Climategate e-mails

Hackers broke into the computers of some prominent global warming scientists, whose e-mails show them fudging data, suppressing contrary evidence, and violating scientific protocols to advance their hypothesis about catastrophic climate change. Here are some of the e-mails, as classified by the London Telegraph:

Manipulation of evidence
:
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.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. . . .

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back.

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming] can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority:

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“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.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice!”

This is a reminder that science is an enterprise of human beings, with the whole array of agendas, ambitions, personalities, biases, preconceptions, and sins. Yet we are on the verge of risking our whole economy on a carbon-trade system that assumes what these guys have been saying about catastrophic global warming is objectively true.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://uest fws

    my understanding is that these emails date to around the year 2002.

    so then, from these nutty guys, we should think we have evidence that global warming is a hoax?

  • http://uest fws

    my understanding is that these emails date to around the year 2002.

    so then, from these nutty guys, we should think we have evidence that global warming is a hoax?

  • Reg Schofield

    Scientist being …..dishonest !! The new “gods” of all truth , say it is not so.
    In all seriousness , my uncle who works within the scientific community told me point blank that sometimes when doing research that is aimed towards grant money , fudging occurs . He is a scientist but was at least honest about having an agenda. Is anyone really surprised .

  • Reg Schofield

    Scientist being …..dishonest !! The new “gods” of all truth , say it is not so.
    In all seriousness , my uncle who works within the scientific community told me point blank that sometimes when doing research that is aimed towards grant money , fudging occurs . He is a scientist but was at least honest about having an agenda. Is anyone really surprised .

  • Joe

    Not surprised.

    “so then, from these nutty guys, we should think we have evidence that global warming is a hoax?”

    No. What we should think is, why were folks so afraid to have an honest debate about the effect of man’s activiites on the global temperature trend? Why would they go to such extremes to try to have people with the opposing view banned from peer reviewed journals? It seems they were afraid to let the debate occur. Its a nice little scam. You work it out so that the opposition can’t get published and then you tell everyone not to listen to those people becuase they can’t get published.

  • Joe

    Not surprised.

    “so then, from these nutty guys, we should think we have evidence that global warming is a hoax?”

    No. What we should think is, why were folks so afraid to have an honest debate about the effect of man’s activiites on the global temperature trend? Why would they go to such extremes to try to have people with the opposing view banned from peer reviewed journals? It seems they were afraid to let the debate occur. Its a nice little scam. You work it out so that the opposition can’t get published and then you tell everyone not to listen to those people becuase they can’t get published.

  • Carl Vehse
  • Carl Vehse
  • WebMonk

    As far as I can tell it wasn’t hackers breaking into their computers.

    It was either:

    Someone in their organization covertly releasing the materials which had already been gathered together in preparation to satisfy a FOIA request they were fighting.

    or

    Someone inadvertently putting those gathered materials into a non-protected location where someone downloaded them.

    The hacker story has made the rounds since that was the first suspected reason. Since then hacking has been shown to be VERY unlikely to be the source, but hacking makes a much more exciting story, so it keeps getting passed around.

  • WebMonk

    As far as I can tell it wasn’t hackers breaking into their computers.

    It was either:

    Someone in their organization covertly releasing the materials which had already been gathered together in preparation to satisfy a FOIA request they were fighting.

    or

    Someone inadvertently putting those gathered materials into a non-protected location where someone downloaded them.

    The hacker story has made the rounds since that was the first suspected reason. Since then hacking has been shown to be VERY unlikely to be the source, but hacking makes a much more exciting story, so it keeps getting passed around.

  • WebMonk

    fws – I’m not sure who the “nutty” guys are.

    If they’re the “hackers”, then see my above post.

    If they’re the scientists who wrote the emails, they are some of the foremost scientists in the global warming camp. Whether or not you disagree with them, you can’t legitimately call them nutty.

    I’m not sure why emails from 2002 are different than emails from 1998 or 2008. What’s your point?

  • WebMonk

    fws – I’m not sure who the “nutty” guys are.

    If they’re the “hackers”, then see my above post.

    If they’re the scientists who wrote the emails, they are some of the foremost scientists in the global warming camp. Whether or not you disagree with them, you can’t legitimately call them nutty.

