Climate Research Unit hakkeroitu-satoja tiedostoja levitetty

[MarkoL]

Kaikki jo varmaan huomanneet: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/b ... -released/
Jos sisältö pitää paikkaansa, tämä on todella ISO juttu. Mielipiteitä?

[MarkoL]

Tiedostot ja sähköpostit löytyvät zipattuna torrenteista. Tiedostot näyttävät pelottavan aidoilta ja taitavat paljastaa ilmastonmuutos huijauksen olevan täyttä totta... Yli 1000 sähköpostiä myös.

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

[tuhelin]

Dr. Roy Spencer: "Oh…and don’t believe everything you read on the internet."

Kööpenhaminan kokous lähestyy...

[Jackass]

http://www.verkkouutiset.fi/index.php?o ... t&Itemid=6

Hakkeri paljasti ilmastohuijauksen

Edit: Kuvittelenko vai onko climateaudit aika tukossa?

[Tsero]

The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.

Katkelma yhdestä sähköpostista. Kuka on tuo hullu suomalainen, johon viitataan?

[Tero]

The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see it.

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.

Katkelma yhdestä sähköpostista. Kuka on tuo hullu suomalainen, johon viitataan?

Olisiko Timo Hämeranta? Ilmeisesti Climate Sceptics -foorumin moderaattori, joka on mukana muutamassa vuotaneessa sähköpostikeskustelussa.

En ole kuullutkaan koko miehestä. Vaikuttaa asiantuntevalta hepulta.

[Tsero]

Kiitos Tero.

[hyk]

Piratebayn linkki tiedostoon: http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

[Neovo]

Jos tämä on totta, niin uusi aika on alkanut.

[pasi]

Uusi Suomi: Hakkeri räjäytti ilmastonmuutossodan: Totta vai ei?

[Neovo]

Hesari: http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Ilm ... 71?ref=rss

[Tero]

Guardianilla on oma spinni aiheesta:

"The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ked-emails

Samoin BBC keskittyy vain huolehtimaan tietomurrosta itsestään ja unohtaa täysin mitä tietomurron seurauksena on löydetty:

"Graham Cluley, a computer security expert, suggested that December's key climate summit in Copenhagen, which has made headlines around the world, could have increased the university's profile as a possible target among hackers. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

Hesari ottaa myös varovaisen lähestymistavan:

"Verkon keskustelupalstoilla hakkerien levittämistä viesteistä on etsitty merkkejä siitä, ovatko tutkijat ohjanneet tietoisesti tutkimustuloksia tiettyyn suuntaan. BBC:n haastatteleman tietoturva-asiantuntijan mukaan kyse voi kuitenkin olla informaatiosodan kiihtymisestä Kööpenhaminan suuren ilmastokokouksen alla. "

http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/Ilm ... 5250910171

Median huomio on (mahdollisesti hyvinkin tarkoituksenmukaisesti) toissijaisissa seikoissa.

[pexis]

Pikainen vilkaisu dataan näyttäisi, että pahimmatkin epäilyt alarmistien korruptoitumisesta näyttäisi olevan totta.
Vai mitä mieltä seuraavista palasista:

Muiden mustamaalaaminen:
From: Michael Mann <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
To: Stephen H Schneider <shs@stanford.edu>
extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd,since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office.
We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?
mike

Joka oli kommentti tähän artikkeliin:
What happened to global warming?
By Paul Hudson
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Toinen tapaus:
I'm sure that Pat Michaels does not have the primary source data used in his Ph.D. thesis. Perhaps one of us should request the datasets used in Michaels' Ph.D. work, and then ask the University of Wisconsin to withdraw Michaels' Ph.D. if he fails to produce every dataset and computer program used in the course of his thesis research.


Rahoituksen turvaaminen:

At 00:13 06/10/2009, Andrew Manning wrote:
Hi Phil,
is this another witch hunt (like Mann et al.)? How should I respond to the below? (I'm in the process of trying to persuade Siemens Corp. (a company with half a million employees in 190 countries!) to donate me a little cash to do some CO2 measurments here in the UK - looking promising, so the last thing I need is news articles calling into question (again) observed temperature increases - I thought we'd moved the debate beyond this, but seems that these sceptics are real die-hards!!).
Kind regards,
Andrew


Joka oli vastauksena tähän:

From: Martin Lutyens <martinlutyens@googlemail.com>
To: Andrew Manning <a.manning@uea.ac.uk>
Dear Andrew,
I just came across an article in The Week, called "The case of the vanishing data". It writes in a rather wry and sceptical way about your UEA colleagues Phil Jones and Tom Wigley , saying that only their "homogenised" or "adjusted" historical data is available, and the original, raw data has gone missing. Apparently some other environmental gurus now want to look at the original data and were "fobbed off". According to the article, the adjusted data forms the basis for much of the climate change debate and , because others now want to look at the source data, it is "at the centre of an academic spat that could have major implications for the climate change debate". The author of the original article is Patrick Michaels in The National Review, who may just be stirring it. The article concludes "In short, the data invoked to verify the most significant forecasts about the world's future, have simply vanished." Could you comment on this please, as someone (eg Siemens Corp.) may pick this up and I think we should all be forearmed by knowing what really happened and what to say if asked.
Many thanks, Martin


USKOMATONTA!!!!!!

[Neovo]

YLE ei ota myöskään kantaa itse viestien sisältöön: http://yle.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/2009/11/ ... 74060.html

[funkymama]

Atte Korhola kommentoi Iltasanomissa: "Viestit ovat aitoja"

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/uutiset/ulkom ... id=1776127

Eija-Riitta blogissaan: "Tämä ei ole hyvä päivä ilmastotieteelle. Meiltä poliitikoilta menee pohja pois, jos tiedemiehet joiden tutkimuksiin olemme nojanneet, osoittautuvat poliitikoiksi."

http://eijariitta.blogit.uusisuomi.fi/


Köpiksen kokous olisi peruttava välittömästi ja siirrettävä hamaan tulevaisuuteen, kunnes ilmastoasiat on perinpohjaisesti selvitetty.