CRU E-mails and data

[laserguy]

Doesn't justify the hacking into the servers though.

I think agreement on that is unanimous on here,wherever one 'stands' on AGW. Can we put it to rest now,please? The deed has been done so no going back,just see where things go from here on in.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Smacks of a bit of a double standard to say that, as I don't see any mistakes that CRU has made being "put to rest" anytime soon, in fact I see them being used as evidence against AGW at every opportunity (there may, of course, be some files and arguments that do undermine the case, but there's also a lot of people looking for what they want to see).

Put it this way, would it be reasonable to see "put it to rest" comments, and even "serves them right", if some pro-AGW group had hacked into the servers of some sceptic group in order to find files and emails of theirs that might undermine their case against AGW?

My suspicion regarding the files is that they are probably genuine, but we will hopefully find out more on that in the future.

[laserguy]

Put it this way, would it be reasonable to see "put it to rest" comments, and even "serves them right", if some pro-AGW group had hacked into the servers of some sceptic group in order to find files and emails of theirs that might undermine their case against AGW?

No it most certainly wouldn't. Haven't I made that perfectly clear? Such a scenario would have to run it's course,as will the current one. But the circumstances by which it has come to the fore cannot be condoned. Are we going to try squeezing toothpaste back into the tube,next? My "put it to rest" comment referred to the fact that the deed had been done and there's no going back on that,not a comment on AGW science,in case there's any confusion.

[pottyprof]

But the circumstances by which it has come to the fore cannot be condoned.

Yeps. Let's leave it at that peeps. We don't need to go round and round saying that it was wrong to hack the server.

How useful this information is, remains to be seen. Some interesting comments have been made on various sites and as yet, we have not seen any real attempt to clarify the details.

The spluttering of "things being taken out of context" isn't convincing.

I really think there should be an enquiry to get to the bottom of what has been said. This could be a very important turning point if the truth is what has seemingly been written..

[PersianPaladin]

Had a look at some of the content at randomn. First of all this seems to be a come and grab raid as there's a lot of day to day normal stuff. Whoever took it doesn't seem very interested in the content otherwsie they'd have dumped the day to day stuff.

What I have seen though is.

Well, thats a presumption.

1) Admission that solar cycle effects the climate.

A constant effect and known about for long enough.

2) Removal of the medievil warm period as it doesn't fit in properly.

Do you know the context?

3) Admission that the climate is within normal bounds and theres little evidence of man made warming.

Proof?

4) With holding and altering data and I never said or told you to that mentatlity and delete those emails asap.

Again, did you read what I posted above? Are you aware of taking things out of context?

5) A man in the BBC to deal with awkward stuff. one email said how did he let that get through for instance.

Hardly sinister. Its about public relations and presenting things in a manner which cannot be exploited, misconstrued, etc.

6) Website who's sole aim is to pedal propaganda where any questions they can't answer is filtered out.

Propaganda is everywhere. Governments and corporations want to exploit a good crisis, thats why they offer either very bad and exploitative "solutions" to the climate crisis or they covertly fund front-groups that deny the science. Either way, it leads the general public into the hands of the government and financial industries "carbon credit/tax" solution or the energy corporations' denial "business as usual" attitude.

The way forward now is that all data is published and not kept behind close doors. Certainly the science is discredited and being open is the only forward.

There is surprisingly more consensus on anthropogenic global warming from independent scientists that you may realise. Many of these scientists are not looking to sell a product or a carbon credit-default-swap as an excuse for pushing their claims.

Oh, and PIT what I found very insulting is people who call me "conspiracy theorist" as if to broad-brush me into some general mind set. I look at each issue on its own merit, and I try and do as much thorough research as I can to see if there is any strong case of foul-play, deception, mendaciousness, cover-ups, conflicts of interest, etc.

Edited November 21, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[La Bise]

As RC has pointed out, where are the emails discussing THE Conspiracy and the scientists dark deeds for their political overlords? The only thing that seems to have given the climate change sceptics a hard-on is that "trick" word. 10 seconds of googling would show anybody that it is used in a different way in the scientific community. It's common enough for words to aquire another meaning amongst a particular group of people, but hey, it's a smoking gun. It's hardly Watergate or MP's expenses is it...?

