[jethro]

Oh dear, there may be trouble ahead...

http://www.examiner....docs-and-emails

Phil Jones is reported as confirming the hacking as real:
http://wattsupwithth...files-released/

[laserguy]

jethro, on 20 November 2009 - 10:03 , said:

Oh dear, there may be trouble ahead...

http://www.examiner....docs-and-emails

Phil Jones is reported as confirming the hacking as real:
http://wattsupwithth...files-released/

I can't recall WUWT getting so many comments in so short a time. I've tried going to ClimateAudit,but gave up after five minutes - must be frantic over there.

[Devonian]

jethro, on 20 November 2009 - 11:03 , said:

Oh dear, there may be trouble ahead...

http://www.examiner....docs-and-emails

Phil Jones is reported as confirming the hacking as real:
http://wattsupwithth...files-released/

These emails (if genuine) have found their way into the public arena by a way that could well be theft. I don't condone that.

[jethro]

Devonian, on 20 November 2009 - 10:15 , said:

These emails (if genuine) have found their way into the public arena by a way that could well be theft. I don't condone that.

Agreed.

Aren't you the teeniest bit curious though?

[laserguy]

Devonian, on 20 November 2009 - 10:15 , said:

These emails (if genuine) have found their way into the public arena by a way that could well be theft. I don't condone that.

Me neither.

[Iceberg]

A very quick note, my understanding is that they were hacked and that a great many mails were obtained, and that they have been changed, (such as adding in the J.Daly comment) in a clear attempt to discredit.

IMO we will find out now whether which sceptic sites are genuinely looking to disprove AGW (those that don;t give this much airtime) and those that talk it up (in which case IMO they are junk).

[jethro]

Iceberg, on 20 November 2009 - 10:23 , said:

A very quick note, my understanding is that they were hacked and that a great many mails were obtained, and that they have been changed, (such as adding in the J.Daly comment) in a clear attempt to discredit.

IMO we will find out now whether which sceptic sites are genuinely looking to disprove AGW (those that don;t give this much airtime) and those that talk it up (in which case IMO they are junk).

Where did you read that Iceberg? Can you post a link please.

I don't think we can make sweeping judgements based on who carries the story; it's hot news. Any leaked documents should stand or fall on their own merits, if evidence comes to light that important science has been manipulated, it makes no difference if it's reported in The Times or an internet blog, so long as the evidence is there.

The only people who have anything to fear from this hacking incident are folk who have something to hide, other than that, it's merely a coup for the hacker.

[Devonian]

jethro, on 20 November 2009 - 11:20 , said:

Agreed.

Aren't you the teeniest bit curious though?

Erm, I'm reading about it (I've not read the e mails) but that doesn't make it right. It's a bit like some salacious tabloid article about a politicians private life. It's the politicians business, I'd rather not know, I don't want to know, I try not to be interested, I don't buy the paper and I doubt it's true but once it's out there it's hard to avoid the consequences.

jethro, on 20 November 2009 - 11:33 , said:

Where did you read that Iceberg? Can you post a link please.

I don't think we can make sweeping judgements based on who carries the story; it's hot news. Any leaked documents should stand or fall on their own merits, if evidence comes to light that important science has been manipulated, it makes no difference if it's reported in The Times or an internet blog, so long as the evidence is there.

The only people who have anything to fear from this hacking incident are folk who have something to hide, other than that, it's merely a coup for the hacker.

You mean you think private email should be public?

This post has been edited by Devonian: 20 November 2009 - 10:46

[jethro]

Devonian, on 20 November 2009 - 10:37 , said:

Erm, I'm reading about it (I've not read the e mails) but that doesn't make it right. It's a bit some salacious tabloid article about a politicians private life. it's the politicians business, I'd rather not know, I don't want to know, I try not to be interested, I don't buy the paper and I doubt it's true but once it's out there it's hard to avoid.

It's only salacious if the focus is upon the private life of a person. If an article focusses upon an aspect which questions the validity of someone's professional work, it's important information - going to a lap dancing club is private, fiddling your expenses and being found out is important. This could go either way at the moment.

[Devonian]

jethro, on 20 November 2009 - 11:45 , said:

It's only salacious if the focus is upon the private life of a person. If an article focusses upon an aspect which questions the validity of someone's professional work, it's important information - going to a lap dancing club is private, fiddling your expenses and being found out is important. This could go either way at the moment.

'a bit like'.

Anyway, do you agree that if these are private e mails (and not a fabrication) it's thus theft?

This post has been edited by Devonian: 20 November 2009 - 10:52

[pottyprof]

http://briefingroom....ta-is-real.html

Looks like its genuine.. Time will tell..

[jethro]

Devonian, on 20 November 2009 - 10:51 , said:

'a bit like'.

Anyway, do you agree that if these are private e mails (and not a fabrication) it's thus theft?

I've already said I agree it's theft.

[Devonian]

jethro, on 20 November 2009 - 11:56 , said:

I've already said I agree it's theft.

Ops, yup, I guess you have. My bad, hard to keep up am

[Pete Tattum]

My guesses would be, that the emails themselves are almost certainly genuine...But also, that people whose fanaticism is at such a level that they use illegal means of getting information, are hardly likely to baulk at the idea of further tampering with it, if it'll help them in their crusade?

[Iceberg]

Do these sites want to treated as tabloids who want to make a bit of money.
Or do they want to be treated as places to discuss scientific issues sensibly.

We will see which sites are which.

I atm the moment people are commenting(not on here) about what very anti AGW sites are saying about documents that might or might not be tampered with, and which might or might not have been faked or stollen.

Jethro, I got it from somebody I know at ECMWF(which is very close to CRU). Unsurprisingly alot of people are gossiping about it in emails.

[jethro]

Iceberg, on 20 November 2009 - 11:35 , said:

Do these sites want to treated as tabloids who want to make a bit of money.
Or do they want to be treated as places to discuss scientific issues sensibly.

We will see which sites are which.

Like most things in life, it's not that black and white.

If this is genuine, if those reports of "hiding the decline" are true then not only is it news worthy of the tabloids but there's serious scientific issues at stake here, which need discussing.

IMO it makes little difference if the content of any of this either proves or disproves AGW; if it shows manipulation of data then it will call into question the validity of the whole theory, as has been presented to the world.

Try explaining manipulated data to Copenhagen and expecting China, India, the USA etc to shrug their shoulders and say it doesn't matter. We're supposed to be collaborating to build a better, cleaner future for us all based on this theory, under-hand shenanigans are not the best foundations are they?

[Pete Tattum]

Although it'll take a lot more than mere accusations of data-manipulation to convince me that CO₂ is not a GHG, I abhor the very idea of using manipulation to spread concern! But, with all the cherry-picking (also data-manipulation!) in which some of the more extreme 'sceptics' seem to excell, it really wouldn't surprise me all that much???

That said, as a sceptic, I'll be keeping an open mind!