Interesting Article from Europe on Climate-gate

[twitomy]

Some authors of a chicken-little warning now having second thoughts.

The claim was both simple and terrifying: that temperatures on planet Earth are now ‘likely the highest in at least the past 1,300 years’. As its authors from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) must have expected, it made headlines around the world. Yet some of the scientists who helped to draft it, The Mail on Sunday can reveal, harboured uncomfortable doubts."

Also, Russians admit the hacking computer was on thier turf. Guess they arent really "on-board"...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235395/SPECIAL-INVESTIGATION-Climate-change-emails-row-deepens--Russians-admit-DID-send-them.html#ixzz0Zbh4eRd5

[NJmaverick]

1. Russia is home to a sizable percentage of the world's hackers and spam

[twitomy]

2. Speaking of scammers

I got an email from a friend saying he was stranded in UK..I knew right away it was bogus. I
feigned concern and told him I wired him money to Western Union to help him get home...Teeheeehee, made him make a trip to Western Union for nuthin...when he said the access code I sent was bogus, I tried to get out of him which WU he was tryin to get the supposed funds from as I was hopin to get him set up to be arrested. I think he was then on to me and
I didnt get a reply...

[NJmaverick]

3. I hadn't heard that scam before. Clever

[MH1]

4. Way to mischaracterize

of course that is what the article does so perhaps I shouldn't blame you.

Btw the Russians admit the computer was "on their turf" but are basically claiming it was hacked, too.

The Kremlin’s top climate change official, Alexander Bedritsky, denied the Russian government was involved in breaking into the CRU’s computer system.

‘You can post information on a computer from any other country. It is nonsense to blame Russia,’ he said.

Also this article loses credibility (lots) because it still flogs the idea that "hide the decline" was about temperature data when in fact it was about tree ring data for a period when actual temperature data are available. The discrepancy between tree ring data (used to estimate temperatures) and actual temperature measurements had already been disclosed and discussed in peer-reviewed scientific literature.

[TxRider]

7. It is interesting

They did delete the tree ring data "used to show temperature" when it obviously varied with recorded temps. Leaving one to wonder why it would be very reliable for historic temps if it obviously is not reliable for the last 40 years of temps.

Would seem to me safer to leave out the tree ring data altogether, or show it and explain it, as some of e-mails discuss doing.

[Viking12]

8. Wow, "show it and explain it" what a great idea

Oh wait, they did that.

Several important caveats must be borne in mind when using tree-ring data for palaeoclimate reconstructions. Not least is the intrinsic sampling bias. Tree-ring information is available only in terrestrial regions, so is not available over substantial regions of the globe, and the climate signals contained in tree-ring density or width data reflect a complex biological response to climate forcing. Non-climatic growth trends must be removed from the tree-ring chronology, making it difficult to resolve time-scales longer than the lengths of the constituent chronologies (Briffa, 2000). Furthermore, the biological response to climate forcing may change over time. There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible nonclimatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a). By contrast, Vaganov et al. (1999) have presented evidence that such changes may actually be climatic and result from the effects of increasing winter precipitation on the starting date of the growing season (see Section 2.7.2.2). Carbon dioxide fertilization may also have an influence, particularly on high-elevation drought-sensitive tree species, although attempts have been made to correct for this effect where appropriate (Mann et al., 1999). Thus climate reconstructions based entirely on tree-ring data are susceptible to several sources of contamination or non-stationarity of response. For these reasons, investigators have increasingly found tree-ring data most useful when supplemented by other types of proxy information in “multi-proxy” estimates of past temperature change (Overpeck et al., 1997; Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998; 1999; 2000a; 2000b; Crowley and Lowery, 2000)."

(p. 131)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-02.PDF

[TxRider]

11. So show me in that document

Show me where they showed the decline in the proxy temp reconstruction in the last 40 years in that document. Fig 2.21 certainly doesn't, it's chopped off at 1960.

Or where they stated clearly they had deleted the last 40 years of that proxy and why.

A caveat paragraph about tree rings does neither of those really.

[Nederland]

12. The don't explain it very well

You are basically claiming that saying this:

There is evidence, for example, that high latitude tree-ring density variations have changed in their response to temperature in recent decades, associated with possible nonclimatic factors (Briffa et al., 1998a).

is equivalent to saying "We dropped the last 40 years because we don't think it is accurate as explained by (Briffa et al., 1998a)."

The IPCC wording is vague at best.

[Viking12]

14. Would you like them to hold your hand while they walk you through it?

It's an assessment, not a reproduction. It's pretty clear to anyone interested in paleoclimate. If someone has any further questions, they can look up the cited references.

