Hackers skewed climate-change emails: scientists

[Praxius]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/26/climate-change-hack.html

Climate change scientists are on the defensive after hackers broke into a server of a British climate research centre over the weekend and posted hundreds of private emails that appear to show scientists have overstated the threat of man-made global warming.

On Saturday, the University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research centre on climate change.

The hackers reportedly stole more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists, and posted about 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents on websites.

Skeptics of climate science have seized on the documents — at least some of which have been confirmed as authentic — as evidence that some scientists have overstated the case for global warming and have attempted to manipulate data.

But researchers working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have dismissed the posting of documents as an attempt to derail discussions on dealing with global warming in advance of an upcoming global summit in Copenhagen.

Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said the hackers were selective in choosing documents they believed could be used to make the scientists look bad.......

1000 emails and 3000 documents nabbed in a short period of time..... and this guy is suggesting that they were "Selective?"

case in point:

In one leaked email, the East Anglia research centre's director Phil Jones wrote that he had just completed a "trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961" in order to "hide the decline," according to a leaked email, which the author confirmed was genuine.

You know, I've been following the whole "Global Warming" thing since I was 8 years old when all the Global Warming stuff started to become mainstream long before Gore hopped on board..... and one thing I always found funny about the whole thing is how one group of scientists outright claim that they know exactly what's going on, that they are right and anybody else who doesn't follow suit are wrong..... they act like their claims of global warming are legit and are without fault and anybody who doesn't agree want to big oil companies to profit or something else completely baseless and stupid.

Growing up I remember documentaries and shows talking about how the ice caps were melting, that acid rain would be all that we get in the future in regards to water, that by 1996 New York and many coastal areas would be under several metres of ocean (which meant where I lived I'd be under water too) and all that.

The 90's came along and nothing happened to what they were predicting, then come the turn of 2000 what happens? They start the exact same crap about ice caps melting, about how coastal areas will be under several metres, etc. etc. etc..... fool me once.

The difference this time around is that instead of it all hitting us in less then 10 years, they bumped it up to like 50-100 years, so that when 50-100 years goes by and nothing happens, everybody who made these claims and profited from it all will be long dead or most would no longer care to hold them accountable.

Then just this last year all the Global Warmongers claim that we're now entering a Global Cooling of all things, which they then claim is just going to put Global Warming on hold for a while..... kinda neat how they can get every situation to work in their point of view huh?

Let's also not forget about ice core samples and data showing that the earth has a typical cycle of getting hotter and colder and when you look at a chart of the last hundred years:

It sure does look like Global Warming... yet if people take off their blinders and look at the larger picture via Ice Core Data:

^ Looks like this has been going on for a long time.... far longer then we've used fossil fuels that's for sure..... and you may also notice that it's been much hotter in the past then what we're seeing today.

And now we have a hacker attack that exposes a crap load of documents proving and/or raising many questions on the legitimacy of everything we're all told to accept as the truth or else we're evil.

I know from first hand that the last three winters I went through, they have been getting colder and colder, sooner and sooner.... much more powerful then most of the winters I remember in the 90's..... oh wait.... that's Global Cooling, I forgot .

You know there wouldn't be so much of a issue over all of this if these so-called scientists acted like scientists and allowed their information to be properly challenged, and no.... the UN pow wow wasn't anything valid as there were still a number of scientists who were there that didn't agree with the final conclusions, whom had some very valid points, but were shut out and ignored because "There wasn't enough time, we need to act now, blah blah blah."

You know, I wouldn't be so hard on the concept of Global Warming if it wasn't for the time before all of this when they lied to me and told us all these horrible things that never happened, only to try and pull the exact same stunt 20 years later as if everybody would have forgotten.

Just remember that all of this global warming crap is based on multiple computer simulations which they pick and choose which ones best suit their arguments..... honestly, we humans can't predict next weeks weather with any great accuracy, why the heck do people believe these fools can predict what's going to happen in 50-100 years?

