Breaking: Hackers Infiltrate World's Leading Climate Research Unit (Panic)

The email system of one of the world's leading climate researchers was just reported to be infiltrated by hackers. Protected information and email messages sent from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) began turning up on public websites today. Why the CRU was targeted is still unclear--though there's speculation that with the global climate meeting in Copenhagen nearing, opponents of climate action may be going so far as to be doing illegal reconnaissance.

The CRU is perhaps the leading authority on human-caused climate change--they played a key role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report. Which is perhaps the most respected, well-researched, and authoritative report currently available on climate change.

According to the BBC, "A university spokesman confirmed the [CRU's] email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission." An investigation has begun, and the police have been notified. There's also an internal investigation underway.

As of now, there are only theories as to why the attack was carried out. But many point to the increasing tensions between climate change deniers and scientists in the lead up to COP15 at Copenhagen. The BBC reports that "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." Which is certainly likely--there's no doubt that intensity is rising around the debate:

"There are passionate opinions on both sides of the climate debate and there will be people trying to knock down the other side," Mr Cluley, senior technology consultant for Sophos, told BBC News. "If they feel that they can gather inside information on what the other side is up to, then they may feel that is ammunition for their counterargument."

Plenty of facts remain to emerge before we go spinning our climate change denier conspiracy theories, so stay tuned--things could get interesting.

In other news ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire

Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world’s first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200910267004/editorial/the-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html

The Real Climate Change Catastrophe
Written by TheDailyBell.com
Monday, 26 October 2009

EXCERPTS

In 1988, a handful of the scientists who passionately believed in this theory won authorization from the UN to set up the body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was the year when the scare over global warming really exploded into the headlines, thanks above all to the carefully staged testimony given to a US Senate Committee by Dr James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), also already an advocate for the theory that (CO2) was causing potentially catastrophic warming.

(snip)

One of the more startling features of the IPCC is just how few scientists have been centrally involved in guiding its findings. They have mainly been British and American, led for a long time by Dr. Houghton (knighted in 1991) as chairman of its scientific working group, who in 1990 founded the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for research into climate change. The centre has continued to play a central role in selecting the IPCC’s contributors to this day, and along with the Climate Research Unit run by Professor Philip Jones at the University of East Anglia, controls HadCrut, one of the four official sources of global temperature data (another of the four, GIStemp, is run by the equally committed Dr. Hansen and his British-born right-hand man, Dr. Gavin Schmidt).

http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/merkel-sarkozy-back-danes-minute-climate-diplomacy/article-187508

Merkel, Sarkozy back Danes in last-minute climate diplomacy
Published: Friday 20 November 2009

EXCERPT

Recently, the Danes again insisted that a deal is still doable in Copenhagen. “Our objective is to achieve one agreement with two purposes,” Rasmussen said, the first being to provide political guidance for UN negotiations on the new legal framework, and the second to adopt a binding political agreement that would enter into force immediately and hence provide for immediate action to combat climate change.

In the meantime, scepticism is mounting across the Atlantic. Trapped between international pressure to curb greenhouse gas emissions and a US Senate that is not prepared to act, the White House is coy about President Obama’s plans.

Sources in Washington point out that Obama could go to Copenhagen after having picked up his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on 10 December. “I’m not sure there’s anything you get out of it,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “With nothing to report, inaction and gridlock in the Senate, it seems like a wiser move to stay home,” one US senator told Washington-based online news portal Politico.

According to Politico, the Republicans are eager to depict a do-nothing climate conference as another loss for Obama in Copenhagen. The president has come home empty-handed from Copenhagen before, when he flew to the Danish capital to help his hometown of Chicago lobby for the 2016 Olympic Games.

From: "Michael E. Mann"

To: Caspar Ammann

Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: draft

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:35:34 -0400 Cc: Tim Osborn , Malcolm Hughes , Keith Briffa , rbradley@geo.umass.edu, tcrowley@duke.edu, omichael@princeton.edu, jto@u.arizona.edu, Scott Rutherford , Tom Wigley , p.jones@uea.ac.uk, Kevin Trenberth thanks Caspar,

I agree--its important to emphasize this point, and I'm glad you recognized that we were underplaying it... mike At 10:25 AM 10/14/2003 -0600, Caspar Ammann wrote:

Mike,

looks good to me. It is one of these points where they can persuade journalists that they are 'correct' and it actually got into newspapers and finally to the senate floor this way. The more we are able to explain why the first half of the 20th century warmed up naturally, the more confidence we get on the detection of the anthropogenic signal afterwards. Caspar

Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear All, In response to Caspar's suggestion, which I agree with, I propose rephrasing item "2" as follows: 2) The statement by S03 that the Mann and Jones [2003] reconstruction "clearly shows temperatures in the MWP that are as high as those in the 20th century" is misleading if not false. M03 emphasize that it is the late, and not the early or mid 20th century warmth, that is outside the range of past variability. Mann and Jones emphasize conclusions for the Northern Hemisphere, noting that those for the Southern Hemisphere (and globe) are indeterminate due to a paucity of southern hemisphere data. Consistent with M03, they conclude that, late 20th century Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures are anomalous in a long-term (nearly two millennium) context. Any comments? Thanks, mike

Delivered-To: [1]mem6u@virginia.edu Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:18:37 -0600 From: Caspar Ammann [2] Organization: NCAR User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: "Michael E. Mann" [3] Subject: Re: draft

Hi Mike,

it now looks good to me indeed including the new last paragraph following Tom's wording. The only point I would highlight a little more is in point 2): Maybe it could be stated that the early part of the 20th century is within the natural range whereas the late 20th century, the main point of the AGU position statement and also in M03, is clearly outside. Please also add a second 'n' in my name... Cheers, and thanks for your momentum on this, Caspar Michael E. Mann wrote:

