Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change. Skip to next paragraph Related Post a Comment on DotEarth | ReadThe e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views. Drafts of scientific papers and a photo collage that portrays climate skeptics on an ice floe were also among the hacked data, some of which dates back 13 years. In one e-mail exchange, a scientist writes of using a statistical “trick” in a chart illustrating a recent sharp warming trend. In another, a scientist refers to climate skeptics as “idiots.” Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents. Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by the skeptics’ camp and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them. The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument. However, the documents will undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some specific questions and the actions of some scientists. In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote. The cache of e-mail messages also includes references to journalists, including this reporter, and queries from journalists related to articles they were reporting. Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach. They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic. But several scientists and others contacted by The New York Times confirmed that they were the authors or recipients of specific e-mail messages included in the file. The revelations are bound to inflame the public debate as hundreds of negotiators prepare to negotiate an international climate accord at meetings in Copenhagen next month, and at least one scientist speculated that the timing was not coincidental. Dr. Trenberth said Friday that he was appalled at the release of the e-mail messages. But he added that he thought the revelations might backfire against climate skeptics. He said that he thought that the messages showed “the integrity of scientists.” Still, some of the comments might lend themselves to being interpreted as sinister. In a 1999 e-mail exchange about charts showing climate patterns over the last two millenniums, Phil Jones, a longtime climate researcher at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, said he had used a “trick” employed by another scientist, Michael Mann, to “hide the decline” in temperatures. Dr. Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, confirmed in an interview that the e-mail message was real. He said the choice of words by his colleague was poor but noted that scientists often used the word “trick” to refer to a good way to solve a problem, “and not something secret.” At issue were sets of data, both employed in two studies. One data set showed long-term temperature effects on tree rings; the other, thermometer readings for the past 100 years. Through the last century, tree rings and thermometers show a consistent rise in temperature until 1960, when some tree rings, for unknown reasons, no longer show that rise, while the thermometers continue to do so until the present. Dr. Mann explained that the reliability of the tree-ring data was called into question, so they were no longer used to track temperature fluctuations. But he said dropping the use of the tree rings was never something that was hidden, and had been in the scientific literature for more than a decade. “It sounds incriminating, but when you look at what you’re talking about, there’s nothing there,” Dr. Mann said. In addition, other independent but indirect measurements of temperature fluctuations in the studies broadly agreed with the thermometer data showing rising temperatures. Dr. Jones, writing in an e-mail message, declined to be interviewed. Stephen McIntyre, a blogger who on his Web site, climateaudit.org, has for years been challenging data used to chart climate patterns, and who came in for heated criticism in some e-mail messages, called the revelations “quite breathtaking.” But several scientists whose names appear in the e-mail messages said they merely revealed that scientists were human, and did nothing to undercut the body of research on global warming. “Science doesn’t work because we’re all nice,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA whose e-mail exchanges with colleagues over a variety of climate studies were in the cache. “Newton may have been an ass, but the theory of gravity still works.” He said the breach at the University of East Anglia was discovered after hackers who had gained access to the correspondence sought Tuesday to hack into a different server supporting realclimate.org, a blog unrelated to NASA that he runs with several other scientists pressing the case that global warming is true. The intruders sought to create a mock blog post there and to upload the full batch of files from Britain. That effort was thwarted, Dr. Schmidt said, and scientists immediately notified colleagues at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit. The first posts that revealed details from the files appeared Thursday at The Air Vent, a Web site devoted to skeptics’ arguments. At first, said Dr. Michaels, the climatologist who has faulted some of the science of the global warming consensus, his instinct was to ignore the correspondence as “just the way scientists talk.” But on Friday, he said that after reading more deeply, he felt that some exchanges reflected an effort to block the release of data for independent review. He said some messages mused about discrediting him by challenging the veracity of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Wisconsin by claiming he knew his research was wrong. “This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways,” he said. Spencer R. Weart, a physicist and historian who is charting the course of research on global warming, said the hacked material would serve as “great material for historians.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&em
