Climate Wars: Who stole the emails?

Posted at 4:39 PM on November 24, 2009 by Paul Huttner (7 Comments)

No doubt you've heard by now that somebody hacked computers and stole thousands of emails at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) last week. The British institution is a major center for climate research.

In looking at the published comments from the thousands of stolen emails, it appears there is nothing nefarious that screams "climate conspiracy" in the documents that have been illegally obtained and made public. The few items regarding climate discussions that have been cited by climate change skeptics seem to have already been easily explained as part of normal healthy debate and discussion among scientists.

The bigger questions I have not seen asked yet may be; Who would hack into these computers and commit cyber theft, and why would they do it? Is this an orchestrated smear campaign against reputable climate scientists? Is the timing of this, just weeks before a major international climate policy meeting in Copenhagen, a coincidence?

I do not personally know the answers to these questions, but the investigation into the stolen emails may shed some interesting light in the coming weeks.

In the mean time, buckle up.

What do you think?

PH

---

Comments (7)

Paul/Everybody -

These emails are all searchable; very interesting stuff.

I won't post links due to spam filtering, but the Icecap and Watts Up With That? (skeptics blogs) are all over this, of course.

I'm disappointed with the coverage this has received outside the blogosphere. However one feels about this issue, there's a compelling case to be made that there is more to this than some "bad hacker" making "good scientists" look bad...

I'll take my comments off the air!

Posted by Josh | November 24, 2009 4:59 PM

---

Addendum:

See the alternative theories re: stolen emails on the Watt's Up...blog.

Posted by Josh | November 24, 2009 6:01 PM

---

Thanks for the info. This seems serious enough for NPR/MPR to report on. Have they reported? At icecap.us, they show a graph of New Zealand Temps--the official trend is increasing while the raw data is flat. So, who or what is telling the truth?

Posted by Andy | November 25, 2009 4:14 PM

---

Woops! This is quite problematic for your dogma isn't it Mr. Hutner? Can you please address the substance of the e-mails instead of ad hominem attacks on the alleged "hackers"?

Posted by Paul | November 27, 2009 9:44 AM

---

Here are some questions a trial lawyer might ask (from http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/27/cross-examining-the-climate-change-scammers/#more-37782) if they authors of the emails were examined under oath.

•So, Dr. Jones, when you used the word “trick,” you really meant that it was not a “trick” at all but a valid, scientifically recognized process of data interpretation?

•Can you identify another instance in your experience where a scientist described his valid, scientifically recognized process of data interpretation with a term commonly used to describe a hoax, scam or fraud?

•And when you wrote the words “hide the decline,” is it now your testimony that when you used the word “hiding,” you were not actually “hiding” anything, and moreover, though you used the word “decline,” there was no “decline” in temperatures to be hidden in the first place?

•So, if I understand your explanation, it is that you commonly use language in your communications which means precisely the opposite of the meaning that you are seeking to communicate?

•And if an email from those who disagree with your findings – who you call “deniers” or “skeptics” – were to be made public that described their use of a “trick” to “hide the increase” in temperatures, would you find this to be of no great import because scientists commonly describe their processes as “tricks” and that their act of “hiding the increase” must be purely benign based on the manner of usage you describe?

•So, is it only proponents of man-made global warming that habitually use words and phrases that mean precisely the opposite of their common usage to describe their work?

Posted by Andy | November 27, 2009 9:43 PM

---

I don't think anyone has proof that the emails were hacked yet.

They could have been leaked out by someone in the inside who was disgusted by what was going on.

Since when is science, especially science which affects public policy, especially global public policy, totally clean?

The truth is we should have never trusted their "closed" findings without allowing the raw data and models to be open and reproducible, until that happens, no science was done, AT ALL.

Posted by Dave Thompson | December 1, 2009 3:35 PM

---

Good point Dave, no science may have been done, but there were some very unscientific discussions among scientists going on in those emails about scientific research. This is news if i ever saw it, and i cannot believe how this story is being ignored. I am not a liberal media conspiracy theorist but this all seems to support those who are. Very disappointing.

Posted by Jeff S | December 1, 2009 6:25 PM

---

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories