Русские Хакеры украли документы об изменении климата на Земле

[Maki]

Русские хакеры взломали серверы британского университета, который занимается проблемами изменения климата. В результате этого проникновения из компьютера были скопированы тысячи документов и писем, которые позднее были выложены в Интернет.

Как пишет американская пресса, в переписке принимали участие британские ученые, специалисты НАСА и сотрудники университетов США. Изучив обнародованные хакерами документы, можно сделать вывод, что в последние годы температура на Земле не повышается, а снижается, а это значит, что предупреждения о глобальном потеплении на самом деле - миф.

Вот лишь несколько выдержек из писем:

Фил Джонс: "Только что проделал один трюк Майка, увеличил температуру для каждого периода за последние 20 лет...чтобы скрыть тот факт, что она падает...

Возьми и измени полученные данные! Не давай этим скептикам повода для развлечений...

Майкл Манн: ...Ну мы же все знаем, что смысл не в правде, а в возможности потом правдоподобно отнекиваться"

В университете Восточной Англии факт утечки подтвердили, но при этом отказались комментировать, насколько правдива опубликованная в сети информация, сообщают "Вести".

[nefi]

А вот нашла в сети оригинал этой статьи и файлы, которые можно скачать, почитать:

Сами файлы, которые были украдены, можно скачать здесь. (61.9 МБ)

ClimateGate - Climate center's server hacked revealing documents and emails

Britain’s Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, suffered a data breach in recent days when a hacker apparently broke into their system and made away with thousands of emails and documents. The stolen data was then posted to a Russian server and has quickly made the rounds among climate skeptics. The documents within the archive, if proven to be authentic, would at best be embarrassing for many prominent climate researchers and at worst, damning.

The electronic break in itself has been verified by the director of the research unit, Professor Phil Jones. He told Britain’s Investigate magazine's TGIF Edition "It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."

The file that has been making the rounds was initially brought to light by the website The Air Vent. The 61mb file contains thousands of documents and emails. As the archive was just discovered within the last 24 hours, its authenticity has not been determined and as such readers should cast a skeptical eye on the contents. It should also be noted that it appears the emails were illegally obtained by whoever originally posted them.

File download: The archive is available on FileDropper.com here

At least one person that was included in some of the correspondence, Steve McIntyre of the website Climate Audit, verified the authenticity of at least some of the messages. McIntyre said, “Every email that I’ve examined so far looks genuine. There are a few emails of mine that are 100% genuine. It is really quite breathtaking.”

The contents of the archive contain documents and email correspondence from a veritable who’s who in climate science. Among those included in the emails are Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, his assistant, Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona, Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies and others.

The emails contain an array of discussions including what appear to be concerted efforts to withhold data. Just as troubling is conversations that allude to potentially manipulating climate data to “hide the decline” of temperatures seen in the last decade.

Some of the excerpts of emails within the archives (edited for brevity, emphasis added):

From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):

Dear Phil and Gabi,

I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

From Nick McKay (modifying data):

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil

PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!

From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

If the emails and documents are a forgery, it would be an extremely large one that would likely have taken months to setup. No doubt much more will be coming out about these emails and their possible authenticity. Stay tuned to the Climate Change Examiner for updates as more information becomes available.

Update, 10:30am – Since the original publication of this article, the story is gaining steam and now the BBC is reporting on it. They report that a spokesman for the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.”

Analysis of the emails and documents in the archives continues. We must stress that the authenticity has not been proven however there have been no denials of such by the climate center. Some of the more recent revelations include:

From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

From Tom Wigley (data modification):

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

From Thomas R Karl (witholding data) :

We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

From Phil Jones (forging of dates):

Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

From a document titled "jones-foiathoughts.doc" (witholding of data):

Options appear to be:

1. Send them the data

2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.

3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

From Mick Kelly (modifying data to hide cooling):

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Update, 3:45pm MDT: In regards to the authenticity, not one report disputing the veracity of the emails has come out. Many sources have talked to some of the email authors and they have not disputed the messages.

Источник: http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-ClimateGate--Climate-centers-server-hacked-revealing-documents-and-emails

[Arika]

прочитав, вспомнились фильмы "Послезавтра" и "2012" оО может правительства стран для избранных делают корабли ))) Хотя тогда бы 2012 не прошел бы цензуру)

[Far East]

Горжусь Россией! *63

[nefi]

Скачала файлы, очень занимательно. Архив - 167 МБ, в папке расположено более 4 500 файлов. Писем - 1073 шт.

Думаю, что многим будет интересно почитать ))). Первое письмо некой Татьяны Дедковой, говорит о Ямале, развитии Сибири и о том, что их деньги будут для нас крайне важны. Письмо 1996 г.

Получается наличие данной проблемы опять кому-то очень выгодно. Ведь в проблему глобального потепления вкладываются ежегодно огромные деньги.

[Vol89]

nefi чего-то не могу скачать... Интересные должны быть файлы...

Выложи здесь... И напиши, что по просьбе.

---

Вот так подумаешь... Тоже хакером стать что-ль? ЧТобы правду раскрывать. :-)

[nefi]

Vol89

Выложила на Сибнете.

[dikobraz]

не открывается почему то

[Shuuhei]

ммм... надеюсь это вызовет общественный резонанс

[Slayer]

Неужели какой то хакер был настолько взбудоражен просмотром фильма 2012? А цунами, торнадо и наводнения это испытания нового климатического оружия, а глобальное потепление всего лишь прикрытие секретных проектов военных США.

[Judge]

Уу тока что слышал по радио

Даа значит ледники нифига тоже не таят что ли? о_О

[Vol89]

Почему же не таят? Таят ещё как!...

---

А как вы думаете? Куда вся вода девается?

Правильно...

Выпадает В виде осадков... Снег, дождь...

А вы думали просто так, что ли наводнения часто начали происходить и аномальные снежные покровы в некоторых странах.

---

nefi спасибо.

[Markus]

nefi спасибо, буду читать

[nefi]

Неужели какой то хакер был настолько взбудоражен просмотром фильма 2012?

При чем тут фильм 2012 и вылазки хакеров? Ребята просто вскрыли базу, а когда вскрыли, поняли, какую инфу они добыли и какой резонанс это может вызвать у мировой общественности. Не надо искать аналогий между фильмом и действиями хакеров. Глупо.

Почему же не таят? Таят ещё как!...

Что-то мне уже мало верится. От чего же им таять, если температура не падает? Может нам регулярно показывают картинку и снимают фильмы о глобальном потеплении, а на самом-то деле дела обстоят по-другому. Эх, знать бы хорошо английский, можно хоть цитаты было бы тут важные выкладывать....

[Stark]

не зря наших хакеров всеь мир боиться

[uFo]

Сами файлы, которые были украдены, можно скачать здесь. (61.9 МБ)

а это не преступление ли случайно? *29

[nefi]

а это не преступление ли случайно?

Не качайте. Фильмы тоже качать без разрешения правообладателя - преступление.

[Maki]

Получается наличие данной проблемы опять кому-то очень выгодно. Ведь в проблему глобального потепления вкладываются ежегодно огромные деньги.

+1 выкачивать деньги на иллюзию это высший пилотаж.

Многие ученые наоборот говорят что нас ждет ледниковый период.

Снижения t Гольфстрима явно ведет не к потеплению )

Еще накуято строятся 2 газа-провода в Европу))

Аналитики не могут понять зачем Европе будет нужно столько газа))

[lacoste]

здесь говорится об обратном.