CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

Found this file on the hacked files section from CRU. Someone made a little montage of the main "global warming" skeptics. The guy with the hammer is Rep Senator Jim Inhofe. Can't ID the others right now

Gives an example of the type of infighting that goes on among some "respected" scientists

marooned.jpg
 
Was wondering when this connection would turn up.

On Oct 9th 2009, Ben Santer sent this in an email to Phil Jones, head of the CRU

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1045&filename=1255100876.txt

I'm really sorry that you have to go through all this stuff, Phil. Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Pat Michaels, Ph.D. Climatology, is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute> and a retired Research Professor of Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia and a global warming skeptic (which is apparently why Ben Santer wants to beat the crap out of him)

Ben is a climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory who, along with Michael Mann and Phil Jones, is leading the Gore Global Warming charge.

In 1996 the Science & Environmental Policy Project accused Santer of altering Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report on the science of climate change, deleting phrases that suggested scientific doubts about human influences on climate to make the report conform to the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

He was awarded a MacArthur Foundation "genius" grant of $270,000 for research supporting the finding that human activity contributes to global warming. He has also received the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Award and a Distinguished Scientist Fellowship from the U.S. Department of Energy.

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is a major grant-making private foundation based in Chicago that has awarded more than US$4 billion since its inception in 1978.

Over its history the Foundation has been in close collaboration with the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Carnegie Corporation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

The general impression I am getting is that, sure, there is no widespread conspiracy by all climatologists to cook the data for global warming. What there IS is a select few "top" scientists who seem to be lacking in the conscience department and are leading the "human-made global warming" campaign and have been doing so for at least 10 years. These few are essentially ponerizing many of the other less "genius" scientists, but not all by any means. It all seems to tie back, through several degrees of separation, to Gore, his friends in high places and the monied banking families of this world. Which of course is no surprise since the net result of "global warming" will be lots of "carbon tax" dollars to governments and therefore banks and the banking families, not to mention industries that will be employed to effect the overhaul of modern industry, industries in which Al Gore just happens to have financial interests.
 
Tigersoap said:
An "expert" who the name I forgot, explained how this meant nothing at all, that the datas were very old and all scientists now were agreeing on the climate change and that it was very convenient for the climate change sceptics because there was so much money to be made from fossil oil (aka the USA)

I'm not sure whether you've presented this argument because you agree with it or not, Tigersoap. Could you make that clear? Also, if you do agree with it, could you please provide the evidence to show that all or at least some climate skeptics are linked to oil money.

Phil Jones said:
...if anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil

Where was that from 3D resident? Was that in one of the emails. I agree, very revealing of a twisted mind.

Thanks for the information on Ben Santer, Perceval. Could you also show where you got the information from?

Perceval said:
The general impression I am getting is that, sure, there is no widespread conspiracy by all climatologists to cook the data for global warming. What there IS is a select few "top" scientists who seem to be lacking in the conscience department and are leading the "human-made global warming" campaign and have been doing so for at least 10 years. These few are essentially ponerizing many of the other less "genius" scientists, but not all by any means.

Yes, I get a similar general impression.

What is also striking to me is that, regardless of whether human impacts are significant or not on the climate, the policies they have brought through in the name of this have caused widespread damage of the environment and don't even address what they claim to be doing it for. And I don't think it's just because they are misguided, I think it is that many have worked out how to dupe the public into believing they are providing "green" solutions, when really they are just a guise to take more control and profit.
 
Kitu your quote from Tigersoap message is not complete. If you reread the post taking account the :shock: smiley you will understand better the essence of his post.
 
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

The Bishop Hill blog discusses the climate change controversy. I just discovered the blog and it seems
the best source I located in the last couple of hours. I will keep reading tonight, after dinner.
 
Kitu said:
Phil Jones said:
...if anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.
Cheers, Phil

Where was that from 3D resident? Was that in one of the emails. I agree, very revealing of a twisted mind.

This was indeed in one of the emails sent by Phil Jones. You can find it on any number of the now numerous sites that discuss the contents of these scandalous emails.

On another related note, back on Monday I did a Google search for "Climategate" and received about 119,000 hits. Today, four days later, this same search term yields 5.5 MILLION hits!!! That's an explosive increase in awareness of this issue, even if mainstream media have completely ignored it or downplayed it.
 
Kitu said:
I'm not sure whether you've presented this argument because you agree with it or not, Tigersoap. Could you make that clear? Also, if you do agree with it, could you please provide the evidence to show that all or at least some climate skeptics are linked to oil money.

