Slashdot Mirror
Climatic Research Unit Hacked, Files Leaked
huckamania was one of many readers to write with the news that the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit was hacked, and internal documents released. Some discussion and analysis of the leaked items can be found at Watts Up With That. The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine. Some of the emails would seem to raise concerns about the science as practiced — or at least beg an explanation. From the Watts Up link: "[The CRU] is widely recognized as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server. Here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today: 'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.' The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files. It contained data, code, and emails apparently from the CRU. If proved legitimate, these bombshells could spell trouble for the AGW crowd." Reader brandaman supplied the link to the archive of pilfered data. Reader aretae characterized the emails as revealing "...lots of intrigue, data manipulation, attempting to shut out opposing points of view out of scientific journals. Almost makes you think it's a religion. Anyone surprised?" And reader bugnuts adds, for context: "These emails are certainly taken out of context, whether they are legitimate or fraudulent, which adds to the confusion."
No, seriously, welcome. You may find some very different views and outstanding analysis along with lots of stale jokes and Microsoft bashing. From the fast and furious posting of recent member to /. it is clear that many of you are likely from a K street lobbying form. If I had the time it might be interesting to track back which PR firm you might be from. You are obviously well funded (API/Exxon?) to bother posting this on a technology site. To improve the effectiveness of your astroturf efforts you should use the jargon and dialect of your target audience as your comments contain far too many terms that are not native to /.
Mr. Gates, here is a nickle. Call your mother and tell her there is serious doubt that you will not be graduating as a computer scientist.
That man is Steve McIntyre.
But he's bad (read the summary, even!). He can't be a REAL scientist, because he disagrees with REAL science. Thus, he's obviously lying about his data and/or methodology... trust me.
...
... yes, sarcasm ... :)
This story is 100% bullshit.
Oh wait - it's global warmi... I mean, global climate change, that's bullshit.
Pure.
Political.
Bull.
Shit.
Hey asshole, is anybody else allowed an opinion here, or is anybody who disagrees with you automatically wrong ? STFU.
You have the right to your opinion, of course. And I have the right to tell you that your opinion is wrong. That's how free speech works. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time grasping the concept.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Thanks for the thorough analysis, coaxial.
I think in many ways the response to this says as much about the "skeptic" community as it does about the scientists. They are very quick to jump to conclusions with very scant evidence if it supports their beliefs.
To their credit, many commenters on wattsupwiththat expressed admirable skepticism and urged waiting until this can all be analyzed and confirmed.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Control. The same thing that has been going on for as long as humans have recorded history. There's always a small group of people who believe that they alone are fit to rule and will do whatever it takes to gain power. The most virulent form this impulse has taken over the last century is called "progressivism" .
Yeah? Yeah? What is this scientific method of which you speak?
Doesn't exist and never has in science in the sense that you are using it, namely the complete and immediate publication of every piece of data gathered even if the scientist believes that much of that data is flawed or irrelevant.
Yes, yes, but you've got to remember that your point of view originates in your rectum and is clouded by matter other than a knowledge and experience of science.
You have partial email chains. That's it. You have people taking things out of context and making mountains out of mole-hills.
Raw data? Sure. Which raw data are you referring to? Would that be the raw data where you have several weather stations reporting -999C temperatures? Or the glacial ice core sample that was contaminated? Or the raw data series that shows a divergence but it's the only data series showing divergence when compared to dozens of others? The raw data with the bad satellite pass showing a 1000ft increase in vertical height of the Greenland Ice Shelf?
And what would you portend to due with the raw data? Cherry pick only the things you want instead of using the entire suite of corrected data sets?
Mann released that information ages ago. It's not that hard to find. Really it isn't. There are also other research papers based on his work that refine it.
It's also impossible to tell what the email deletions were in regards to, or whether or not it was a running joke. Or even what the emails contained. They don't appear in the hacked files.
And you have absolutely no idea what a huge PITA an FOI can be for a government agency. It is not a simple process, and it is not a short process, especially when there are pre-existing contractual obligations on that data. If you are a government agency contracting with a commercial entity, you cannot simply "turn over the data". It doesn't work that way.
They want to avoid FOI requests because:
1. It's a huge pain in the ass at the best of times. You have to track down the right people, get a bunch of approvals, verification that the data is not a going to be a danger if released to the open. Checking against contractual issues. Checking against licensing issues. Checking against IP issues. Running it through legal. Etc. etc. etc. . This takes a lot of time and resources, and I really don't blame them for not wanting to deal with the hassel.
2. The data being requested may or may not be suitable for use. Much like software, the datasets are being updated regularly. In some of the emails, this is plainly clear (some scientists bitch about inconsistencies in the datasets and such). Errors found. Errors are corrected. Requesting unfinished data is like requesting to use software that hasn't been tested.
3. The people requesting the data are hostile, and the scientist know the data will be misappropriated. Hence why they prefer only releasing the final products since at that point the science has be done and PEER REVIEWED. It's very difficult to do research when you have twenty hostile individuals interfering by making specious claims and generally pointless noise.
An EXAMPLE of GOOD SCIENCE is to let the science be done, THEN CRITICIZE IT. So far, no one has built a falsifiable case that disproves climate change nor refutes that anthropogenic causes are a contributing factor. No one has developed a model that shows the current warming trend is the result of natural variation. No one has been able to refute the science. Finding minor errors does not refute climate change.
Bad science is pointing at places where research might not have been done yet and screaming "SEE! IT"S ALL A HOAX!!" Bad science is finding minor errors and screaming "IT"S A CONSPIRACY!!!"
Bad science is encouraging the masses to disregard science and follow their intuition instead.
The emails largely show that scientists are just as human as anyone else. They get pissed off. They get frustrated. They get tired of refuting the same tired old crap everyday. They get fed up with people who are barely qualified to operate a motor vehicle telling them that they don't know how to do their job.
Or perhaps you'd hold up better under such pressure. But I doubt it. I'm sure if someone were to publish a random selection of your work or private emails that you wouldn't come off so saint-like either.
The main point being is that someone grabbed a bunch files and "randomly" selected what to show the world. How can anyone draw
~X~