Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked

RealClimate.org (the website of the Global Warming researchers) has their spin up. The comments section is interesting.

Fine if they dont touch it. Their ratings can continue to tank in their zealous protection of BO and all things liberal.

These emails and documents are fascinating. Even taking out the ones where they were blatantly talking about changing data, they show absolutely no interest in helping the earth as they claim. They are almost written like MLM scammers trying to think how they can convince people to get in on their pyramid.

And this (from here http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/):

Better archive stuff before it's changed ...

The needed documents in Hawaii are likely too old to be anywhere online and thus are hackerproof. Real, rather than virtual, journalism is needed there. Instead redirect the Hacker to Harry Reid’s office during his health care push.

“
“There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax,” he told Threat Level. “There’s no funding by nefarious groups. There’s no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There’s nothing hidden, no manipulation.”

FOX News is now carrying the story

Does that mean that Al Gore will be investigated and hauled away for scamming so many people and getting very rich?

I wondered the same thing. Conspiracy, RICO, what would apply?

Some articles are starting to say this may have been a whistleblower, not a hacker.. hmmm....

I'm thinking it's most likely a whistleblower. Climate scientists are under tremendous pressure to stay in line with the Global Warming agenda, and they will look like idiots as mounting evidence shows the theory to be wrong.

Sounds like somebody on the inside had enough.

Right,...chasing around...found a recent Editorial :

Editor’s 2 Cents
Pulling back the curtain on global warming

*****************************************************************

Posted: Sunday, October 18, 2009 2:00 am | Updated: 3:32 pm, Sun Oct 18, 2009.

By FRANK MIELE | 392 comments

One of the many delicious ironies of the climate-change debate is that the "settled science" crowd is playing the role of Noah while the global-warming skeptics are the "what, me worry?" crew.

And, sure enough, if the planet heats up by 5 or 10 degrees, we will have plenty to worry about. You would have to be a fool not to care about such a sea change in our climate.

So, year after year, the climate-changers work like Noah on his ark, hammering together their computer models and their "cap-and-trade" schemes in an effort to keep the planet afloat through the coming hard times that they think will be precipitated by mankind's silly little efforts to industrialize the global economy and, shudder, to "drive cars."

You have to admit, that's scary stuff. Forget waterboarding. I wake up late at night in a cold sweat thinking that someone has tied me to a board and thrown me into the back of an old Ford truck that gets only 12 miles per gallon! Talk about a bumpy ride!

But the real torture is watching the "settled science" crowd push levers and manipulate data in an effort to keep people scared with smoke and thunderous noise even after their Wizard of Oz "doom machine" has been exposed. Time and time again in the past several years, the curtain has been drawn back to reveal global-warming hysteria as nothing more than a politically motivated scheme to push social policy leftward.

So what about the science?

OK, here's what we know. The warmest year recorded by our modern-day Noahs was in 1998, just about the time the global-warming fever was starting to peak. Since then, there has never been a year with global temperatures even close to reaching that level. So in practical terms, there has been a temperature decline since 1998, not an increase. See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/scarewatch/really_cooling.pdf for Lord Monckton's analysis of this trend. Moreover, some scientists predict that global cooling could continue for at least the next 20 years (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742)

That's just the beginning of the cavalcade of evidence that suggests the global-warming movement is unlikely to sell their life-saving "ark" anytime soon except to the most gullible of science consumers.

For instance, Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan just reported in "Geophysical Research Letters" that the ice melt during the last Antarctic summer was the lowest recorded during the past 30 years. (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/06) In other words, despite scary stories that regularly appear in the mainstream media about big chunks of ice breaking off the Antarctic continent, there may not be anything to worry about. Tedesco and Monaghan are global-warming supporters, so they don't find the recent trend significant, but others like Greg Roberts, writing in The Australian, do: See www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html

Another significant factor to be considered by anyone who is actually interested in the science, and not just the politics, of global warming is whether the sun plays any role in heating and cooling of the planet's surface. The logical answer would seem to be yes, and it is thus interesting to note that the sun is experiencing a two-year-long solar minimum, which is a reference to very low levels of sunspots during the same time frame when many regions nationally and globally have been experiencing unusually cold temperatures. Almost makes you think there might indeed be something left to study here. (An interesting analysis of the phenomenon may be read at 'change science is based have predicted any such decline in temperatures as we have been experiencing. According to this "settled science," it really shouldn't be happening - because while temperatures have been going down, the level of man-produced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising due to the rapid industrialization of places like China and India.

If you have ever been to China, you know there is plenty of reason to want to restrict pollution there. Call it the wish to breathe fresh air. But that is a quality-of-life issue, and not a doomsday issue. If the argument were not about climate change, but about common-sense pollution control, then I and a lot of other conservatives would be much more likely to support global treaties that promote clean skies.

But don't hype the argument up with fake science, OK?