The simple answer is that they can't, because if they could, they would have predicted this wonderful "Global Cooling" in their previous calculations.... .oh but nobody heard anything about that until the last couple of winters that broke many records in snow fall and low temps...... then suddenly Global Cooling is a part of their calculations..... how wonderfully covenant for them.

I'll admit there is something going on.... but it's not global warming, it's called climate change.... something that has been a part of the Earth long before we even came into existence and will be something that will continue long after we're gone. The planet is constantly changing, with or without our involvement, there are places on the planet that used to be rain forest which are now desert, and deserts which are now forests and rich with life. There are animals that existed long before us that are now gone, more will go in due time, and yet new ones will continually come in and replace their positions in the food chain. You can not expect to suddenly halt the progression of this earth's development to one paticular stage that we're comfortable with and expect everything to be just fine..... doing so isn't any better then us polluting all over the place without regard.

I'd just like to see these religious-like fanatical scientists show a pair and allow their work to be openly debated and questioned..... if their beliefs in global warming are valid and true, then they will hold up to being challenged.... if not, then we know we're being BS'd.

Added:

I'm all for reducing how much we pollute this planet, but not out of the sake of the planet but the well being of ourselves, both individually and culturally as a collective species. Our pollution, our dependance on petroleum based products that are loaded with synthetic female hormones that are screwing around with the male gene in human beings, to our over indulgence in luxuries and various over packaged products.... all of it needs to be greatly reduced..... but tell it to the masses straight and true.... don't resort to fearmongering, propaganda and exaggerations.... approach this realistically and you won't see so much resistence.

 

[CuttingEdge100]

I don't think it's right that they manipulated this data on so many levels

 

[Alpha_Geek]

In light of the CBC story, it's obvious that the hackers time travelled to raise the global temperature average during three pre-industrial time periods. Somone call the USS relativity!

 

[PlixTixiplik]

I really don't know where people are getting the idea that scientists "manipulated data" or are hiding data, because that's not supported at all by the e-mails. The denial propaganda is extremely well-funded but if you do even a few minutes of your own research online you can easily see through their lies. Michael Mann's new paper in this week's Science has 42 pages of supplementary data outlining exactly how all of the analyses were done, as do all papers.

Also, the OP is apparently confused about the difference between weather in his neck of the woods and global climate, which doesn't exactly lend credibility to the rambling screed. Neither does the confusion of acid rain with global warming, when the two have little to do with each other. 2009 is likely to be the 5th warmest year on record, right in line with predictions made last year. I would also be interested in seeing links to back up many of the statements you made. Specifically predictions like several meters of sea level rise by 1996! Also, no one has called for global cooling, but have rightly pointed out that not every year is going to be a record high temperature.

Interesting fact: cap and trade was very successful at reducing acid rain and I don't recall any economic collapse due to it. Of course, the denial crowd predicted (AKA lied) that it would cost consumers $5.5 billion per year. What actually happened was that energy prices actually dropped! Perhaps the predictions of skyrocketing energy prices due to carbon cap and trade are simply more manufactured doubt by the denial crowd...

 

[Bad Bishop]

Interesting fact: cap and trade was very successful at reducing acid rain and I don't recall any economic collapse due to it. Of course, the denial crowd predicted (AKA lied) that it would cost consumers $5.5 billion per year.

I think you're confusing "cap and trade" with regulations for industrial emissions. The cap & trade bill that the Democrats want to pass in Congress will be a huge energy tax and a gigantic job-killing burden on the economy.

What actually happened was that energy prices actually dropped! Perhaps the predictions of skyrocketing energy prices due to carbon cap and trade are simply more manufactured doubt by the denial crowd...

And perhaps the predictions are justified. I would recommend the book Green Hell by Steve Milloy to anyone interested in the other side of the argument.

 

[Samurai8472]

Cheney's not going to like this. Project "black climate" was scheduled to start early 2010.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

Interesting fact: cap and trade was very successful at reducing acid rain and I don't recall any economic collapse due to it. Of course, the denial crowd predicted (AKA lied) that it would cost consumers $5.5 billion per year.

