Note wiki manipulation below
Note also: I have changed the heading of this post from Climate-Gate: Hacked emails set blogosphere on fire (my early and mistaken impression of the story) to Climate- Gate Whistleblower data sets blogosphere on fire, which I believe now to be accurate.
Updates:
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/12/10/climate-gate-is-the-work-of-a-whistle-blower/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/12/07/danish-climate-gate/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/12/07/climategate-wiki-distortion-and-censorship/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/12/07/climate-gate-summary/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/12/06/gordon-brown-calls-climate-skeptics-flat-earthers/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/12/06/climate-gate-media-muffles-scientists-back-tracking-on-warming/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/12/05/climate-voodoo-chief-jones-steps-down/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/12/03/freakonomics-says-funding-drives-climate-models/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/12/03/un-funds-missing-billion-plus-in-climate-change-donations/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/12/02/monbiot-suggest-jones-%C2%A8guilty-as-charged-should-go/
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2009/11/30/pollution-not-global-warming-is-biggest-environmental-threat/
In recent news, hackers apparently got into the prestigious Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. They found that supposedly scientific researchers were plotting to shut out dissenting editors from peer-reviewed journal boards, cook evidence, and manipulate the submission of papers, according to Climate Depot blog. The evidence runs to more than 1000 emails and 3000 documents
Correction: The evidence was culled from a trove of more than 1000 emails and 3000 documents.
The scientists include some of the best-known proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and their language is decidedly political. They nurse fantasies of beating up opponents, warn of colleagues who might be “unpredictable,” suggest deleting emails demanded by FOIA requests, and even want to cancel the decades-old dissertation of a global warming skeptic on the basis of a minor mistake. From the emails, it’s clear these are true believers, zealots, with a distinctly socialist mindset. Here’s a good round up of the details. Climateaudit.org has a detailed analysis of the most notable (so far) manipulation of data – the famous “hockey stick” graph apparently showing rising temperatures.
Now, I’m all for skepticism about climate change (AGW). But I’m also a strong advocate of privacy. This is a violation of the privacy of the researchers.
If hacking the email of political figures (Governor Sanford, or Sarah Palin) is wrong, if government monitoring of personal emails and telephone calls, or bending of banking privacy laws is wrong, so is hacking the emails of research scientists, even if what they’re doing is wrong. So, I’m not linking the emails.
Here’s Ms. Palin’s response to her hacking experience:
“I was horrified to realize that millions of people could read my personal messages, including the thoughts of a friend who had written of her heartbreak over her pending divorce,” Palin writes, adding: “What kind of responsible press outfit would broadcast stolen private correspondence?'”
Ny Comment
[Correction: I should note that there’s a big moral difference between hacking personal information irrelevant, or marginally relevant, to public policy, and hacking emails that are crucial – as these are – to understanding how policy is being reached.
Morally, the two are quite different…. so perhaps I shouldn’t have brought in the personal attacks on Palin and Sanford as a comparison. Still, whose property those mails are remains an issue. More below on that…]
You don’t really need to play “gotcha” to come to the right conclusions about things. Good analysis, according to studies of intelligence, beats “spy-versus-spy,” or James Bond-type games. Journalists can use public information alone to come to the right conclusion.
Should “Global warming” (AGW) skeptics of a libertarian disposition be celebrating a triumph for libertarianism in one area (economic and intellectual free markets) that sets back libertarianism in another area (privacy rights)?
I know some libertarians don’t even believe that there is a right to privacy. However, according to the Constitution, rights “not enumerated” are reserved to the people. Privacy, as I see it, is a right that “emanates” (yes, that controversial word from the Roe versus Wade debate) from our ownership of our bodies and our property.
There’s a lot of scare-mongering going on now to get us from where we are to world government.
“Global warming” has been enlisted in that effort. That’s clear enough if you study the people and institutions promoting it. I’m not sure there’s any need to stoop to data theft to know that.
As to the other pertinent point:
Can CRU be treated as a government entity?
A reader comments that the hacking was justified in this case, because government employees don’t deserve any privacy. My response (in the comment section) can be summarised as follows:
1. The University of East Anglia is not directly under the British government (so far as I know)
2. Even if it were, it would be upto a government review panel or some form of legitimate investigation to keep track of what’s going on. Vigilante hacking isn’t the best way.
Still, when I went back to check whether the CRU was government-run, I found that indeed, it receives an overwhelming proportion of its funding from government agencies.
Admittedly, that makes it more justifiable to monitor its work
Here is an incomplete list of the funders:
“The European Commission of the European Union (EU) provides the largest fraction of our research income under the Environment and Climate Change Programme. Since the mid-1990s, CRU has co-ordinated 9 EU research projects and been a partner on 16 others within the 4th, 5th and 6th Framework Programmes. Although EU funding is very important, we also endeavour to maintain the diverse pattern of funding reflected by the research described in this “history of CRU” and in the list of Acknowledgements below….”
and
“British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).”
Lila, any scum bag making their living off tax payer grants should not have ANY privacy regarding emails or anything else that WE pay for.
If you work for any large corporation you emails is theirs!
AGAIN, we have the so called “scientists” creating data and information so they can create a crisis, get more money, become famous. Cancer, AIDS, H1Ni1, etc etc etc.
Now if Mr Scientist can no longer be trusted with tax money, we can firmly believe that NO person who receives tax payer welfare for any reason can be trusted.
Sherwood Smith
Sherwood –
I understand where you’re coming from.
It’s true that if you work for a corporation, your emails are theirs.
But that’s only if you’re using the corporation’s computers and its time. And that’s usually laid out in the company handbook to read and sign before you go to work there.
Now, point one, is this University of East Anglia research unit a government owned entity? I doubt it.
And point two, even if it was, it would then be within the government’s right to monitor its emails, but it wouldn’t be within the rights of random people to do it.
You can argue – from a libertarian perspective – that “we the people” are the masters of government, but, point three, that is incorrect, even as rhetoric, in a republican form of government where we delegate certain powers to the government – which is why vigilantism can land you in prison.
Now, something being illegal is not the same as it’s being immoral…there may not be a terrible immorality involved in this case, as in personal attacks, where what’s hacked is irrelevant to the debate. This evidence is surely very relevant. And I’m sympathetic to the desire to find evidence of global warming manipulation.
I’m just not convinced that hacking is the right way to go.
There’s enough evidence out there without that.
It would have been different if someone who was part of those conversation had decided to blow the whistle. That’s voluntary.
There’s something coercive about this kind of thing.
When faced with a legitimate request under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act (which applies to them), these public servants preferred to delete their emails with one another about the crucially important IPCC report–the main basis for the purported “consensus” in favor of anthropogenic global warming–rather than allow them to be revealed.
They also repeatedly declined requests for data used to form their scientific conclusions.
The so-called “government” and the controllers of that “government” (the people who are also pushing this climate change nonsense on us) have no qualms about spying on you. They make no efforts to conceal their spying either.
Every e-mail you send is permanently stored in the NSA database. Your activity on the internet is monitored and recorded. Every phone number you call is stored in a database. When you travel on a commercial aircraft, when you stay in a hotel or motel, a record is made and kept of your movements. When you use your credit or debit card, a record is made of that. Every thing you do is recorded and made part of your personal pre-criminal dosier, to be used against you when it serves their purposes.
To them, you are the enemy. WE are the enemy.
You have no privacy rights.
Why should they?
OK..
I don’t argue with any of that. It’s absolutely true.
But strictly speaking, these researchers weren’t the “government”…
As I said, I’m sympathetic but I think in the long run such tactics backfire.
You don’t need to hack emails to figure out that academic research is hugely skewed by funding priorities, clannishness and manipulation..and turf battles.
What will happen (has already happened) is that the media will spin the emails into “nothing here to see..move along” – that’s already happening.
There will be investigations..and the final conclusion will be that the scientists made “bad choices” and could have spoken more cautiously but nothing really bad happened..the message is still good, even if the messenger is flawed.
So it won’t change anyone’s mind in power..it will influence the public..which is good.
On the other hand, it will open the gate to more hacking..and this time the targets will be climate skeptics..or other anti-establishment critics..
Although, maybe they’re targets anyway.
I don’t know. I withdraw some of my blog post…It may be that we in a war now and guerrilla tactics such as these are justified..but..
I’m always wary of ends justify the means arguments..
