Someone in Turkey is said to have hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit. He was according to source got into 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents a total of 160 MB of data. The University of East Anglia stated that the server could not be easily accessed.
How then the files were hacked? Was someone inside had a hand in it. Was the data purposefully manipulated to give wrong data contradictory to the findings of Al Gore’s data?
The other doubts going round is this emails are very old dated.
Schmidt noticed the hack a minute after it had occurred. He informed this to the University.
Then comes the interesting part...these emails were then uploaded to a server on 19 November 2009. It then spread across the Internet.
What was stolen?
As said earlier some 1,000 e-mails, 3,000 documents, as well as commented Fortran source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009 were stolen.
The e-mails consisted of discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change skeptics. How to combat queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers, and discussions that some pundits and commentators believe advocate keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature, and destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.
What Climatologists have to say?
Climatologists
The CRU's researchers said in a statement that the e-mails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called the charges that the e-mails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous." Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center who is among those implicated in the controversy, said that skeptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious", and called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem." Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was appalled at the release of the e-mails but thought that it might backfire against climate sceptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists." He has also said that the theft may be aimed at undermining talks at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.
According to the University of East Anglia, the documents and e-mails had been selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. The university said in a statement: "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way".
What the Media has to say?
The science journal Nature discussed the affair in an editorial in its December 3 issue, remarking that "a fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories", and that "If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden."
George Monbiot, an environmentalist who writes for The Guardian, has asked, "Do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is 'the final nail in the coffin' of global warming theory?" and concluded, "Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists." He described the incident as a "major blow" and that the "emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging". He was also concerned by what he saw as attempts to conceal and even destroy information that was subject to a freedom of information request, and efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of an IPCC report.
What we have to say?
It is very simple, just see around and feel how the things are going on. Go back to some 30 years back, ask your grandfather what was the life of them some 30 or even 60 years back. They have lots to say! They would say those were the days we had everything with us. There was no shortage of food. They were able to breathe clean air. Now you can know why this climate changes.
Having said that we should join hands and collectively do whatever we can to bring down the anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions.
How then the files were hacked? Was someone inside had a hand in it. Was the data purposefully manipulated to give wrong data contradictory to the findings of Al Gore’s data?
The other doubts going round is this emails are very old dated.
Schmidt noticed the hack a minute after it had occurred. He informed this to the University.
Then comes the interesting part...these emails were then uploaded to a server on 19 November 2009. It then spread across the Internet.
What was stolen?
As said earlier some 1,000 e-mails, 3,000 documents, as well as commented Fortran source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009 were stolen.
The e-mails consisted of discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change skeptics. How to combat queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers, and discussions that some pundits and commentators believe advocate keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature, and destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.
What Climatologists have to say?
Climatologists
The CRU's researchers said in a statement that the e-mails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called the charges that the e-mails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous." Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center who is among those implicated in the controversy, said that skeptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious", and called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem." Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was appalled at the release of the e-mails but thought that it might backfire against climate sceptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists." He has also said that the theft may be aimed at undermining talks at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.
According to the University of East Anglia, the documents and e-mails had been selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. The university said in a statement: "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way".
What the Media has to say?
The science journal Nature discussed the affair in an editorial in its December 3 issue, remarking that "a fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories", and that "If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden."
George Monbiot, an environmentalist who writes for The Guardian, has asked, "Do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is 'the final nail in the coffin' of global warming theory?" and concluded, "Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists." He described the incident as a "major blow" and that the "emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging". He was also concerned by what he saw as attempts to conceal and even destroy information that was subject to a freedom of information request, and efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of an IPCC report.
What we have to say?
It is very simple, just see around and feel how the things are going on. Go back to some 30 years back, ask your grandfather what was the life of them some 30 or even 60 years back. They have lots to say! They would say those were the days we had everything with us. There was no shortage of food. They were able to breathe clean air. Now you can know why this climate changes.
Having said that we should join hands and collectively do whatever we can to bring down the anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment