Register to reply

CRU hack

by Andre
Tags: hack
Share this thread:
Choronzon
#19
Nov22-09, 01:25 AM
P: 12
And how about the emails that say "please delete these past emails that are being requested under FOIA and please email so and so, who's email address I can't find, and have him do the same." Was that taken out of context?

Not to mention that RealClimate doesn't have the power to wave their hand at comments and make them innocent. Even the innocent explanation that you seem to believe implies to me that that were attempting to alter the appearance data to suit their particular argument. I expect that from partisan pollsters and politicians, but if a scientist does that then their next job should be trying to remember if I wanted extra pickles on my whopper.

And it needs to be read in the context that some of these email go back a decade, so had plenty of opportunity to be cherry picked. If you assume from the timing that this attack was designed to disrupt public support for agreement at Copenhagen, then it can be assumed that this is a very biased sample.

So we know from the last 25 years of scholarly research that climate change is real, and is attributable to human activity to a "very likely" confidence. These emails don't show a huge international conspiracy, so that is still the case. We can assume that the missing emails are the ones that show the research to be valid and genuine.
As for cherry picking emails—I couldn't care less. A million emails discussing honest science doesn't make up for the one discussing "altering the definition of peer-reviewed" so that they can keep opposing research out of journals. Acting like a creationist FTW, I guess?

If we needed to. Of course the research at UAE isn't the word of God. It has to be reproduced just like everyone else's. So there's no genuine question that results have been created and sold to the scientific community without their due consideration.

Some people are enjoying mileage out of taking some of them out of context, and pretending "trick" means sneaky thing and not mathematical technique, but that deserves to be flatly denied. Because its wrong.


I think that it is important to understand that the keystone of the denialists position is that the scientists are all lying so that they can get funding.
Awesome straw-man you have there, trying to make me defend both conspiracy theorists and George Bush in order to point out that these Scientists have quite likely destroyed any chance of Climate Scientists enjoying the respect of the populace for the next ten years. Wait till Monday and watch how the networks run with it.

We have anectodes that this doesn't work, and a scientist will generally quit if asked to do that.

But the broader evidence is important to understand. Governments don't want to have to change an economy. Government don't want to consider the environment. They want a steaming along economy and near full employment, with few companies going bust and being replaced, because this is good for what they want ... re-election.

And in science it is generally never good for one's career to respect the status quo. It is the overturning of paradigms that is most respected, so claiming the tow the line for career purposes is equally crazy.

But certainly Obama is much more pro-science than Bush was ... but Governments come and go. They'll be more Bush's to come.
Except that it's a wonderful topic if you're the party out of power. Not only might it help you get back in power, but it basically writes you a blank check for every little social program you can think up. If a hundred years from now we're not all drowning or huddled on mountain tops than you can claim the credit for saving us all. Hell, I've even heard Climate Change being used as a reason for universal health care.

As for President Obama, I can only hazard a guess that scientists doing research into liquefying coal or other such unsexy pursuits aren't going to be looking fondly back on the next few years. Of course if you can write a legible proposal on a car that runs off good intentions and fairy dust you're probably already getting a few million dollars out of the stimulus package.

I'll also say this— you better hope that whoever is behind this leaked material hasn't torn a page out of Breitbart's playbook, because if they are sitting on worse material so that people like you can hem and haw over what's plain as day for a few days before they hit you with another round of stolen emails...
Bored Wombat
#20
Nov22-09, 02:00 AM
P: 119
Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
And how about the emails that say "please delete these past emails that are being requested under FOIA and please email so and so, who's email address I can't find, and have him do the same." Was that taken out of context?
Yeah, probably.

If you send a later version of a document it's not unethical to clean up earlier erroneous or less processed or detailed versions rather than send them.

For instance.

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
As for cherry picking emails—I couldn't care less. A million emails discussing honest science doesn't make up for the one discussing "altering the definition of peer-reviewed" so that they can keep opposing research out of journals. Acting like a creationist FTW, I guess?
You should care more then. If you have 10000 emails to scan through to look for one that can be interpreted as dodgy, finding one is very weak evidence of dodgy goings on.

You can't alter the definition of peer reviewed journal. The ISI does though, but it is very inclusive.

Journals stand on their reputation. It is a valuable part of the process to discuss which ones have dropping standards. It's the only factor keeping Journals trying to publish good research.