Perhaps I’m wrong on this one
There is such a thing as credible evidence and qualified research on the part of laypeople. Truth is truth even if it comes from a person without academic degrees.
However, such a person is open to truth wherever it may be. This is really what academic study is about. Under the “scientific method,” the research has an hypothesis, does the research, and either proves or disproves the hypothesis. The hunch, or opinion, may or may not be correct.
Research must be based on something more than mere opinion.
Even among real scholars, there is room for revision. This is why peer review is important.
A forum-type round-table is good in this because it holds opinionated people to the test.
What happens so much and what reveals biased reporting is a closed mind and presumption of having all the truth. There is frequently extenuating circumstance to alter absolute independent “facts.”
Why is no one mentioning that these emails were not ‘stolen’ from a secure server but were copies stored on a server open to the public in anticipation of an FOI release?
And they were placed on the russian server only after the BBC and other news organizations refused to even report on it.
Thanks very much for that..
I did do a post suggesting that it might have been material collected in anticipation of an FOIA request.
This is much much better..
I know it went to Russian servers first, which was what made me a bit suspicious, wondering if this was some kind of Russian disinfo….
Send me any links you have
THanks
This wasn’t a hacker.. it was a whistle blower. Whoever leaked this information had to have been on the inside with the vast pieces of information all being bundled up and sent out.
Don’t let the media fool you… this was no hacker. It was a true patriot who knew what was going on was evil and had to let the world know.
All this talk about how the information got out, to me at least, is irrelevant. For a while why can’t we just focus on what was leaked not why, because what was leaked is far more alarming then any novice email hacking.
Yes, I understand that point of view…but hacking is a crime that can´t be spun, whereas what the scientists did, while in my eyes also a crime (trying to delete emails needed for an foia request), is much easier to spin….
My point is, while this delivers a big hit to AGW, I very much doubt that it puts the nail in the coffin.
And long term, I´m not comfortable with the idea that vigilantes on both sides are going to be hacking private records to fish for ammunition.
So, it´s an issue for me..
Maybe I´m wrong.
Maybe, as I said before, we´re in a war and guerilla fighting is ok..
I cant even believe, oh wait , yes I can…. we get lied to and cheated every f-ing day!!!!!!! I’m sick and tired of getting taxed and taxed only to get more bull s-it shoved down my throat!!! ENOUGH!!!!! stop lying to the American public do something that is actually worth a s-it. All this does is dis credit officials even more, so stop crying, if you werent hiding something then it wouldn’t be that big of deal! I’m having stickers of this website made and gonna put them everywhere so other people can see how we get railroaded!!! I hope you liers blow up in an experiment of BULL SH-T
No one in the media is still covering this thing,.
As I said, the real problem is the media
Pingback: » Blog Archive » I Think We Should Take A Mulligan On Climate-gate
Face book hacking and Government supported institution’s e-mail hacking are totally different. Face book is personal and a news organizaton using it has a small or no mind. Where as government monetarily supported projects should be transparent in all aspects.
Hi —
Yes, I made those points in a later post.
But Palin and Sanford had email accounts hacked, not facebook.
and both were in political office and the hackers there were surely looking for political pay dirt, thought they apparently settled for personal stuff in Sanford´s case.
(Even there, the trip to Argentina and the weeklong absence did have a political angle…being funded by the state)
This is my last shot.In the whole scheme of human thought. We speak unfortunately only to those of us with like minds, which limits and does not promote, we are just in a happy club .To presume that when conveying our own opinions and well thought out conclusions that we,in our perfect pristine logic can influence intelligent discourse in others is a lost hope. It cannot be done.We bash our heads against “some mad buggers wall” as pink floyd describes. Can thoughtful people change the world?.It doesnt look like it. Doers make the world,not thinkers, but doers know instinctively who the true thinkers are and they will follow. In the end, they will follow a true leader. Because her/ his ends are trusted (pure to the best of human capacity anyway ).
Anyway, this is the best I came up with. We are at a rotten crossroads. Can someone just stand up?. Brad, enjoyed your passion. I will probably get kicked off. My last stuff didnt make it anyway.
