Climate Cat out of the Bag? Potentially dynamite revelations

[kerplunk]

Guam said:

mybrainhurts said:

kerplunk said:

Can anybody lend me a straw to clutch..?

Doubtless this a treasure trove if you've a mind to go a quote-mining for PR uses with little regard for context but it's thin gruel so far in terms of real substance. You think you've seen something really damning then point it out and say what you think it means.

[otolith]

Quite apart from whether or not they are right about anthropogenic climate change, if it turns out that these people have been behaving in the way that they are accused of the damage to public confidence in science could be disastrous. Science should be apolitical.

[ludo]

MX-Si said:

This quote from Hilary Benn caught my eye this morning:

Stolen from the Daily Wail:

"Mr Benn, who is in Cockermouth, said it may have 'the wettest day ever recorded' in the county.

He said that even defences built after the floods of 2005 to withstand a 'one-in-100-years flood' could not cope with the volume of water.

'What we dealt with last night was probably more like one-in-a-1,000, so even the very best defences, if you have such quantities of rain in such a short space of time, can be over-topped,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme."

So, no mention of Global Warming causing the floods then? That's a bit 'off-message' for a Government Minister isn't it?

Decidedly on-message with the IPCC though, as they say that individual weather events should not be attributed directly to anthropogenic climate change, largely because climate is to do with long term averages of weather, and extreme events are not a good indicator of average behaviour (by definition). About the strongest statements supporteble by IPCC science is that global warming is thought to be likely to make such extremes more likely.

[HRG]

ludo said:

MX-Si said:

This quote from Hilary Benn caught my eye this morning:

Stolen from the Daily Wail:

"Mr Benn, who is in Cockermouth, said it may have 'the wettest day ever recorded' in the county.

He said that even defences built after the floods of 2005 to withstand a 'one-in-100-years flood' could not cope with the volume of water.

'What we dealt with last night was probably more like one-in-a-1,000, so even the very best defences, if you have such quantities of rain in such a short space of time, can be over-topped,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme."

So, no mention of Global Warming causing the floods then? That's a bit 'off-message' for a Government Minister isn't it?

Decidedly on-message with the IPCC though, as they say that individual weather events should not be attributed directly to anthropogenic climate change, largely because climate is to do with long term averages of weather, and extreme events are not a good indicator of average behaviour (by definition). About the strongest statements supporteble by IPCC science is that global warming is thought to be likely to make such extremes more likely.

Seems they've been saying quite a lot lately

[ludo]

HRG said:

ludo said:

MX-Si said:

This quote from Hilary Benn caught my eye this morning:

Stolen from the Daily Wail:

"Mr Benn, who is in Cockermouth, said it may have 'the wettest day ever recorded' in the county.

He said that even defences built after the floods of 2005 to withstand a 'one-in-100-years flood' could not cope with the volume of water.

'What we dealt with last night was probably more like one-in-a-1,000, so even the very best defences, if you have such quantities of rain in such a short space of time, can be over-topped,' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme."

So, no mention of Global Warming causing the floods then? That's a bit 'off-message' for a Government Minister isn't it?

Decidedly on-message with the IPCC though, as they say that individual weather events should not be attributed directly to anthropogenic climate change, largely because climate is to do with long term averages of weather, and extreme events are not a good indicator of average behaviour (by definition). About the strongest statements supporteble by IPCC science is that global warming is thought to be likely to make such extremes more likely.

Seems they've been saying quite a lot lately

They have been saying it for a long time. That is why it is a straw man when "sceptics" try and make something of it.

[ludo]

kerplunk said:

Guam said:

mybrainhurts said:

kerplunk said:

Can anybody lend me a straw to clutch..?

Doubtless this a treasure trove if you've a mind to go a quote-mining for PR uses with little regard for context but it's thin gruel so far in terms of real substance. You think you've seen something really damning then point it out and say what you think it means.

The funny thing is that that particular message highlights more strongly a bit of misrepresentation by a sceptic (Monckton) rather than the targets of the leak!

[chris watton]

"HadleyCRU says leaked data is real
The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

"Have you alerted police"

"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."

Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

"Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn't do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago."

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing "hiding the decline", and Jones explained what he was trying to say….



