Social engineering at its finest?

[Ravi]

E-mails alleged to undermine climate change science were held back for weeks after being stolen so that their release would cause maximum damage to the Copenhagen climate conference, according to a source close to the investigation of the theft.

Climate change sceptics obtained the e-mails by hacking into a computer at the University of East Anglia. Professor Phil Jones, director of the university’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), has agreed to stand down during an independent review of the affair.

The first hack was in October or earlier, the source said. The e-mails were not leaked until mid-November. Sceptics allege that Professor Jones’s e-mails show that climate change data was manipulated and that scientists discussed how to suppress alternative views. The leader, terms of reference and timing of the review are expected to be announced today or tomorrow. The university has received thousands of international media calls and is concerned that the row is distracting attention from the key issues due to be discussed at Copenhagen.

Climate e-mail hackers ‘aimed to maximise harm to Copenhagen summit’ - Times Online

 

[uscitizen]

It is all part of the corporate war on independent science.

Can't have science interfering with profit now can we?

 

[amrchaos]

It is all part of the corporate war on independent science.

Can't have science interfering with profit now can we?

There are signs that the data was cooked. Also, most of the Data on climate change does seem to come form this group.

Global warming looks like it is in a slow boil. We have to wait and see what the end conclusions are from the scientific community. By the way, It does not look good for Greens.

 

[uscitizen]

Yeah too bad. Main reason for me is that by reducing carbon we also reduce many other nasty going into our air.

Mercury from coal power plants for one.

 

[Charles Stucker]

Yeah too bad. Main reason for me is that by reducing carbon we also reduce many other nasty going into our air.

Mercury from coal power plants for one.

I share that viewpoint. I can say that climatology is a relatively inexact science; there exist no methods for conducting experiments to test hypotheses and the number of interdependent variables preclude using past data to establish proof. Every computer model is made based on a set of assumptions. Depending on the assumptions, the result of the model will change. A strong bias exists in teh academic community to conform to the "established viewpoint" - anyone who has ever tried to pursue an applied degree within any field sees firsthand evidence of that; nothing is more heinous to "theorists" than applications; in Mathematics applications is things like theoretical physics, in Physics it is engineering theory, in Engineering it is actually building something.
I would posit that in Climatology the prevailing academic view is that man made global warming must be correct, so anyone not sharing those views will quickly be labeled a crackpot or corporate stooge and dismissed.
This is not the route to good science, but it is what happens in academia.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is all part of the corporate war on independent science.

Can't have science interfering with profit now can we?

There are signs that the data was cooked. Also, most of the Data on climate change does seem to come form this group.

Global warming looks like it is in a slow boil. We have to wait and see what the end conclusions are from the scientific community. By the way, It does not look good for Greens.

what signs are there that the data was cooked?
Also, what group has provided "most of the data on climate change?"

 

[uscitizen]

Yep this whole thing may just turn out to be a butt whistle.

 

[del]

It is all part of the corporate war on independent science.

Can't have science interfering with profit now can we?

There are signs that the data was cooked. Also, most of the Data on climate change does seem to come form this group.

Global warming looks like it is in a slow boil. We have to wait and see what the end conclusions are from the scientific community. By the way, It does not look good for Greens.

what signs are there that the data was cooked.

the *loss* of the raw data would be kind of suspicious, IMO. it's their life's work and they toss the raw data and keep the *value added* (their words, not mine) data.

 

[uscitizen]

Perhaps they did not have enough storage space?

Or maybe it was contractors like with the whitehouse emails that vanished.

btw I wonder how that contractors business did after he lost all those emails. Did he get fired or more business?

 

[del]

Perhaps they did not have enough storage space?

Or maybe it was contractors like with the whitehouse emails that vanished.

maybe dick cheney sent haliburton thugs to steal them?

maybe hitler rose from the dead with goebbels and took them to his secret redoubt in bavaria?

maybe al gore used them to wallpaper the great room in his new mansion?

we'll probably never know.

 

[Claudette]

Just another way to screw the public. I always thought scientists were above that sort of thing but boy guess I was way wrong.

I was listening to the news this AM and they were talking about the Billions, Billions with a B, that have pouring into the coffers of the Climate Change dicks. Wonder if we can get our money back????

 

[nodoginnafight]

There are signs that the data was cooked. Also, most of the Data on climate change does seem to come form this group.

Global warming looks like it is in a slow boil. We have to wait and see what the end conclusions are from the scientific community. By the way, It does not look good for Greens.

what signs are there that the data was cooked.

the *loss* of the raw data would be kind of suspicious, IMO. it's their life's work and they toss the raw data and keep the *value added* (their words, not mine) data.

the *loss* of raw data maybe suspicious if you don't know what data was rejected or why. If you know the answers to THAT then you may know whether the *loss* of data is suspicious or not.
But that doesn't indicate anything about data being cooked.
So do you have any reason to believe any data was cooked? Would you share it?
And what group were you refering to when you said they are the group that provides "most of the data on climate change"?