I think you're confusing "cap and trade" with regulations for industrial emissions. The cap & trade bill that the Democrats want to pass in Congress will be a huge energy tax and a gigantic job-killing burden on the economy.

What actually happened was that energy prices actually dropped! Perhaps the predictions of skyrocketing energy prices due to carbon cap and trade are simply more manufactured doubt by the denial crowd...

And perhaps the predictions are justified. I would recommend the book Green Hell by Steve Milloy to anyone interested in the other side of the argument.

The EPA's sulfur dioxide reduction plan was based on a market-based allowance trading model.

The Acid Rain Program represents a dramatic departure from traditional command and control regulatory methods that establish specific, inflexible emissions limitations with which all affected sources must comply. Instead, the Acid Rain Program introduces an allowance trading system that harnesses the incentives of the free market to reduce pollution. Under this system, affected utility units are allocated allowances based on their historic fuel consumption and a specific emissions rate. Each allowance permits a unit to emit 1 ton of SO2 during or after a specified year. For each ton of SO2 emitted in a given year, one allowance is retired, that is, it can no longer be used. Allowances may be bought, sold, or banked. Anyone may acquire allowances and participate in the trading system.

As the industry has a vested interest and a demonstrated history of lying to manufacture doubt, I don't have much confidence in their predictions of economic collapse now. Consider that the benefits of cap-and-trade regulation of SO2 outweighed the costs by 40:1, reducing health costs alone by $70 billion per year.

 

[Bad Bishop]

You're still only looking at industrial emissions. Cap & trade, as designed by Congressional Democrats, raises costs on almost everything. It's a whole new level of intrusion into the lives of Americans. New regulations will permit government to take even more money out of our pockets, with no appreciable benefit to global temperatures or the poor polar bears in the Arctic.

Here's one example. Want to sell your house? Under C & T, you can't do it until you bring the entire thing up to the new "green" codes. See this:

http://www.examiner.com/x-13430-Sar...you-meet-the-national-building-code-standards

No, cap & trade isn't just about sulphur in the atmosphere. It's about risking the entire economy by overtaxing oil, coal and natural gas and forcing conversion to wind, solar and biofuels. C & T is one colossally bad idea, and I am hopeful that it will not pass in Congress.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

I was expecting something more dramatic from the emails from all the hype, instead what I read was a few people picking and choosing to make their graphs seem sexier.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

You're still only looking at industrial emissions. Cap & trade, as designed by Congressional Democrats, raises costs on almost everything. It's a whole new level of intrusion into the lives of Americans. New regulations will permit government to take even more money out of our pockets, with no appreciable benefit to global temperatures or the poor polar bears in the Arctic.

Here's one example. Want to sell your house? Under C & T, you can't do it until you bring the entire thing up to the new "green" codes. See this:

http://www.examiner.com/x-13430-Sarpy-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Cap-and-trade-allows-strangers-to-enter-your-home-do-you-meet-the-national-building-code-standards

No, cap & trade isn't just about sulphur in the atmosphere. It's about risking the entire economy by overtaxing oil, coal and natural gas and forcing conversion to wind, solar and biofuels. C & T is one colossally bad idea, and I am hopeful that it will not pass in Congress.

Please don't lie - it really paints you in a bad light. H.R. 2998 clearly exempts existing homes; as with all building codes, it only applies to new construction. The relevant text on pages 314-315 clearly refer to "new and substantially renovated" building space, as is the case with all code. Not helping your credibility.

Sure, this will risk the entire economy just like cap-and-trade of SO2 and NOx made energy costs skyrocket . Fool me twice, shame on me... It's pretty shameful really. Just like people's electricity bills actually decreased after utility companies were subject to SO2 cap-and-trade.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Please don't lie - it really paints you in a bad light. H.R. 2998 clearly exempts existing homes; as with all building codes, it only applies to new construction. The relevant text on pages 314-315 clearly refer to "new and substantially renovated" building space, as is the case with all code. Not helping your credibility.

