Climate Research Unit hacked, damning evidence of data manipulation

[spidey07]

Looks like a hacker or an inside job got 60 MB of data with e-mails, files, what not at the CRU. They then posted it on a FTP server. Now millions have it and are going over it. And these E-mails show that they purposefully changed or manipulated data to show a warming trend, when the data actually said the opposite.

This could be the final blow to global warming and expose it for a political agenda rather than science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

 

[cubeless]

wooo hooo!!! u mean i get to start burping and farting again???

prepare for flamage...

if only there could be reasonable reaction around this... being an evil conservative, conserving resources is in my nature... it's just dumb to be wasteful...

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

LMAO... IF this is real... IF... The implications are staggering and lend an almost bullet-proof creedence to those who have not only been questioning the veracity of the science behind MMGW but also the political motivations of the scientists who have been so vocal about passing expensive and inhibitive legislation curtailing the behaviors of everyday people.

I can't wait to see how this plays out.

 

[PJABBER]

As a skeptic with more than a bit of passing interest in the topic and the political and financial consequences of the debate, I welcome access to both raw data and insight into the discussions leading to published conclusions.

However, the available information is unverifiable at the moment and subject to manipulation. So, while it might be an interesting source, it has to be considered with a bit of reserve.

The apparent manipulations to fit information to a predetermined conclusion is the antithesis of science and needs to be confronted by the scientific community without delay as the consequences of inaction on this review may run into the billions of dollars and, maybe, affect millions of lives.

Let's see how this plays out in Copenhagen. THAT will be something to see.

 

[cubeless]

how can it be staggering that people with a desire to get a specific outcome breed some who are willing to lie to attain that outcome...

sounds pretty par for the course on both sides of the isle...

and since when has 'the truth' been a big deal in this debate (see 'al gore')...

 

[spidey07]

Interesting this is not making the mainstream media. It's been out since last night. I'll remain skeptical as well, but CRU confirmed the hack.

 

[Genx87]

Disgusting if true.

 

[bfdd]

There is some terrible damage control going on by these people right now. First NASA, now this. Pretty hilarious.

 

[boomerang]

Interesting this is not making the mainstream media. It's been out since last night. I'll remain skeptical as well, but CRU confirmed the hack.

Interesting? I'd say predictable. This is counter to the agenda of the lamestream media. They only report what the administration approves of.

The climate change faithful are also avoiding this thread. It's an inconvenient thread.

 

[StageLeft]

If this turns into much it's funny and interesting but also will unfortunately by extension undermine the actual, real science behind climate change. I.e. throwing out the bath with the bath water.

I am for the most part neutral on the topic which is to say I lack the confidence in any viewpoint to heartily adhere to it. The topic is so damned large and so many people who've spent more time on it than I cannot come to a consensus, so really it's a bit much to expect me to. All I have consistently had confidence in is my criticisms of the confidence of others, especially after their predictions are constantly altered, their models constantly wrong, and time constantly proving that they know less about the issue than they claim.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The "hack" was likely an insider with a concious....perhaps a genuine scientist who didn't share the agenda at CRU. The peer review collusion is ugly as hell.

 

[StageLeft]

This article and another I've seen I have to say are so spartan in damning evidence that unless they find a hell of a lot more of it this thing is a whole joke. So far one guy emailed something about hiding data and maybe another couple of interesting quotes? I hope they have more than that, it's going to take a little more to undermine an entire movement.

 

[Dari]

Is anyone really surprised by this? This is an emotionally charged issue. Some of that emotion will be spilled onto the reasearch. Scientists cheat all the time.

 

[shira]

There is some terrible damage control going on by these people right now. First NASA, now this. Pretty hilarious.

There's no "first NASA," except in the minds of climate deniers. And I'm 100% certain that this latest story will turn out to be a giant nothing, too, except (again) in the feverish minds of climate deniers.

 

[StageLeft]

There's no "first NASA," except in the minds of climate deniers. And I'm 100% certain that this latest story will turn out to be a giant nothing, too, except (again) in the feverish minds of climate deniers.

