Banner
    A Clue In The Identity Of The ClimateGate Email Hacker?
    By Hank Campbell | January 3rd 2012 11:39 AM | 44 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    If someone talks about WikiLeaks and admires transparency and accountability but talks about ClimateGate and talks about how the emails were illegally obtained and stresses the researchers were absolved of science misconduct, you know how they vote.

    And one other catchphrase claims to be a sign for the political leaning of the latest ClimateGate email provider: “Every day nearly 16,000 children die from hunger and related causes," a note stated when it released more emails related to ClimateGate. That means denier, says Greenpeace.  Bonus: If true, then in defiance of spin by progressives, it also would seem people on the right are smart enough to use a computer.

    Well, Greenpeace is a denier about plenty of science. Sure, they say you should accept the science of climate change but then they say you should be a denier about almost everything else, like using science to create food that grows in terrible climates, where the world's poorest people live and starve. Science is out to save us when it comes to global warming but out to kill us when it comes to food or nuclear power, according to Greenpeace.  

    What did the new emails show?  Not much.  The investigations already cleared the researchers of scientific misconduct (well, what they were cleared of were claims they "inappropriately manipulated data") and there was nothing really new in that regard, unless you are interesting in quote-mining their emails the way Greenpeace does to everyone else; instead, the new emails showed the climate researchers in question are not immune from being assholes. That's not scientific misconduct, any more than Frankenstein-ing together graphs to make a point more obvious is. The dummies in science journalism took that hockey stick graph and ran with it a decade ago (though later, plenty of scientists rationalized it) and science journalism has clearly paid that price - corporate media recognized that scientists and bloggers are better suited to providing context for complex science issues than journalists and science journalism has been gutted in that time; evolution has won there and only the fit and the lucky have survived. Basically, without science journalism losing its mind and becoming cheerleaders and advocates, actual science sites like Science 2.0 would not exist so good things come from bad things on occasion.

    Back to this 'help poor people' right-wing nonsense Greenpeace did not like. The verbage was "a strong clue on the predisposition of the hacker. It smells a lot like a certain quadrant of the denier community. They pretend to be concerned that we are impeding development in poor countries. Only certain think tanks think that way and play that way,” Greenpeace research director Kent Davies told the New York Times.  Mostly in Europe, he said. 

    So only European global warming deniers believe the billions spent on climate change 'awareness' (really, who is not aware of climate change by now?  Only the starving poor people in countries where Greenpeace says genetically modified food should not be grown, that's who) could better be spent on helping poor people most likely to be impacted by climate change right now. Okay, if Greenpeace says it, it must be true.

    Are we any closer to finding out who released those emails?  The most common theory was that it was actually someone from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit - an inside job by someone troubled at the efforts by CRU researchers to block opposing research.  Former employees likened the atmosphere there to a global warming cult and an inside job by someone so far on the left they actually care about freedom might be even harder for Greenpeace to believe than that right wing people learned how to use a computer.

    Michael Mann of Penn State University reaffirmed his faith in a benevolent police state when discussing the raids occurred and that laptops were confiscated despite the fact that the owners were not suspects and no charges were filed against them, the hacker simply left a comment on their denier websites; “It seems to me the authorities wouldn’t have acted without some actionable intelligence.”

    'If you don't want your property stolen, don't disagree with us', is in violation of both liberalism and conservativism in America but perhaps in England there is a third mindset where that is acceptable. In the meantime, the mischievous student likely behind this whole thing is laughing. 

    Comments

    Stellare
    Hank, you seem to always polarize political opinions and superpose it on scientific results/convictions. I honestly do not see how a  climate change concerned (!) and climate change denier need to represent left and right respectively. To me, the world is a bit more complicated. :-)

    What about us who do not belong either left or right (or in the middle for that matter) nor do we think we know all the answers when it comes to climate change, and probably never will?

    We'll find people with different political standpoints, religion including non-religious, a specific school of science 'believers' and open minded researchers - the whole rainbow and mix of views.

