Topic: Climate Change - The Unreported Story?

[GillE]

In these days of 24 hour news stations broadcasting reports of stolen sensitive data (such as today's T-Mobile story), I find it surprising that there have been no reports of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit computer security breach.  It has received some low level newspaper coverage and it has been commented on by James Delingpolebut it still isn't being regarded as a headline story.  Perhaps journalists are still investigating it.

Apparently, a large amount of email correspondence between leading climate change scientists has been stolen, revealing that the data presented to support the notion of man-made climate change has been deliberately manipulated.  If this story proves to be true, it will make Watergate look like neighbourhood tittle-tattle.

[Simon]

Oops!   

[sam]

all of this data is manipulated - that's the process of science... its just depends what they mean by manipulated... for example I "smooth" a lot of my data to remove global trends and thus allows us to get a result - otherwise it would just be noise... 

[sam]

now I'm a bit up-to-speed - what with observing all night I've only just got to check the web feeds from yesterday, looks like this story has recieved quite a bit of coverage on the web though:

Leading British climate centre hacked - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=leading-british-climate-centre

and a must read article on RealClimate - The CRU hack  - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

I just feel that these are people's emails and its private correspondence and totally irresponsible for people to publish them. People write crap in emails and well this is just a bit pointless.

[Rik]

People write crap in emails and well this is just a bit pointless.

People also write crap in reports, Sam.

[Simon]

And it's compulsory in newspapers.

[GillE]

Some of us have been wondering for years why the climate change scientists won't publish data which will end the claims of sceptics once and for all.  I accept what you're saying, Sam, but this looks very bad for the IPCC and its ancillary bodies.

[sam]

People also write crap in reports, Sam.

true, but normally its cause they are misguided etc - the referring processes however is designed to avoid most crap getting through

[sam]

Some of us have been wondering for years why the climate change scientists won't publish data which will end the claims of sceptics once and for all.  I accept what you're saying, Sam, but this looks very bad for the IPCC and its ancillary bodies.

indeed.

[sam]

Some further interest post event discussion:

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling - http://www.physorg.com/news178199129.html

Very interesting stuff:

The CRU hack: Context - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

[GillE]

Interesting comments, Sam .  However, you would think the scientists concerned would be prepared to end the speculation by simply publishing their raw data.

[davy51]

Well I for one believe that as long as we pay our taxes to support these people in university's and government to do all this investigating it should all be public

after all we pay for it so why shouldn't we be able to judge for ourselves

Why keep it secrete if they are not trying to hide something from us

There is just to much money involved for it to be 100% honest

[Simon]

There's probably a lot of truth in that, Dave.

[sam]

Well I for one believe that as long as we pay our taxes to support these people in university's and government to do all this investigating it should all be public

yeah tis kinda odd as all data in astronomy (well data taken by instruments built with public money) has a short proprietary time (give the actual investigators time to publish their results) and then it becomes all free to anyone to access (of course its not entirely accessible but its there). With the age of the virtual observatory it will soon be possible for anyone to do astronomical research... well I guess it is now. That's how science should be, nice and transparent.

[davy51]

I didnt mean specifically astronomy sam they are probably the most open about it all

With the exception of any of you finding little green men then I'm sure we wont hear about it soon lol

It's the ones doing genetic reschearch and the like it affects our lives but mos`t of the paper work is not published for us to decide or its published one sided toagree with the personal preferences of the rescearcher themselves