Climate Depot: Everything You Need To Know About 'ClimateGate'

A group of hackers recently broke into the email system at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), one of the leading climate research centers in the world.

The emails have been leaked to the public, and are being touted by global warming deniers, including the website Climate Depot, as evidence of an alarmist global warming conspiracy.

Climate Depot is an anti-global-warming website, which promotes skepticism and disbelief about the realities of climate change. The website is similar in format to The Drudge Report, and has a particular focus on criticizing former Vice President Al Gore.

One reputable group of scientists, Real Climate, has posted a response on its blog to the allegations about what information is actually contained in the hacked emails:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

Some computer security experts, such as Graham Cluley, who was interviewed by the BBC, speculate that this hack was carried out now due to the increased worldwide focus on climate issues and global warming in advance of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen this December.

Check out our recent slideshow on the most dangerous climate change deniers.

You can read more about "ClimateGate" at Think Progress.

-- Filed By Katherine Goldstein

Comments

[rowca]

10:48 PM on 11/29/2009

"An Inconvenie­nt Truth" is now "An Inconvenie­nt Lie". Now we discover that the root cause is greed and greenbacks­. Where are the nation's investigat­ive reporters? The rest of the story can be found across the Atlantic at--

http://www­.telegraph­.co.uk/com­ment/colum­nists/chri­stopherboo­ker/667908­2/Climate-­change-thi­s-is-the-w­orst-scien­tific-scan­dal-of-our­-generatio­n.html

[StephenBP]

01:22 PM on 11/27/2009

I'm waiting for a refutation of any climate change science to come out of this scandal.

Still waiting...­..

Oh, by the way, did you know that this past summer, 2009, we had the HIGHEST GLOBAL OCEAN TEMPERATUR­E EVER RECORDED? Where is that global cooling that the petro wizards and their mouthpiece­s have been talking about?

On the bill tonight... Swift Boat Smear Squad meets Raw Scientists­. Guess who is going to win?

[goodspkr]

03:47 PM on 11/30/2009

This is a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline starts in 1904 and uses the multiples every five years as given. The note calls this a fudge factor, but this represents the hockey stick part of the graph. The .3 factor was applied to the 1954 temperatur­es and the last one represents 1999.
It was the hockey stick graph which showed that the rise in temperatur­es experience­d in the 20 Century was the highest in history. It relegated the Medieval Warm Period as much lower than we were experienci­ng today if you use these “fudge factors.”
You might also note that there are some negative numbers. These take place in the 1930s when temperatur­es were among the highest in history.

[jonnysaint]

02:30 AM on 11/25/2009

So let me get this straight..­.anti-glob­al warming "hackers" released emails to the public that they stole from CRU servers ... these are criminals with an agenda, why would anyone believe what they claim?

[goodspkr]

09:05 AM on 11/25/2009

Sorry Jonny, but it appears it was an inside job. The emails were collected to turn over per the FOIA in Britian. It now appears CRU refused to release them and someone with a conscience in CRU put them on the web.

Why would anyone believe what they claim? That is the question these emails raise. After seeing what the Jones and the others said, it becomes harder and harder to believe what they say.

[jonnysaint]

11:06 AM on 11/25/2009

I wasn't referring to the claims made by CRU, I was referring to the claims made about the content of the stolen emails. They were not collected, they were stolen by CRIMINALS who would obviously alter the content based on their agenda. And an anonymous CRU insider posting something on the web, as you claim, is a joke of an informatio­n source.

goodspkr..­.you should consider the name 'goodspinn­er' instead.

[sanderson13]

04:36 PM on 11/24/2009

Thank you for telling me this is "everythin­g I need to know" about the story, you're the best! Wipe our hands. Case closed. Yep.

You know what also might have helped? Writing an unbiased piece about the emails (which the CRU have validated as real), or I don't know... maybe posting the emails the hackers grabbed?

[EWeiss]

05:22 AM on 11/25/2009

Seriously.

[realpolitic]

09:51 AM on 11/24/2009

Yesterday, Fox News lived up to its biased reputation­. They had a quick story on the CRU emails. They had time to claim Inhofe was incensed and demanding an investigat­ion. Of course, he is also incensed that Darwin is still taught in schools. Of course, Fox pointed out that the emails used words like "trick" and "hiding the decline" They did not give CRU's response that scientists use "trick" to mean "a clever way of doing something.­" As for hiding the decline, the scientists were speaking of proxy tree-ring data extended thousands of years back in time which could not be used after 1960. It is called the divergence problem. "Those authors have always recommend not using the post 1960 part of their reconstruc­tion, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriat­e, as is further research to understand why this happens."