Why are you talking about H.R. 2998? The final amended bill that passed the House is this past summer was H.R. 2454, and Section 202 still has the retrofit requirements. If you have money for energy-efficiency retrofits then you can sell your house, no problem. If you don't have the money for retrofitting, then you run into a buzzsaw of regulations that force you to have the energy efficiency of the house measured. If you don't earn a high enough energy efficiency rating then you can't sell. And so on.

http://blog.puppetgov.com/2009/11/20/cap-and-trade-a-license-required-for-your-home/

If the author of the above analysis is off-base, please tell us where.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

Please don't lie - it really paints you in a bad light. H.R. 2998 clearly exempts existing homes; as with all building codes, it only applies to new construction. The relevant text on pages 314-315 clearly refer to "new and substantially renovated" building space, as is the case with all code. Not helping your credibility.

Why are you talking about H.R. 2998? The final amended bill that passed the House is this past summer was H.R. 2454, and Section 202 still has the retrofit requirements. If you have money for energy-efficiency retrofits then you can sell your house, no problem. If you don't have the money for retrofitting, then you run into a buzzsaw of regulations that force you to have the energy efficiency of the house measured. If you don't earn a high enough energy efficiency rating then you can't sell. And so on.

http://blog.puppetgov.com/2009/11/20/cap-and-trade-a-license-required-for-your-home/

If the author of the above analysis is off-base, please tell us where.

H.R. 2998 is the amended version of H.R. 2454 in the House now, while the senate discusses the other one. Regardless, nothing in HR 2454 remotely resembles the fear-mongering in the blog posts.

First of all, section 202 is for grants to support energy efficient retrofits. Nowhere in the section does it mention mandatory energy retrofits. However, if you want to apply for a grant to make an energy efficient renovation you have to prove, with energy audits, that it actually achieved the specified energy savings. If you don't want to apply for the grant, you don't have to - even when you are selling your house.

They also mention Section 204, which is a program "to enable and encourage knowledge about building energy performance by owners and occupants and to inform efforts to reduce energy consumption nationwide." The label will be something available when you want to purchase or rent a house and will come along with the giant package of seismic hazard maps, flood hazard maps, and so forth that you get during the escrow process. Nowhere does it say that you have to pay for this and I have no idea where the blog got the idea it was like a car emissions check (actually, it's pretty clear they just made it up to scare people, as they like to do).

It's all in the bill.

You should read this, BadBishop, to see exactly what's going on with the industry-sponsored approach of "manufacturing doubt." You're being played by the oil industry just like the tobacco industry has done since the 50s, just like the asbestos industry did, just like the CFC industry did, and so on.

 

[Bad Bishop]

You're being played by the oil industry just like the tobacco industry has done since the 50s, just like the asbestos industry did, just like the CFC industry did, and so on.

Don't blame the oil industry for scaremongering. We already have Obama on video, asserting in November 2008 that his cap & trade plan would cause energy prices to "skyrocket" (his word). Just Google "OBAMA ENERGY PRICES SKYROCKET" to find it. How do you spin that into good news for Americans?

 

[PlixTixiplik]

You're being played by the oil industry just like the tobacco industry has done since the 50s, just like the asbestos industry did, just like the CFC industry did, and so on.

Don't blame the oil industry for scaremongering. We already have Obama on video, asserting in November 2008 that his cap & trade plan would cause energy prices to "skyrocket" (his word). Just Google "OBAMA ENERGY PRICES SKYROCKET" to find it. How do you spin that into good news for Americans?

Unlike you, I actually listed to the entire quote, where he said that due to increases in efficiency it would actually be a net positive for the economy. And sure enough, cap-and-trade would be positive for the consumer, as the Waxman-Markey bill contains energy efficiency provisions that will save the average household $750 by 2020 and $3900 by 2030.

 

[Bad Bishop]

You're being played by the oil industry just like the tobacco industry has done since the 50s, just like the asbestos industry did, just like the CFC industry did, and so on.

Don't blame the oil industry for scaremongering. We already have Obama on video, asserting in November 2008 that his cap & trade plan would cause energy prices to "skyrocket" (his word). Just Google "OBAMA ENERGY PRICES SKYROCKET" to find it. How do you spin that into good news for Americans?