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/i-read-through-160000000-bytes-of.html It's the global warming scandal of the century, says Michelle Malkin! The exposure of the warmist conspiracy, says Andrew Bolt! The final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming, bleats James Delingpole! A stunning tour de force -- four stars, says Leonard Maltin! OK, so that last quote is made up. But the others aren't. What is it these conservatives are so excited about? Apparently, the networks of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit were hacked into last night. Approximately 160 megabytes of files, containing hundreds or thousands of e-mails and documents were leaked as a result of the security breach, reports The Guardian. The conservatives are mainly zeroing in on one particular e-mail from the center's director, Phil Jones, dated from November 16th, 1999, which reads as follows: From: Phil Jones To: ray bradley ,mann@[snipped], mhughes@ [snipped] Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@[snipped],t.osborn@[snipped] Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers, Phil There you have it! The smoking gun! Irrefutable proof of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Super-Duper Major-Mega International Socialist Conspiracy! If you see Al Gore parking his Ford Fusion hybrid near any major bridges, make sure to call the police! Actually, what you have is a scientist, Dr. Jones, talking candidly about sexing up a graph to make his conclusions more persuasive. This is not a good thing thing to do -- I'd go so far as to call it unethical -- and Jones deserves some of the loss of face that he will suffer. Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that happens all the time in both academia and the private sector -- have you ever looked at the graphs in the annual report of a company which had a bad year? And it seems to happen all too often on both sides of the global warming debate (I'd include some of the graphics from An Inconvenient Truth in this category, FWIW.) But let's be clear: Jones is talking to his colleagues about making a prettier picture out of his data, and not about manipulating the data itself. Again, I'm not trying to excuse what he did -- we make a lot of charts here and 538 and make every effort to ensure that they fairly and accurately reflect the underlying data (in addition to being aesthetically appealing.) I wish everybody would abide by that standard. Still: I don't know how you get from some scientist having sexed up a graph in East Anglia ten years ago to The Final Nail In The Coffin of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anyone who comes to that connection has more screws loose than the Space Shuttle Challenger. And yet that's literally what some of these bloggers are saying! Incidentally, 2009 is shaping up to be the 5th warmist year on record, according to the conspiracists at NASA.
This was already posted in another thread. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4895528&postcount=41
It is fair to say that these hackers should not have stolen this data, and these "scientists" should not have lied and misrepresented their findings about the underlying data used to support their positions on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). However, they did, and now the cat is out of the bag. Obviously we have some people around here who have gone all-in on this issue to such a degree that they are unlikely to retreat, regardless of the facts. {cough}...B-Bob...{cough} However, this data is incredibly incriminating. Someone would have to have their head stuck not just in the ground, but in hardened cement to blindly and indiscriminately defend these people and their actions after these revelations. Regardless of what anyone says on this board, this information will significantly undermine the idea that AGW theory is "settled science" among many of those who have previously believed that to be the case. And of course there was already a good deal of skepticism among the general public about that even before this incident. Now it will be much worse. When the cap and trade debate begins in earnest in the Senate, this is likely to get ugly. Although CNN and MSNBC appear to have decided not to cover this story to any appreciable degree, the word will continue to be disseminated through the usual alternative channels, including Fox News, talk radio and the internet. The prospects for cap and trade legislation were looking doubtful at best before this information was revealed. Now you can consider this proposal as stone-cold dead. If Obama want to try and regulate this stuff through the EPA, he should go ahead and get started with that right away, since that is really the only option he has left on this issue. Of course, that will provide the Republicans with a powerful campaign issue in 2012, as Barack Obama knows quite well. Let's watch and see if Barack Obama has the balls to actually take any strong concrete action on this without a congressional mandate. I will believe it when I see it.