For pete's sake, even chapter 2 co-author and uber-skeptic John Christy didn't have a problem with it.

[TxRider]

15. No, I'd rather they just show it, and explain it.

Rather than chop the end off the proxy when they present it in the graph.

[Nederland]

19. It's not hand holding

My explanation requires fewer words and is more accurate. How do you explain their choice?

[tinrobot]

5. Russia exports a lot of oil. It's what keeps their economy afloat.

But they have no interest in spreading doubt about global warming -- right before a conference which could seriously affect that oil income.

Nope, wasn't them...

[Spider Jerusalem]

6. The Daily Mail is a dreadful right-wing rag.

They have an agenda here, and they're being decidedly less than truthful: the tree-ring data may not show continued warming in the post-1961 period, but global temperature observations from weather stations DO SHOW CONTINUED WARMING. And the tree ring data up to the indicated point showing warming? Maps with a century of temperature observations showing the same thing. Epic fail. Nice try, though.

[Nederland]

9. Blaming the Russians is ridiculous

The simplest explanation is that this was either done from the inside or by mistake. I predict that the current investigations will show this to be the case.

[kristopher]

10. from article

Russian secret service agents admitted yesterday that the hacked ‘Warmergate’ emails were uploaded on a Siberian internet server, but strenuously denied a clandestine state-sponsored operation to wreck the Copenhagen summit.

The FSB - formerly the KGB - confirmed that thousands of messages to and from scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were distributed to the world from the city of Tomsk, as revealed by The Mail on Sunday last week.

Now, it has emerged that IT experts specialising in hacking techniques were brought in by the Russian authorities following this newspaper’s exposure of the Tomsk link.

They have gathered evidence about how and where the operation was carried out, although they are not prepared to say at this stage who they think was responsible.

A Russian intelligence source claimed the FSB had new information which could cast light on who was behind the elaborate operation.

‘We are not prepared to release details, but we might if the false claims about the FSB’s involvement do not stop,’ he said. ‘The emails were uploaded to the Tomsk server but we are sure this was done from outside Russia.’

The Kremlin’s top climate change official, Alexander Bedritsky, denied the Russian government was involved in breaking into the CRU’s computer system.

‘You can post information on a computer from any other country. It is nonsense to blame Russia,’ he said.

[Nederland]

13. Classic Obfuscation

Put up a title that says: "Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server" and burying the full explanation at the bottom of the article.

The DailyMail is practically a tabloid rag.

[kristopher]

17. Russia obviously did it.

If shaming them is the only way to get them to release relevant information that should have been put into the public domain as soon as they found it, then I say make them prove they are not responsible.

[Nederland]

21. Here is your proof it was an inside job:

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked /

<snip>

Conclusion

I suggest that it isn't feasible for the emails in their tightly ordered format to have been kept at the departmental level or on the workstations of the parties. I suggest that the contents of ./documents didn't originate from a single monolithic share, but from a compendium of various sources.

For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities. The hacker would have to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents. The hacker would have to map the complete UEA network to find out who was at what station and what services that station offered. S/he would have had to develop or implement exploits for each machine and operating system without knowing beforehand whether there was anything good on the machine worth collecting.

The only reasonable explanation for the archive being in this state is that the FOI Officer at the University was practising due diligence. The UEA was collecting data that couldn't be sheltered and they created FOIA2009.zip.

It is most likely that the FOI Officer at the University put it on an anonymous ftp server or that it resided on a shared folder that many people had access to and some curious individual looked at it.

If as some say, this was a targeted crack, then the cracker would have had to have back-doors and access to every machine at UEA and not just the CRU. It simply isn't reasonable for the FOI Officer to have kept the collection on a CRU system where CRU people had access, but rather used a UEA system.

Occam's razor concludes that "the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one". The simplest explanation in this case is that someone at UEA found it and released it to the wild and the release of FOIA2009.zip wasn't because of some hacker, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples.

<snip>

[kristopher]

22. Proof?

Given your demands for and opinion of the level of proof required for acceptance of climate science, I'd say that assertion earns you the hypocrite of the year award.

[Nederland]

23. .

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked /

<snip>

Conclusion

I suggest that it isn't feasible for the emails in their tightly ordered format to have been kept at the departmental level or on the workstations of the parties. I suggest that the contents of ./documents didn't originate from a single monolithic share, but from a compendium of various sources.

For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities. The hacker would have to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents. The hacker would have to map the complete UEA network to find out who was at what station and what services that station offered. S/he would have had to develop or implement exploits for each machine and operating system without knowing beforehand whether there was anything good on the machine worth collecting.

