Cru hack responsible

It would be nice to get comments from the authors for lines like this. You guys are great. You have to respond or risk losing all credibility. Thanks — just received the CRU Hack notice from some global warming doubting colleagues. While it was obvious to me the quotes were taken out of context and not relevant not to mention illegal having a quick response from someone who was closer to the facts was a timely help.

Good post; many thanks for reacting so quickly. I think the enthusiasm with which many of the AGW-sceptics have jumped on this hack tells us more about the sceptics than the scientists. James Delingpole of the Telegraph, for example, is jumping up and down claiming that this may well be the greatest scandal of modern science.

He is quickly going to run out of superlatives. I feel sick with fear at our chances averting dangerous climate change. That depends on whether or not people were trying to re-order the global economy on the basis of those butterfly studies. I agree. I always assume that anything I write and send in an email, or post on an Internet site can be exposed to the widest public scrutiny and operate on that basis.

For fellow professionals to do otherwise is naieve. Thank you for this clarification. We have posted your response in conjunction with the others stories emerging. RC, thank you for this even-handed explanation. It makes sense that any inter-office dialogue is not meant for public consumption and is therefor more candid than not.

In the few brief texts I have read on different news sites there is I think a reserve in language and candidness that is admirable. RC and CRU will have to answer to the most disturbing of issues.

Most likely the one most damaging is any discussion of ways to avoid releasing data and hiding behind IP agreements. FOI disclosures are a primary and valuable component of the democratic process and any attempts to subvert that process is cause for great concern.

Again, thank you for a measured and calm response to what I am sure is a distressing disclosure of personal communications within the delegated climate community. I look forward to hearing from your members further. All the emails seem to show is that scientists are human and get emotional about the matters that concern them — great revelation, not.

However, we will be hearing a lot about this in the Denialosphere for a long while yet, even though the substance, as usual, is thin. Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers Phil Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit. I would think the cavalier attitude shows more about the insulation of the subjects from the people they joyfully cash checks from. Much less just have independent non-involved entities verify their work. So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.

This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these. When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1. Removing ENSO does not affect this. Let me go further. The other interesting thing is as Foukal et al. A reduced SST blip in the s makes the warming larger than the SH which it currently is not — but not really enough.

So … why was the SH so cold around ? Another SST problem? The reworked raw data with corrections for this has not yet been released, and so people want to have a heuristic that might help see what impact they will have on any analysis that relied on the original uncorrected data. I would be happy to have all my e-mail correspondence directly related to my work published in the public domain.

This is low and disgusting— time to call the police and Scotland Yard. What I want to know is how do we know for sure that a these are the actual emails, and b that the body text has not been fiddled with? If only we could see what McIntyre and Watts et al. Now that would be entertaining. Taking the high road is definitely the best option here, so I am not advocating that someone hack into their systems— tat would be wrong on so any levels.

What surprises me is that CA and WUWT and AirVent have all released these supposed emails before taking the trouble to vet them and determining that they have not been tampered with. By publishing material obtained illegally are they now now partners in the crime? Surely they must be. What a sad state of affairs. Am I correct in understanding that they also tried to hack into the RC server?

What of the emails talking about keeping the skeptics assuming they are talking about climate scientists who are skeptical about particular numbers or methods out of certain reports or venues?

Unfortunately, the denizens at WUWT have such a voracious appetite for red flags, that any bit of ambiguity was pounced on as proof of wrong-doing. A neutral reader will see the emails for what they are. I trust honest doubters will find that a little odious. The email which describe the peer review process, leaning on editors, etc.

I have reviewed papers. What I see in those emails is very disappointing. But the scandal was that it was ever published. Six editors of the journal resigned in protest at the publication , not because of pressure. Oh darn…. For business people it is a fundamental rule to assume that any email you write may someday be read in open court.

When someone bothered me about this on Twitter, I came to this blog first. Hardly news. Imagine the science held up to the light of day of a court proceeding. Imagine these people being proven to have lied. Imagine a huge settlement of jail time. Of course, you could get a clueless judge who announces Gore was wrong justa little and then the deniers would go around saying he lied about everything….

Still, there are some air-tight examples of slanderous, libelous and defamatory stuff out there…. Nice try but to anyone perusing these emails the clear impression is of scientists trying to present their work in a way most favorable to their agenda rather than in a way most conducive to a fair interpretation of their data. Read the emails dealing with the IPCC report editing process. Lots of discussions and disagreements , but that end up in compromise language that the authors and reviewers mostly agree on.

Will it be all? We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it. Gore out of this as he has demonstrated over and over that his actual knowledge of climate science is limitted at best. This is not about him, but about the methodoly of stats etc, and the credibility of science as a whole.

Display a Gravatar image next to my comments. Please contact the developer of this form processor to improve this message. Even though the server responded OK, it is possible the submission was not processed. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. This article is more than 9 years old. Inevitably there was much speculation as to who might have been responsible for the hack. What do you think?