Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident took place in November 2009 involving the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The unknown hacker or hackers stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents.[1][2][3]

Climate change sceptics have asserted that the private correspondence shows an effort by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.[4] Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in e-mails stolen by hackers in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December.[5]

The university confirmed that the security breach took place, but responded that the authenticity of the published texts could not be confirmed quickly,[6] and expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised.”[7] Details of the incident have been reported to the police, who are investigating.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Hacking and theft
2 Content of the documents
3 Reactions
4 See also
5 References


Hacking and theft
Unidentified persons hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit, posting online copies of e-mails and documents that they found.[1][8] The incident is being investigated by police[9] and involved the theft of more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents,[6] consisting of 160 MB of data in total.[10]

The theft was first discovered after someone hacked the server of the RealClimate website on 17 November and uploaded a copy of the stolen files.[4] According to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate, "At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file FOIA.zip to our server."[11] A link to the file on the RealClimate server was posted from a Russian IP address to the Climate Audit blog at 7.24 am (EST) with the comment "A miracle just happened".[12] The hack was discovered by RealClimate and the University of East Anglia was notified, but on 19 November the files were uploaded to a Russian server before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet.[10] An anonymous statement accompanying the e-mails stated: "We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."[2] The stolen material was first publicised on 19 November on The Air Vent, a climate-sceptic blog.[4]

Content of the documents
The stolen material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, and models pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[13] It included, according to The New York Times, discussions of scientific data and how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics, unflattering comments about sceptics, queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers.[4]

The UEACRU on November 24 issued a detailed explanation of the contents of the controversial e-mails.[14]

According to Fox News, one e-mail was about "how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process."[15] In the e-mail, as a response to criticism of a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research, Michael Mann wrote "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."[16]

Hans von Storch also objected to the paper and resigned from his position as editor of Climate Research shortly after it was published, because he felt there was a breakdown in the peer-review process. However, von Storch commented in the Wall Street Journal that he thought the email from Michael Mann had gone too far.[16] Michael Mann said to the Wall Street Journal that he didn't feel there was anything wrong in saying "we shouldn't be publishing in a journal that's activist."[16] Von Storch also said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had "violated a fundamental principle of science" by refusing to share data with other researchers.

According to several publications, an excerpt from one scientist's November 1999 email reads, "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."[17][18] The RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, offers this explanation of the excerpt: "The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens."[19]

Several websites of global-warming sceptics quoted a line written by Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussing gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations: "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," Trenberth wrote.[4] However, Trenberth told the Associated Press that the phrase was actually used in an article he authored calling for improvement in measuring global warming to describe unusual data, such as rising sea surface temperatures.[5] The word "travesty" refers to what Trenberth sees as an inadequate observing system that, were it more adequate, would be able to track the warming he believes is there.[20]

Antonio Regalado, a journalist at Science Magazine, wrote in his blog: "[U]niversity researchers may [...] find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.’s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law." The hacker who released the documents used the name "FOIA", Regalado pointed out, adding, "the emails, which appear to be genuine, though their authenticity could not be confirmed, indicate a concerted effort to fight the FOI requests that may itself have slipped into questionable territory." Regalado quoted one purported email said to be sent by Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, to Michael Mann. Jones declined to comment about it, but Mann responded to Regalado, "I did not delete any emails at all in response to Phil Jone's [sic] request, nor did I indicate to him that I would." Regalado wrote that the e-mails showed some scientists were concerned about wasting their time by being drawn into controversies if some of the documents were released in response to FOI requests.[21]

Reactions
Some climate change sceptics asserted that the e-mails showed scientists had colluded to overstate the case for man-made global warming, and manipulated the evidence,[9] but criticism of the content of the e-mails also focused more narrowly on ethical concerns related to the alleged discrediting of sceptics and withholding of information. Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and a climatologist who has found fault with some of the science girding the consensus on global warming, said some e-mails showed an effort to block the release of data for independent review. He said some messages discussed discrediting him by claiming he knew his research was wrong in his doctoral dissertation. "This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people’s reputations in very serious ways."[4]

Myron Ebell, the Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the e-mails showed that some climate scientists "are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."[6] Michaels said of the correspondence, "this is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud" and blogger Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit called the revelations "quite breathtaking."[4]

Columnist George Monbiot, an environmental and political activist, said that while he did not see the vast conspiracy that global warming sceptics saw, he did see this as a “major blow” and that “emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging”. Moreover, Monbiot was concerned with the apparent attempts to conceal and even destroy data that was subject to a freedom of information request and the alleged collusion to prevent peer reviewed publication by climate sceptics. Monbiot has also called for the resignation of the CRU head, Phil Jones, saying that, "[These revelations] raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed."[22]