Hi Kitu, I was choking myself when I heard the spin put on the story by a scientific person on the radio.
These are not my views on the matter ;)

The argument of the climate change skeptics profiting from not wanting to stop global warming because of financial gains is something I am hearing more and more, in the local media.
According to their views, if you don't want to stop global warming, that means that you're swimming in money while the polar bears drown

Edit : typo/word
 
Tigersoap said:
Kitu said:
I'm not sure whether you've presented this argument because you agree with it or not, Tigersoap. Could you make that clear? Also, if you do agree with it, could you please provide the evidence to show that all or at least some climate skeptics are linked to oil money.

Hi Kitu, I was choking myself when I heard the spin put on the story by a scientific person on the radio.
These are not my views on the matter ;)

The argument of the climate skeptics profiting from not wanting to stop global warming because of financial gains is something I am hearing more and more, in the local media.
According to their views, if you don't want to stop global warming, that means that you're swimming in money while the polar bears drow

LOL, and of course they completely ignore the fact that about $80 billion has been spent on climate change funding, directed towards people who benefit hugely from the dogma of AGW, which is 3000 times more than funding directed by Big Oil to climate sceptics.

I should also correct what I said above. The Google search "Climategate" actually brings up over 9 millions hits. I don't know why it said 5 million hits only a little while ago.
 
Tigersoap said:
Hi Kitu, I was choking myself when I heard the spin put on the story by a scientific person on the radio.
These are not my views on the matter

Thanks for clarifying that, Tigersoap! ;) I did wonder though because it is a view I commonly hear, along with notion that there is a "consensus" among top scientists that global warming is man-made...Views that are contrary to much of what I've seen through researching it myself...

Thanks 3D resident for letting me know where that Phil Jones quote came from.

3D resident said:
Today, four days later, this same search term yields 5.5 MILLION hits!!! That's an explosive increase in awareness of this issue, even if mainstream media have completely ignored it or downplayed it.

It's hard to tell what will come of it. Many environmentalists seem to be in denial about it. There seems to be a lot of ridicule of skeptics and anyone who believes the leaked information reveals manipulation and is a serious matter. However, this has surely got to have an impact on Copenhagen.
 
Hi Guys , I know that it has been covered already but i am not sure if you had a chance to see actual file that has been stolen by hacker from
Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K.

I found a link to debate which actually hosts a direct link to all stolen documents.
So read through it if you are interested :)
its 60 megs thou ;)

__http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_world

If this file disappears , let me know , i already downloaded it so i will re upload it when needed

edit: thx for moving this topic to proper thread ;)
 
More details regarding this hack.

LINK __http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/27/climate-email-hackers-access-month

and report from above site

Computer hackers who broke into the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) server at the University of East Anglia had access to its systems for more than a month.

The full data – covering 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents in which the most recent document and email is dated 12 November – came to wider notice when a copy was posted on a web server in Russia on 19 November.

But a month earlier a BBC weatherman who had expressed doubts about climate change on his blog was sent a sample of the email exchanges, suggesting the hackers already had access to the private system.

The university declined to answer questions about the setup and security of the computers used by CRU scientists, but security experts say there are only three tenable explanations for how the server was hacked: a determined break-in by an external hacker; that one of the CRU or university systems was accidentally "compromised" by a computer virus or other "malware"; or it was an "inside job" by a disaffected member of university staff. The latter is viewed as the least likely.

Climate change deniers have seized on the disclosures, claiming they proved that the scientists had colluded to manipulate climate data and that they called into question the evidence for human-driven global warming.

Leading scientific bodies and governments have dismissed the charges, insisting there is clear evidence that humans are to blame for global warming.

The first leak occurred after 9 October, when one of the BBC's regional weathermen, Paul Hudson, wrote an article arguing that for the last 11 years there had not been an increase in global temperatures. On 12 October he was forwarded a "chain of emails", including some which subsequently appeared in the hacked documents. Last night the BBC confirmed Hudson had been forwarded emails written by two of the scientists, but refused to disclose the source.

"Paul spotted that these few e-mails were among thousands published on the internet following the alleged hacking of the UEA computer system," said a BBC spokesman.

After sending Hudson the sample, nothing more emerged from the hackers for a month. Then early on 17 November someone hacked into the RealClimate website, used by climate scientists to explain their work. Using a computer in Turkey, they uploaded a zip file containing all 4,000 emails and documents. But within a couple of minutes Gavin Schmidt, the website's co-founder, realised something was wrong and shut down the site. The file had been online for 25 minutes but had not been picked up.

On 19 November the hackers used a computer in Saudi Arabia to post a link on The Air Vent – a website popular with climate change sceptics – pointing to a fresh copy of the zip file, this time stored on a Russian web server. At that point it was finally picked up by blogs and news organisations around the world.
 
