East Anglia, the next chapter

Summary: More argument over meaning of the files stolen from University of East Anglia.

Earlier today I blogged about the propaganda war that has broken out following the hacking of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's climate study center. Here's a left-wing British newspaper blog on the words beking flung about. This blogger has read some of the correspondence. Sees little meaningful and lots of missing context.

Yet one blogger sees deception and fraud, at least. Plus a little cruelty when a critic dies and isn't mourned.

Thie blogger claims to have read the emails. There is no question about the basic science, he claims, but there was definitely the intent to deceive and skew the public message.

Here's the BBC analysis of the emails that were hacked and the claims made by global warming skeptics about those emails.

Here's the Fox News version of the story.

Here's the Wall Street Journal blog. It repeats second-hand info that the emails are all genuine and there are over 3000 files stolen from East Anglia. Not sure this blogger's surmise that it was stolen by Russian black hats is vaild. But there is much interest in Russia and its rich in keeping the price of oil as high as possible as long as possible. That means any global warming treaty is a business threat to Russia, Saudi, Venezuela, Nigeria, Norway and other oil exporters. But access to a Russian-based server is not limited to Russians, of course.

This is one hack that will have a long-lasting political life. At least through the Copenhagen meeting if not beyond. Copenhagen talks begin December 7. So far no public statement from the British government which runs University of East Anglia. All publicly-funded universities there are run by the national government. The UK has long been a vocal public advocate of global action against global warming. [poll id="198"]

Topics: Collaboration, Browser

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

12 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Harry's world must be imploding;-)

    NY times reports:

    "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global
    warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to
    erode the overall argument. [b]However, the documents will
    undoubtedly raise questions about the quality of research on some
    specific questions and the actions of some scientists.[/b]"
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?
    _r=2

    At least we now might have questions asked. The "evidence" is
    exposed for the fabrication that it always was. I wouldn't use the term
    "scientists" but I understand it must be a real shock for those at the
    Time.

    A sad day for believers, their trickery now exposed.

    Good coverage here:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-
    cuttings-33.html

    Richard Flude
    • LIberals addicted to extortion

      from public w/ various scams and scare tactics.
      LBiege
      • Uh, no.... not liberals

        Enviroloonies. Get the right term. I am a liberal
        and I never bought into this whole BS with global
        warming being man-made or that there was any
        global warming to being with.
        Lerianis10
  • Sorry Harry

    Alarmists can be just as crooked as realists
    there are too many power brokers involved for us to hear the whole truth
    in a way alarmists are probably worse because they have so much invested in a theory
    zmud
    • One way or the other.

      I posted this a few days ago. The Copenhagen meeting is simply going to be a retreat with no effect on anyone or anything. Cap and Trade here is delayed until at best middle of next year, and I am fairly certain that the real science will be vetted by then, and we will find, my prediction, that Global Warming is real, man contributes about 7% to it meaning that we are pretty much helpless to do anything about it but the EPA will NOT remove CO2 as a "pollutant" by this administration.

      TripleII
      TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
      • Well, doesn't "real science" require...

        ... some sort of "control" against which the results of observations can be compared?

        And without said "control", you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are causing global warm... er... climate change.
        Hallowed are the Ori
  • Good work Harry

    Good blog. Unbiased journalism. I appreciate the information that you have here. Very interesting.
    CounterEthicsCommissioner-23034636492738337469105860790963
    • I have noticed it too.

      Over the last week or so, the bias has been removed from the blog entries and a couple of stories about real green tech. I think he does deserve some credit for trying to be more unbiased.

      TripleII
      TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
      • Me too

        I quit reading Harry's stuff for a few weeks there because it was only boring propaganda. Perhaps we have begun to witness Harry's Revival.
        nikacat
        • sheesh -- why are you back here ?

          What's boring is all the whining and wimping around by people who only visit blogs like this to besmirch (with what I leave to your own imagination) ideas they don't agree with. If it bores you - puhleeze don't stick around and be miserable. Go someplace else and be miserable. Meanwhile, the hacking of East Anglia is such a sick and sad sign of the condition of the anti-global-warming crowd. How pathetic. No content to fight with so thuggery is the last resort. Sick.
          BonMot
  • One denial is beyond weak.

    The researcher who tried to defend the "trick" as saying it was out of context and simply refers to an elegant way to present the data, well even if you believe that you can not deny the further part of the same sentence.

    [I]?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 [B]hide the decline[/B].? [/I]

    I defy anyone here to defend the bolded above in a way that doesn't show willful manipulation by said researcher. (It has to pass the laugh test).

    To even those who believe man made global warming, it shows, absolutely a "scientist" covering up what the data actually shows: a decline.

    TripleII
    TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827
    • That's exactly what the data shows: a decline

      In temperatures world-wide, and there is no
      arguing with that, period and done with.

      People like the article writer need to get
      their heads out of their butts and realize that
      they have been PUNKED by the global warming
      psuedo-scientists.

      The fact is that the ONLY THING THAT CAN CHANGE
      OUR CLIMATE IS [u]THE SUN[/u]! Period.
      Lerianis10