CRU E-mails and data

[Iceberg]

No jethro, sorry it doesn't, nobody is suggesting anywhere that all of the worlds global temperature datasets which show temps increasing has been manipulated.

Sorry through your post you have done exactly what shouldnt be done on this subject.

Phil has not confirmed that all of the mails are accurate, he confirmed a leak had taken place and that Something had been said.

[Gray-Wolf]

For those who have no religious 'feeling' that every thought/deed is witnessed ( and a measure of the person) then surely this age of surveillance has everyone knowing that nothing is now private?

That said why would folk be dumb enough to post , over the ether, proof positive that they are fraudulent fools?

[jethro]

No jethro, sorry it doesn't, nobody is suggesting anywhere that all of the worlds global temperature datasets which show temps increasing has been manipulated.

Sorry through your post you have done exactly what shouldnt be done on this subject.

Phil has not confirmed that all of the mails are accurate, he confirmed a leak had taken place and that Something had been said.

My posts have all been littered with If, at no point have I said this is legit, all of it's real etc, I've made every effort to take it at face value as possibly being real.

If the Hadley data on temperatures is shown to have been manipulated or subjected to any form of cherry picking interpretation, it will cast doubt upon the entire temperature data sets - rightly or wrongly, it will happen. They've already been subject to much criticism and speculation, this will add fuel to the fire whether we like it or not.

The e-mail, allegedly from Phil Jones where he discusses his avoidance of releasing data to Climate Audit hardly makes a positive statement about the transparency of data; he even uses the term "I'll hide behind".

All of this is of course, still to be confirmed as being true.

That said why would folk be dumb enough to post , over the ether, proof positive that they are fraudulent fools?

That's a good question, the first thing which sprang to my mind too, closely followed by "why would they not delete them?"

[Iceberg]

I'd hide from the sceptics if this is what the debate has boiled down to and how things are treated out here in internet land .. :unsure:

[Admiral_Bobski]

Bear in mind that the recipients (and senders) of the e-mails may well have deleted them at their end(s), but mail servers often keep copies in archives. It seems likely that a hacker would not take time to hack numerous e-mail accounts but would aim straight for the archives.

I am not condoning the hack in any way, shape or form, nor am I going to accept this as all true and unmanipulated, but I would have thought that it would be an absolutely gargantuan task to trawl through literally thousands of emails and documents and plant disinformation.

One thing that may point to suspicious goings-on is the fact that, apparently, the hack took place a few days before the documents were released on the web. On the other hand, it may simply be that the hacker(s) spent some time going through the correspondence before releasing it.

Whatever the situation, now is certainly not the time for skeptics to be jumping up and down declaring victory (not accusing anyone here of that!)- if it does turn out to be fraudulent then there's going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces. At the same time, I am surprised at how aggressively defensive a lot of Pros are becoming already (and I mean across the whole web).

Right now it's a bit of a waiting game while the legitimacy of the documents is determined.

:unsure:

CB

[Devonian]

Bear in mind that the recipients (and senders) of the e-mails may well have deleted them at their end(s), but mail servers often keep copies in archives. It seems likely that a hacker would not take time to hack numerous e-mail accounts but would aim straight for the archives.

I am not condoning the hack in any way, shape or form, nor am I going to accept this as all true and unmanipulated, but I would have thought that it would be an absolutely gargantuan task to trawl through literally thousands of emails and documents and plant disinformation.

One thing that may point to suspicious goings-on is the fact that, apparently, the hack took place a few days before the documents were released on the web. On the other hand, it may simply be that the hacker(s) spent some time going through the correspondence before releasing it.

Whatever the situation, now is certainly not the time for skeptics to be jumping up and down declaring victory (not accusing anyone here of that!)- if it does turn out to be fraudulent then there's going to be a lot of egg on a lot of faces. At the same time, I am surprised at how aggressively defensive a lot of Pros are becoming already (and I mean across the whole web).

Right now it's a bit of a waiting game while the legitimacy of the documents is determined.

:unsure:

CB

Aggressively defensive? Why would people approve of theft?

That said yours is not a uncommon response. A lot of sceptics (the utterly convinced ones, the conspiracy theorists) are jumping up and down with glee, but not a few are taking a more cautious approach like yours.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Aggressively defensive? Why would people approve of theft?

I never said anything about people approving of theft. I am not saying that people shouldn't be shocked or even outraged. What I am highlighting is the way people have already started defending the people involved as if there is anything to defend them against. At this point in time all we have is a bunch of documents that may or may not be authentic, that may or may not have been tampered with. Nobody knows for sure yet, so what's the point in the aggressive defence?

I do appreciate that you have noted my caution, though.

:unsure:

CB

[Devonian]

I never said anything about people approving of theft. I am not saying that people shouldn't be shocked or even outraged. What I am highlighting is the way people have already started defending the people involved as if there is anything to defend them against. At this point in time all we have is a bunch of documents that may or may not be authentic, that may or may not have been tampered with. Nobody knows for sure yet, so what's the point in the aggressive defence?