    I’m not sure why emails from 2002 are different than emails from 1998 or 2008. What’s your point?

  • Tom Hering

    So … did they actually do the dishonest things they talked about? And if they did, did they achieve their aims? These questions need to be answered by an investigation before we all get our undies in a bundle.

  • Tom Hering

    So … did they actually do the dishonest things they talked about? And if they did, did they achieve their aims? These questions need to be answered by an investigation before we all get our undies in a bundle.

  • Cincinnatus

    Ah, the smell of burning academic freedom in the morning.

  • Cincinnatus

    Ah, the smell of burning academic freedom in the morning.

  • Carl Vehse

    From August 9, 2007: “Hot news: NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium”: Note the Newsweek cover from that year displayed further down in the column.

    Also check Michelle’s column, “Science czar John Holdren and ClimateGate: Perfect together”, for descriptions of how skeptical climatologists and other scientists were subject to intimidation if they tried to make their concerns public.

    Next question – What did Manbearpig know and when did he know it?

  • Carl Vehse

    From August 9, 2007: “Hot news: NASA quietly fixes flawed temperature data; 1998 was NOT the warmest year in the millenium”: Note the Newsweek cover from that year displayed further down in the column.

    Also check Michelle’s column, “Science czar John Holdren and ClimateGate: Perfect together”, for descriptions of how skeptical climatologists and other scientists were subject to intimidation if they tried to make their concerns public.

    Next question – What did Manbearpig know and when did he know it?

  • Cincinnatus

    And, Tom@7, I hardly see how the question of whether they “succeeded” is relevant. These scientists intended to falsify data, recognizing–and this is the important part–that no data existed to confirm their hypothesis that global warming is anthropogenic. Hypotheses shouldn’t be synonymous with “agendas,” though they often are. The particular problem here is that this hypothesis is being employed not merely to boost the careers of the interested researchers, but to foist upon the world a host of taxes, legislation, governance schemes, and even ethical paradigms. This science is power, and it is power that is quite possibly constructed on a lie.

    Such is the high crime of academic inquiry.

  • Cincinnatus

    And, Tom@7, I hardly see how the question of whether they “succeeded” is relevant. These scientists intended to falsify data, recognizing–and this is the important part–that no data existed to confirm their hypothesis that global warming is anthropogenic. Hypotheses shouldn’t be synonymous with “agendas,” though they often are. The particular problem here is that this hypothesis is being employed not merely to boost the careers of the interested researchers, but to foist upon the world a host of taxes, legislation, governance schemes, and even ethical paradigms. This science is power, and it is power that is quite possibly constructed on a lie.

    Such is the high crime of academic inquiry.

  • Carl Vehse

    It’s not “academic freedom,” but academic malfeasance that’s involved in ClimateGate.

  • Carl Vehse

    It’s not “academic freedom,” but academic malfeasance that’s involved in ClimateGate.

  • Bruce Gee

    The ultimate smoking gun.

    Phil Jones and the climate science department at East Anglia raked in something over 20 million dollars in grant money. Frank, these aren’t nutty guys. These are people with a serious agenda who were willing to do anything to protect it. Anyone who couldn’t smell this rat from a mile away has been drinking Al Gore’s koolaid.

  • Bruce Gee

    The ultimate smoking gun.

    Phil Jones and the climate science department at East Anglia raked in something over 20 million dollars in grant money. Frank, these aren’t nutty guys. These are people with a serious agenda who were willing to do anything to protect it. Anyone who couldn’t smell this rat from a mile away has been drinking Al Gore’s koolaid.

  • Ryan

    Proof, once again, that Scientists, like any other profession, is filled with Humans and not Vulcans.

  • Ryan

    Proof, once again, that Scientists, like any other profession, is filled with Humans and not Vulcans.

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus@#10, why wouldn’t the findings of an investigation be relevant? To what we decide about all this? For example, are the views and actions of these few researchers typical of global warming researchers as a whole? Why wouldn’t we want to know that?

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus@#10, why wouldn’t the findings of an investigation be relevant? To what we decide about all this? For example, are the views and actions of these few researchers typical of global warming researchers as a whole? Why wouldn’t we want to know that?

