Hackers target climate science boffins

Neither the university's security nor the investigating police have any indications that them the breakins of Weaver's office at UVic were other than routine thefts, with little evidence of any kind as is typical of such. http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/saanichnews/news/78899917.html

Is Weaver paranoid?

Reality is that his fantasies have been well rebutted and of course as a True Believer he does not like that.

I made a mistake on the soar variability comment the sun varies it's output by .1 Percent... not 1 percent... the reason it cannot be blamed is that you then have to factor in distance so that only a quarter of that would amount to any kind of variance here on earth and since the earth's temperature varies by a tenth of a percent to date rather then a quarter of a tenth the sun cannot be directly responsible for the variation in the earths temperature... forgive the mistake.

<sigh the problem is that the north polar ice cap melts every year down to a smaller size see http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

With the peek melt hitting about Sept 12th . From there the ice starts to reform up until about March when it starts to melt again...

So the problem is that back in 2007 The arctic had a VERY heavy melt dropping to almost 4 million square Kilometers.

Everyone had an article out on how the arctic was going to be ice free in the next few years ( meaning the extent in the summer would get down to 0 Km )

But what happened the next year? well in 2008 it dropped down to 4.8 million. What about this year? Well it dropped to about 5.5 million. So what does this mean? Well it means first that the people ( who were climate scientists ) were wrong to claim that the ice was going away. Second from historical records we know that the dip was not unprecedented. Lastly in terms of 'science' the time period we are basing 'unprecedented warming' on is really silly.

Look at unbiased data and you will see that the temperature we have today is not unprecedented and in fact warmth to this degree is not all that common on our planet where we get to use as much of it as we are. We have a tiny blip right now where we have at most a couple more thousand years before the cold will really settle in and we will loose about 20% of our crop growing land to glaciers. Be thankful the temperature is going up and not down. It is not catastrophic warming that we should EVER be afraid of. A warmer planet is REALLY good.

Now that being said it is highly unlikely that CO2 is doing any lasting damage to the planet, and for all the malevolence that is being thrown at it it has a critical and important role in the biosphere. <sigh people should be excited about getting this stuff out of sequester and into the biosphere again... Perhaps when this fear finally subsides they will realize that CO2 is not really a bad thing after all... In the meantime all I can say is that the world is warming and CO2 is not the candidate for blame.

The sun, through it's max and min states varies by about 1%. This is not enough to explain warming.

Currently the warming at it's max was plotted at 14.6 Degrees Celsius. Currently it is at 14.4 Degrees Celsius ( showing a +.4 Degree increase right now )

Now lets place this into context. 0 Degrees Celsius is 273 degrees above absolute 0.

Add onto that the 14 degrees Celsius that we call 'normal' temperature.

that gives us 287 Degrees Celsius

Okay so a .4 Degree variation is... 287.4 / 287 = 1.0014 ( rounded ) or less then a tenth of a percent of temperature variation...

So the sun, which solar output has been proven to vary by as mush as 1 percent versus the earths 'global' temperature which to date has varied less then a tenth of a percent...

Lastly on the oceans heat content... It depends on your source of data... Now I admit my data is out of date on this, and I know an el nino is forming which typically means a warmer heat content in ocean, but did not the argo buoy system actually show that the ocean is not really heating up all that much...

Again more then willing to be told differently on this point, oceans are not my forte...

The JWs (Jehovah's Witnesses), dummy - not climate scientists. Read the context and endevour to understand before rushing to comment.

You didn't study and you didn't comprehend, apparently.

To paraphrase Benjamin Disraeli - there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and papers published by the CRU

"They were doing this stuff back in the early 70s, saying the world would end in 1975."

Huh?

"I've downloaded the data, the source code, and the emails, and I've studied them myself."

Study does not equal comprehension, apparently.

Interesting comparison with the JW's. They were doing this stuff back in the early 70s, saying the world would end in 1975.

I give AGW 'scientists' as much credence as I gave those buffoons then.

You state "a bunch of scientists trying to stem the tide" in order to excuse data mangling as if it was a good thing.

Sorry, it's not. Nor is it excusable. Scientists worthy of the name take the data as it is and find the theory that fits the data.

It's the charlatans and crooks that fudge the data to fit their agenda.

Whether you like it or not, you admitted yourself that the data has been fudged, ergo those who fudged it are not scientists.