The most blatant example of this is the so-called "hockey stick" graph of 1998, which supposedly showed a huge spike in global temperatures starting with the beginning of the industrial age. Created by climatologist Michael E. Mann and some collaborators, the hockey stick provided the underpinnings for the "Chicken Little" report by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001. It also helped Al Gore to snag a Nobel Peace Prize for his movie "An Inconvenient Truth," which may someday earn an official asterisk next to the word Truth pointing people to George Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" in the novel "1984" where Truth is defined as whatever is politically expedient.

Indeed, in this brave new world that we inhabit, it appears that even science is handmaiden to politics. The "hockey stick" has been subject to revision and retrenchment several times over the years, but most recently the stick has shriveled into a truncheon, which hopefully will be used to beat the global-warming theory back into the padded cell of conspiracy science where it belongs. (Kind of reminiscent of Jason and his hockey mask in the "Friday the 13th" slasher movies, isn't it?)

Mathematician Steve McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick have demonstrated conclusively that both the mathematics and the data behind the "hockey stick" graph are flawed, but most recently McIntyre was able to access part of the raw data which had been kept secret for many years and has shown that the "hockey stick" is really a political construct that was created by cherry-picking data, albeit possibly through negligence rather than malfeasance.

In essence, and without bogging this non-scientific column down too deep in the minutiae of science, McIntyre after many requests was finally able to view the raw tree-ring data used in the hockey-stick study from a Russian peninsula called Yamal. He has demonstrated that if complete data from the region is used, the hockey stick's spike disappears, and most reasonable fears of global warming dissipate with it. You can read one of McIntyre's key reports at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

It's as if we woke up and realized the scary guy in the hockey mask wasn't chasing us after all. It was all just a bad dream.

Or as climate change skeptic Anthony Watts proclaimed, in a convenient corollary of our "Wizard of Oz" metaphor, "Ding dong the stick is dead."

• • • • • •

Coincidentally, a tea-party group called Northwest Montana Patriots is sponsoring a showing of "Not Evil, Just Wrong" at 7 p.m. today at the Outlaw Hotel in Kalispell. The movie subtitled "The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria" promotes a skeptical view of man-caused climate change. There is a suggested $2 donation.

• Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com

More Coverage

A hacker with an insider assisting/
Whistle Blowing Hacker Assistant

ROFL!...Good ole Harry....probably sending spitwads with rolled up messages...

They are almost written like MLM scammers trying to think how they can convince people to get in on their pyramid.

Paging Mr. Hasbeen, paging Mr. Hasbeen. Was losing your credibility worth the 15 minutes bounce on the couch, Mr. Hasbeen?

Sample of emails:

0926010576.txt * Mann: working towards a common goal
1189722851.txt * Jones: “try and change the Received date!”
0924532891.txt * Mann vs. CRU
0847838200.txt * Briffa & Yamal 1996: “too much growth in recent years makes it difficult to derive a valid age/growth curve”
0926026654.txt * Jones: MBH dodgy ground
1225026120.txt * CRU’s truncated temperature curve
1059664704.txt * Mann: dirty laundry
1062189235.txt * Osborn: concerns with MBH uncertainty
0926947295.txt * IPCC scenarios not supposed to be realistic
0938018124.txt * Mann: “something else” causing discrepancies
0939154709.txt * Osborn: we usually stop the series in 1960
0933255789.txt * WWF report: beef up if possible
0998926751.txt * “Carefully constructed” model scenarios to get “distinguishable results”
0968705882.txt * CLA: “IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science but production of results”
1075403821.txt * Jones: Daly death “cheering news”
1029966978.txt * Briffa – last decades exceptional, or not?
1092167224.txt * Mann: “not necessarily wrong, but it makes a small difference” (factor 1.29)
1188557698.txt * Wigley: “Keenan has a valid point”
1118949061.txt * we’d like to do some experiments with different proxy combinations
1120593115.txt * I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4

This IS going VIRAL. They can’t hide their lies anymore.

The original package can be Googled by searching for: hadley cru foi2009.zip

Be advised that the correct file is 61.9 MB and its MD5
checksum is da2e1d6c453e0643e05e90c681eb1df4

bttt

Check out the documents folder, the .txt files there are also some emails including some interesting ones between them and Greenpeace.

You'll just LOVE this excerpts:

From Michael E. Mann:

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

From Nick McKay:

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

From Tom Wigley:

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

From Phil Jones:

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.

From Kevin Trenberth:

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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

From Michael Mann:

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

From Phil Jones:

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

From Michael E. Mann:

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

From Phil Jones:

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

” some people need to be put in JAIL. This is big. This is very big.” post 42

” One of the messages talks about withholding data demanded under Freedom of Information, which is akin to destroying documents under subpoena.

In other words, direct evidence of a crime. “ post 45

Handled properly, I guess some sort of independent process, you could simply start with a couple of folks that this incriminates...put a little pressure on till they began to sing, and soon a chorus will follow.

ICEBERG!!!! RIGHT AHEAD!!!!