The Washington Post's correspondent Juliet Eilperin wrote that the e-mails revealed "an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies." She commented that the material provides "a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming."[23]

Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta (who has been described as a mainstream scientist on global-warming issues[21]), wrote that the e-mails reflect a problem with scientists lacking openness about their data and attacking those they disagree with: "[I]t is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports. Scientists are of course human, and short-term emotional responses to attacks and adversity are to be expected, but I am particularly concerned by this apparent systematic and continuing behavior from scientists that hold editorial positions, serve on important boards and committees and participate in the major assessment reports. It is these issues revealed in the HADCRU emails that concern me the most [...]"[24]

According to the University of East Anglia, the stolen documents and e-mails had been selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. The university said in a statement: "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way".[9]

The CRU's researchers said in a statement that the e-mails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.[6] Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called the charges that the emails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous."[25] Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, said that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious",[6] and called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem."[26] Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was appalled at the release of the e-mails but thought that it might backfire against climate sceptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists."[4] He has also said that the theft may be aimed at undermining talks at next month's Copenhagen global climate summit.[5]

Computerworld magazine reported that the CEO of the consultancy Errata Security felt it was likely that an insider was responsible for the incident. It cited the view of the RealClimate blog that what was not contained in the e-mails was the most interesting element: "There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP' [Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."[8] The science historian Spencer R. Weart, interviewed in the Washington Post, commented that the theft of the e-mails and the reaction to them was "a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers."[27]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science has "expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions".[3]

The Daily Telegraph reported that academics and climate change researchers have dismissed allegations from sceptics that the emails are evidence of a collusion or international conspiracy, saying that nothing in the emails proves wrongdoing.[28] A spokesman for the Met Office that works with the UEA on climate monitoring, said: "We are utterly confident that there was no collusion or manipulation. All the data used was peer reviewed and we are certain it is fully reliable."[28]

There was also a detailed story in last Sundays NY Times on this. Some of the theorists advancing global warming theory kept changing math models until they got the solution they wanted. Some on the other side did the same. Bottom line though is that no one can say anything for sure and the warming theorists can't explain why the warming slowed, stopped and reversed in recent years. All their theories said each succeeding year had to be warmer than the last. That's the problem when you build an elaborate theory about man heating the earth on a period of time that is about .00000002 (about 2 billionths of a percent) of the earths lifespan. What this all shows me is that nature itself is still ruling 99.99% of the causes of change in earths temperatures.

Global warming is the biggest hoax going and its on a worldwide scale. If you disagree with global warming scientists you are shut down and dismissed. This belief in global warming is not even up for debate which is suspect itself. Science is about truth, testing and re-testing and the sharing of ideas and information. If your information goes contrary to the global warming religion then you are not even acknowledged.

There is zero man made global warming. In the 70's global cooling was hailed as the new threat against man and the onset of a new ice age would begin. Now its warming. Global warming is a money maker for those who push its agenda and for the government in the form of new taxes. People need to wake up, do a little reading and realize what is going on. The world has warmed and cooled in the past, thousands of years before the industrial age was in full swing. What caused that? Its simple, the earth goes through cycles just like anything else.

I was always suspicious and these hacked e-mails only increased my doubts. You're right; follow the money. Someone is getting extremely rich off of this nonsense. And why is Al Gore such a respected figure on this subject? Last I checked, he's a politician, not a climatologist.

And so what if the earth has warmed a degree in the past few decades? Can anyone say for sure what an ideal earth temperature should be? So what if the Greenland ice sheets have receded? Wasn't Greenland once free of ice sheets? And weren't we supposed to be hit with killer hurricances? The past 2 years have been quite mild. What bothers me most is the lack of discernment by people in this country.

CG...I have presented people with graphs of temperatures and CO2 reading from the past 400,000 years showing drastic rises and falls in both parameters. Some spikes higher than the current one; long before man existed. And I have pointed out that the current rise is occurring exactly when it would be expected. But people refuse to accept its a natural cycle. As my dad used to say, once a person's mind is made up, don't confuse them with facts.

Oh my God I just noticed Judith Curry's name. She was my thermo professor at Penn State. Brilliant book-wise but a total ditz. First day of class she comes in. She puts all of her notes on those transparencies. So she needs to lower the screen. Its electric. She flicks every switch in the room...except the one under the screen. Finally she gets that. Great. Now she turns on the projector and the notes are blurry. Now you, I or pretty much anyone else would turn the focus knob. Or possibly move the cart with the projector back or forth. Curry starts sliding the transparency around on the tray and it totally baffled as to why its not getting clearer. Like I said, brilliant book wise. And a really nice person. She was absent the day God taught common sense though.

haha good story....most like her, are like that

UN climate report riddled with errors on glaciers...from AP report.