Dear All,

I agree with each of Tom W's suggestions. Adopting them, by the way, brings us down to 738 words. So pending any revised language from Keith/Malcolm in response to Michael O's comment on paragraph 2, I'm putting out a last call for comments, sign-ons, etc... Thanks, mike

At 08:00 AM 10/14/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:

Some minor points .... para. 2 -- should it be 'an' ensuing rather than 'the' ensuing? para. 2 -- I still think 'each' (line 3) is unnecessary para. 4 -- no comma after '(and globe)' re boreholes, does the point about comparing late 20th century with a 'much longer period' 1000 years ago help us? Given that the 1000 years ago data is highly lowpass filtered, if one *did* have a series with a temporal resolution that allowed a legitimate comparison, then the likelihood of a warmer interval 1000 years ago must be higher. In any event, the time scale issue will not be meaningful to most readers. The key point is the data reliability/uncertainty. I would just say something like ... ".... taken into account. For times more than 500 years ago, uncertainties in the borehole reconstructions preclude any useful quantitative comparison." Finally, I would like the last para. retained, but I suggest shorter wording as ... ".... as indicating that SB03 misinterpreted and misrepresented the paleoclimatological literature. The controversy ....". My problem here is twofold. First, they really say nothing directly about 'mainstream scientific opinion' (except that they clearly disagree with it). At issue is not the mainstream opinion, but their interpretation of the literature and their illogical conclusions. Second, they may have misrepresented the results of their work, but we do not address this issue so it comes here as a non sequitur. In fact, just what such 'misrepresentation' consists of, and why it might be judged as 'misrepresentation' is a subtle issue. Hence my revision -- which retains the word 'misrepresentation', but in a different context. Tom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== Michael E. Mann wrote:

Thanks Tim and Malcolm, The latest round of suggestions were extremely helpful. I've accepted them w/ a few minor tweaks (attached). We're at 765 words--I think AGU will let us get away w/ that... So, comments from others? Thanks, mike At 02:11 PM 10/14/2003 +0100, Tim Osborn wrote: SO3 argue that borehole data provide a conflicting view of past temperature histories. To the contrary, the borehole estimates for recent centuries shown in M03 may be consistent with other estimates, provided consideration is given to statistical uncertainties, spatial sampling and possible influences on the ground surface [e.g., snow cover changes--Beltrami and Kellman, 2003]. It is not meaningful to compare the late 20th century with a much longer period 1000 years ago [Bradley et al., 2003], especially given the acknowledged limitations [Pollack et al., 1998] of borehole data.

______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: [4]mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [5]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: [6]mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [7]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology Advanced Study Program 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [8]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: [9]mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [10]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml -- Caspar M. Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate and Global Dynamics Division - Paleoclimatology Advanced Study Program 1850 Table Mesa Drive Boulder, CO 80307-3000 email: [11]ammann@ucar.edu tel: 303-497-1705 fax: 303-497-1348 ______________________________________________________________ Professor Michael E. Mann Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 22903 _______________________________________________________________________ e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 [12]http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml References 1. mailto:mem6u@virginia.edu 2. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu 3. mailto:mann@virginia.edu 4. mailto:mann@virginia.edu 5. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml 6. mailto:mann@virginia.edu 7. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml 8. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu 9. mailto:mann@virginia.edu 10. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml 11. mailto:ammann@ucar.edu 12. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml

EXACTLY! From: "Tatiana M. Dedkova" To: K.Briffa@uea.ac.uk Subject: schijatov Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 09:41:07 +0500 Dear Keith, March 6, 1996 I and Eugene received your E-mail of 04.03.1996. This day I talked over the telephone with Eugene and he asked me to send an answer from both of us. Thank you for the information concerning proposals to the INCO/COPERNICUS. We agree with your strategy used and we hope that this proposal will not be rejected. The results of INTAS-RFBR proposal will be known at the beginning of May. We know that they received many proposals and a competition is high (only 1 in 10 proposals might get money). Of course, you included in as a participant. Fritz is a coordinator from the INTAS countries. This year our laboratory received two small grants (approximately 8,000-10,000 USD per year) from the Russian Foundation of Basic Researches (RFBR) for the next three years: the first one for developing the Yamal supra-long chronology and the second one for developing tree-ring chronologies from living trees growing at the polar timberline in Siberia (together with Vaganov's laboratory). These money are very important for us as they will allow to maintain the staff of our laboratories. I and Valery Mazepa were in Krasnoyarsk during one month and together with E.Vaganov wrote the manuscript of book "Dendroclimatic Studies in the Ural-Siberian Subarctic". The problem now is to find money for its publication. If we find enough money soon (20 million roubles), the book will be published this autumn. We analysed 61 mean ring-width and 6 cell chronologies which we intend to publish in form of tables in the Appendix. We can send to you all raw measurements which were used for developing these chronologies. Of course, we are in need of additional money, especially for collecting wood samples at high latitudes and in remote regions. The cost of field works in these areas is increased many times during the last some years. That is why it is important for us to get money from additional sources, in particular from the ADVANCE and INTAS ones. Also, it is important for us if you can transfer the ADVANCE money on the personal accounts which we gave you earlier and the sum for one occasion transfer (for example, during one day) will not be more than 10,000 USD. Only in this case we can avoid big taxes and use money for our work as much as possible. Please, inform us what kind of documents and financial reports we must represent you and your administration for these money. I and Eugene have a possibility to participate in the Cambridge meeteng in July, but we need extra many and special invitations. If you do not have enough money to invite both of us, Eugene does not insist upon this visit. The best wishes to you and Phil. Yours sincerely Stepan Shiyatov

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.