Thanks for posting my ramblings. i thought i would post this and disappear. but, now you have done it!. Well i hope to be up to the ridicule , but more than welcome words like “what the hell are you talking about”. thanks again. Paul
Hi Paul,
I´m not sure I understand..I don´t hold up comments unless they´re personal at
tacks, threats, obscene, or flaming of some kind…
Here I go one more time then i,ll shut up.
I came here in 1977 from Liverpool Uk
I LOVE america and am not a Eurpean American just American and very proud to say that.
IF universal health care were the best thing we could embrace then i would be shouting it off the rooftops, “hey guys, dont fight it, this is a great thing!.” Its not.
It has NOTHING to do with my political bias, only common sense. the only way it somewhat works is due to the fact that (at least when I lived there) was that none of the Doctors had to carry liability insurance. Christian Barnard performed the first heart transplant on Barnie only because of this. Combine no tort reform which will not happen since most of american politicians are lawyers, with this misguided nightmare and you will have, well, the DMV. Ask yourself, have these dudes even the ability to organize a drunken binge in a brewery?. the system is not great and needs reform but by competitive guidelines as in any other busineses, but once again, the reasons for the complacent attitudes of insurance companies is ONLY due to government restrictions which effectively castrate interstate competition. please, read some stuff, educate and arm yourselves against these elitist arrogant asses that will lie to you often enough until you believe it, (paraphrasing Goebbels).Now if you kick me off I deserve it. Thanks!. Paul
not at all..
I´m a libertarian. I think most things should be out of the government´s purview..
thanks for the post..will get back to it later, absorbed in this climate change business now.
The “liberated” data – was lawfully applied for under FOI, and illegally withheld. Therefore the insider who leaked this stuff, was enforcing the law, because the crooked governments, (who are in on the scam) refused to. If you think this is a crime, you are the type of “scientist” that would have happily worked for the Nazi’s because “we were ordered to.” BTW the death camps – were “confidential information” too so I guess we shouldn’t talk about them either???
If nothing else, Climategate has revealed the moral depravity of scientists, their zealot nature and collective faith. Further defence of the indefensible, just makes them look even worse. Not only are they so corrupt as to be now collectively “uncredible” they are too stupid to realise it. Cue the army of green morons – defending the scammers…
Hi Phil…
that´s exactly what changed my mind.
Initially, I was…as always..alarmed at someone hacking something..or so I thought.
But then, when I researched it a bit more, I saw that this was just spin.
It was quite clearly collected by someone knowledgable and rather responsible.
And as usual, “it´s the cover up, stupid!”
The AGW side would have a lot more credibility if they´d forthrightly condemned the scientists and told them to step down instead of all this soviet-style black is white,´´ up is down,
you aint´seeing what you´re seeing Houdini sleight of hand they´ve been giving us.
Mind you, I consider myself an environmentalist and.a conservationist..I think people can make the voluntary choices to live in a reasonable way..but that´s a very subjective notion and my reasonable could be your ridiculous..
Bottom line..weak computer modeling isn´t enough justification for the kind of policies the globalists have in mind.
Sorry I got off subject.
Can anyone help me understand what the motivation or payoff these presumably deceitful scientists are after?. Is it because grants would dry up?, you know ,once you have posited a theory,then grant money is issued relative to the potential importance and so on and so on. If that is the case it begs the question, is this the face of true evil, that would sacrifice so much for a place in what?. History. I honestly do not understand the motivation.Or else I am very naive.
I think I have something here. Let me know your thoughts.
An interesting parallel in my humble opinion can be found in Ayn Rands book Atlas Shrugged. On pages 178 thru 181Dagny Taggart has a conversation with a scientist who is reluctantly supporting a flawed report, a deliberately distorted opinion. Its premise is that the government funded institution cannot suffer failure, since it is the only last bastion of true scientific endeavour. Man is a filthy greedy animal that cannot be trusted to continue research unless the research promotes profit.Therefore deceipt to ensure the continued funding of real science is justifiable for the greater good even if it is corrupt. There is more in there but I am not sure.It just smells the same to me.
Pingback: Climategate: Indian Environment Minister Says IPCC Wrong On Glaciers Melting | LILA RAJIVA: The Mind-Body Politic
Pingback: Wikileaks’ Julian Assange “In Danger” From Pentagon? | LILA RAJIVA: The Mind-Body Politic
Tökéletes kialakítás révén