More on this breaking story in TGIF Edition tonight…

UPDATE: to save any further emails from the eager as our deadline looms…TGIF will be out in about two hours…midnight NZDT

UPDATE: Just burning PDF and Flash documents, moments away

UPDATE FINAL: The link is now live at the TGIF Edition link above, underneath the Breaking News heading"

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/...

[ludo]

chris watton said:

"HadleyCRU says leaked data is real
The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

"Have you alerted police"

"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."

Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

"Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn't do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago."

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing "hiding the decline", and Jones explained what he was trying to say….



More on this breaking story in TGIF Edition tonight…

UPDATE: to save any further emails from the eager as our deadline looms…TGIF will be out in about two hours…midnight NZDT

UPDATE: Just burning PDF and Flash documents, moments away

UPDATE FINAL: The link is now live at the TGIF Edition link above, underneath the Breaking News heading"

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/...

Pissing myself laughing, Phil Jones was talking to TGIF five minutes after hearing the material had been released? Yeah right!

BTW, if you really want to see how the CRU responds to attacks made on Blogs (when the bother to respond), see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal20...

[Xenocide]

chris watton said:

"HadleyCRU says leaked data is real
The director of Britain's leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition tonight that his organization has been hacked, and the data flying all over the internet appears to be genuine.

In an exclusive interview, Jones told TGIF, "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

"Have you alerted police"

"Not yet. We were not aware of what had been taken."

Jones says he was first tipped off to the security breach by colleagues at the website RealClimate.

"Real Climate were given information, but took it down off their site and told me they would send it across to me. They didn't do that. I only found out it had been released five minutes ago."

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing "hiding the decline", and Jones explained what he was trying to say….



More on this breaking story in TGIF Edition tonight…

UPDATE: to save any further emails from the eager as our deadline looms…TGIF will be out in about two hours…midnight NZDT

UPDATE: Just burning PDF and Flash documents, moments away

UPDATE FINAL: The link is now live at the TGIF Edition link above, underneath the Breaking News heading"

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/...

And here is the PDF:

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/australia/lates...

[Digga]

kerplunk said:

Guam said:

mybrainhurts said:

kerplunk said:

Can anybody lend me a straw to clutch..?

Doubtless this a treasure trove if you've a mind to go a quote-mining for PR uses with little regard for context but it's thin gruel so far in terms of real substance. You think you've seen something really damning then point it out and say what you think it means.

Anyone looking at your posting history will see you're not a petrolhead, but a climate troll.

I vote we unleash the PH billygoat.

Edited by Digga on Friday 20th November 13:45

[kerplunk]

ludo said:

kerplunk said:

Guam said:

mybrainhurts said:

kerplunk said:

Can anybody lend me a straw to clutch..?

Doubtless this a treasure trove if you've a mind to go a quote-mining for PR uses with little regard for context but it's thin gruel so far in terms of real substance. You think you've seen something really damning then point it out and say what you think it means.

The funny thing is that that particular message highlights more strongly a bit of misrepresentation by a sceptic (Monckton) rather than the targets of the leak!

Much of what I seen so far is the kind of exchange you can see already in fora like Real Climate - it's the illicit nature of 'peeping' at private emails that's giving it some added cache it seems.

[john_p]

Regardless of the science behind 'AGW', why is a scientific institution ACTIVELY blocking attempts for peers to review their data (see: numerous creative responses to FOI requests)

Surely they would be happy to distribute their models, raw data etc so that other people could confirm their findings?

[Jasandjules]

kerplunk said:

Much of what I seen so far is the kind of exchange you can see already in fora like Real Climate - it's the illicit nature of 'peeping' at private emails that's giving it some added cache it seems.

What is seriously concerning is the indication of widespread fraud and deliberate misrepresentation, if this stuff is true, I'd expect to see criminal charges brought.

[evil_dr_fish]

kerplunk said:

Guam said:

mybrainhurts said:

kerplunk said:

Can anybody lend me a straw to clutch..?

Doubtless this a treasure trove if you've a mind to go a quote-mining for PR uses with little regard for context but it's thin gruel so far in terms of real substance. You think you've seen something really damning then point it out and say what you think it means.

"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 from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”


That's pretty damning.


The mere fact that they retain all core data, citing IPR means that the concept of peer review in any genuinely scientific context is utterly nonsense.

