Hacker Gets the Goods on Global Warming... or something

[Thurnez Isa]

BTW haven't fully read and looked into the second part of your post so have no opinion on it

EDIT: though I will say I have seen graphs of all sorts, some with with the hockey stick, some that are more ambiguous. The best ones tend to be generated from ice core sampling, since ice core sampling tends to go pretty far back and they tend to go down then back up. The questions comes from when they go back up how fast are they going back up?
Thats hard to interpret since they also tend to be very bumpy and hard to interpret.
So questions about fudging graphs tend not to mean much to me since I've seen graphs that are contradictory. I do find it weird that the public tends to see only graphs that confirm what they already believe, but you could say that about almost all 21'st Century issues. Sign of the times.
Also I want to say I'm not in Environmental Earth Sciences, only Earth Science, so what happens on the surface of the earth or in the atmosphere doesn't interest me as much as what what happens beneath the surface. So take that into account.

[Thurnez Isa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=sub

[Cain]

...Twice is coincidence?

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/05/enviro-watergate/

Burglars and hackers have attacked the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, apparently in an attempt to further the "Climategate" intimidation of global warming researchers. The Climategate smear campaign rests on the release of thousands of emails illegally hacked last month from the British Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The National Post reports that the Centre for Climate Modelling, a government institution, is also the victim of repeated criminal attacks: Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.

There are lots of vested interests in seeing the status quo on emissions and regulations maintained.  Am I paranoid for thinking this is part of a more concerted campaign to discredit climate change experts in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference next month?

[LMNO]

No, I don't think you're paranoid.  I certainly see it as pre-meditated.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

...Twice is coincidence?

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/05/enviro-watergate/

Burglars and hackers have attacked the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, apparently in an attempt to further the "Climategate" intimidation of global warming researchers. The Climategate smear campaign rests on the release of thousands of emails illegally hacked last month from the British Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The National Post reports that the Centre for Climate Modelling, a government institution, is also the victim of repeated criminal attacks: Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist and key contributor to the Nobel prize-winning work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says there have been a number of attempted breaches in recent months, including two successful break-ins at his campus office in which a dead computer was stolen and papers were rummaged through.

There are lots of vested interests in seeing the status quo on emissions and regulations maintained.  Am I paranoid for thinking this is part of a more concerted campaign to discredit climate change experts in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference next month?

I think that is entirely possible.

There do appear to be some cranky bits within that pile of stolen data... but it certainly doesn't appear to take out AGW (it does though appear to indicate that even scientists are imperfect... I for one am shocked!).

On the other hand, speaking from my personal experiences... I see a number of possible reasons for this:

1) Coordinated attacks by 'vested interests' in the status quo.
2) Coordinated attacks by hacktivists... because lots of hackers are libertarian and disbelieve AGW, considering it 'junk science'.
3) Copycat hackers aiming to capitalize on Climategate.

[Cain]

All those do seem possible.

I read another interview (somewhere else, I cannot locate it now) with one of the scientists whose office is with the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis though, and I recall him saying the police said the break-in attempts were "professional jobs".

Which is mainly what got me wondering about the concerted campaign angle.  Otherwise, I would have likely considered it a copycat instead.

[LMNO]

once again, the question to ask is, CUI BONO?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

All those do seem possible.

I read another interview (somewhere else, I cannot locate it now) with one of the scientists whose office is with the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis though, and I recall him saying the police said the break-in attempts were "professional jobs".

Which is mainly what got me wondering about the concerted campaign angle.  Otherwise, I would have likely considered it a copycat instead.

I was thinking along the lines of industry/political operatives, but visiting Eric Raymond's site makes me wonder about the second option...

ESR, for those who don't know, is an old 'hacker' in the 'wrote cool code' sense. He became a sort of cult personality in the Open Source movement after the Jargon File/New Hacker Dictionary (my first brush with Eris) and "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" an essay on the Open Source development model as applied to corporate code. He got to preach to lots of company heads and CXO's and made a big push around '00-01'

Anyway, he's very anti-AGW because he thinks its junk science (and it a typical libertarian hacker in his views on government). His blog has a lot of geeks who agree.

Of course, I suppose a group like that would be Useful Idiots for people with a vested interest in the status quo...

[Thurnez Isa]

All those do seem possible.

I read another interview (somewhere else, I cannot locate it now) with one of the scientists whose office is with the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis though, and I recall him saying the police said the break-in attempts were "professional jobs".

Which is mainly what got me wondering about the concerted campaign angle.  Otherwise, I would have likely considered it a copycat instead.

or they're on to the fact it's not the British scientists but us evil Canadian's behind the climate change conspiracy...



substantially if there ever was a Canadian conspiracy it would be one of those conspiracy's that just makes the rest of the world go, "aww that is sooo cute."

[Thurnez Isa]

best thing coming from this is I recently discovered a ton of global warming denialists on youtube. Now Im far from Al Gore but these people are completely unreasonable. Also I found out through comments and watching other videos many of them tend to be anti-vaccine nuts and libertarians. Not all of course just the ones I conversed with. Which goes into what Rat was saying.

[Requia ☣]

ESR pointed out a bit in the stolen code which is also disturbing:

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

That code was never part of the final model.

[Thurnez Isa]

Popular Mechanics did a piece on this. And to be honest I think they were the most fair, and probably the best I read on the leaks. In my opinion on these conspiracy stories they tend to be the best

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html?page=1

[Cain]

Saudi Arabia is using climategate to advance its own position at Copenhagen:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30291.html

Saudi Arabia called for an independent investigation into "climategate" Monday, warning that the scandal over stolen e-mails threatened to undermine the global-warming negotiations beginning here.