  • Cincinnatus

    I think you’re missing the point of science, Tom. The entire point here is that there were no findings. These scientists had a hypothesis–which all scientists should have before conducting research–but found no data to support their hypothesis. Thus, the attempted to forge the data and stifle the rest. This is tremendously unethical, obviously; it is, however, nothing new–the real problem, as I said, is that this particular hypothesis–which may be unproven, if these emails are an indication–is an instrument of power being employed to reconstruct the political structure of the West. Your real question is whether other scientists have corroborated the hypothesis by another route. Perhaps; I am not party to the intricacies of that debate.

    As for the scientists themselves, I do know that, as others have pointed out, they are more or less “reputable” (until now) and prominent, and thus “representative” as far as that goes. This incident is obviously not proof that global warming isn’t “happening.” Climate change is rather unquestionable; it is, however, evidence that there is a concerted effort to stifle academic debate surrounding the causes of global warming–again, nothing new in the decidedly human endeavor of science. The particular concern, however, is that a tremendous level of Power stands or falls with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

  • Cincinnatus

    I think you’re missing the point of science, Tom. The entire point here is that there were no findings. These scientists had a hypothesis–which all scientists should have before conducting research–but found no data to support their hypothesis. Thus, the attempted to forge the data and stifle the rest. This is tremendously unethical, obviously; it is, however, nothing new–the real problem, as I said, is that this particular hypothesis–which may be unproven, if these emails are an indication–is an instrument of power being employed to reconstruct the political structure of the West. Your real question is whether other scientists have corroborated the hypothesis by another route. Perhaps; I am not party to the intricacies of that debate.

    As for the scientists themselves, I do know that, as others have pointed out, they are more or less “reputable” (until now) and prominent, and thus “representative” as far as that goes. This incident is obviously not proof that global warming isn’t “happening.” Climate change is rather unquestionable; it is, however, evidence that there is a concerted effort to stifle academic debate surrounding the causes of global warming–again, nothing new in the decidedly human endeavor of science. The particular concern, however, is that a tremendous level of Power stands or falls with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

  • Peter Leavitt

    This revelation will strengthen the many scientists who have become skeptical of the Global Warming . Kimberly Strassel in a recent WSJ writes:

    The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

  • Peter Leavitt

    This revelation will strengthen the many scientists who have become skeptical of the Global Warming . Kimberly Strassel in a recent WSJ writes:

    The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus, it’s not that they found NO data to support their hypothesis, but that they ALSO found some problematic data. How they chose to handle that is, indeed, reprehensible.

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus, it’s not that they found NO data to support their hypothesis, but that they ALSO found some problematic data. How they chose to handle that is, indeed, reprehensible.

  • Cincinnatus

    Correct–I misspoke, though it amounts to the same thing, and changes my argument not at all.

  • Cincinnatus

    Correct–I misspoke, though it amounts to the same thing, and changes my argument not at all.

  • John C

    WSJ is a Murdoch publication Peter and Murdoch is bad news.
    A handful of scientists may have their reputations diminished but man made climate change is still humanity’s greatest challenge. ( closely followed by overpopulation)

  • John C

    WSJ is a Murdoch publication Peter and Murdoch is bad news.
    A handful of scientists may have their reputations diminished but man made climate change is still humanity’s greatest challenge. ( closely followed by overpopulation)

  • Cincinnatus

    So where have you been for this discussion, John? Apparently not actually reading the discussion or the article: the problem here is that there is incontrovertible data conflicting with the hypothesis that “man made” climate change is a reality. Perhaps it is a reality, but it is even still too soon to be concluding that it is “humanity’s greatest challenge”–and the fact that scientists are obfuscating data and precluding an authentic discussion on the topic isn’t helping us figure it out.

    But it’s ok to jump on the bandwagon, John: we have a new “greatest challenge” every decade at least: fascism, nuclear weapons, AIDs, drug addiction, terrorism, and now anthropogenic climate change. Some are real problems, some less convincing than others. Take your pick, and sign on to the prescription of Power necessary to conquer each one.

