513 replies to this topic

[Coast]

pottyprof, on 20 November 2009 - 10:55 , said:

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

Looks like its genuine.. Time will tell..

NW member drgl bought this too my attention earlier and there are apparently places where you can download the full information - but at 69 mb that's a lot of reading! Thanks again to drgl for highlighting it, I'm sure this is going to make for interesting, further debate.

[drgl]

Hi Coast, latest article here, IIRC there is a link on there too.

"Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning."

More....

[laserguy]

jethro, on 20 November 2009 - 12:28 , said:

......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......

Oh no,not again!

Pete,I do think it's a bit rich,associating 'data manipulation' exclusively with sceptics! And I'd like to clarify that I'm not aware of any sceptic anywhere (including me,who is probably the most hard-line on here!) who does not accept that CO2 is a GHG. But when we're talking the minutest anthro percentage of an already minute total percentage,amongst an unidentifiable number of factors affecting global temp,it simply does not come into the game. Anyway,off to work now,be interesting to see how this develops,or not.

[Devonian]

jethro, on 20 November 2009 - 12:28 , said:

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.

If not? Then it's theft and deception.

Quote

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.

And if not, it's a malicious deception.

Quote

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?

If there are underhand shenanigans?

Edited by Devonian, 20 November 2009 - 13:21 .

[jethro]

Devonian, on 20 November 2009 - 13:21 , said:

If not? Then it's theft and deception.



And if not, it's a malicious deception.



If there are underhand shenanigans?

We've covered the theft and deception issue twice already Dev, we've also established that I agree with you.

If and I will continue to say if this all proves to be legit, the hiding the decline of temperatures etc already being reported, is under-hand shenanigans.

[Iceberg]

jethro, on 20 November 2009 - 12:28 , said:

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?

I agree that the manipulation of the data would be very damaging and tbh I wouldn't believe anything these scientists said again, they should be sacked forthwith and the effort made to undo the manipulated data and present it truthfully.

However what are are talking about it most likely to not be the case, people should be innocent until proven guilty, what instead is happening is making the whole process of manipulated discreditation an OK event, with real consequences.

At the end of the data the data of global temperatures will prove or disprove AGW, atm it's proving it.

[Devonian]

jethro, on 20 November 2009 - 13:32 , said:

We've covered the theft and deception issue twice already Dev, we've also established that I agree with you.

If and I will continue to say if this all proves to be legit, the hiding the decline of temperatures etc already being reported, is under-hand shenanigans.

And, as Ice says, people are innocent until proven guilty, rather than convicted in the interent court of innuendo.

[jethro]

No one is convicting anyone here, there is no innuendo.

There's been a leak, if as it seems (confirmed by Phil Jones) it is real, and the documents and e-mails are correct, then those concerned are damned by their own hand.

Iceberg: If this information is correct, the data on global temperatures proves nothing, it will be considered utterly unreliable if Phil Jones really did say and do this "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) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

[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]

Iceberg, on 20 November 2009 - 14:00 , said:

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.

Gray-Wolf, on 20 November 2009 - 14:28 , said:

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 ..

[Captain_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.



CB

[Devonian]

Captain_Bobski, on 20 November 2009 - 14:41 , said:

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.



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 by Devonian, 20 November 2009 - 14:46 .

[Captain_Bobski]

Devonian, on 20 November 2009 - 14:46 , said:

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.



CB

[Devonian]

Captain_Bobski, on 20 November 2009 - 14:57 , said:

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?

[Captain_Bobski]

Devonian, on 20 November 2009 - 15:00 , said:

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

[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 ...

Edited by Roger J Smith, 20 November 2009 - 17:09 .