Unlike you, I actually listed to the entire quote, where he said that due to increases in efficiency it would actually be a net positive for the economy. And sure enough, cap-and-trade would be positive for the consumer, as the Waxman-Markey bill contains energy efficiency provisions that will save the average household $750 by 2020 and $3900 by 2030.

Of course they will claim "net positives" for the economy! Pie in the sky.

Back in 1998, after Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, the Dept. of Energy released an analysis predicting a roughly $400 billion decline in American GDP if Kyoto-style cap & trade were adopted:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1229.cfm

One cannot shake the feeling that these "green" policy initiatives are full of dire, unintended consequences for the economy. My hope is that a few Dems will join the Republicans in the Senate and kill cap & trade once and for all. As an alternative, a sound energy policy would be one that provides for more nuclear plants and expanded oil drilling. We just aren't going to meet our massive domestic energy needs with solar, wind and biofuels.

 

[Gertch]

I can see why people who really bought this hoax on good faith but on the bogus data would be angry. But it's time to find out who knew what and when. This always has been a political issue and not a scientific one.

I sorry we've blown so much money and energy on this. And now we'll end up with tons of mercury in our landfills from lightbulbs. Way to care about the planet.

Certainly settled science now on man contributed global warming.

 

[PlixTixiplik]

Don't blame the oil industry for scaremongering. We already have Obama on video, asserting in November 2008 that his cap & trade plan would cause energy prices to "skyrocket" (his word). Just Google "OBAMA ENERGY PRICES SKYROCKET" to find it. How do you spin that into good news for Americans?

Unlike you, I actually listed to the entire quote, where he said that due to increases in efficiency it would actually be a net positive for the economy. And sure enough, cap-and-trade would be positive for the consumer, as the Waxman-Markey bill contains energy efficiency provisions that will save the average household $750 by 2020 and $3900 by 2030.

Of course they will claim "net positives" for the economy! Pie in the sky.

Back in 1998, after Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, the Dept. of Energy released an analysis predicting a roughly $400 billion decline in American GDP if Kyoto-style cap & trade were adopted:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1229.cfm

One cannot shake the feeling that these "green" policy initiatives are full of dire, unintended consequences for the economy. My hope is that a few Dems will join the Republicans in the Senate and kill cap & trade once and for all. As an alternative, a sound energy policy would be one that provides for more nuclear plants and expanded oil drilling. We just aren't going to meet our massive domestic energy needs with solar, wind and biofuels.

Give me a break.

Of course any positive projections are "pie in the sky" but negative projections are right on the mark - sure. Keeping in mind how all previous negative projections (banning CFCs will increase costs, regulating SO2 will cause electricity prices to increase...) have consistently been wrong!

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Keeping in mind how all previous negative projections (banning CFCs will increase costs, regulating SO2 will cause electricity prices to increase...) have consistently been wrong!

*cough check your bills cough*

 

[Marc]

I was expecting something more dramatic from the emails from all the hype, instead what I read was a few people picking and choosing to make their graphs seem sexier.

Of course - 1000 e-mails isn't actully that many. I've got about 3000 unread messages alone (mailling discussions, music related on average maybe 10 a day) shows how easy e-mail can build up without actually much substance to it.

And again 3000 documents isn't that much given how much data is going around all the time.

Even without "skewing" we don't know if and by how much the stuff has been altered.

 

[Gertch]

Keeping in mind how all previous negative projections (banning CFCs will increase costs, regulating SO2 will cause electricity prices to increase...) have consistently been wrong!

*cough check your bills cough*

I believe it if only Obama said electricity would necessarily cost more under his plan.

Actually the CFC ban did cost us more. Remember having to have your car ac drained and replaced? It was also more expensive to recharge your systems.

Anyone see Ed Begley Jr lose it in an interview? LOL

Even though all this man caused global warming is crap I still feel we need to reduce our fossil fuel use. It is only smart in the long run. I'd like to see nuclear plants be built so we can have a cost effective way to produce electricity while we try to get wind and solar more cost effective.