A fire fighting response to aggressive attacks?

[Admiral_Bobski]

A fire fighting response to aggressive attacks?

No aggressive attacks yet. Just a bunch of documents of unverified authenticity.

CB

[Essan]

I was highly sceptical about this story when it first broke, but it does seems the file may be authentic. Moreover, I'm hoping to get access to them shortly. However I understand it may take a while to look through them all. I shall do so in the interest of probity. And in order to find out how fancies who, which pub they meet in and what they think of England's chances in S Africa next year :blush:

[johnholmes]

I don't often post in this highly emotive area. I'm quite open as more a believer than a disbeliever in AGW but not by much-just so everyone knows my standpoint.

It appears authentic and IF the quote subsequent about it from Jones himself-then 10 years ago, who can remember what they wrote and in exactly what context that long ago. He also makes the point that his 'flippant' remark, the one causing all the hype, was about something different and not what he is now being accused of.

remember its Copenhagen just round the corner and some people, on either side of the AGW debate, are likely to use anything to get the vote to go their way.

Sad when its hundreds of thousands of lives, mostly in under developed parts of the world, which IF even the lowest figure of warming over the next 100 years occurs they will have water above their heads or be in a desert.

[Roger J Smith]

I think the emphasis should remain on the science, is it valid or not?

Finding out that these chief practitioners of the science may have engaged in dubious conduct is not that big a deal to me, assuming that the content of the e-mails is authentic, it would still just mean either (a) that they were over-zealous in pursuit of an essentially valid objective, or (.b.) if the science is not valid, then why would this surprise any one?

I'm somewhat like JH in thinking that the science has some validity, but I am sure that the IPCC crowd have underestimated natural variability as an independent, robust factor. There is the somewhat independent question of what economic and social policies are thereby legitimized by any level of acceptable science -- and that answer depends in part on the exact details of how acceptable the science is. We might want to risk more of our economic future to prevent a ten metre sea level rise than a one metre rise, or just to have less carbon dioxide in the air, or to preserve all polar bears -- it all depends on a balance of different interests and whether or not we think that other solutions may be possible.

So as to these e-mails, I think it will be a seven-day wonder, it's time for the community to reach a more widely participant conclusion, instead of some small elite driving this opinion through as partly "fact" and partly "gospel" and a third part "what if we're right then we have to act now" hysteria. There are too many skeptics at various levels throughout the community to tolerate this, we have the right to step back from the brink and avoid draconian solutions that could do far more harm than good, and we also have the perfect right to examine the politics of the AGW agenda and how it seems to favour China very suspiciously, as though perhaps the Chinese government were paying for this favouritism.

I wish e-mails of that kind would come to light, but I wouldn't be looking in the offices of climatologists so much as prominent international businessmen and politicians for those e-mails. (and those types are more cunning, they probably have everything well out of sight)

Hey Fred, if you read this, remember that e-mail where I said ... :blush:

Edited November 20, 2009 by Roger J Smith

[Thundery wintry showers]

It's a serious case of both hacking into computer security, and infringing copyright, but I'm not sure if it's technically theft (bear in mind that contrary to what antipiracy ads say, copyright infringement is not the same as theft, so if it's theft, it's theft for other reasons):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparison_to_theft

And we still, of course, don't know if it's fraudulent. Regardless, it's a very serious crime and I hope the hackers will get caught and into a lot of trouble.

It's going to be abused by the hardcore sceptic communities no doubt- and also help towards giving sceptics as a whole a very bad name, which is a pretty bad thing as it is good to have some scepticism in opposition to the consensus in order to help advance the scientific debate. Whether it will also help give the case for AGW a bad name is open to question.

[The PIT]

Downloading the file now slowly.

Hacking to get the truth or hacking to alter the truth. A morally correct crime or not.

Although I'm not fully convinced by the pro warming people it could well be leading us in the right direction too clean up the planet and our way of life which can't be a bad thing.

However if science is being altered to serve self interest this cannot be good either and does deserve to be exposed.

[Roger J Smith]

However, one has to understand that the skeptics have been shut out of the international media, and that many, many people are concerned about the possible falsification of IPCC data, the possible exaggeration of the risks and dangers of climate change, and the resultant potentially catastrophic mistakes that our national governments might soon be making, or may already have made, in their political responses.

This is very serious stuff to place in the hands of a few dodgy grad-student types who may have more interest in spreading socialism than fixing the climate. We need to know everything that we can while there is still time, and there is a very widespread concern that these subjects have been media-managed by elites, and not subjected to the normal political scrutiny.

As for the scientific community being united, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- you are booted out of the community if you disagree. It's like saying all Catholics revere the Virgin Mary.

The other point worth making about the scientific consensus is that non-climate scientists trust this community to have their own high standards of peer review and intellectual rigour. If it turns out, as I suspect has been the case all along, that climate change is a giant house of cards based on faulty assumptions, flawed data, and hysterical over-reliance on meaningless computer models, then the rest of the scientific community needs to come into the atmospheric sciences and provide some adult supervision.