WASHINGTON – Five glaring errors were discovered in one paragraph of the world's most authoritative report on global warming, forcing the Nobel Prize-winning panel of climate scientists who wrote it to apologize and promise to be more careful.

The errors are in a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N.-affiliated body. All the mistakes appear in a subsection that suggests glaciers in the Himalayas could melt away by the year 2035 — hundreds of years earlier than the data actually indicates. The year 2350 apparently was transposed as 2035.

The climate panel and even the scientist who publicized the errors said they are not significant in comparison to the entire report, nor were they intentional. And they do not negate the fact that worldwide, glaciers are melting faster than ever.

But the mistakes open the door for more attacks from climate change skeptics.

"The credibility of the IPCC depends on the thoroughness with which its procedures are adhered to," Yvo de Boer, head of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, told The Associated Press in an e-mail. "The procedures have been violated in this case. That must not be allowed to happen again because the credibility of climate change policy can only be based on credible science."

The incident follows a furor late last year over the release of stolen e-mails in which climate scientists talked about suppressing data and freezing out skeptics of global warming. And on top of that, an intense cold spell has some people questioning whether global warming exists.

In a statement, the climate change panel expressed regret over what it called "poorly substantiated estimates" about the Himalayan glaciers.

"The IPCC has established a reputation as a real gold standard in assessment; this is an unfortunate black mark," said Chris Field, a Stanford University professor who in 2008 took over as head of this part of the IPCC research. "None of the experts picked up on the fact that these were poorly substantiated numbers. From my perspective, that's an area where we have an opportunity to do much better."

Patrick Michaels, a global warming skeptic and scholar at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called on the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, to resign, adding: "I'd like to know how such an absurd statement made it through the review process. It is obviously wrong."

However, a number of scientists, including some critics of the IPCC, said the mistakes do not invalidate the main conclusion that global warming is without a doubt man-made and a threat.

The mistakes were found not by skeptics like Michaels, but by a few of the scientists themselves, including one who is an IPCC co-author.

The report in question is the second of four issued by the IPCC in 2007 on global warming. This 838-page document had chapters on each continent. The errors were in a half-page section of the Asia chapter. The section got it wrong as to how fast the thousands of glaciers in the Himalayas are melting, scientists said.

"It is a very shoddily written section," said Graham Cogley, a professor of geography and glaciers at Trent University in Peterborough, Canada, who brought the error to everyone's attention. "It wasn't copy-edited properly."

Cogley, who wrote a letter about the problems to Science magazine that was published online Wednesday, cited these mistakes:

• The paragraph starts, "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world." Cogley and Michael Zemp of the World Glacier Monitoring System said Himalayan glaciers are melting at about the same rate as other glaciers.

• It says that if the Earth continues to warm, the "likelihood of them disappearing by the 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high." Nowhere in peer-reviewed science literature is 2035 mentioned. However, there is a study from Russia that says glaciers could come close to disappearing by 2350. Probably the numbers in the date were transposed, Cogley said.

• The paragraph says: "Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035." Cogley said there are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

• The entire paragraph is attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from the WWF, Cogley said. And further, the IPCC likes to brag that it is based on peer-reviewed science, not advocacy group reports. Cogley said the WWF cited the popular science press as its source.

• A table says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters. Then comes a math mistake: It says that's a rate of 135.2 meters a year, when it really is only 23.5 meters a year.

Still, Cogley said: "I'm convinced that the great bulk of the work reported in the IPCC volumes was trustworthy and is trustworthy now as it was before the detection of this mistake." He credited Texas state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon with telling him about the errors.

However, Colorado University environmental science and policy professor Roger Pielke Jr. said the errors point to a "systematic breakdown in IPCC procedures," and that means there could be more mistakes.

A number of scientists pointed out that at the end of the day, no one is disputing the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking.

"What is happening now is comparable with the Titanic sinking more slowly than expected," de Boer said in his e-mail. "But that does not alter the inevitable consequences, unless rigorous action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is taken."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/...mate-scientist/

dont know how these scientists sleep?? always worried!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100307...clatchy/3444187

I think what most folks d'ont and w'ont ever get is that mankinds evolution and changing of things is also part of nature. It's forced change of things, like trying to seed clouds or do sick experiments that are unnatural.

Probably the most realistic story I've seen yet about global warming, climate change etc. In the end the earth will do what it will do. Someday NYC will be a 12,000 ft high mountain chain with no ocean. In the end what man will do is totally miniscule to what nature will do. The problem we have with all these global warming nuts is they somehow think things are not allowed to change. But nature is constantly changing and million year cycles mean nothing to it, let alone the small time period global warming fatalists think in. And you've got to love the last paragraph.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/12/george-...done-to-it.html