  • Cincinnatus

    So where have you been for this discussion, John? Apparently not actually reading the discussion or the article: the problem here is that there is incontrovertible data conflicting with the hypothesis that “man made” climate change is a reality. Perhaps it is a reality, but it is even still too soon to be concluding that it is “humanity’s greatest challenge”–and the fact that scientists are obfuscating data and precluding an authentic discussion on the topic isn’t helping us figure it out.

    But it’s ok to jump on the bandwagon, John: we have a new “greatest challenge” every decade at least: fascism, nuclear weapons, AIDs, drug addiction, terrorism, and now anthropogenic climate change. Some are real problems, some less convincing than others. Take your pick, and sign on to the prescription of Power necessary to conquer each one.

  • Peter Leavitt

    John C, personally, I was disappointed when Murdoch took ownership of the WSJ, though, other than a few more pictures and an occasional somewhat hyped headline, the Journal has maintained excellent journalistic and editorial integrity.

    On the issue of global warning, have you any reason to question Kimberly Strassel’s remarks?

  • Peter Leavitt

    John C, personally, I was disappointed when Murdoch took ownership of the WSJ, though, other than a few more pictures and an occasional somewhat hyped headline, the Journal has maintained excellent journalistic and editorial integrity.

    On the issue of global warning, have you any reason to question Kimberly Strassel’s remarks?

  • Bruce Gee

    The smoking gun has been smoking for awhile:

    Regarding the actual raw data from temp sensors placed around the globe:

    According to National Review’s Patrick J. Michaels, that data is not publicly available. In his piece, “The Dog Ate Global Warming,” when Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded, “Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

    To move forward with this is to build a house upon sand. It isn’t actually “science” anymore.

  • Bruce Gee

    The smoking gun has been smoking for awhile:

    Regarding the actual raw data from temp sensors placed around the globe:

    According to National Review’s Patrick J. Michaels, that data is not publicly available. In his piece, “The Dog Ate Global Warming,” when Roger Pielke Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded, “Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.”

    To move forward with this is to build a house upon sand. It isn’t actually “science” anymore.

  • DonS

    Tom @ 17 and prior posts: At a minimum, this should enable us to move toward an honest and thorough debate on the issue. Up until now, as was confirmed by these emails, GW proponents have shut out any scientist who dared to challenge the GW meme. Now, let’s have that debate, before taking any further measures to destroy our economy based upon data promulgated by known frauds.

  • DonS

    Tom @ 17 and prior posts: At a minimum, this should enable us to move toward an honest and thorough debate on the issue. Up until now, as was confirmed by these emails, GW proponents have shut out any scientist who dared to challenge the GW meme. Now, let’s have that debate, before taking any further measures to destroy our economy based upon data promulgated by known frauds.

  • DonS

    An interesting aspect of all of this is how concerned the MSM is to point out the hacking angle (even though the best evidence indicates a leak, rather than hacking). The NYT refused to link to the actual documents because they had their “undies in a bundle” (HT Tom Hering) over this issue of how the documents were obtained. Like that ever bothered them before. The bias has become laughable.

  • DonS

    An interesting aspect of all of this is how concerned the MSM is to point out the hacking angle (even though the best evidence indicates a leak, rather than hacking). The NYT refused to link to the actual documents because they had their “undies in a bundle” (HT Tom Hering) over this issue of how the documents were obtained. Like that ever bothered them before. The bias has become laughable.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Victor Davis Hanson in an NRO piece, The New War against Reason
    Medieval heretic-hunters had nothing on Obama when it comes to closed-mindedness.
    , writes:

    These controversies could be adjudicated through substantive debate, but instead politically correct hysteria again has followed. “Good” informed people — like those who adhered to every doctrine of the medieval church — “know” the planet is heating up, thanks to the greed of carbon-based industry. “Bad” heretics challenge official environmental dogma and exegesis. In such an anti-empirical age, if the “truther” Van Jones had not been there, ready for Obama to tap as green czar, he would have had to be invented.

