UK's Climate Research Unit server Hacked -- Cat out of bag

We are the Borg.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

UK's Climate Research Unit server Hacked -- Cat out of bag

Post by Rob Lister »

snip
The University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Centre appears to have suffered a security breach earlier today, when an unknown hacker apparently downloaded 1079 e-mails and 72 documents of various types and published them to an anonymous FTP server. These files appear to contain highly sensitive information that, if genuine, could prove extremely embarrassing to the authors of the e-mails involved. Those authors include some of the most celebrated names among proponents of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Snip of one released doc (bolding mine)
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx



Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
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.
Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
And that is one of the least damning documents.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-C ... and-emails
Here's another
Mike,

This is truly awful. GRL has gone downhill rapidly in recent years.

I think the decline began before Saiers. I have had some unhelpful dealings with him recently with regard to a paper Sarah and I have on glaciers — it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published.

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.

How different is the GRL paper from the Nature paper? Did the authors counter any of the criticisms? My experience with Douglass is that the identical (bar format changes) paper to one previously rejected was submitted to GRL.

Tom.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/re ... s-or-fake/
http://www.climateaudit.org/ (but traffic will shut it down for a while)
Last edited by Rob Lister on Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Linky pooh?
Sorry. added
asthmatic camel
Posts: 20454
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:53 pm
Title: Forum commie nun.
Location: Stirring the porridge with my spurtle.

Post by asthmatic camel »

I'd be a little cautious about this one. The University of East Anglia does have a Climate Research Unit, but it isn't the Hadley Centre, run by the Met Office.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

asthmatic camel wrote:I'd be a little cautious about this one. The University of East Anglia does have a Climate Research Unit, but it isn't the Hadley Centre, run by the Met Office.
Noted.

No less damning though.

I'd like to apple the 48 hour rule but it's spreading like wildfire...so i'm warm.

:)
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Dear All,

Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning in response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom’s old address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !

I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling – worst word I can think of today without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I’ll have time to read more at the weekend as I’m coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and Keith A. onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so much else on at the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what to do there. The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they get. They have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn’t the warmest year globally, because it wasn’t the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being 1300-1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and late
20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something – even if this is just to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will usethis paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes unchallenged.

I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but papers get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.

Cheers
Phil
This Phil?
Professor Phil Jones
E-mail: p.jones@uea.ac.uk

I am the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich. I was born in Surrey in 1952 and completed a B.A. in Environmental Sciences at the University of Lancaster in 1973 and an M.Sc. (1974) and Ph.D. (1977) at the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. My Ph.D. was titled "A spatially distributed catchment model for flood forecasting and river regulation with particular reference to the River Tyne."
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Just caught this from the Examiner article.

The FTP server is in a Russian domain and uses the anonymous FTP protocol, which does not require a pre-registered user account or password for downloading. The file is named FOI2009.zip, an apparent reference to US Public Law 89-554, 80 Stat. 383, the Freedom of Information Act.
lol

This was interesting too. It's from Steve Mosher, a guy that mainly works with Steve McIntyre on data analysis.
And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre. And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia[.] And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain.. you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy. [Y]ou get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect. I don’t know that its real.. But the CRU code looks real
Last edited by Rob Lister on Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
asthmatic camel
Posts: 20454
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:53 pm
Title: Forum commie nun.
Location: Stirring the porridge with my spurtle.

Post by asthmatic camel »

If true, it's a biggie. We shall see...
hammegk
Posts: 15132
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:16 pm
Title: Curmudgeon
Location: Hither, sometimes Yon

Post by hammegk »

Strange. The deniers at TOP haven't brought this up yet.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

asthmatic camel wrote:If true, it's a biggie. We shall see...
See, that's the thing.