As the main SotT page seems to be down, I'll post this here (where it seems to be more relevant anyway!).

The chairman of the Climate Change summit in Copenhagen has stated that these leaked emails will not change anything:

_http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6690110/Leaked-climate-change-emails-wont-bias-UN-global-warning-body-says-chairman.html

quite possibly because the UN climate change meeting would prefer to stick to its own bias, thanks very much! :rolleyes:

But all is made clear in this article, which was not joined to the above article for some reason; the headline slyly being on the other side of the page in fact:

_http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6683735/Climate-change-Hefty-taxes-and-monitoring-needed-says-expert.html

And the 'expert' mentioned in the link turns out to be none other than the 'We're going to ignore the leaked emails' chairman of the Climate Change summit! :O

So this is the reason he doesn't want to take into account the emails - well, quelle surprise!

Rumpuy of the EU has already comitted himself publicly to a Eurowide 'green' tax.

Makes me wonder if this wasn't the main reason behind the 'global warming' scam in the first place!

Incidentally, the 'lessons will be learned' phrase (or slight variations on same) mentioned in RyanX's quote is a favourite of the now thoroughly discredited Nulabour government of the unelected Brown.
 
From "Dead Man Musings"

http://deadmanmusings.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-gate-new-red-herring.html


"Climate Gate, the New Red Herring.

A "Red Herring" is something that is designed to distract you from the real issues. "Look over Here, not Over There!" is an age old political trick as old as time. A "red herring" in a bucket of fish usually means something worse is in the barrel. Something "rotten in Denmark" as it were.

Climate-gate is indeed a scandal. It is also a controlled release scandal. People don't dump this kind of information in the public domain without ending up dead somewhere. Just ask the numerous microbiologists that were killed because they possessed information that only "could" have been released to the public.

I think of the last big "red-herring" scandal involving a young intern and the Commander in Chief. Linda Tripp was an intelligence asset and both her and Monica Lewinsky had ties to the CIA. (Source)

Mary Mahoney, another intern that was going public with charges of sexual assault against Clinton, was gunned down under suspicious circumstances in a Starbucks Coffee Shop. All interns are not created equal. Here is a full list of others connected to the Clinton White House that had their lives drastically shortened for them.

Lewinsky was paraded before the public through the "Drudge Report" as if it were actually a work of investigative reporting. Since Mr. Drudge is still among the living and collecting nice fat paychecks you can rest assured that it was "all the news they could use" to cover a bigger scandal involving top secret missile technology being given to the Chinese with Clinton's signed consent.

Treason trumps intern sex in any one's book. One gets you fired at and the other one only gets you fired (or impeached). The Illuminati puppeteers gave Clinton a double bonus. He kept his job and enhanced his reputation as an "intern stud".

" When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented no threat to the United States. Chinese missiles "couldn’t hit the side of a barn," notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets.

Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.

China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy – equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do its dirty work while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies." (Source)

Yes, thanks to the Illuminati and their puppets in the White House, China now has the ability shoot missiles beyond their border. Prior to Bill Clinton, the only threat Chinese missiles presented was on their launchpad (where they frequently exploded on lift-off).

" In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal, respectively, thus controlling access both ways.

A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California's Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from its bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas." (ibid)


Heck, who knows, maybe he threw in the launch codes as an added bonus. The problem with international Illuminati controlled corporations is that they will take US taxpayer funded research and sell it to the highest bidder.

"Federal investigators later concluded that China made off with the "crown jewels" of our nuclear weapons research under Clinton’s open-door policy – probably including design specifications for suitcase nukes.

Meanwhile, Clinton and his corporate cronies raked in millions.

In his book "The China Threat," Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertzdescribes how the system worked.

Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton's campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs. Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.

"We like your president. We want to see him re-elected," former Chinese intelligence chief Gen. Ji Shengde told China-gate bagman Johnny Chung.

Indeed, Chinese intelligence organized a massive covert operation aimed at tilting the 1996 election Clinton's way.

Clinton's top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.

Clinton recieved funding directly from known or suspected Chinese intelligence agents, among them James andMochtar Riady, who own the Indonesian Lippo Group; John Huang; Charlie Trie; TedSioeng; Maria Hsia; Wang Jun and others.