Were this a medical trial *not one* of these reports would even be considered as 'valid science'



...and for questioning the findamental lack of scientific rigour and demanding that the "scientific method" be adhered to, one is labelled a "sceptic" or worse still the emotive term "denialist" trying to lump us all in with Jew-Exterminating, neo nazis.

It would be just as easy for we "Climate Agnostics" to label "Climate Change Adherents" as a new wave of religious fundamentalists as their belief system is not scientifically rigorous and they react in an incredibly similar way to any other religious fundamentalist should you dare to question them!

Edited by evil_dr_fish on Friday 20th November 14:35

[jammy_basturd]

This won't hit the mainstream media until the news agencies think it has moved away from the geeky conspiracy theorists and into the realm of the general public. I think the dust needs to settle first and people need to be given time to sift through the documents and emails, check to see if it is genuine and come to their own conclusion. At the moment to the average bystander it is hard to really know what is going on.

[ludo]

john_p said:

Regardless of the science behind 'AGW', why is a scientific institution ACTIVELY blocking attempts for peers to review their data (see: numerous creative responses to FOI requests)

Surely they would be happy to distribute their models, raw data etc so that other people could confirm their findings?

Actually the data were never theirs to distribute, for example the Yamal data that McIntyre chased Briffa for, when McIntyre already had it. How did McIntyre come to have it already? Simple, when he asked Briffa for it, Briffa, said "sorry, I can't give it to you as I don't have permission from the owners" and then gave McIntyre contact details for the owners of the data, who gave it to them. If you want an example of dishonesty, try the reporting of those events on CA.

BTW, the models are distributed, the IPCC has an online database of the model output used in compiling AR4, for example. You can even get the source code for many of the important ones. Most of the raw data are also available, from the owners of the datasets, in most cases.

[kerplunk]

Digga said:

kerplunk said:

Guam said:

mybrainhurts said:

kerplunk said:

Can anybody lend me a straw to clutch..?

Doubtless this a treasure trove if you've a mind to go a quote-mining for PR uses with little regard for context but it's thin gruel so far in terms of real substance. You think you've seen something really damning then point it out and say what you think it means.

Anyone looking at your posting history will see you're not a petrolhead, but a climate troll.

I vote we unleash the PH billygoat.

Edited by Digga on Friday 20th November 13:45

you said already - I've updated my profile for you so we don't have to clutter the thread exploring my not particularly interesting background

[G_T]

john_p said:

Regardless of the science behind 'AGW', why is a scientific institution ACTIVELY blocking attempts for peers to review their data (see: numerous creative responses to FOI requests)

Surely they would be happy to distribute their models, raw data etc so that other people could confirm their findings?

I can't speak for climate scientists, but the investigators on our studies (Oncology) won't distribute the data. We have to make them sign air-tight contracts from the on-set for that very reason. They consider it their intellectual property.

However, I don't understand how that could be possible for published data. To get a paper published you typical need to explain all models and provide all data (which needs to be ruthlessly scrutinised). As it forms part of the peer review process?

I've never read a journal that did not provide the data along with a statistical analysis where appropriate?

[Xenocide]

I like "marooned.jpg" in the root dir:



Edit: And regarding the chap that said the .com file is dodgy, it's not. It's an archive manager:

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\XPMUser>"C:\Documents and Settings\XPMUser\Desktop\arc
a.com"

ARCA  Copyright (c) Wayne Chin and Vernon Buerg 1986-87.
Add to Archive version 1.28 (*286*), 10/4/87. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Usage:  arca  [d:][\path]ArchiveName[.ARC] [d:][\path]FileName[.Ext] [/D]

        Use /D to delete files after adding to archive
        Filenames may contain * and ? wildcards

C:\DOCUME~1\XPMUser>

Edited by Xenocide on Friday 20th November 14:14

[kerplunk]

Jasandjules said:

kerplunk said:

Much of what I seen so far is the kind of exchange you can see already in fora like Real Climate - it's the illicit nature of 'peeping' at private emails that's giving it some added cache it seems.

What is seriously concerning is the indication of widespread fraud and deliberate misrepresentation, if this stuff is true, I'd expect to see criminal charges brought.

Lots of comments like this everywhere- if what stuff is true?