If True....IF IF IF....
Then Biggie is a phenomenal understatement. It'll be bigger than Watergate.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

hammegk wrote:Strange. The deniers at TOP haven't brought this up yet.
That's because they're smarter than me...they're following the 48 hour rule. And really, there are not that many skeptics (or deniers if you will) over there.
Last edited by Rob Lister on Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Steve of Climate Audit...
teve McIntyre (Comment#23773) November 19th, 2009 at 6:08 pm

I’m having trouble getting into CA right now.

I made up a pdf of the emails to help browse through them and it’s over 2000 pages. Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine.

It is really quite breathtaking.
and from Investagative Mag...
HadleyCRU says leaked data is real

The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

"Have you alerted police"

"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."

Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

"Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn't do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago."

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing "hiding the decline", and Jones explained what he was trying to say….
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_bri ... -real.html
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Yet More!

Post by Rob Lister »

:o
The letter is from Phil Jones to Michael Mann, dated July 8, 2004:

The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! [sic]

Cheers

Phil
Bearguin
Posts: 8094
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:26 am
Title: Thankless Bastard!
Location: Get off my fucking lawn

Post by Bearguin »

Rob Lister wrote:
I'd like to apple the 48 hour rule but it's spreading like wildfire...so i'm warm.

:)
Just curious if you were hungry when you wrote this?
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Bearguin wrote:
Rob Lister wrote:
I'd like to apple the 48 hour rule but it's spreading like wildfire...so i'm warm.

:)
Just curious if you were hungry when you wrote this?
I could eat a bear...but my wife doesn't like morning sex.

:)

Here's another snack...
From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.
En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

Rob Lister wrote:
asthmatic camel wrote:I'd be a little cautious about this one. The University of East Anglia does have a Climate Research Unit, but it isn't the Hadley Centre, run by the Met Office.
Noted.

No less damning though.

I'd like to apple the 48 hour rule but it's spreading like wildfire...so i'm warm.

:)
And the emphasis is extremely dishonest, to boot.
sparks
Posts: 17762
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!

Post by sparks »

:Popcorn: :Popcorn:
gnome
Posts: 25995
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL

Post by gnome »

I'd like to bring up a question of scope early on.

Are these guys as important to promoting AGW as the story would say? Or are they bit players trying to ride a bandwagon? Or something in-between?

Is the data they're manipulating a keystone to the AGW argument? Or something supportive that has now turned out to be spurious?

Just as an example, if I falsify a paper supporting the utility of flu shots, and get caught, it doesn't really say that flu shots are a fraud. If the head of the CDC does so, it becomes a serious question. But I would imagine the story of my fraud could easily become viral among people who distrust the CDC, and be considered "proof" by them.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

gnome wrote:I'd like to bring up a question of scope early on.

Are these guys as important to promoting AGW as the story would say? Or are they bit players trying to ride a bandwagon? Or something in-between?

Is the data they're manipulating a keystone to the AGW argument? Or something supportive that has now turned out to be spurious?

Just as an example, if I falsify a paper supporting the utility of flu shots, and get caught, it doesn't really say that flu shots are a fraud. If the head of the CDC does so, it becomes a serious question. But I would imagine the story of my fraud could easily become viral among people who distrust the CDC, and be considered "proof" by them.
These guys are THE...

T.H.E.

biggest players there are. There are no bigger players that are not elected officials.


Michael Mann
Keith Briffa
Phil Jones
ray bradley
etc

They chaired and wrote the IPCC reports


And the data they are manipulating IS the AGW argument.

This is Academic Fraud
Scientific Fraud

If if what I hear about some of the non-email documents proves true...
Criminal Fraud.
Last edited by Rob Lister on Fri Nov 20, 2009 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
asthmatic camel
Posts: 20454
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 1:53 pm
Title: Forum commie nun.
Location: Stirring the porridge with my spurtle.

Post by asthmatic camel »

The big-time news people are now carrying the story. Looks like some people are in for an arse-kicking.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

asthmatic camel wrote:The big-time news people are now carrying the story. Looks like some people are in for an arse-kicking.
Ain't that a fact. Steve Mc wrote to Lucia (another of Steve's 'coworkers') the following about some of the documents he's already previewed...
And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre.