    The supreme irony is that these global warming “scientists”, cheered on by leftist politicians, including Gore and Obama, are involved in a rather emotional, poorly-reasoned enterprise.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Victor Davis Hanson in an NRO piece, The New War against Reason
    Medieval heretic-hunters had nothing on Obama when it comes to closed-mindedness.
    , writes:

    These controversies could be adjudicated through substantive debate, but instead politically correct hysteria again has followed. “Good” informed people — like those who adhered to every doctrine of the medieval church — “know” the planet is heating up, thanks to the greed of carbon-based industry. “Bad” heretics challenge official environmental dogma and exegesis. In such an anti-empirical age, if the “truther” Van Jones had not been there, ready for Obama to tap as green czar, he would have had to be invented.

    The supreme irony is that these global warming “scientists”, cheered on by leftist politicians, including Gore and Obama, are involved in a rather emotional, poorly-reasoned enterprise.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I love how a blog at Telegraph.co.uk — written by “James Delingpole … who is right about everything” and which actually uses the word “Libtards” now gets credited as “the London Telegraph. Conservatives sure have funny standards when it comes to media sources.

    Q: How does a conservative know if a particular media outlet is liberally biased? A: Well, did it publish a story that disagrees with what he thinks?

    Anyhow, I’ve actually found references to this story in actual news outlets (none of which, oddly, contained the word “Libtard”, to the almost assured dismay of one Carl “Clymer” Vehse). And it’s clear that something is rotten in the region of East Anglia.

    What isn’t clear is the context of the quotes that are given. Or why this is supposed to impugn all climate science ever, as some would seem to have it.

    Not that I expect that to matter much to the naysayers. As much as they decry anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proponents for making up their mind first and finding data to back them up second, I don’t see the AGW critics doing much different: “Oh, look, some article on a blog quotes a few sentences out of 1000+ emails that were obtained, and, they suggest shenanigans by those scientists. Well, you see, AGW is all a fraud! Just like I always thought!” Indeed, why not stop there. Perhaps all of science is a fraud, as well!

    I’d also love to know what people (@5, @24) are reading that suggests this wasn’t hacked at all.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I love how a blog at Telegraph.co.uk — written by “James Delingpole … who is right about everything” and which actually uses the word “Libtards” now gets credited as “the London Telegraph. Conservatives sure have funny standards when it comes to media sources.

    Q: How does a conservative know if a particular media outlet is liberally biased? A: Well, did it publish a story that disagrees with what he thinks?

    Anyhow, I’ve actually found references to this story in actual news outlets (none of which, oddly, contained the word “Libtard”, to the almost assured dismay of one Carl “Clymer” Vehse). And it’s clear that something is rotten in the region of East Anglia.

    What isn’t clear is the context of the quotes that are given. Or why this is supposed to impugn all climate science ever, as some would seem to have it.

    Not that I expect that to matter much to the naysayers. As much as they decry anthropogenic global warming (AGW) proponents for making up their mind first and finding data to back them up second, I don’t see the AGW critics doing much different: “Oh, look, some article on a blog quotes a few sentences out of 1000+ emails that were obtained, and, they suggest shenanigans by those scientists. Well, you see, AGW is all a fraud! Just like I always thought!” Indeed, why not stop there. Perhaps all of science is a fraud, as well!

    I’d also love to know what people (@5, @24) are reading that suggests this wasn’t hacked at all.

  • Carl Vehse

    More on the ClimateGate fraud by crooked scientists is in a detailed article, “CRU’s Source Code: Climategate Uncovered”, which provides some explanation of how these scientist nudged or fudged-factored their data.

  • Carl Vehse

    More on the ClimateGate fraud by crooked scientists is in a detailed article, “CRU’s Source Code: Climategate Uncovered”, which provides some explanation of how these scientist nudged or fudged-factored their data.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 26: “Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, “80 percent of the time it’s an insider,” he said.”

    From
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=62a_1258791460

    In other words, it probably wasn’t a hack at all, because the insider probably had access to the documents already.

    The data release was accompanied by a statement indicating that the released documents were representative of the climate debate within the pro-AGW community, and were being released for the purpose of informing the public as to the real nature of this debate. So, more evidence that it was someone who knew about those documents and what they contained.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 26: “Judging from the data posted, the hack was done either by an insider or by someone inside the climate community who was familiar with the debate, said Robert Graham, CEO with the consultancy Errata Security. Whenever this type of incident occurs, “80 percent of the time it’s an insider,” he said.”