Sadly, all this ado about nothing will just serve to demean furthermore people involved in climate research in the eyes of the public, it is much easier to believe vituperative ranters telling you what you want to hear ("la la la, everything is ok, carry on driving your 4x4 and spend, spend, spend, spend") than people telling you that in 50 years time we'll have made our planet that little bit less habitable for our children and grand-children. Thinking ahead, past our lifespan is not mankind greatest talent, considering we live most of our lives in utter denial of our mortality...

[The PIT]

Well, thats a presumption.

A constant effect and known about for long enough.

Do you know the context?

Proof?

Again, did you read what I posted above? Are you aware of taking things out of context?

Hardly sinister. Its about public relations and presenting things in a manner which cannot be exploited, misconstrued, etc.

Propaganda is everywhere. Governments and corporations want to exploit a good crisis, thats why they offer either very bad and exploitative "solutions" to the climate crisis or they covertly fund front-groups that deny the science. Either way, it leads the general public into the hands of the government and financial industries "carbon credit/tax" solution or the energy corporations' denial "business as usual" attitude.

There is surprisingly more consensus on anthropogenic global warming from independent scientists that you may realise. Many of these scientists are not looking to sell a product or a carbon credit-default-swap as an excuse for pushing their claims.

Oh, and PIT what I found very insulting is people who call me "conspiracy theorist" as if to broad-brush me into some general mind set. I look at each issue on its own merit, and I try and do as much thorough research as I can to see if there is any strong case of foul-play, deception, mendaciousness, cover-ups, conflicts of interest, etc.

Have you got the emails? No so you cannot comment can you. You're speculating.

If you've actually read the forum before posting you'd have seen I've downloaded the file and had a look. So apology please.

Edited November 21, 2009 by jethro
removed inflamatory comments

[jethro]

Can we stick to discussing the topic here folks and not descend into point scoring or taking pot shots at one another.

[johnholmes]

As RC has pointed out, where are the emails discussing THE Conspiracy and the scientists dark deeds for their political overlords? The only thing that seems to have given the climate change sceptics a hard-on is that "trick" word. 10 seconds of googling would show anybody that it is used in a different way in the scientific community. It's common enough for words to aquire another meaning amongst a particular group of people, but hey, it's a smoking gun. It's hardly Watergate or MP's expenses is it...?

Sadly, all this ado about nothing will just serve to demean furthermore people involved in climate research in the eyes of the public, it is much easier to believe vituperative ranters telling you what you want to hear ("la la la, everything is ok, carry on driving your 4x4 and spend, spend, spend, spend") than people telling you that in 50 years time we'll have made our planet that little bit less habitable for our children and grand-children. Thinking ahead, past our lifespan is not mankind greatest talent, considering we live most of our lives in utter denial of our mortality...

excellent post

Yeps. Let's leave it at that peeps. We don't need to go round and round saying that it was wrong to hack the server.

How useful this information is, remains to be seen. Some interesting comments have been made on various sites and as yet, we have not seen any real attempt to clarify the details.

The spluttering of "things being taken out of context" isn't convincing.

I really think there should be an enquiry to get to the bottom of what has been said. This could be a very important turning point if the truth is what has seemingly been written..

I don't often disagree with you Potty but I have to with this.

None of us do know the context in which the e mails were exchanged. Nor do we now the full list of them-what was the issue they were actually discussing-was it a serious exchange-was it two scientists having an 'off the record' light hearted dig at what they were doing??? we simply do not know.

The bloke at the centre of it is REPUTED to have said the words were about something else and he was not referring to what is now being bandied around the net. I do think there is a definite agenda by those who do not believe in AGW, as I've posted earlier in this thread its very close to the next Climate summit-why now-why not 3 months ago?

Again for those of you who missed it my stance is leaning towards AGW but with questions about aspects of it.

[jethro]

Does anyone know if the hacker has been identified yet?

[laserguy]

Does anyone know if the hacker has been identified yet?

I think it was Dev ! Sorry Jethro (and Dev!),just trying to cool things (pun unintentional) a little! I'll start the car....

[Essan]

I think it was Dev ! Sorry Jethro (and Dev!),just trying to cool things (pun unintentional) a little! I'll start the car....

I think it was Phil Jones - and by doing so he's totally destroyed (in the public eye) anyone who ever doubted AGW .

(okay, not seriously .... the emails have destroyed all credibility some deniers had, but I don't really think Phil was behind it - it's just the biggest shot in the foot in climatological history)

(of course, you'd need to read the real emails rather than rely on a selected handful of out of contexts abstracts posted on blogs, to know that)

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

jethro - there's been no confirmation it was hackers. inside job can't be ruled out. in one email Phil Jones says he would delete climate data if he was forced by a FOI request to hand it over to climate skeptics... before he handed it over.