And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia

And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain..
you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy.

you get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you
get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect.
I'm betting the bolded part refers to Keith Briffa.
En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

If this is real, those guys are imbiciles.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Ooooh! :)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=159847
The jref agw proponent team seems a bit silent. I'm guessing they're trying to find a way to turn this into a slam for using 'stolen' data.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

jj wrote:If this is real, those guys are imbiciles.
No, JJ.

The imbeciles are the ones who have bought their crap for the last 20 years hook, line and sinker.

You know...people like you. :)
DrMatt
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Post by DrMatt »

If it's false, then it's still a biggie--a biggie of the lengths to which people will go to discredit inconvenient science.

I have no confidence that we will ever know the truth.

And I consider imbecilic all leaps of faith that we will.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

DrMatt wrote:If it's false, then it's still a biggie--a biggie of the lengths to which people will go to discredit inconvenient science.

I have no confidence that we will ever know the truth.

And I consider imbecilic all leaps of faith that we will.
It's real. The argument i'm hearing against this is...wait for it...

Real but Fake!

Well, maybe it's half real and half fake. We'll know soon enough but so far it's looking quite real. Phil Jones has already confirmed the hack, and the 'hide the decline' email...though he pretends he doesn't remember the context.
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

Rob Lister wrote:
DrMatt wrote:If it's false, then it's still a biggie--a biggie of the lengths to which people will go to discredit inconvenient science.

I have no confidence that we will ever know the truth.

And I consider imbecilic all leaps of faith that we will.
It's real. The argument i'm hearing against this is...wait for it...

Real but Fake!

Well, maybe it's half real and half fake.
Not a new trick. It's generaly accepted that one of the MS source code leaks had some of the more disconcerting comments added by the people who released it.
hammegk
Posts: 15132
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:16 pm
Title: Curmudgeon
Location: Hither, sometimes Yon

Post by hammegk »

DrMatt wrote:If it's false, then it's still a biggie--a biggie of the lengths to which people will go to discredit inconvenient science.

I have no confidence that we will ever know the truth.
Agreed.

The next generation(s) will at least discover if AGW lives up to the Hansen/Mann/Jones/Gore/IPCC/etal scenario of the skyisfalling.
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

Rob Lister wrote: These guys are THE...

T.H.E.

biggest players there are. There are no bigger players that are not elected officials.
I see no need to insult a lot of hard working PR people and their employers like that.

University of East Anglia. Glass plate university. Pretty good but it's not say Imperial College London.
DrMatt
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!

Post by DrMatt »

Geni wrote:
Rob Lister wrote:
DrMatt wrote:If it's false, then it's still a biggie--a biggie of the lengths to which people will go to discredit inconvenient science.

I have no confidence that we will ever know the truth.

And I consider imbecilic all leaps of faith that we will.
It's real. The argument i'm hearing against this is...wait for it...

Real but Fake!

Well, maybe it's half real and half fake, because I faked part of it.
Not a new trick. It's generaly accepted that one of the MS source code leaks had some of the more disconcerting comments added by the people who released it, like me.
Anybody can make a Real Fake, even me!
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

Rob Lister wrote:Noted.

No less damning though.

I'd like to apple the 48 hour rule but it's spreading like wildfire...so i'm warm.

:)
It's taken from 13 years worth of emails. Have you emailed nothing in the alst 13 years that can't be made to make you look bad.
En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

Rob Lister wrote:
jj wrote:If this is real, those guys are imbiciles.
No, JJ.

The imbeciles are the ones who have bought their crap for the last 20 years hook, line and sinker.

You know...people like you. :)
My position is that yes, there is an obvious shift in the climate, no, it's not clear yet it's AGW.

And, of course, we still have no idea how much of these mails was forged.

I've had people forge entire "mails" from me, everything but the header, even the subject changed. But, they did forget to reset the "message length" field. Aww. Dunno here.

