Climate Researchers' E-mails Hacked

[teflor the ranger]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

"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 reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in temperatures."

Note: For those unaware of how to find alternative sources for essentially the same information, select a couple of things unique to the story such as names and do a search on Google news. I have already found several alternative and liberal sources carrying the story.

Snippets from the boffins' (researchers') e-mails:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

"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."

"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."

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

The New York Times discusses these e-mails as well, but refuses to publish them because of the illegal nature in which they were obtained, despite the fact that these e-mails should have been available through the UK's FOIA, and despite the fact that the New York Times publishes illegally gained classified US government documents all the time.

[teflor the ranger]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -quit.html

In an odd way, this is cheering news.

[teflor the ranger]

Finally, a bit of welfare for those unable to find other news sources for this story, see, Teflor cares even if you have Fox on the ignore button (I am feeling charitable, learn to use search engines):

http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/24 ... 19517.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/23/hacker.climate/

"Another e-mail from Jones dated last year with the subject line "IPCC and FOI" is a request to Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Pennsylvania, asking him to delete certain e-mails."

Ahh, nothing like destroying the evidence.

[avak]

Ah, you know...I'll reluctantly wade into this a little.

It all looks pretty damning for these guys. On the other hand, there were something like 70mb of text files? Ten years worth of email? Honestly, for there to be this grand collusion against the entire rest of the scientific and political world might suggest a little more planning and coordination....a few more emails that might reveal the plot. It reminds me of a pretty good defense against the claims of conspiracy and world domination (9/11 and Iraq wars in particular) against the Bush administration...they just aren't that smart. I mean that most seriously...it would require such a colossal effort that it really isn't realistic.

There are literally thousands of scientists and organizations working on climate change. To argue that they are all in league to trick the world would be the biggest scandal in history and I don't really see a motive that would compelling enough for that. The thing about lying is that it is inherently wrought with holes...the kind of holes that other scientists would find on a regular basis.

I'm anxious to see how this all plays out. I'm not going to sit here and declare the innocence of these guys because that seems like, at the very least, imprudent at this point. However, to use this as an example of how the entire body of work supporting human-caused climate change is faulty would be well beyond the pale.

[Corth]

The whole subject is so politicized that it isn't surprising that the supposedly objective scientists are merely pursuing an agenda like everyone else. I've more or less given up on ever coming to any sort of conclusion, personally, on the matter. On one hand the environmentalists seem like modern day luddites. Their language and mentality are almost religious in nature. On the other hand, maybe there actually is something to it. I don't freaking know..

[Todrael]

I've more or less given up on ever coming to any sort of conclusion, personally, on the matter.

I agree. And even if the Earth is warming, maybe it's a good thing to end the Ice Age.

[avak]

The problem is not gradual shifting over centuries...it is the threat of sudden change that is most worrisome. For example, the thermo-haline circulation system in the Atlantic shows signs that it could collapse on a time frame of a decade or less. Even the Pentagon's scenarios of that collapse are extremely dismal...like 100ks to millions of deaths.

[Todrael]

Even the Pentagon's scenarios of that collapse are extremely dismal...like 100ks to millions of deaths.

There are 155,000 deaths every day. I imagine we can handle a few more.

[avak]

Um, that is difficult to counter; assuming you actually feel that way. It kind of puts you in the 'why bother' camp on about most issues I can think of.

[Todrael]

Um, that is difficult to counter; assuming you actually feel that way. It kind of puts you in the 'why bother' camp on about most issues I can think of.

I focus on global catastrophic risks and organizations like the Lifeboat Foundation.

[kiryan]

The real danger of global warming is not the people that die from its direct causes like islands disappearing...

but the people who die as a result of the shifting balances of power (through resources) and the wars that will be fought over those resources. Imagine if the climate change in the USA were to reduce our food output to 25% of today and shift into Canada, Russia, China, Africa (you know it was a paradise once upon a time)... We'd be a country with no food and lots of big guns...

[teflor the ranger]

Ah, you know...I'll reluctantly wade into this a little.

It all looks pretty damning for these guys. On the other hand, there were something like 70mb of text files? Ten years worth of email? Honestly, for there to be this grand collusion against the entire rest of the scientific and political world might suggest a little more planning and coordination....a few more emails that might reveal the plot. It reminds me of a pretty good defense against the claims of conspiracy and world domination (9/11 and Iraq wars in particular) against the Bush administration...they just aren't that smart. I mean that most seriously...it would require such a colossal effort that it really isn't realistic.

There are literally thousands of scientists and organizations working on climate change. To argue that they are all in league to trick the world would be the biggest scandal in history and I don't really see a motive that would compelling enough for that. The thing about lying is that it is inherently wrought with holes...the kind of holes that other scientists would find on a regular basis.

I'm anxious to see how this all plays out. I'm not going to sit here and declare the innocence of these guys because that seems like, at the very least, imprudent at this point. However, to use this as an example of how the entire body of work supporting human-caused climate change is faulty would be well beyond the pale.

To be honest, I was reluctant to wade into it myself. However, the CRU is a pretty heavy hitter on the global scientific stage - they wield real influence, and their findings are definitely a part of other people's scientific work.

Had this been some crackpot climate group's e-mail server, I wouldn't have batted an eye. But at the very least, it's a good reminder to other people that scientists are every-single-little-bit as vulnerable to politics and irrational behavior as the rest of us.

[kiryan]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/ ... cientists/

Now they are predicting 30 years of cooling which is just a "pause" in the inevitable and steady trend towards global warming. 30 years is a "pause". You know if they had said 5 years ago, global warming is a problem and its going to get colder before it starts getting warmer... I might trust them some more. But they didn't know that yet are still positive global warming is real.

"At a U.N. conference in September, Latif said that changes in ocean currents known as the North Atlantic Oscillation could dominate over manmade global warming for the next few decades. Latif said the fluctuations in these currents could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.

Latif is a key member of the UN's climate research arm, which has long promoted the concept of global warming. He told the Daily Mail that "a significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles -- perhaps as much as 50 percent." "

What many have known and suspected at least since before Al Gore, ocean currents drive the weather in ways we know not as much as we need too before we declare global warming is real and irreversible. I'll be waiting for the solar radiation "factors" that are being written off as hog wash and insignificant for now. It doesn't take a genius to udnerstand increased solar radiation = hotter planet, but apparently it takes an accredited pro global warming scientist to make it true.

[Todrael]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/

Now they are predicting 30 years of cooling which is just a "pause" in the inevitable and steady trend towards global warming. 30 years is a "pause".

That article has been debunked by contacting those referenced in it:

He quotes Latif as saying, "I don't know what to do. They just make these things up." Referring to "facts" attributed to it by the article, The NSIDC's director said, "This is completely false. NSIDC has never made such a statement and we were never contacted by anyone from the Daily Mail."

[kiryan]

I did wonder if this was going to be debunked at some point. It seemed too good to be true and was definitely off message.

On the other hand, this article that debunks it doesn't seem like especially hard hitting reporting either. I'm going to jsut go ahead and accept it as truth until a more credible organization reports it as false. (im kidding)

[teflor the ranger]

Fox News' retraction:

Editor's note: An earlier version of this article erroneously reported that the NSIDC reports concluded that the warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles.

How much of the article would you say is debunked?