Just got a lot easier to search the emails. Enjoy.

Searchable email database

Edited November 21, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[pottyprof]

I don't often disagree with you Potty but I have to with this.

None of us do know the context in which the e mails were exchanged. Nor do we now the full list of them-what was the issue they were actually discussing-was it a serious exchange-was it two scientists having an 'off the record' light hearted dig at what they were doing??? we simply do not know.

I agree with what you say John but rather than either keeping quiet or going into some sort of detail there is an attempt to play this down. If it was a politician that had done something then there was an attempt to play something down, it would have been seen as an attempt to cover something up.

Just an observation..

As you rightly say though.... We just don't know. By not knowing, how much damage is being done to various reputations world wide? This is not a good situation, whichever side of the fence you happen to be on....

[Methuselah]

Not having an 'axe to grind' either way, I'll wait and see what transpires...

[jethro]

The whole thing is getting daft though, earlier I read something (linked through yahoo mail) that the CIA are behind this, as an attempt to get Obama off the hook, so he doesn't have to do anything about climate change and carbon capping.

It's a mad, mad world we live in.

[Methuselah]

The whole thing is getting daft though, earlier I read something (linked through yahoo mail) that the CIA are behind this, as an attempt to get Obama off the hook, so he doesn't have to do anything about climate change and carbon capping.

It's a mad, mad world we live in.

One for PP, maybe???

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

The whole thing is getting daft though, earlier I read something (linked through yahoo mail) that the CIA are behind this, as an attempt to get Obama off the hook, so he doesn't have to do anything about climate change and carbon capping.

It's a mad, mad world we live in.

Politicians are masters at appearing to take action to do things without actually doing those things. The Obama theory has to be the funniest and least likely.

[PersianPaladin]

Have you got the emails? No so you cannot comment can you. You're speculating.

If you've actually read the forum before posting you'd have seen I've downloaded the file and had a look. So apology please.

Are you assuming you're the only person who has been peering through them on the internet? I asked you for proof and citations. You haven't provided them.

Edited November 21, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[laserguy]

These latest shenanigans are only adding to the already highly amusing global warming/climate change/CO2 debacle. Can't really say much more until things become a lot clearer. I'm off to neck some beer . I suggest y'all do the same!

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Smacks of a bit of a double standard to say that, as I don't see any mistakes that CRU has made being "put to rest" anytime soon, in fact I see them being used as evidence against AGW at every opportunity (there may, of course, be some files and arguments that do undermine the case, but there's also a lot of people looking for what they want to see).

Put it this way, would it be reasonable to see "put it to rest" comments, and even "serves them right", if some pro-AGW group had hacked into the servers of some sceptic group in order to find files and emails of theirs that might undermine their case against AGW?

My suspicion regarding the files is that they are probably genuine, but we will hopefully find out more on that in the future.

Hi TWS,

This would all have been avoided of course if the data was was freely available.

I agree with you that it will not be "put to rest" anytime soon, but I think there's a fundamental flaw in your argument, Which sceptic group do you know of that has the power, in the context of the HADCrut data being one of just a very few datasets used by the IPCC, to heavily influence policies of not just our own government, but the governments and other agencies of all of the G20 and the EU. Most of these data that has been promoted by the IPCC over the last 10-15 years would, if they are implemented throw us back into the dark ages -- (literally, as I doubt if, even in the UK a 24x7 Electricity supply could be guarenteed).

A good comparison is the difference open source software and closed source. Open source is peer reviewed by anyone who wants to review it, if a fault is found it can be analysed and corrected, closed source cannot really be investigated, only the results of faults can be displayed. If the peer review system has been distorted as these released mails tend to suggest, then it's akin to closed source, you can analyse unusual results -- cooling since 1999 -- but cannot compare with official results as a direct comparison with the models is impossible, they are closed off to the likes of you or I.

As a final point, I'm old enough to remember Professor Hubert Lamb's original concern of cooling at the end of an interglacial and the subsequent takeover by scientists who believed the opposite. My POV is this "Climate Change" has always happened, "Global Warming", if it exists, must be divorced for the natural variations and produced on scientific merit. As an ex UEA student myself, I'm ashamed that my University has allowed itself to be dragged into a debate which they should not have even engaged in.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Currently doing a search looking for the term "sunspots" (yes, I really am that predictable) and I've come across an interesting one from 2005 regarding suggested tweaks to the AR4 prior to publication.

