Climate Research Unit Hacked - Damaging e-mails released

The skeptics never needed any evidence did they?

 

No kidding. "If released" , "could have", "might be"?

How about if those email are so damaging then leak them already and maybe you'll have something worthwhile. Until then I can claim to hack the President's email and speculate about leaking his supposed real birth certificate.

 

Alarming indeed.

 

The ones that were excerpted in that horrible Telegraph article make it look like nothing.

 

Well, that settles it for me - I can finally go back to leaving my lights on at home and burning high-sulfur diesel in an open pit.

Yay, more pollution! Suck on that, Mother Nature!

 

I love the hyperbole. Whether the supporters of AGW like to admit to it or not, they were involved in some serious fear mongering. In some ways, supporters acted like religious nut jobs.

If AGW is not happening, will Al Gore finally be discredited as a fraud? Will he return his Nobel Prize or Academy Award?

Just because I thought the theory of AGW was wrong does not mean I am going to be irresponsible when it comes to the environment.

 

An interesting take by a science journalist.

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the_hacked_climate_science_ema.php

Much is being made by those who really, really believe that there's a global conspiracy among climatologists of the emails and other documents stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. According to such bloggers, thousands of "embarrassing" pieces of correspondence between some of the leading climate researchers in the world now lay bare the scheme to mislead humanity about the nature of climate change.

I downloaded the 62 MB file and took a quick look at a random selection of what are mostly dull little missives bereft of the context required to understand them in any meaningful way. Just as you'd expect from bits and piece of correspondence never intended for public consumption. Next.

One email, however, from Phil Jones, has been singled out by the usual suspects because it appears to suggest someone's trying to pull the wool over our eyes: "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) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." But again, you'd have to be part of the conversation to properly interpret it. Fortunately, the Real Climate gang are, and have been, part of the loop, and they explain it thus:

... And here follows a chunk of technical/contextual explanations

But here's something more interesting in this context:

There are some interesting documents in the hacked file. I may use them to bone up on some background when I have the time. But anyone who publishes them without permission from the authors clearly has a problem with their ethical subroutines.

Yeah, that's an interesting issue: publishing people's correspondance without permission.

 

Who has those damaging leaked Bush/Saddam Hussein & Bush/KimJong Il instant messenger transcripts?

I can't find them on the internets.

Scrubbed? It's a conspiracy I tell you. A C-O-N - uh - spiracy

 

I refuse to let Big Climate win.

 

after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet

I wouldn't take much notice of someone who spells byte with an 'I'

 

are competitive eaters generally climate change deniers?

 

Well,consider the amount of methane released after eating five plates of barbecue in twenty minutes.