    From
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=62a_1258791460

    In other words, it probably wasn’t a hack at all, because the insider probably had access to the documents already.

    The data release was accompanied by a statement indicating that the released documents were representative of the climate debate within the pro-AGW community, and were being released for the purpose of informing the public as to the real nature of this debate. So, more evidence that it was someone who knew about those documents and what they contained.

  • DonS

    Liberals celebrate whistleblowers, unless they are blowing the whistle on other liberals, I guess.

  • DonS

    Liberals celebrate whistleblowers, unless they are blowing the whistle on other liberals, I guess.

  • John C

    Only one Nobel Prize winner Peter. You don’t have a very good hand. I’ll see your Nobel Prize winner and raise you fifty. Stating that man made global warming is the new religion is hardly a scholarly critique of the science supporting global warming. As for Joanne Simpson, I look forward to the presentation of her paper and its review by her peers. Afterall, a knighthood and riches beyond imagination awaits those who can establish an anti global warming consensus. Yep, science is that competitive.

  • John C

    Only one Nobel Prize winner Peter. You don’t have a very good hand. I’ll see your Nobel Prize winner and raise you fifty. Stating that man made global warming is the new religion is hardly a scholarly critique of the science supporting global warming. As for Joanne Simpson, I look forward to the presentation of her paper and its review by her peers. Afterall, a knighthood and riches beyond imagination awaits those who can establish an anti global warming consensus. Yep, science is that competitive.

  • Wyldeirishman

    Two words, for those old enough (and wise enough) to remember:

    Global cooling.

  • Wyldeirishman

    Two words, for those old enough (and wise enough) to remember:

    Global cooling.

  • Carl Vehse

    The Canada Free Press article,Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal, has more on Holdren, who is the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

  • Carl Vehse

    The Canada Free Press article,Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren involved in unwinding “Climategate” scandal, has more on Holdren, who is the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

  • Carl Vehse

    James Delingpole has a series of articles at the link which discuss the latest fallout from Climategate, including “Five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning,” “The scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…”, and “How they (Climategaters) all squirmed”.

  • Carl Vehse

    James Delingpole has a series of articles at the link which discuss the latest fallout from Climategate, including “Five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning,” “The scandal spreads, the plot thickens, the shame deepens…”, and “How they (Climategaters) all squirmed”.

  • Peter Leavitt

    That climate science as a subject has become politicized has been known for some time. Richard Lindzen, a senior atmospheric scientist at M.I.T has been writing about it for years. Last November he gave a talk, Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?. A part of the abstract reads:

    …The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.

    These E-Mails dramatically confirm Prof. Lindzen’s thesis.

  • Peter Leavitt

    That climate science as a subject has become politicized has been known for some time. Richard Lindzen, a senior atmospheric scientist at M.I.T has been writing about it for years. Last November he gave a talk, Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?. A part of the abstract reads:

    …The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.

    These E-Mails dramatically confirm Prof. Lindzen’s thesis.

  • Carl Vehse

    “How to Forge a Consensus”:

    But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

    According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the “peer-review” process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.

    Mr. Mann noted to several colleagues in an email from March 2003, when the journal “Climate Research” published a paper not to Mr. Mann’s liking, that “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!”

    The scare quotes around “peer-reviewed literature,” by the way, are Mr. Mann’s. He went on in the email to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

  • Carl Vehse

    “How to Forge a Consensus”:

    But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

    According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the “peer-review” process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.

    Mr. Mann noted to several colleagues in an email from March 2003, when the journal “Climate Research” published a paper not to Mr. Mann’s liking, that “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!”

    The scare quotes around “peer-reviewed literature,” by the way, are Mr. Mann’s. He went on in the email to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

  • Carl Vehse

    From the Herald-Sun article, Climategate: Gore falsifies the record:

    Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:… “What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.”

    In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 – just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

    In an update from Reader Barry:

    Actually the e-mail archives are named by Unix timestamp, ranging from Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:41:07 GMT through to Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 GMT. This is a strong indicator they are extracted from an enterprise archive, probably by the FOIA Compliance Officer and not hacked from individual’s workstations.