The following sentence must in my opinion be deleted: 'but also note that new work reveals that cosmogeninc-isotope-derived estimates of solar forcing for the Holocene are not likely as well-constrained as commonly thought.'

This is a very sweeping statement that is not backed up by the chapter text. It is also a very policy sensitive statement. We are either able to firmly support that or to drop it. I suspect that the paleo community would be divided about this.

Scott Lehmann has just shown me a plot with a really nice correlatin between d18O in N-pachy in the Norht-Atlatnic and sunspots over the past 400 years. Yes, there appears to be a link.

I also doubt that some of the existing work, e.g. Fleitman etc can be dismissed so easily.

The author then goes on to say:

I also think that the Holocene text on solar needs some readjustments. Linking the studies suggesting solar changes and those with NADW variations seems a somewhat improper comparison.

The present text reads:

'Based on the correlation between changes in atmospheric concentrations of cosmogenic isotopes (10Be or 14C) and climate proxy records, some authors argue that solar activity may be the driver for an organised centennial to millennial scale variability...

I suggest to change it to something along the following line.

'Based on the correlation between changes in atmospheric concentrations of cosmogenic isotopes (10Be or 14C) and climate proxy records, many studies suggest that solar activity may be a driver for centennial to millennial scale variability...

(Bold text highlighted by yours truly.)

The suggested change is subtle, but the meaning is transformed hugely. "Argue" implies a strong belief in their work, while "suggest" implies some kind of tentative speculation. And I think we all can tell the difference between "a driver" and "the driver."

Add to this the apparent admission that there is a link between solar activity and climate, followed by the decision to drop this whole concept on the basis of "policy" and I'm left with a bit of a bad taste on my mouth.

I am trying not to leap to any conclusions here, so I'm going to sleep on it and have another look tomorrow.

Night-night, y'all

CB

PS - The text above is copied and pasted and, as such, any typos are not mine - just thought I'd add that after having started the "Grammarians' Corner" thread!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Hi TWS,

This would all have been avoided of course if the data was was freely available.

Indeed. I recall that part of the problem there is that some of the climate data isn't freely available because some of the owners of the weather sites that provide the data are protective of their intellectual property (IP) and CRU/Hadley agreed not to freely share the data in return for being allowed to have/use it. However it doesn't account for the rest of the data that was hidden.

Some data is, of course, commercially sensitive which means its holders could lose revenue if they don't secure enough control of their IP, but that always has to be weighed up against the benefits to the community of the free sharing of data/information. For instance much peer-reviewed research is published in journals and some journals are quite aggressive with their copyrights. Unfortunately, the current trend is overwhelmingly towards tighter and tighter protection of IP, when we could really do with some relaxation of it (and I say this as a PhD student who, in the near future, is highly likely to be accumulating some IP of my own).

I think you make some good points about the risks of peer review veering towards a "closed source" type of process- one related problem that I've always suspected with peer review is the risk of peer review "cliques" forming which makes it harder for dissenting voices to get their fair say. Another point that keeps coming out here is the potential for hiding data that is sensitive for political, rather than commercial, reasons. While it doesn't excuse some of what these hardcore sceptics have done (I certainly disagree with the public sharing of emails, as they're supposed to be confidential), it's fair to say that CRU has not handled some aspects of this situation very well.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

you can have intellectual property or science. pick one.

[stockman70]

Hi all! Firstly I haven't visited this site in years,(around 4 I think,I am now 74 years young) far to busy with other matters. But this Hadley hacking affair reminded me of my last visit when I started a thread with the question: Does this man Ken Ring change your views on AGW? Or something to that effect.

It began a thread many pages long and went on for nearly seven months during which many bright and intelligent people became passionately involved. Ken eventually entered the 'fray' and I might add gave a good account of himself by steadfastly sticking to his views. I have to say though that the vast majority of respondents were most definitely what Ken described as 'warmers' and this particular 'clan' went out of their way to viciously denigrate his quite extensively researched thesis, accusing him of being a user of junk science.

After reading just a few of those 'hacked' files I am again convinced that Ken Ring was right all along and that we puny humanoids have absolutely no effect on this planets vast weather systems.

With the gathering at Copenhagan soon to take place, I duly expect these new revelations to be taken into account!

Edited November 22, 2009 by stockman70