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
Awesome straw-man you have there, trying to make me defend both conspiracy theorists and George Bush in order to point out that these Scientists have quite likely destroyed any chance of Climate Scientists enjoying the respect of the populace for the next ten years. Wait till Monday and watch how the networks run with it.
Not a straw man, unless you're defending the denier's position.

Surely we know enough basic physics on this board to understand that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will increase the greenhouse effect. It's not rocket science.

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
Except that it's a wonderful topic if you're the party out of power.
Perhaps, but they're not controlling the funding of the government researchers. (Such as NASA).

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
As for President Obama, I can only hazard a guess that scientists doing research into liquefying coal or other such unsexy pursuits aren't going to be looking fondly back on the next few years.
It's not just that. He's pro science. I'm not aware of the details sitting as I do on the other side of the world, but research into stem cells and research by organisations that Bush found ethically abhorrent now booms ahead in America.

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
I'll also say this— you better hope that whoever is behind this leaked material hasn't torn a page out of Breitbart's playbook, because if they are sitting on worse material so that people like you can hem and haw over what's plain as day for a few days before they hit you with another round of stolen emails...
I don't care what is in stolen emails. Except to point out that some of the accusations are a bit fanciful.

I do hope that the criminals and their supporters (if, as it looks, this is a bounty job), that broke the system are found and fully prosecuted.
Choronzon
#21
Nov22-09, 02:21 AM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Bored Wombat View Post
Yeah, probably.

If you send a later version of a document it's not unethical to clean up earlier erroneous or less processed or detailed versions rather than send them.

For instance.
Actually I'm pretty sure that it is unethical. If someone makes a FOIA request for info that they are entitled by law to have, you don't get to go back and edit the info before producing it. You most definitely do not get to delete entire email conversations that are required to be furnished upon request.

You should care more then. If you have 10000 emails to scan through to look for one that can be interpreted as dodgy, finding one is very weak evidence of dodgy goings on.
Really? So I should take a look at all of those moments in a criminals life when he wasn't committing a crime before I can judge him on those few moments when he did? If one of my employees steal from me, it doesn't particularly matter to me all the times that she hasn't. Once is most definitely enough.

You can't alter the definition of peer reviewed journal. The ISI does though, but it is very inclusive.

Journals stand on their reputation. It is a valuable part of the process to discuss which ones have dropping standards. It's the only factor keeping Journals trying to publish good research.
You're right, I can't. I can also easily promise you that I have never once written an email saying that I would.

What made these guys the gatekeeper's of truth? What right did they have to ridicule other opinions and try and stonewall them from scientific debate?

I'll tell you what—nothing. They should pay for their arrogance with ruined careers and the scorn of society.



Not a straw man, unless you're defending the denier's position.

Surely we know enough basic physics on this board to understand that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses will increase the greenhouse effect. It's not rocket science.
I actually do not know one person who disputes that fact, nor have I read any articles stating as such. Many have claimed that the amount increased or the the effect of the increase are negligible, but that is nowhere near the same thing. Thanks for at least denying one straw man before putting up another.


Perhaps, but they're not controlling the funding of the government researchers. (Such as NASA).


It's not just that. He's pro science. I'm not aware of the details sitting as I do on the other side of the world, but research into stem cells and research by organisations that Bush found ethically abhorrent now booms ahead in America.
So now we can exchange what President Bush found "ethically abhorrent" for what President Obama believes to be? Don't try and make President Obama to be some champion of science. The guy lies as well as Bush and can talk out of three different sides of his mouth—Bush could barely talk out of two sides.

I don't care what is in stolen emails. Except to point out that some of the accusations are a bit fanciful.

I do hope that the criminals and their supporters (if, as it looks, this is a bounty job), that broke the system are found and fully prosecuted.
Yes, good plan there. When the current administration no longer fins itself able to drum up any meaningful support for there Climate Change initiatives, you can tell me again how much you don't care what some stolen emails say. I think ACORN tried pretty much the same argument.
Bored Wombat
#22
Nov22-09, 04:21 AM
P: 119
Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
Actually I'm pretty sure that it is unethical. If someone makes a FOIA request for info that they are entitled by law to have, you don't get to go back and edit the info before producing it.
You're making up the bit about going back and editing it, though aren't you?

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
You most definitely do not get to delete entire email conversations that are required to be furnished upon request.
How do you know that entire email conversations were requested?