"We believe this scandal — or what has been referred to as the 'climategate' scandal — we think this is definitely going to affect the nature of what could be trusted in our deliberations," the Saudi Arabian negotiator said.

Now why would the world's biggest oil producer want to do that?

Edit: it has been alleged that Russia was behind the original hack

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/was-russian-secret-service-behind-leak-of-climatechange-emails-1835502.

The news that a leaked set of emails appeared to show senior climate scientists had manipulated data was shocking enough. Now the story has become more remarkable still.

The computer hack, said a senior member of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, was not an amateur job, but a highly sophisticated, politically motivated operation. And others went further. The guiding hand behind the leaks, the allegation went, was that of the Russian secret services.

The leaked emails, which claimed to provide evidence that the unit's head, Professor Phil Jones, colluded with colleagues to manipulate data and hide "unhelpful" research from critics of climate change science, were originally posted on a server in the Siberian city of Tomsk, at a firm called Tomcity, an internet security business.

The FSB security services, descendants of the KGB, are believed to invest significant resources in hackers, and the Tomsk office has a record of issuing statements congratulating local students on hacks aimed at anti-Russian voices, deeming them "an expression of their position as citizens, and one worthy of respect". The Kremlin has also been accused of running co-ordinated cyber attacks against websites in neighbouring countries such as Estonia, with which the Kremlin has frosty relations, although the allegations were never proved.

"It's very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services," Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, the vice chairman of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, said in Copenhagen at the weekend. "It's a carefully made selection of emails and documents that's not random. This is 13 years of data, and it's not a job of amateurs."

Now why would one of the world's biggest oil producers want to do that?

[Hangshai]

So this is what Ive found.  I have been opening random e-mails and reading them.. Some are boring, talking about grant proposals and stuff, others a little more interesting.  I personally think from what Ive been reading that the climate changes have more to do with the Sun and its activity (sun spots, magnetic field, etc), than anything a measly ole human could do(or a bunch of em).  Anyway, I thought I would copy a more interesting email I found, since the only ones that have been quoted in MSM (if at all, not word one on American media yet.  Thank god(dess?) for the Guardian, at least) have been pretty vague.  I have truncated this message, but the complete one actually explains how this guy fudges the data (the method he uses and a bunch of technical jargon).  Just wanted to add an excerpt I thought was a little more revealing.  Of what Im not sure.  Maybe these guys spent 20 years doing this and just wanted to keep the research money coming.  Maybe they really want to 'save the world', and found the only way they could get people behind them is by altering data and perceptions about the seriousness of it all..  All it seems to be indicative of is the major underlying theme of lies and deceit that seems to envelop every facet of our lives these days.  In case you were wondering I didnt spell check the email, just copied it over.



Malcolm Hughes was here on Friday to see Dave Schimel about precisely the
>issue you raise.  Dave wants to see if he can validate his ecosystem model
>using tree ring data.  Sounds as if you already have the data to do this.
>Can I show your e-mail to Dave?


From: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>
To: Tom Wigley <wigley@meeker.ucar.edu>
Subject: Re:
Date: Tue Nov  4 09:42:07 1997

Tom
  please do. Actually I would be interested to know whether Malcolm mentioned these results to Dave as he was in Krasnoyarsk a few months ago when I showed this stuff....  been reworking the idea of looking in the Schweingruber network data for evidence of increasing  tree growth and hence ,potentially at least, evidence of changing tree(read biomass) uptake of carbon.  The results are dramatic - not to say earth shattering because they demonstrate  major time-dependent changes - but changes that are consistent...  Basically growth is roughly constant (except for relatively small climate variablity forcing) from 1700 to about 1850. It then increases linearly by about up until about 1950 after which time young ( up to 50 year old) basal area explodes but older trees remain constant . The implication is a major increase in carbon uptake before the mid 20th century - temperatue no doubt partly to blame  but much more likely to be nitrate/Co2 . Equally important though is the levelling off of carbon uptake in the later 20th century. This levelling is coincident with the
start of a density decline - we have a paper coming out in Nature documenting the decline . In relative terms (i.e. by comparison with
increasing summer temperatures) the decline is represented in the ring width and basal area data as a levelling off in the long-timescale inrease ( which you only see when you process the data as we have). The density data do not show the increase over and above what you expect from temperature forcing.  I have been agonising for months that these results are not some statistical artifact of the analysis method but we can't see how.  For just two species...we can push the method far enough to get an indication of much longer term growth changes but whether this incorporates a defensible relative waiting on the different components (and what the relative carbon components are) is debatable. We now need to make some horrible simplistic assumptions about absolute carbon in these (relatively small) components of the total biomass carbon pool and imlpications for terrestrial and total carbon fluxes over the last few hundred years - and beyond! Without these implications we will have difficulty convincing Nature that this work is mega important. There are problems with explaining and interpreting these data but they are by far the best produced for assessing large scale carbon-cycle-relevant vegetation changes - at least as regards well-dated continous trends.

[Thurnez Isa]

I wouldn't put much weight in tree rings. Trees tend to grow locally and growth can be affected from simple pollutants in the air, and there's a study, which i could find later today (exam time so Im low on interweb time) which shows that when temperatures get over a certain amount growth in certain trees actually starts to decrease.

I think for paleoclimatology the most reliable data is ice core samples. The poles tend to take the brunt of temperature changes and you could compare north to sout, rather then trying to get thousands of specs of data from different continents, which all have climates and are effected differently from different climate fluctuations.