Commerce Secretary Ron Brown served as Clinton's front man in many Chinagate deals. When investigators began probing Brown's Lippo Group and Chinagate connections, Brown died suddenly in a suspicious April 1996 plane crash." (ibid)


See, dead men tell no tales, make no sales, and keep the bad guys out of jails. Its a win-win kind of thing. So, now we have Climate-Gate. If you are wondering what could be worse, I present the following for your perusal:

1. Auditing the Federal Reserve or "Honey I skunked the kids"

2. Flue Vaccine or "Kick me with your best shot"

3. Corporate Bailout Audits. or, "have you hugged your 401 K today?"

4. Dollar Collapse, or "Its only a Paper Dream"

5. 20% Unemployment or "The only job left is the old "screw job".

But, don't look over here, look over there! Because, if you don't, they will just start screaming louder that you are missing their point."

While I wouldn't be surprised _if_ the released files were timed as a Red Herring or if they were released by a genuine dissenter who covered their tracks well; only to have the files spun as a red herring. He does have a point that people who whistleblow big stuff like this tend to end up dead. However, perhaps this fellow isn't taking the 'Net fully into account. A really good hacker can bounce everything all over the place as well as cover their tracks into and out of the initial IP port area where they released everything. OSIT
 
Here is a *small* sample of a few emails from what seems to be one of the climate model-programmers.


http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=60790#60790 said:
Your Tax Dollars At Work:
Meet Harry, the Programmer


Mr. Ian (Harry) Harris
Dendroclimatology, climate scenario development,
data manipulation and visualisation, programming

[sarcasm]
Harry is busy meticulously compiling accurate data
for use in global climate models and reports:
[/sarcasm]


Quote:
HARRY_READ_ME.txt :

"OH -flick- THIS.
It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend,
and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another
problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.

There is no uniform data integrity,
it’s just a catalogue of issues that continues
to grow as they’re found."



Quote:
function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperio$datathresh=datathresh;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.



Quote:
I was expecting that maybe the latter contained 94-00 normals,
what I wasn't expecting was that thet are in % x10 not %!
Unbelievable - even here the conventions have not been followed.
It's botch after botch after botch. Modified the conversion program
to process either kind of normals line.


Decided to go with the 'spc.94-00.0312221624.dtb' database, as it
hopefully has some of the 94-00 normals in. I just wish I knew more.

Conversion was hampered by the discovery that some stations have a mix
of % and % x10 values! So more mods to Hsp2cldp_m.for. Then conversion,
producing cldfromspc.94000312221624.dtb. Copied the .dts file across
as is, not sure what it does unfortunately (or can't remember!).


Quote:
“This still meant an awful lot of encounters with naughty Master stations, when really I suspect nobody else gives a hoot about. So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option – to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations (er, CLIMAT excepted). In other words, what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad, but I really don’t think people care enough to fix ‘em, and it’s the main reason the project is nearly a year late.”

“You can’t imagine what this has cost me – to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).”



Quote:
So.. we don't have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But
what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look,
there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And
that's useless.. take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann
directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference
is that one directory is apparently 'monthly' and the other 'annual' - yet
both contain monthly files.


Quote:
The option (like all the anomdtb options) is
totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost.

Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software
suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
definitive failure of the entire project..


Quote:
[/b]getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data.
so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references..[/b]
so many changes that aren't documented. Every time a cloud forms I'm
presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some
with references, some with WMO codes, and some with both.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in
nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not
thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with,
usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar
coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large
overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight.



Quote:
I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced
by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see,
this renders the station counts totally meaningless.

It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived
at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf
product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't
coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too
much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time
to write a gridding procedure?

Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too.

My analysis of the CRU files, starting with "documents/HARRY_READ_ME.txt"
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421
 
Arctodus said:
From "Dead Man Musings"

http://deadmanmusings.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-gate-new-red-herring.html


"Climate Gate, the New Red Herring.

A "Red Herring" is something that is designed to distract you from the real issues. "Look over Here, not Over There!" is an age old political trick as old as time. A "red herring" in a bucket of fish usually means something worse is in the barrel. Something "rotten in Denmark" as it were.

Climate-gate is indeed a scandal. It is also a controlled release scandal. People don't dump this kind of information in the public domain without ending up dead somewhere. Just ask the numerous microbiologists that were killed because they possessed information that only "could" have been released to the public.

I think of the last big "red-herring" scandal involving a young intern and the Commander in Chief. Linda Tripp was an intelligence asset and both her and Monica Lewinsky had ties to the CIA. (Source)

I don't really understand this article. In what way is climategate a "red herring" or distraction? He doesn't explain. And what is the point in going off on a rant about clinton selling nukes to China? Sure he probably did, but that's par for the course. Nuke technology can be sold by major powers to major powers without any fear of blowback because nuclear war is never going to happen. Mutually Assured Destruction prevents that.
 
Back
Top Bottom