Thus I have no more reason to believe them then I do the Jehovas Witnesses who come by every now and then to tell me that the world is ending in 2012.
Especially since they came around in 1999 to say the same thing about 2000.

"The temperature may have dropped to the levels of early 90's over the 00's, but how many millions of cubic kilometres of ice was melted in the ice caps? That is the true reason why the temps have dropped.

posted by : p1RAT3"

For your information, for each million cubic kilometers of ice that melts in the ice caps the sea level will rise about ten feet, which I think would be rather noticeable.

Right, a few responses.

Yes I have read the e-mails, though I didn't spend the time attempting to get the code running on my machine.

Regarding the dendro data, people understand why it is inaccurate, which is why it isn't being used.

Furthermore, I know the difference between what is said in private and in public. I've got no problem with words such as ``fudge'', ``trick'' or ``hack'' in private e-mails, when e-mailing my boss, I've got no problem using those words.

Regarding the hockey stick, please do go on with example. Take a look at the other, independent recreations of the hockeystick graph, not just Mann's original paper. Or read realclimate rather than just climateaudit/wattsupwiththat and see what real scientists say. Or better yet, why not just publish your findings? Or do you believe in the great peer review conspiracy?

Regarding the ``oh the irony'' post. I've also watched ``the great global warming swindle''. Not only that, I also watched ``the hogfather'' when it was on telly a few christmases ago. I don't care if its factual or not, its clear that the hogfather actually exists.

Nir

Nir, look at yourself please.
Read your own comments, and for the love of God take them under advisement.

I'm really indifferent on Global Warming. I believe whoever has the better argument, so right now I'm leaning (quite heavily) towards the ITS NOT OUR FAULT party.

I also saw an interesting documentary by the name of 'The Great Global Warming Swindle", whether it's factual or not I dont care. It does point out most if not all of the holes in the argument for AGW though.

Make your own opinion, Google it, you can watch it all online.

http://i49.tinypic.com/2mpg0tz.jpg Magic Tricks Explained

http://i48.tinypic.com/xfvoyg.jpg Central England Don't Panic!

http://i46.tinypic.com/t63qxe.jpg "Value-Added" Data

This Climategate scandal is the biggest scandal in modern science, and the other scandal is how the media is covering it up. The blogosphere is incensed that data was manipulated and results forged to push through an agenda. The leaked email, data and programs reveal severe problems with the scientific process and the nations of the world need to conduct a comprehensive audit on any and all IPCC material before agreeing to Copenhagen targets.

I think this joker thinks a little too highly of himself and his work. Just because somebody is poking around looking for security holes doesn't mean they are specifically Climate detractors looking to steal your data. Universities are common targets because there are so many coming and going they are more likely to have holes.

Then this comment: "In one case hackers impersonated network technicians in an attempt to gain access to offices and data, he said."

It's much more common, and more likely, that it was thieves, maybe trying to steal laptops and anything else not chained down, you know, for money? But then it's much more interesting to chase a zebra than a horse, isn't it?

It really is quite simple and all of the information is already out there. The story isn't in the lie its always, always, always in the cover up.

During the Cambrian period CO2 was at 7000 ppm which is 18 times what we currently have. What were the temperature ranges? Exactly what we see now. It was known as a time when the flora and fauna exploded into life with the high CO2 the plants thrived.

Another Era called the Ordovician Period had the CO2 rate of 4000 ppm. Yet it was an ICE AGE.

One more interesting tidbit for you:
From the cover of Newsweek in 1975 - http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Replace all of the terms saying cooling with warming and it is the exact message.

Nir,
I've downloaded the data, the source code, and the emails, and I've studied them myself. How about you? Do you approve of the behavior of these scientists? Well? Read them!

The fact is, if Phil Jones didn't step aside then he would most likely have been fired! His own words will convict him of criminal acts and fraud. What has been reported is NOT out of context.

And NO, they did not state clearly (or otherwise) that they were adding the real temps in to hide the decline, or using fudge factors to artificially adjust, or cutting off some series early because they were inconveniently going down. Its only because of the leak that this is all hitting the fan. This is truly the biggest scandal in science ever.

If much of the recent dendro data is inaccurate (as you admit) then this invalidates the reliability of each series (which is in fact what they were hiding), and shows they really DON'T KNOW why the trees behaved the way they did! Hmmmm, not very good thermometers are they!