These issues are too important to leave undiscussed and undebated. People have a right to responsible government and not to being stampeded into dangerous and ill-advised wholesale changes that could potentially do far more harm than good.

[The PIT]

However, one has to understand that the skeptics have been shut out of the international media, and that many, many people are concerned about the possible falsification of IPCC data, the possible exaggeration of the risks and dangers of climate change, and the resultant potentially catastrophic mistakes that our national governments might soon be making, or may already have made, in their political responses.

This is very serious stuff to place in the hands of a few dodgy grad-student types who may have more interest in spreading socialism than fixing the climate. We need to know everything that we can while there is still time, and there is a very widespread concern that these subjects have been media-managed by elites, and not subjected to the normal political scrutiny.

As for the scientific community being united, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy -- you are booted out of the community if you disagree. It's like saying all Catholics revere the Virgin Mary.

The other point worth making about the scientific consensus is that non-climate scientists trust this community to have their own high standards of peer review and intellectual rigour. If it turns out, as I suspect has been the case all along, that climate change is a giant house of cards based on faulty assumptions, flawed data, and hysterical over-reliance on meaningless computer models, then the rest of the scientific community needs to come into the atmospheric sciences and provide some adult supervision.

These issues are too important to leave undiscussed and undebated. People have a right to responsible government and not to being stampeded into dangerous and ill-advised wholesale changes that could potentially do far more harm than good.

I wouldn't just say shut out harried and bullied out. Anyway pretty well spot on post.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

The climate data is the importance stuff, but as a warm-up act the emails are great fun.

Telegraph's James Delingpole sumarises some of it for those who don't want to download the 157mb file.

Here are a couple of Emails

Playing the man not the ball

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

and some honesty

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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate

[The PIT]

One hour 7 minutes to go before I get the file.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I would have a lot more sympathy for the hackers if their main purpose was to further scientific debate by questioning aspects of the scientific consensus- as opposed to trying to make certain climate scientists look bad and undermine the case for AGW using Ad Hominems.

[The PIT]

I would have a lot more sympathy for the hackers if their main purpose was to further scientific debate by questioning aspects of the scientific consensus- as opposed to trying to make certain climate scientists look bad and undermine the case for AGW using Ad Hominems.

You don't know what the reason was. Perhaps they were alarmed by the contents and the unprofessional manner of the research. I haven't seen yet it but I guess you've read the stuff already to reach your conclusion. If they'd run to the papers asking for money that would indicate more of what you're hinting. Sticking it on a ftp server for no personnel gain is a different matter. It could be a spurned lover looking for revenge as far as we know and no real hack or just real slack security.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I would have a lot more sympathy for the hackers if their main purpose was to further scientific debate by questioning aspects of the scientific consensus- as opposed to trying to make certain climate scientists look bad and undermine the case for AGW using Ad Hominems.

The emails are suggestive of the mentality of some of the climate scientists at the top of the global warming tree.

If the emails are true there really is nowhere to hide...

This is one 156mb horse that isn't going back into its stables.

Edited November 20, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[johnholmes]

The climate data is the importance stuff, but as a warm-up act the emails are great fun.

Telegraph's James Delingpole sumarises some of it for those who don't want to download the 157mb file.

Here are a couple of Emails

Playing the man not the ball

and some honesty

short clips like that AF are no use to anyone-are you trying to discredit who wrote that (perhaps you know who wrote it and in what context-sad as you have not given the rest of us that privilege) If you really must drop minute quotes in please explain in what context, by whom, and to whom they were sent.

[SteveB]

I've said it before & I say it again. I never believed humans contributed to global warming or caused it, & never will.

This hacking business is bad for all parties concerned, & we will have to see what happens when the dust settles.

Shame on the hackers, & shame on the scientists.

[Frozen Lands]

I've said it before & I say it again. I never believed humans contributed to global warming or caused it, & never will.

This hacking business is bad for all parties concerned, & we will have to see what happens when the dust settles.

Shame on the hackers, & shame on the scientists.

I have to say although I too do not condone theft, I think there is too much focus on the hacking of this data. I bet there is a flip side where everyone would think it was alright and cheer on the hackers!

E.G. Headline: "Hackers steal data that reveals a cure for cancer that the goverment wanted to keep secret"

BEFORE...anyone starts on that example, I am not saying for one second the government (any) would want to keep something like that secret, BUT you know what I mean.

P.S. Think Watergate...do you think that info would ever have been released by choice? And dont pull the Freedom of Information Act on that one either...you can bet the data would have been destroyed eventually.

[laserguy]

I've said it before & I say it again. I never believed humans contributed to global warming or caused it, & never will.

This hacking business is bad for all parties concerned, & we will have to see what happens when the dust settles.

Shame on the hackers, & shame on the scientists.

I'll second that. The hackers are akin to the nutjobs who protest atop power stations. A pity it's come to this. 'Ways and Means...' I've just got home from work,looks like I've a bit of catching up to do. Noticed that there's well over a 1,000 comments on WUWT - wow!