Do I know what happened here? No, I don't.

Given the hostility that the WIN AT ALL COSTS squad shows to inconvenient facts, I wouldn't put it either way without EVIDENCE.
Last edited by En folkefiende on Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

Rob Lister wrote:Well, maybe it's half real and half fake. We'll know soon enough but so far it's looking quite real. Phil Jones has already confirmed the hack, and the 'hide the decline' email...though he pretends he doesn't remember the context.
The decline WHERE?

Part of what caught my attention was the talk about 'adding real data'.

If you've got a model, you have to test the model. You do that several ways, first you test the model with synthetic data for which you know the right answer.

THEN you try real data and see what results you get.

THEN you actually try to figure out if the results make any sense as far as real observations.

So some of this looks like sheer spin. Some of it, well, let's see who really wrote this stuff....
manny
Posts: 1830
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:41 pm
Location: New York

Post by manny »

So can we put these guys on trial for crimes against humanity like enemy of democracy James Hansen wanted to do to the people who dared not to swallow his shit? Or should we just engage in "direct action" against their buildings?
ed
Posts: 42474
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: That Firebrand

Post by ed »

If these emails are true, everything EVERYTHING that these guys have written EVER is up for review.

If they are academic crooks them we can trust nothing until it is verified.

The question is will the academic community do the right thing a la Jason Blair and the NYT.
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

manny wrote:So can we put these guys on trial for crimes against humanity like enemy of democracy James Hansen wanted to do to the people who dared not to swallow his shit? Or should we just engage in "direct action" against their buildings?
Other than Earlham Hall it's a glass plate university. If you blew the whole thing up I doubt anyone would greatly miss the buildings.
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni »

ed wrote:If these emails are true, everything EVERYTHING that these guys have written EVER is up for review.
Depends on the context of the emails. Something which our hackers for some reason failed to include.

If they are academic crooks them we can trust nothing until it is verified.

The question is will the academic community do the right thing a la Jason Blair and the NYT.
With the falling cost of computing power and the general low cost of PHd students I doubt redoing much of it would present that great a challange.
En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende »

ed wrote:If these emails are true, everything EVERYTHING that these guys have written EVER is up for review.

If they are academic crooks them we can trust nothing until it is verified.

The question is will the academic community do the right thing a la Jason Blair and the NYT.
And if they aren't true, what should we do, Ed?

Do the same thing that the guy who forged my emails a while ago tried to do?

How about it, Ed?

Sorry, been there. Did you know it's possible (cough) to
"violate antitrust law by monopolizing the internet on behalf of your employer"? And that forged evidence is all it takes to justify a takeover of a publicly held company? (cough, hack, wheeze)

The language here looks soooooo obvious one has to wonder. Is anybody really that stupid?

E_SOME_PEOPLE_ARE_NUTS
manny
Posts: 1830
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:41 pm
Location: New York

Post by manny »

ed wrote:If these emails are true, everything EVERYTHING that these guys have written EVER is up for review.

If they are academic crooks them we can trust nothing until it is verified.
If they were really scientists everything would have been up for review in the first place. But the AGW proponents have consistently refused to release raw data or their models to wide review.
The question is will the academic community do the right thing a la Jason Blair and the NYT.
No.
Rob Lister
Posts: 23535
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Swimming in Lake Ed

Post by Rob Lister »

manny wrote:So can we put these guys on trial for crimes against humanity like enemy of democracy James Hansen wanted to do to the people who dared not to swallow his shit? Or should we just engage in "direct action" against their buildings?
Well, let's just see what happens with the tax evasion and fraud first, then we'll move on to the other stuff.
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Re: UK's Climate Research Unit server Hacked -- Cat out of b

Post by Geni »

Rob Lister wrote: Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
Sure. If he lied about his poitions on certian subjects to get a job at some point that's generaly considered a firing offence (misrepresenting yourself in an interview and all that).