Just use the word heretic, I know you want to

 

[shira]

The "hack" was likely an insider with a concious....perhaps a genuine scientist who didn't share the agenda at CRU. The peer review collusion is ugly as hell.[/QUOTE]

Your standard of proof is pathetic.

 

[shira]

Just use the word heretic, I know you want to

No. But we need another term like "Truther" and "Birther" that applies to the anti-science crowd.

 

[boomerang]

If this turns into much it's funny and interesting but also will unfortunately by extension undermine the actual, real science behind climate change. I.e. throwing out the bath with the bath water.

I am for the most part neutral on the topic which is to say I lack the confidence in any viewpoint to heartily adhere to it. The topic is so damned large and so many people who've spent more time on it than I cannot come to a consensus, so really it's a bit much to expect me to. All I have consistently had confidence in is my criticisms of the confidence of others, especially after their predictions are constantly altered, their models constantly wrong, and time constantly proving that they know less about the issue than they claim.

Although I will admit that my posts would lead one to believe otherwise, I actually agree that I just don't know.

What irks me to no end, is that the cap and trade legislation waiting to go through the Senate will make an unmeasurable difference. It will cost mega bucks, make some folks mega rich and nothing will be accomplished.

Yet many feel we must do "something" regardless if it's right or wrong. I just can't abide by illogical thinking especially on this grand a scale.

 

[shadow9d9]

We should continue to pollute and destroy the earth.. but at least we were anti-global warming! That will help when our species cannot survive anymore!

 

[StageLeft]

No. But we need another term like "Truther" and "Birther" that applies to the anti-science crowd.

Those who are not taking things at face value all the time are not "anti-science". In fact, anti-science would be sucking in all the data without questioning it and then deriding those who do question it.

 

[FaaR]

And I'm 100% certain that this latest story will turn out to be a giant nothing, too, except (again) in the feverish minds of climate deniers.

Please avoid unneccessarily antagonistic language like this. There's no need for that.

If you get so vested in one side or the other that you start labelling the opposite side "deniers" and such, then you've lost the scientific perspective and instead made ideology of the subject instead. Perhaps bordering on religion. Science doesn't work like that.

The data supports what the data supports. Nothing more.

Personally I lack the insight and understanding on the subject to really have an opinion about it that's worth a damn - like almost everyone else here I wager. Sure I could pick a team to cheer on, but it would just be rah-rahing; pointless.

I'm sort of inclined though we should be cautious in this matter, because if we decide climate change is bunk and we are WRONG, then the price we will pay could very easily be the end of our civilization as we know it.

Also, human fossile fuel use DOES have several aspects that do impact the environment very very significantly, for example in the areas of acidic rain, ocean acidification, aerosol emissions and carcinogenic emissions. The more we cut down on our fossile fuel use the lesser our environmental impact on the planet as a whole.

It will also have the beneficial side effect of letting us put our precious oil reserves to better use than to simply burn it, for example for the manufacturing of plastics.

 

[bfdd]

Those who are not taking things at face value all the time are not "anti-science". In fact, anti-science would be sucking in all the data without questioning it and then deriding those who do question it.

I read things from all sides of this and I've seen enough to know that there's enough data out from each side that counter acts the other. There is no smoking gun in AGW, until there is this is just another religion debate.


FaaR, I seem to be in the same boat as you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The "hack" was likely an insider with a concious....perhaps a genuine scientist who didn't share the agenda at CRU. The peer review collusion is ugly as hell.[/QUOTE]

Your standard of proof is pathetic.

I read many emails and saw evidence of peer review collusion. Sorry if that disturbs you so. You seem to be a tad defensive.

 

[silverpig]

Found this post on another blog:

"Dr DoLittle (12:28:43) :Not sure if this has been posted here previously, but here's a link to where you can search the emails and data:

http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/

Also, my source tells me that all emails where his name is on are 10% real."


I'm guessing that the 10% real is a typo and should be 100% real.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

No. But we need another term like "Truther" and "Birther" that applies to the anti-science crowd.

Yes...that's the ticket!