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
Really? So I should take a look at all of those moments in a criminals life when he wasn't committing a crime before I can judge him on those few moments when he did? If one of my employees steal from me, it doesn't particularly matter to me all the times that she hasn't. Once is most definitely enough.
I think that you're points are pretty weak if all you have is straw man.

My point was that there is no evidence that a crime was committed. Not as you are reduced to pretending, that the crime was rare.

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
You're right, I can't. I can also easily promise you that I have never once written an email saying that I would.
Fine.
It's still fine and important for scientists to discuss which journals have falling standards.

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
What made these guys the gatekeeper's of truth? What right did they have to ridicule other opinions and try and stonewall them from scientific debate?
That's how science works. Rubbish research is ridiculed.

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
I'll tell you what—nothing. They should pay for their arrogance with ruined careers and the scorn of society.
they have every right, and they have an obligation. It is not arrogance to have an opinion on the quality of scientific research if you are a scientist in the field.

I would be happy to have scientists who take the time to read and become familiar with other scientists research, and develop an opinion on it working for me.

And it does not elicit scorn from me but respect.

Perhaps you object to the tone: This just in - these are personal emails.

Quote Quote by Choronzon View Post
Don't try and make President Obama to be some champion of science.
Obama, by comparison, is a champion of science.
Evo
#23
Nov22-09, 08:53 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
BW, at my company we are warned to NEVER delete anything if a request for information has been made. This is done once or twice a year just in my department. Of course e-mails are backed up, so even if I did delete, there would still be a record, so I would be putting myself in serious jeopardy for doing so. For someone to suggest that they destroy or alter evidence is very serious.
Evo
#24
Nov22-09, 09:55 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
The release of the e-mails and data files the other day is just another black eye for the pro agw movement. They now have reason to believe that the information released from Hadley Cru was someone on the inside that wanted to blow the whistle.

Another eye opener was last year when the "review process" for the IPCC report was exposed for cherry picking data, and refusing to allow data or discussion that was not pro-agw or in any way disagreed with the pro agw reviewer's version they planned to publish.

When ever someone said the data could be wrong, that previous records had been ignored, etc... They were told that sorry, can't be included, not enough space. But when someone says Great job! They are included with a note: Thanks!

Here scientific concerns about the validity of data and accuracy of assumptions

I am glad that the historical overview clearly recognises the past and also very present problems with unphysical corrections necessary to obtain a realistic climate state in state of the art models i.e. section 1.5.9 page 22 line 42 to page 23 line 38 on flux adjustments and tuning of radiative parameters. The inclusion of a whole section (1.5.8 page 21 line 8 and further) on cloud modelling and climate sensitivity and the large uncertainties in that area is also a very much welcomed element.

Some worry remains however concerning the discrepant statements that climate is a large system that comprises of many nonlinear dynamical subsystems that are coupled by many feedbacks which makes it hard to test hypothesis in an “experiment like” fashion, while on the other hand it seems to implicitly be assumed that models provide correct results and prognoses of climate are indeed possible despite serious uncertainties about magnitude and sometimes sign of mechanisms.[Florens De Wit]
IPCC reject reason, with no data to back it up:

Noted. Compliments appreciated, but
we reject the assertion that “it seems to implicitly be assumed that models provide correct results.”
Later objections are brought up rejecting to allowing verbiage about the uncertainties becuase they didn't want anyone to think there might actually be uncerntanties. Some even get into disparaging their peers that disagree with them.

The WG1 discussions can be read here. The IPCC had originally refused to release this to the public, but decided to release it due to a pending lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act.

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/...200&jp2Res=.25
Evo
#25
Nov22-09, 05:41 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
Here is an excellent article about whjat was in the filed released from Hadley Cru

From Wall Street Journal Politics section

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

The tension between those two camps is apparent in the emails. More recent messages showed climate scientists were increasingly concerned about blog postings and articles on leading skeptical Web sites. Much of the internal discussion over scientific papers centered on how to pre-empt attacks from prominent skeptics, for example.

Fellow scientists who disagreed with orthodox views on climate change were variously referred to as "prats" and "utter prats." In other exchanges, one climate researcher said he was "very tempted" to "beat the crap out of" a prominent, skeptical U.S. climate scientist.

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.

More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.

Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1258...eference-frame

Rather embarrassing, non-professional behavior, IMO.
Sorry!
#26
Nov22-09, 05:57 PM
P: 571
It is quite unproffesional but reading all this still doesn't make me think that global warming isn't a potential problem. I'm not going to lie but when I hear christians blabing on about intelligent design I sometimes feel the urge to beat them up too. This goes with any scientific theory I have strong belief in, lol.

The deleting of emails etc. is questionable but what is their response to doing this?

I don't think you can claim global warming isn't a problem just because the branches of scientists don't like each other or make nasty remarks.

For instance back to my example of intelligent design. People who believe in a more scientific form of abiogenesis make the same remarks towards skeptics, that doesn't make their theory less correct.
Bored Wombat
#27
Nov22-09, 05:58 PM
P: 119
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
BW, at my company we are warned to NEVER delete anything if a request for information has been made. This is done once or twice a year just in my department. Of course e-mails are backed up, so even if I did delete, there would still be a record, so I would be putting myself in serious jeopardy for doing so.
Fine.
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
For someone to suggest that they destroy or alter evidence is very serious.
Okay. What you haven't proven is that someone was destroying or altering evidence.
Evo
#28
Nov22-09, 06:02 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
Quote Quote by Sorry! View Post
It is quite unproffesional but reading all this still doesn't make me think that global warming isn't a potential problem. I'm not going to lie but when I hear christians blabing on about intelligent design I sometimes feel the urge to beat them up too. This goes with any scientific theory I have strong belief in, lol.

The deleting of emails etc. is questionable but what is their response to doing this?

I don't think you can claim global warming isn't a problem just because the branches of scientists don't like each other or make nasty remarks.

For instance back to my example of intelligent design. People who believe in a more scientific form of abiogenesis make the same remarks towards skeptics, that doesn't make their theory less correct.
Interesting, so you don't think that intentional skewing of facts to create a false outcome may shed some doubt on the claims?

From: Gary Funkhouser <gary@xxxxxxx.edu>
To: k.briffa@uxxxx.uk
Subject: kyrgyzstan and siberian data
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:37:09 -0700

Keith,

Thanks for your consideration. Once I get a draft of the central and southern siberian data and talk to Stepan and Eugene I'll send it to you.

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though - I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions - he laughed and said that's what he thought at first also. The data's tempting but there's too much variation even within stands. I don't think it'd be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have - they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian). I think I'll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

Not having seen the sites I can only speculate, but I'd be optimistic if someone could get back there and spend more time collecting samples, particularly at the upper elevations.

Yeah, I doubt I'll be over your way anytime soon. Too bad, I'd like to get together with you and Ed for a beer or two. Probably someday though.

Cheers, Gary
Gary Funkhouser
Lab. of Tree-Ring Research
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721 USA
phone: (520) 621-2946
fax: (520) 621-8229
e-mail: gary@xxxxxx.edu
Sorry!
#29
Nov22-09, 06:10 PM
P: 571
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Interesting, so you don't think that intentional skewing of facts to create a false outcome may shed some doubt on the claims?
They've already talked about the methods being used not being secret. Just because people didn't take the time to look into before doesn't mean anything about 'skewed' facts. It just means you thought they were saying one thing but they actually were saying another thing. That's the politics of it though.
Evo
#30
Nov22-09, 06:11 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
Quote Quote by Sorry! View Post
They've already talked about the methods being used not being secret. Just because people didn't take the time to look into before doesn't mean anything about 'skewed' facts. It just means you thought they were saying one thing but they actually were saying another thing. That's the politics of it though.
Did you read that e-mail?
Sorry!
#31
Nov22-09, 06:18 PM
P: 571
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Did you read that e-mail?
Yes three times looking for specific claims to 'Let's skew the data to mess around with the public.' Couldn't find it. Maybe you could point me to which lines I need to read between?

As well, let's make this known, I have no doubt that politics have played a major role in the development of these theories and how they are portrayed to the public. I also have no doubt as to the exageration that some of the data goes through. I don't however think that this discredits global warming as a serious problem to the future of our planet...