  • Carl Vehse

    From the Herald-Sun article, Climategate: Gore falsifies the record:

    Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:… “What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.”

    In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 – just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

    In an update from Reader Barry:

    Actually the e-mail archives are named by Unix timestamp, ranging from Thu, 07 Mar 1996 14:41:07 GMT through to Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:17:44 GMT. This is a strong indicator they are extracted from an enterprise archive, probably by the FOIA Compliance Officer and not hacked from individual’s workstations.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So Carl (@36), other than dorks like me, to whom exactly do you think you’re talking when you leave a comment on a thread 12 days after the last comment, which was also by you?

    I’m just curious. You do this not infrequently. Is it just for the record? This is the first time I’ve seen anybody reply to any of your well-after-the-fact comments (and I’m not really replying to it, because I don’t actually care about Al Gore).

    Or do you keep notes to yourself distributed in the cloud, on other people’s blogs?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So Carl (@36), other than dorks like me, to whom exactly do you think you’re talking when you leave a comment on a thread 12 days after the last comment, which was also by you?

    I’m just curious. You do this not infrequently. Is it just for the record? This is the first time I’ve seen anybody reply to any of your well-after-the-fact comments (and I’m not really replying to it, because I don’t actually care about Al Gore).

    Or do you keep notes to yourself distributed in the cloud, on other people’s blogs?

  • Carl Vehse

    Partly to dorks; also just to keep the thread up-to-date when there’s a relevant article or statement… like this one, from Sarah Palin:

    The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”…

    Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.

    …or lie about it.

  • Carl Vehse

    Partly to dorks; also just to keep the thread up-to-date when there’s a relevant article or statement… like this one, from Sarah Palin:

    The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”…

    Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.

    …or lie about it.

  • DonS

    Did Gore really say that climate change is “a principle in Physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”…? If he did, that is the single most ignorant statement I have ever heard/read. He’s comparing computer modeling, using extrapolated short term data combined with a host of assumptions, to Newton’s Laws?

    I know tODD doesn’t care about Gore, but it seems as if the rest of the MSM and large swaths of the environmentally duped public does, so we are stuck refuting his ever increasingly foolish claims.

  • DonS

    Did Gore really say that climate change is “a principle in Physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”…? If he did, that is the single most ignorant statement I have ever heard/read. He’s comparing computer modeling, using extrapolated short term data combined with a host of assumptions, to Newton’s Laws?

    I know tODD doesn’t care about Gore, but it seems as if the rest of the MSM and large swaths of the environmentally duped public does, so we are stuck refuting his ever increasingly foolish claims.

  • Carl Vehse

    “If he did, that is the single most ignorant statement I have ever heard/read.”

    Well, DonS, you obviously have not been listening to Algore very much (and who can blame you?!).

    So click on Newsbuster’s article, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/18/al-gore-earths-interior-extremely-hot-several-million-degrees“>”Al Gore: Earth’s Interior ‘Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees’” or just go directly to the YouTube site for the video.

    Here’s the transcript:

    CONAN O’BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about … you talk in the book about geothermal energy…

    AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah.

    O’BRIEN: …and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that’s generated from the core of the earth …

    GORE: Yeah.

    O’BRIEN: …to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

    GORE: It definitely is, and it’s a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy – when they think about it at all – in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …

  • Carl Vehse

    “If he did, that is the single most ignorant statement I have ever heard/read.”

    Well, DonS, you obviously have not been listening to Algore very much (and who can blame you?!).

    So click on Newsbuster’s article, http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/18/al-gore-earths-interior-extremely-hot-several-million-degrees“>”Al Gore: Earth’s Interior ‘Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees’” or just go directly to the YouTube site for the video.

    Here’s the transcript:

    CONAN O’BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about … you talk in the book about geothermal energy…

    AL GORE, NOBEL LAUREATE: Yeah, yeah.

    O’BRIEN: …and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that’s generated from the core of the earth …

    GORE: Yeah.

    O’BRIEN: …to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

    GORE: It definitely is, and it’s a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy – when they think about it at all – in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …

  • Pingback: Trackback

  • Pingback: Trackback


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X