I don't think anyone is. I don't think anyone is but I will say that a few cherry picked emails out of thousands though doesn't necessarily prove a conspiracy and Major's post shows that there is a reasonable explanation for waht they are talking about. What they did is unethical but it is very questionable that this is the nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't think this undermines the case that much there is a ton of other data from ice cores, tree rings, permafrost, spread of animal life that support the idea of global warming and that human action is contributing to it. Have you considered though that there really might not be there to cover and as much as you imply that CNN aren't covering it out of bias that Fox and Talk Radio are covering because of bias? I have no doubt this will be used as political and ideological amunition but I would again say there is still a lot of other data out there supporting the argument of anthropogenic global warming. Anyway as I've said frequently I agree that there is alot of uncertainty among the projections, the climate is incredibly complicated and we can't fully model it. What we are doing though is gambling with our future and given the odds if the worst projections are true why risk it? Also why risk it when their are so many other benefits in regard to combattingn global warming. THose other benefits alone, lessening dependence on foriegn energy sources, conserving resources, developing renewable energy sources and so on, practically make it worthwhile. That I don't know about. I would prefer he take the congressional route but I doubt significant legislation on this can be passed before 2010 and the makeup of the next congress will largely depend on what happens. If Obama does go the EPA route its likely not something that will happen until after 2010.
You could at least read the article so your ridiculously stupid reply at least appeared to be an honest assessment. Did you even read the email at the heart of the "controversy?"
The one data-fitting choice by one single person has led me to completely change my opinion forever. Stay tuned, especially when I reveal what I've learned about deforestation, or should I say... defraudestation!11!1!!1!
I love it when the left pulls out the argument, "you're an idiot if you challenge global warming". That alone is not a defense. Scientists have agendas and motivations - let's not kid ourselves.
Clearly there is a motivation to just mess everything up, and affect everyone on the planet, just to see if they/we can get away with it. What exactly are you having trouble following? Beyond that strong pull, the relationship between scientists and the combustion engine has really gone south after they invented it and there was a honeymoon of about 50 years or so (the salad days.) I mean, now look at us: Do you think we ride things like this because it's fun? No! We are driven to this by our deep and bitter hatred of our child the combustion engine.
I haven't heard anyone say "you're an idiot if you challenge global warming." I have heard TONS of people say "look at the data." Look at the data.
without suggesting that there's anything untoward about any of this at all....or even arguing the underlying science.... you can't be serious, right? certainly you could understand how someone might profit off exacerbating a perceived need, right? what if you could convince the world, on one hand, that the way they harness energy is killing them....and on the other hand, invest heavily in firms that provide alternatives to that?? here's a good example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html Gore’s Dual Role: Advocate and Investor By JOHN M. BRODER Published: November 2, 2009 WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner. The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses. Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers. The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years. Silver Spring Networks is a foot soldier in the global green energy revolution Mr. Gore hopes to lead. Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes. _____________________________ Now I'm not saying Gore doesn't believe what he's saying...and that he's selling snake oil. And I've said over and over again, you don't have to tell me the sky is falling to convince me that we could do a far better job of cleaning up the world we live in while reducing dependence on foreign oil....and maybe stop trying to build an empire along the way. My agenda is this whole Jesus freak thing going on which falls nicely in line with saying we should be better stewards of creation and less concerned with consumption, generally. But I can certainly see how someone would read something like that and think, "holy crap, what a scam!!" whether it's true or not.
Al Gore isn't really a good example in my opinion because he's a politician and not a scientist. What do all the scientists who are behind this alleged conspiracy have to gain? I really doubt that many of them are major investors in alternative energy.
jobs...grants....funded by people investing heavily in alternative energy. just are there are jobs...grants...funded by groups like Exxon. EDIT: i don't for one second think there is a conspiracy here.
Yeah, what a bunch of assholes. Wanting to simultaneously clean our air, lower the risk of severe climate change, and make some money. I love watching folks complain that scientists sometimes are not totally altruistic. Everywhere else in society, this is taken as the status quo and, quite often, encouraged and even complimented. But when Al Gore complains about our rampant environmental problems without ridng everywhere on a homemade bamboo bike while wearing hemp clothing and eating locusts and organic soybeans, he's suddenly a suspicious character, hell bent on destroying our american way of life! Those evil environmentalists, desiring a cleaner planet and a sustainable future!
so you think al gore has helped create the entire scare of global warming so he could have invested in this technology? that's entirely silly. it is in these utilities best interest to become more efficient, you are a business owner, isn't your goal always more efficiency? al gore sees the potential in the internet, everyone makes fun of him, he see's the potential in smart grid software, everyone thinks it was all apart of his master plan?