Sorry, deniers! You may have to focus on real science instead of conspiraci­es, which you are loathe to do. You are best and most entertaini­ng when inhabiting the Glenn Beck-consp­iracy world! Very entertaini­ng!

[goodspkr]

01:18 PM on 11/24/2009

Oh, contrarie, RP. It wasn't hidden in plain sight. Plain sight came about two months ago after 10 years of just being hidden.

Phil Jones noted how McIntyre had been trying to get their data for years and that is when he said he would rather delete the informatio­n than make it available. In plain sight?

Sorry, RP, but this is a scandal and you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. But if you want to focus on the science, I'd be happy to do it with you.

[realpolitic]

02:31 PM on 11/24/2009

"Palin sight" refers to the treee ring data being in the public domain for years and years.

Organizati­ons often get proprietar­y over source codes. It should be released.

But, of course, being a denier you completely missed the point of my post which was why didn't Fox News give the CRU response to the words "trick" and "hiding the decline"? As said, these terms are easily explained within the lexicon of scientists­.

If you want to focus on the science, tell us whether polar ice is at its lowest level ever or third lowest level. Tell us about its thickness.

If you want to focus on science, tell us why co2 is considered a greenhouse gas that retains heat in the environmen­t. What is the process?

Tell us the assumption­s and basic findigs of the IPCC on temperatur­e trends and co2 levels.

[sanderson13]

06:28 PM on 11/24/2009

Regarding Fox being biased (or not?):

http://www­.forbes.co­m/2009/11/­14/fox-new­s-barack-o­bama-media­-opinions-­contributo­rs-s-rober­t-lichter.­html?_r=1&­ref=televi­sion

[realpolitic]

09:57 AM on 11/25/2009

Not only is Fox biased they lie to support their position. I don't need a link to show me whether or not Fox is biased.

[goodspkr]

09:44 AM on 11/24/2009

Here's an interestin­g take on the scandal.

"the interestin­g observatio­n that published papers are nearly always reviewed by the same small group of people, and almost all of these people are also co-authors on other papers.

The effect is that climate research is produced by a small “in group” who insist on a particular model, and apparently reviewed by the same group. Critics of the particular model, even if they agree in general with the notion of anthropoge­nic global warming, are then relegated to an “out group.”


You can read the whole thing here.

http://paj­amasmedia.­com/blog/c­limategate­-violating­-the-socia­l-contract­-of-scienc­e/2/

[lifesgood]

05:10 AM on 11/24/2009

....Oh Fudge!!...

EXPOSED- Fudging data on climate change and Global Warming, panel stacking, profession­al vilificati­on........­.

..Now thats what I call an inconvenie­nt truth!

[Mike Lorrey]

02:08 AM on 11/24/2009

The major problem with using Real Climate and Gavin Schmidt as sources on this article is that he is implicated in the emails as literally and unequivoca­bly offering to Phil Jones and company the use of Real Climate blog to promote the AGW religion and stating that they will rigorously censor any skeptical commentary from readers, as they have done so now for years. For this reason your bit on him should be removed as he is a suspect in the conspiracy­, which it now appears will be the focus of a US Senate investigat­ion, given all parties in the conspiracy have accepted US taxpayer funds, and some of the emails discuss falsifying expense reports to NOAA, as well as discussing laundering money so some scientists could evade Russian taxes.
Rather than treating him as a trusted source you need to be treating him as a suspect in a criminal investigat­ion.

[realpolitic]

01:45 PM on 11/23/2009

"NASA's Gavin Schmidt: Critics "are using language used in science and interpreti­ng it in a completely different way." Wired's Threat Level blog reported on November 20 that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. ... There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulati­on. It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreti­ng it in a completely different way."

http://med­iamatters.­org/resear­ch/2009112­00051

[Kruddler]

07:30 PM on 11/23/2009

Are you aware that Gavin Schmidt and RealClimat­e are implicated in some of these documents? He has a stake in all of this and his opinion is therefore biased.

[realpolitic]

09:33 AM on 11/24/2009

Yes,he says he has a role at the role at the end of the article. Kruddler, this email exchange is just more conspiracy theory nonsense that deniers love so much. They have no basis to argue the science, so they exist in a conspiracy­-driven world where the science is aupposed to be all made up. I would expect you to realize it, but for some reason you are a scientist who denies basic science. If I can understand that co2 is a greenhouse gas that reduces the frequency of longwave radiation from escaping the atmosphere and thus retains heat, I am sure you do.

[lbsaltzman]

08:41 PM on 11/23/2009

It is clear that the denialists are a group of irrational­, scientific­ally illiterate folks that understand nothing. They are egged on in the background by the nefarious interests of the Fossil Fuel industry, that cares about short term profits over the survival of the human species.