The science should have been open FROM THE BEGINNING. There should not be tricks played with the data. There should not be years of obstruction. Any reasonable person should agree.

You don't get a hockey stick when you 1) don't use faked data, 2) include all the data (no cherry picking allowed, don't use 5 outliers trees as your sole data points for the present, as they did! and they hid it for years!) 3) don't use some data upside down, which they did, or 4) splice in thermometer data at the end of proxy data. I could go on...

No one denies there has been some warming, (like uh, there was a little ice age we warmed up from, until now, at about the same rate..) Humans didn't cause this long slow increase, and we don't have to spend trillions to fix it. The sky is not falling.

And... how typical that you would cast aspersions to try to make your point - because I have a different opinion I'm parroting, or not educated, and gee I must be loony! That sounds just like what Phil Jones and his pals have been doing to their opponents too. Hell, we aren't going to take that anymore! You say you read widely on both sides of the debate - you should have noticed then the difference, the skeptical side welcomes debate with other side, but your side never does, and tries to demean.

And I didn't even have to call you one name to make my point...

Hi Paul,

Instead of parroting denial sites, perhaps you should actually look at what happened. For example, you state that ``the head of the CRU has had to step down''. He voluntarily stood aside until the enquiry is finished. You/the denialist websites claim that tree ring data was ``fraudulently'' changed to hide a decline. If you read the IPCC report, which made use of this data, the fact that recent dendrochronology data is inaccurate is stated in black and white, together with an explanation of what change was made, and why.

Please please please, take a look at what actually went on, educate yourself and only then post (And before I get accused of being one-sided, I read widely on both sides of the debate, e.g. realclimate as well as climate-audit. It's just that given what I've read, it's clear that there is actually no debate, rather, its a bunch of scientists trying to stem the tide against right wing loonies).

People are overlooking the fact that not just emails were leaked, also lots of source code, data, and programmers notes.

BTW, there is no proof of a hack at the CRU, the release was more likely an inside job!

The programmers notes show what a horrible botch their entire database is, and the fact that they "lost" the entire original dataset proves their total incompetence.

AND then you add in the emails which show the willful (and CRIMINAL!) obstruction of FOI requests by prominent climate scientists all over the world, and their subversion of the entire peer review process by using selected "trusted" editors, pressuring journals not to print opposing views by threatening to withhold papers from members of their group, getting an editor fired, and THEN we get to the fraudulent manipulation of data.

We're not just talking about cherry picking data (they did that too), they fraudulently changed data to hide up to 40 years of sharply declining tree ring measurements. You just can't change data you don't like! If a large number of your datasets disagree with your model then your model is wrong! You can't just fake the data! They did!

The source code also documents the fudge factors used to manipulate the series over time. Hmmm, nothing to see here.... move along!

Because of this leak we now know exactly how these "tricks" were done many times, and created fake results that are now being used to force the world down an unnecessary path that will cost TRILLIONS.

Oh, yes... and the head of the CRU has had to step down and they are going to reconstruct all their data for the last 160 years, and make all the data and source code public - a process that will take years. FINALLY they are being forced to do the right thing.

Is it any wonder that people are taking a close look at climate science all over the world. They find funny business everywhere (see new Zealand etc.)

about the giant heat sinks Earth has. 2 of them, both conspicuously located around the poles. The temperature may have dropped to the levels of early 90's over the 00's, but how many millions of cubic kilometres of ice was melted in the ice caps? That is the true reason why the temps have dropped (if you call a 0.2 degrees a drop, compared to the average temp of 285 degrees Kelvin). Keep pumping the CO2 into the atmosphere, it will make more work for environmental engineers.

There are a few nice graphs here including the trend since 1978:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Atmospheric temperatures are only one part of the data, the oceans store heat (and carbon among other things) so if GW is a big conspiracy against big oil and coal, I guess satellite monitoring of the Artic, Greenland and the Antarctic shelves is fantasy too.

But continue watching Faux news and all other R. Murdoch rags, because he only wants to unveil the evil environmental conspiracies of our time, honest!

Yet another news story that depicts hackers as criminals...
People who write articles like this should at least bother to open a dictionary before translating facts into a readable text on the Internet or any physical medium.
The term you are referring to is "cracker" and NOT hacker. If it weren't for hackers you wouldn't sit in front of a computer reading this right now because the Internet wouldn't have existed.
Please do everyone a favour and head to your favourite search engine and type in 'hacker'. I would recommend taking a look at the jargon file written by Eric S. Raymond.
Remember: Hackers BUILD things, crackers BREAK them.