The only reasonable explanation for the archive being in this state is that the FOI Officer at the University was practising due diligence. The UEA was collecting data that couldn't be sheltered and they created FOIA2009.zip.

It is most likely that the FOI Officer at the University put it on an anonymous ftp server or that it resided on a shared folder that many people had access to and some curious individual looked at it.

If as some say, this was a targeted crack, then the cracker would have had to have back-doors and access to every machine at UEA and not just the CRU. It simply isn't reasonable for the FOI Officer to have kept the collection on a CRU system where CRU people had access, but rather used a UEA system.

Occam's razor concludes that "the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one". The simplest explanation in this case is that someone at UEA found it and released it to the wild and the release of FOIA2009.zip wasn't because of some hacker, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples.

<snip>

[kristopher]

25. Proof?

Given your demands for and opinion of the level of proof required for acceptance of climate science, I'd say that assertion earns you the hypocrite of the year award.

[Nederland]

26. .

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked /

<snip>

Conclusion

I suggest that it isn't feasible for the emails in their tightly ordered format to have been kept at the departmental level or on the workstations of the parties. I suggest that the contents of ./documents didn't originate from a single monolithic share, but from a compendium of various sources.

For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities. The hacker would have to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents. The hacker would have to map the complete UEA network to find out who was at what station and what services that station offered. S/he would have had to develop or implement exploits for each machine and operating system without knowing beforehand whether there was anything good on the machine worth collecting.

The only reasonable explanation for the archive being in this state is that the FOI Officer at the University was practising due diligence. The UEA was collecting data that couldn't be sheltered and they created FOIA2009.zip.

It is most likely that the FOI Officer at the University put it on an anonymous ftp server or that it resided on a shared folder that many people had access to and some curious individual looked at it.

If as some say, this was a targeted crack, then the cracker would have had to have back-doors and access to every machine at UEA and not just the CRU. It simply isn't reasonable for the FOI Officer to have kept the collection on a CRU system where CRU people had access, but rather used a UEA system.

Occam's razor concludes that "the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one". The simplest explanation in this case is that someone at UEA found it and released it to the wild and the release of FOIA2009.zip wasn't because of some hacker, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples.

<snip>

[kristopher]

27. Occam's razor? That's not "proof" as defined by you!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x221992#222081
Response to Reply #17
Nederland 21. That is a lie

Show me raw temperature data from NASA, or raw temperature data from East Anglia, or raw tree ring data from Queen's University in Belfast.

Go on. Show it to me. Deniers have been asking for this data for years and been refused for years.

Your very flexible about what you consider to be "proof".

[Nederland]

28. .

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked /

<snip>

Conclusion

I suggest that it isn't feasible for the emails in their tightly ordered format to have been kept at the departmental level or on the workstations of the parties. I suggest that the contents of ./documents didn't originate from a single monolithic share, but from a compendium of various sources.

For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities. The hacker would have to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents. The hacker would have to map the complete UEA network to find out who was at what station and what services that station offered. S/he would have had to develop or implement exploits for each machine and operating system without knowing beforehand whether there was anything good on the machine worth collecting.

The only reasonable explanation for the archive being in this state is that the FOI Officer at the University was practising due diligence. The UEA was collecting data that couldn't be sheltered and they created FOIA2009.zip.

It is most likely that the FOI Officer at the University put it on an anonymous ftp server or that it resided on a shared folder that many people had access to and some curious individual looked at it.

If as some say, this was a targeted crack, then the cracker would have had to have back-doors and access to every machine at UEA and not just the CRU. It simply isn't reasonable for the FOI Officer to have kept the collection on a CRU system where CRU people had access, but rather used a UEA system.

Occam's razor concludes that "the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one". The simplest explanation in this case is that someone at UEA found it and released it to the wild and the release of FOIA2009.zip wasn't because of some hacker, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples.

<snip>

[TxRider]

16. Meaning quit saying we did it, or we'll expose the log file

That likely would show an IP adress it was uploaded from that would trace back to a CRU address.

[kristopher]

18. Then let them put it out there.

[Nederland]

20. Doubt that

There are ways of masking IPs, and anyone smart enough to know why you'd use a Russian server to do this is smart enough to do that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_address_spoofing

[TxRider]

24. One would think

But if you get guys like the FSB on the case, they might uncover the masking as well looking upstream etc.

I figured that guy is pretty smart, of course you could simply upload it from a free wireless at some hotels parking lot so many have unsecured wireless.

I peg it as an IT person at CRU.