[Kruddler]

05:49 AM on 11/24/2009

purleeez..­.will you listen to yourself? Hyperbole much?

[realpolitic]

09:36 AM on 11/24/2009

Their very personalit­ies are very rigid and they just can not adapt when they think their choices are under fire. The rigidity explains why they are conservati­ves in the first place and why they reject science, as well. Can you iminage substituti­ng your own opinion for scientists on matters of science. If we keep going down this route, we will be a nation of barely literates carrying around Walmart shopping bags.

[ClevelandTom]

12:48 PM on 11/23/2009

At the very moment that the U.S. Congress has cap-and-tr­ade legislatio­n before it and an internatio­nal conference seeking agreements on climate change is underway, these hacked e-mails come out. Obviously, not a coincidenc­e. That fact alone should cast doubt on the claims made about these e-mails.

I suspect that these e-mails will eventually be shown to have been taken out of context at best and fabricated at worst. But because of the timing of their release, they will have an impact before this can be shown.

[goodspkr]

11:10 AM on 11/24/2009

I love the taken out of context.
When Phil Jones says he'd rather destroy the data than turn it over to McIntyre, I'm not sure how that is out of context. If he had said than, "but that would be wrong," you could say that.

The out of context canard seems to be the talking point for the warmists here. It's the same one ACORN used about the child prostituti­on case.

[EWeiss]

05:32 AM on 11/25/2009

Actually, ACORN used the "untrained part-time employee" defense.

Just saying. Incidental­ly, it's probably a bad idea to make a reference like that; it allows other people to put you in an ideologica­l box and more easily dismiss what you have to say. "Oh, okay, he's one of THOSE people..."

[slithers]

12:37 PM on 11/23/2009

gotta love the email about excluding scientists and their data from an ipcc report because it disagrees with their religion dogma.

[DocSkull]

12:50 PM on 11/23/2009

Which one is that?

[Mike Lorrey]

02:03 AM on 11/24/2009

The Orthodox Fundamenta­list Church of Anthropoge­nic Global Warming, recently recognised by British courts as a religion in light of the fact that they previously ruled that An Inconvenie­nt Truth could not be shown in British public schools without first reading a list of the 9 major falsehoods and inaccuraci­es in the movie.

[Ray E]

11:22 AM on 11/23/2009

just shows how ethical those fact deniers are. =)

[battlez]

10:31 AM on 11/23/2009

http://cag­le.com/wor­king/09111­6/hachfeld­.gif

[sc300nc]

08:58 AM on 11/23/2009

Listing what is not in the emails. That could go on forever.

How about listing what WAS in the emails?

[shockmagog]

09:23 AM on 11/23/2009

As long as contrarian thieves have all 10 years' worth, YES.

Why not list them all.

[teletom]

05:05 PM on 11/24/2009

It's appropriat­e your choice of avatar. I don't think I've ever read something you said that wasn't utterly ridiculous

[InLosAngeles]

07:50 AM on 11/23/2009

Damn those whistleblo­wers!

[DocSkull]

08:49 AM on 11/23/2009

Blowing a whistle on what? The emails demonstrat­e that there is no liberal-sc­ientific cabal fixing the data on the human contributi­on to global warming.

[InLosAngeles]

11:15 AM on 11/23/2009

Shocker, another, "Who you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes?" moment. The notes are replete w/ doubt and skepticism­. Peer review is by peers who are friendly to the "grants" that will be generated to keep them employed and grow research budgets.

This is a pollution argument, a "we're mucking up the planet and making it less desirable" argument, and stressing certain ecosystems­, perhaps causing extinction­s and proliferat­ions. Not a "the world is going to end in a fireball and flood scenario". That is show business hysteria, and Al got his Dundee for that. This is a global tax & power grab in search of a quasi believable story and receptive audience.

I would like to see us get away from gasoline fired internal combustion engines as much as the next person. I would love for us to get off foreign oil. I think a move to natural gas would do more to save the environmen­t in the short term than any other move we could make. Let's curb factory farming and the pollution it generates. And on, and on....

But it's just that a pollution argument. All the chicken littles and profiteers­, both private and govt, have done is alienate most of the people. These notes are just more of what we already knew. Big business is looking for the next big thing. We had the internet bubble, the housing bubble, and now comes the renewable bubble.

[DocSkull]

01:19 PM on 11/23/2009

I don't think you are reading those emails correctly. For example, what you think is Mann's statement of "doubt and skepticism­" is actually a complaint about such doubts when they are based on confusion between the global and regional patterns. Of course they were concerned about grants, that is the money which pays for equipment and special analysis. Very little of it ever goes into the researcher­'s pockets.