybe to release data, rather than anything criminal to hide.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Nature reports this too:

www.nature.com...


Leading British climate centre hacked



One of Britain's leading climate-research centres has had more than 1,000 files stolen from its computers and republished on the Internet. The cyber-attack is apparently aimed at damaging the reputations of prominent climate scientists.

The University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Norwich confirmed today that e-mails and documents dating from 1991 to 2009 were illegally copied and subsequently published on an anonymous Russian server.

A link to the Russian server first appeared on 19 November on a relatively obscure climate-sceptic blog. The server was shut down just hours later, but the stolen material had already been distributed elsewhere on the Internet.

"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," says Simon Dunford, a spokesman for the University of East Anglia. "This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation."

The volume of the information is too large to "currently confirm that all of this material is genuine", Dunford says, adding that the university will undertake an internal investigation and has already involved the police in the enquiry.

Some climate-sceptic bloggers are already poring over the posted material, which includes e-mails allegedly sent by the CRU's director Phil Jones to fellow climate researchers, including Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Mann is the author of a widely cited assessment of past climate records, known as the hockey-stick graph, which shows a pronounced global-warming trend during the latter part of the twentieth century.

"I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained e-mails," says Mann. "However, their theft constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping that the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows." Jones declined to comment on the matter.

With less than three weeks to go until the start of the United Nations' climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Mann doubts that the timing of the attack is a coincidence. "The deniers will probably do anything they can to distract the public from the reality of the problem [of climate change], and the threat that it poses," he says. "Cherry-picked, out-of-context quotes, stolen from private e-mails, is the best they've got."

*
References
1. Mann, M. E. , Bradley, R. S. & Hughes, M. K. Nature 392, 779−787 (1998).


The original source



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Just so everyone knows, Facebook are censoring this file and related news articles from the News Feed. I posted one comment with the file and a separate comment with a news article, both displayed there fine for 4 minutes then were removed from the news feed, despite them still showing on my profile.

I've had it confirmed by several friends also that it is no longer displaying in the news feed - bug it 'aint.



[edit on 20-11-2009 by Goathief]



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
More coverage from BBC:
news.bbc.co.uk...


Harrabin's Notes: E-mail arguments


In his regular column, the BBC's environment analyst, Roger Harrabin, assesses the arguments sparked by the leaking of information on climate change.


Scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia are facing a fierce attack from climate sceptics following the hacking of the university's computer.

The hacker stole thousands of e-mails and data. Much of it has been posted on the web. And some of the e-mails are causing acute embarrassment.

My contacts at the CRU tell me the e-mails are being taken out of context and insist they are part of the normal hurly-burly of conversations between scientists working on some of the most complicated questions of our times.

They ask how many of us would feel completely comfortable if our own inboxes were emptied out for the world to see. How much of what we had said to close colleagues in industry jargon would be liable to misinterpretation?

"If the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) can't do closed e-mail, no-one with any expertise could do anything. I don't know how you are supposed to work if you don't have e-mail," my source said.

But the e-mail stash is proving a treasure trove for sceptics who have challenged every facet of climate science and policy.

Some of the e-mails reveal the frustration and annoyance among mainstream climate researchers about the probings they face from critics who relentlessly question their methodology.

And although my contact insists that the e-mails are about how data is presented and interpreted, sceptics say the e-mailers may have been discussing how the data could be manipulated.

The CRU has been repeatedly asked to publish the entire data set from which it compiled an important grid-based record of global temperatures.

It says it will publish full details when it has clearance from all the world's meteorological offices whose permission is needed.

But speaking to my source at the CRU, it is also clear that the unit has been dragged down by what it considers to be nit-picking and unreasonable demands for data - and that there is personal animus against their intellectual rivals.

Now this sort of hostility is nothing new in academia - but the revelations come at a sensitive time as the world's nations gather for the climate meeting in Copenhagen.

My CRU source points out that its unpublished full data set is almost identical to the ones at the National Climatic Data Center and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies.

Both of these are in the US, where there are no restrictions on publication. The CRU view is that when the sceptics see the full data in due course they will be very disappointed.

The scientific establishment is likely to support the CRU. Despite continuing uncertainties in some areas of climate science, they say officially that their overall confidence that humans are warming the climate is now more than 90%.

One leading figure told me unofficially that confidence was now at 99%.

But the e-mail controversy may prove an uncomfortable moment in the careers of some of researchers in the spotlight and will undoubtedly provoke demands for renewed scrutiny of the CRU's influential work.

These demands are likely to surface in the US Senate, where climate change sceptics and their supporters are holding up the energy and climate bill which President Barack Obama needs before he can sign a legally binding agreement over cutting emissions.


The original article



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by zeddissad
 


We could also say that the root of the problem lie in the general lack of computer knowledge.
in consequence i guess i have a problem seeing someone unable to prevent his system from being infected, being able to install freebsd properly !

back to the leaked mail :

I downloaded the files, read some of it, and i really think whatever the reason , the motivation of those scientist, there is quite an objectionable behavior.


oh, and just for "fun" do a search with the term "fraud"
i got 96 hits, leading to some interesting reads.



posted on Nov, 20 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by john124
 


Hey, you're from England! Funny that you are reading more into these than the rest of us. I think the emails are pretty clear. The 2 posted by flice show an interest by Phil and Tim to dodge giving data out under the Freedom Of Information law and looks like the scientists are willing to waste plenty of time checking out websites to see how their office can get around furnishing data to those that are requesting it. As professional they seem to be saying what they mean quite clearly (to me-and I'm no scientist-but I can read.)





new topics
top topics
 
166
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join