If Andrew, the scientific method master, is correct, we'd have to disprove gravity. Since the physics of gravity does not work at a planetary or galactic scale. Your logic is very flawed. Go back to school and get an education if you want to be part of the group that disproves this very well research theory. Don't rely on political arguments for your facts.

Wow you are so right. Silly me thinking that the environmental system is a chaotic system (dunno, maybe thats why the MET office use pretty powerful systems to help predict the weather and run many simulations).
Just because global temperature has been falling for the last few years whilst CO2 has been increasing does not prove or disprove the theory. Maybe the global temperature would have fallen by a greater amount had it not been for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (there are other factors in play here).
FACT: CO2 absorbs light energy of which some goes into raising it's temperature the rest is re-emitted.
Whether or not other factors need to be included to make it a more complete theory is up to the people investigating and coming up with the theory.

Ok, climate change may or may be not man made... But in the end one thing you must agree that it's true: the actual level of consume will in some point in time take us to a very difficult situation.

The weather may still fine till the end of the world, but how can economy and production keep up when the primary sources of raw materials start to dry up?

Do you belive our technology will evolve fast enought to keep it up?

Oooooh, somebody, please, if somebody will
Let them take a letter to my girl, Lucille
Let them tell her, Lord, how I'm missing
Her still
I think about her constantly............

The greatest oxymoron of our time.

The Earth is just fine, lets continue to pump up CO2 into the athmosphere. If our lungs can take it so will the Earth.
/s

You've convinced me with your evidence Rich. Global warming is a conspiracy by the rich to become even richer, bankrupting all those poor, innocent oil and coal interests. Oh wait, I (and you) have no evidence about that. I guess I'll have to go back to trusting scientists... See my earlier comment about conspiracy theorists.

That's okay, Nir, stick your head up your arse. Ignore the facts and stick to your "politically correct" opinion.

Andrew is correct, either the Scientific Method is sacrosanct, or science can and will be manipulated for political purposes and therefore becomes useless.

This whole "anthropological global warming" scam was made up by those that want to keep us all enslaved for their own whims. I'm saddened to hear there are so many "scientists" willing to sell out everyone to these monsters.

I too used to believe in man-made global warming, because it made sense at first glance and the media said it was an undeniable fact.

At some point, the claims became so obviously outlandish that I started looking for contrary opinions.

It took me a couple of hours to become a skeptic and a couple of months to become a non-believer.

You can start by reading this blog:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

the climate consists of more then one parameter

the solar activity has been in a steady decline since 1998. but the solar cycle is about to go into high gear again.
and while the sun is currently at its low point temperatures are still higher then normal,
temperatures have only fallen when looked at from the 1998 high.

and just to give you a taste of your own cherry picking logic :
CO2 is higher now then it was in the 1950's and temperatures are higher then in 1950's. CO2 must have caused this change.

Perhaps the article should be corrected to read

Climategate has been big news after hackers published a ton of emails that show, to rather excitable conspiracy theorists, that British climate scientists fiddled their data, cozily peer-reviewing each others' research papers and shutting out dissenting views.

And to respond to Andrew's comment, your claim seems to focus around CO2 levels being higher now than in 1998, and temperatures not doing the same. I wish I could work out where to start... perhaps by looking up the terms ``natural variability''. Or ``El nino'' or any of half a dozen other terms that pretty much give you a loaded gun to shoot yourself in the foot with.

Have fun...

Couldn't have said it better myself, so I'm not going to try!

The science must stand on its own.
br /
In science the burden of proof is on the theory.
br /
The theory must provide the proof.
br /
If the theory makes a prediction, which it must to not simply be a hypothesis, and the prediction is wrong then the theory is discarded.
br /
That is part of the scientific method.
br /
The AGW theory predicts that CO2 causes global warming.
br /
CO2 is higher now then it was in 1998.
br /
Average global temperature has been declining since 1998
br /
The prediction made by the theory is wrong therefore the AGW theory must be discarded.
br /
QED.
br /
It is called the scientific method. It only takes one wrong result to discard a theory.
br /

'No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.' Albert Einstein
br /
Please see also:
br /
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climategate.html
br /
For a satirical look at the climategate computer programming:
br /
Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert.
br /
www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103