I appreciate your stepping in Del but I would still like to see if amrchaos can provide some clarification of what he was refering to also. But if you can offer anything on what group you think he is refering to I'd welcome that as well.

 

[del]

what signs are there that the data was cooked.

the *loss* of the raw data would be kind of suspicious, IMO. it's their life's work and they toss the raw data and keep the *value added* (their words, not mine) data.

the *loss* of raw data maybe suspicious if you don't know what data was rejected or why. If you know the answers to THAT then you may know whether the *loss* of data is suspicious or not.
But that doesn't indicate anything about data being cooked.
So do you have any reason to believe any data was cooked? Would you share it?
And what group were you refering to when you said they are the group that provides "most of the data on climate change"?

I appreciate your stepping in Del but I would still like to see if amrchaos can provide some clarification of what he was refering to.

by all means

 

[nodoginnafight]

the *loss* of the raw data would be kind of suspicious, IMO. it's their life's work and they toss the raw data and keep the *value added* (their words, not mine) data.

the *loss* of raw data maybe suspicious if you don't know what data was rejected or why. If you know the answers to THAT then you may know whether the *loss* of data is suspicious or not.
But that doesn't indicate anything about data being cooked.
So do you have any reason to believe any data was cooked? Would you share it?
And what group were you refering to when you said they are the group that provides "most of the data on climate change"?

I appreciate your stepping in Del but I would still like to see if amrchaos can provide some clarification of what he was refering to.

by all means

do you have an idea about what group he's talking about.

 

[del]

the *loss* of raw data maybe suspicious if you don't know what data was rejected or why. If you know the answers to THAT then you may know whether the *loss* of data is suspicious or not.
But that doesn't indicate anything about data being cooked.
So do you have any reason to believe any data was cooked? Would you share it?
And what group were you refering to when you said they are the group that provides "most of the data on climate change"?

I appreciate your stepping in Del but I would still like to see if amrchaos can provide some clarification of what he was refering to.

by all means

do you have an idea about what group he's talking about.

not specifically. scientists in the US and UK are being investigated and the connection seems to be CRU, but he might be talking about another group

 

[nodoginnafight]

by all means

do you have an idea about what group he's talking about.

not specifically. scientists in the US and UK are being investigated and the connection seems to be CRU, but he might be talking about another group

well CRU does supply some data - but I guess regardless of what group he is talking about, no one group has supplied "most" of the data on climate change.

The data and all the peer-reviewed work goes WAAAAAY beyond the stretch of these few emails.

But I guess if the folks who are overstating the case for anthropogenic climate change got hold of something like this on the deniers, they'd try to claim it completely undermines their case as well.

That's the big problem with the debate on climate change. It has degenerated into two warring factions who overstate their case and sling insults at the others. Neither can be trusted to lead us to reasonable and responsible environmental policies imho.

 

[del]

do you have an idea about what group he's talking about.

not specifically. scientists in the US and UK are being investigated and the connection seems to be CRU, but he might be talking about another group

well CRU does supply some data - but I guess regardless of what group he is talking about, no one group has supplied "most" of the data on climate change.

The data and all the peer-reviewed work goes WAAAAAY beyond the stretch of these few emails.

But I guess if the folks who are overstating the case for anthropogenic climate change got hold of something like this on the deniers, they'd try to claim it completely undermines their case as well.

That's the big problem with the debate on climate change. It has degenerated into two warring factions who overstate their case and sling insults at the others. Neither can be trusted to lead us to reasonable and responsible environmental policies imho.

yep.
this doesn't help either-

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building."

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

i'm sorry, but throwing out the raw data does not engender trust.
as you said, it's a real setback for everyone

 

[nodoginnafight]

not specifically. scientists in the US and UK are being investigated and the connection seems to be CRU, but he might be talking about another group

well CRU does supply some data - but I guess regardless of what group he is talking about, no one group has supplied "most" of the data on climate change.

The data and all the peer-reviewed work goes WAAAAAY beyond the stretch of these few emails.

But I guess if the folks who are overstating the case for anthropogenic climate change got hold of something like this on the deniers, they'd try to claim it completely undermines their case as well.

That's the big problem with the debate on climate change. It has degenerated into two warring factions who overstate their case and sling insults at the others. Neither can be trusted to lead us to reasonable and responsible environmental policies imho.

yep.
this doesn't help either-

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building."

Climate change data dumped - Times Online

i'm sorry, but throwing out the raw data does not engender trust.
as you said, it's a real setback for everyone

Yes, in that it gives the deniers something else to put on bumper stickers - but it remains to be seen if the science has been compromised. And there are other sources for data as well.

But you are absolutely correct - it is a setback. But if it's only a setback for the folks who are working so hard to overstate and over dramatize the science - I won't consider that a bad thing.

 

[Diuretic]

But this is one centre or at least a centre and a network of scientists. It's not the whole discipline around the world is it?

 

[del]

But this is one centre or at least a centre and a network of scientists. It's not the whole discipline around the world is it?

beats me. so far, there are only academic fraud investigations in the UK and the US.

imo, real scientists don't toss out their raw data.