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."
are the new CO2 emissions files, in particular, what each country emits. Everybody has it up until 2006, but after that, it stops. Why? After 2006 is important information. For starters, a number of western countries have dropped emissions (particularly, America), while others have increased greatly (Canada, Australia, South Korea). The real issue that I would like to see is what BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), along with Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, etc have done.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Have they refused to release the data at all? Or are they maybe refusing to release it until the project is done. Every experiment has to post progress and updates, but aren't a lot of the methods hidden until the final report is published?
To publish methods and incomplete data can create an alarmist and conspiratorial picture of what's going on without giving people viewing this fragment the whole picture might be dangerous and jeopardize legitimate research. Leaks like this could cause enough PACs and politicians to attempt to shut down the group before any concrete conclusions are released, and destroy an opportunity to finish the research and figure out what's really going on.
I'd dial back the paranoia a little bit, if I were you. The whole story, and all the research, will come out in due time. Let's not jump to conclusions based on half-truths and distorted views of a single piece of the puzzle.
[...header information omitted...]
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)
Dear Eleven,
I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.
This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.
[...]
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Why the hell didn't you quote the rest? Stacking the deck much? Or are you just fishing for modpoints from the nutjobs 'round here?
Here's the entire quote, along with an explanation about why nothing nefarious was actually going on:
But, you know, way to do *precisely* what that paragraph was meant to highlight. ie, use "cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases ... pulled out of context" to try and illustrate scientific corruption amongst the science community.
...but the data deletion conspiracies, the conspiring to disrupt the peer review process in various clever ways, the knowing avoidance of Freedom of Information Act Requests, the slurs against "sceptics", including celebrating their deaths, and so on.
And that's just from the emails I have read so far.
"Doubting" indeed. And these assholes have had the nerve to indignantly drape themselves in the flag of science.
There have been many such papers, but the committee in charge (IPCC ?)has repeatedly decided not to submit these papers to its members for review. Hardly unbiased behaviour.
regards this file. it is 61.9 mb zipped. 157mb when unzipped. the letters are indeed damning but the *.pro files in the FOIA/documents/osborn-tree* folder(s) are even more so. Open these with a reader like text-edit, pico, or notepad and spend some time scanning the db comments. These are TRULY damning! If you can explain how decades of data are skipped to "smooth" results, how "averaging" is determined in other areas... I am not qualified to comment on this research but I can certainly look at code. I smell a rat here.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
I heard a talk by an executive at one of Exxon's research branches two years ago. They believe in global warming, and they support cap and trade legislation. They want the government to force all the oil companies to cut carbon emissions. They won't do it until the government takes action because then they could not complete in the marketplace. Exxon already has the carbon sequestration technology they need to continue making money from selling oil after cap and trade happens. It is people who do not want to pay more for oil who are the problem, not the oil companies.
Simon's Rock College
...instrumental record...
Why do you discount the ice core data?
I think you missed the point. Direct measurement is all we can account for with 100% accuracy. Ice core data, while compelling, is not a scientific instrument. It was not designed to measure CO2 concentration. It does not have a gauge embedded in it that says, "280ppm". It has bubbles. We *assume* that those bubbles are pristine samples of the atmosphere at the time the ice was frozen. We *assume* that the bubble hasn't migrated, dissolved, or been concentrated by its time in the ice. We *assume* that because the record of the last 100 years is close to the instrumental record that we can safely extrapolate that relationship back 1000, 5000, or even 800,000 years. (Vostok ice cores)
What if it happens to be a property of ice, left for 150 years, to migrate CO2 into the ice crystal structure until it stabilizes the bubble at 280 ppm? Is it possible? I don't know. Can we do a lab experiment to prove it does or doesn't happen? Sure, but it will take 150 years to run. We assume that we know what will happen, but we have no hard experimental proof of it.
Over time, solid objects will migrate down through ice. Isn't it possible that bubbles would migrate up through the ice? How does this affect where we find the bubbles and their dating?
That's a whole lot of "assumes" to put our 100% faith in. Now, we can *assume* that the scientist took this into account, or we can ask for the data that shows they did. When they refuse to turn over said data and corrective algorithms, they create doubt. That's why this data dump is important. The emails seem to indicate that even the climate scientists have a lot of doubt about their data, and they worked hard to prevent releasing it or their methodologies.
That's why I said 100 years of instrumental records and discounted the ice core data.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.