You would be better of proposing to me that the Earth is naturally getting hotter (which I believe it is to a certain extent) than telling me that global warming is just a bunch of skewed results.
Sorry!
#32
Nov22-09, 06:20 PM
P: 571
If you're talking about where he's talking about trying every trick to milk something out of it then this doesn't indicate skewed results. It indicates he was trying different methods to find results to fit their model, which scientists do all the time. As I said in my previous post it is also no secret that the global warming 'sector' of scientists do this or even what methods they use. Just because you weren't aware of it before these emails doesn't mean anything...
Evo
#33
Nov22-09, 06:25 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,423
Quote Quote by Sorry! View Post
If you're talking about where he's talking about trying every trick to milk something out of it then this doesn't indicate skewed results. It indicates he was trying different methods to find results to fit their model, which scientists do all the time. As I said in my previous post it is also no secret that the global warming 'sector' of scientists do this or even what methods they use. Just because you weren't aware of it before these emails doesn't mean anything...
I was quite aware of it. See my posts about the climate scientist I dated that was always complaining about being made to fudge his reports to make it seem like agw was a real concern. It's not unheard of in science, unfortunately, it just points out that you can't believe the data that's presented in these types of sciences. Take it all with a grain of salt and realize that it's not necessarily what you're being lead to believe.
Choronzon
#34
Nov22-09, 06:32 PM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Sorry! View Post
Yes three times looking for specific claims to 'Let's skew the data to mess around with the public.' Couldn't find it. Maybe you could point me to which lines I need to read between?

As well, let's make this known, I have no doubt that politics have played a major role in the development of these theories and how they are portrayed to the public. I also have no doubt as to the exageration that some of the data goes through. I don't however think that this discredits global warming as a serious problem to the future of our planet...

You would be better of proposing to me that the Earth is naturally getting hotter (which I believe it is to a certain extent) than telling me that global warming is just a bunch of skewed results.
So what I should take from your post is that even if the Scientists doing the research are unscrupulous criminals who have skewed data to match their conclusions (and then withheld the data), I should still accept those conclusions?

I could understand that if the misconduct was personal, but this was people messing about with scientific research while hoisting themselves up as protectors of the earth.
Jasongreat
#35
Nov22-09, 07:10 PM
P: 75
=Bored Wombat;2454772]Instead of providing any evidence that this is any kind of blow, you just assume that it is.
And then you also assume that there have been some other "blows" in the past.

Please provide some evidence of either of these.
Blow #1- 1970's we were causing global cooling, then it started to warm up.
Blow #2- late 1990's early 2000's we were warming up more than anytime in history so they called it global warming by comparing to the temps in the 70's which at the time they were saying were colder than anytime in history.
Blow #3- Since they were just claiming to much precision, they changed the name to global climate change and therefore whatever happened, warmer or colder bolstered their claims or so they hoped.
Blow #4- Questionable practices are discovered in emails.
Blow #5- AGW scientists continue to say the evidence supports their position even though it doesnt, which seems very biased to a layman like myself.

I admit that this is just my opinion and that I am in no way a scientist, but these are all blows to their theory as far as I am concerned and I am sure that I dont even know about all of them nor would I think I am all alone.
Choronzon
#36
Nov22-09, 07:15 PM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Sorry! View Post
No, as with all scientific research I advocate come to your own conclusion. Who cares what these clowns do with their lives... ? Most of the conduct is personal I think, I haven't read anything that shows they purposely skewed results maybe selectively chose results and decided to blow up the importance or perhaps took certain data here but then different data here and different data here to come up with a grande conclusion that is blown out of proportion but I still believe the problem still exists.
I would truly love to look at all the data and come to my own conclusion—but I don't understand most of it. That's why I rely on others to explain it to me to a certain extent.

If someone had asked me my views on AGW a year ago, I would have told them I was ~75% convinced. I don't feel that they have demonstrated it to me in nearly as comprehensive a fashion as Evolution by Natural Selection has been, and while the arguments opposed to evolution are obviously pathetically weak in my view, the arguments of those critical of AGW seem to have some merit.

I did admit to myself however, that AGW's skeptics often had pretty obvious ideological reasons to adopt that position, and thus viewed many of their claims with my own bias.

This past year however, has made me grow disgusted with much of the environmentalist crowd however, and it seems obvious to me that the Oil companies don't have the monopoly on greed in this debate.

I've now accepted that I can no longer trust the proponents of AGW, and will just move on. Honestly, I've never really cared all that much about CC, and have always felt that humanity would adapt to any changes in our climate that were likely to result.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
CRU Hack Current Events 1
Just plain not being able to hack it? Academic Guidance 12
How i can hack ? Computing & Technology 29
Elevator Hack General Discussion 1
Hotmail.. someone trying to hack me? Computing & Technology 43