    I think the world is more complicated than media like us to imagine - then again - I come from a country with a democracy consisting of multiple political parties, not just two....hehe
    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Hank
    I honestly do not see how a climate change concerned (!) and climate change denier need to represent left and right respectively. 
    I didn't say they did, Greenpeace said that.  The email statement about helping poor people was a sign to them of a European right wing mentality, not a political party.  In America, I am in the middle, which means in science media, I am on the far right.  So I will play Devil's Advocate more than most in media because they never will, they are instead doing just what you are concerned about - framing science through their political world view. Rationalizing it was okay to break into the home of a person who runs a skeptic website and confiscate his computers (they must have a reason or the police wouldn't have done that - seriously, who accepts that as a rationale in a liberal democracy???) doesn't sound like anyone who cares about freedom - unless they only want freedom for people who share their beliefs.
    Stellare
    My impression is that views and use of science is less connected to political colors here, although I spot some tendencies.

    Breaking into somebodies computer or servers or systems etc, should be investigated no matter what the motivation for that was (that hacking actually).

    To an outsider though, it seems like the wikileaks hacking is pursued more violently than the climategate hacking. If I had to choose I'd rather have my computer confiscated than staying in prison in isolation for more than a year....I mean, if my civil rights were to be violated that is. ;-)

    Seriously, I agree with you that breaking into peoples homes without evidence based suspicion is unacceptable in a democracy - and I observe with great concern, that people all the same accept breaches of  this democratic privacy as long as it is in accordance with the values they have.
    Bente Lilja Bye is the author of Lilja - A bouquet of stories about the Earth
    Aye, Bente--a pretty juvenile reading of the situation from Hank. And what does Greenpeace have to do with the hacked emails? I browsed to this opinion peace, so perhaps I'm reading it out of context. Hank, do you have some long-developing bitterness against Greenpeace?

    Hank, just a reality check question here: how close were you to writing the following: "an inside job by someone troubled at the unfair efforts by CRU researchers to block opposing research"?

    Hank: "Michael Mann of Penn State University reaffirmed his faith in a benevolent police state when discussing the raids occurred and that laptops were confiscated despite the fact that the owners were not suspects and no charges were filed against them, the hacker simply left a comment on their denier websites; 'It seems to me the authorities wouldn’t have acted without some actionable intelligence.'" (If you want to indicate equality, use a full colon rather than the semicolon. Also, "discussing" doesn't work well when using a clause as its object. I suggest "when he pointed out . . ." The comma after "them" is incredibly confusing. What is the antecedent for the pronoun "their"?)

    This reminds me of the Charles Monnett situation. Federal authorities also acted against Monnett, much to his surprise. Where these federal authorities received information and direction is anyone's guess.

    Hank
    Hank, just a reality check question here: how close were you to writing the following: "an inside job by someone troubled at the unfair efforts by CRU researchers to block opposing research"?
    This is a bizarre question.  It's like me asking for a reality check by asking you how close you are to writing "I hate cheese" - it's kind of pointless.  I don't care about fairness, reviewers should block any study that uses shoddy methodology.   The notion that I would care about fairness instead of excellence is somewhat laughable to anyone who has been around here for any time - since I think that mentality is eroding science and have long contended that excellence has to come before being nice to people.  

    I have no more dislike for Greenpeace than I do any other anti-science political action group, right or left.  They pick and choose whether to accept science based on their pre-existing activism. Lots of other people do too, it just happened to be a Greenpeace guy claiming the verbage of an email about poor people spoke of a European right wing group.   Given that guy's mindset, he sees a lot of 'right wing' - because he is pretty far left so the middle is over on the right as well.

    Thanks for the grammar tips.
    The reason I asked about Greenpeace: you didn't provide context for your attack. Where did Greenpeace comment on the UEA hack? What guy? A link would be handy.

    What passes for ethical behavior in a democracy? Let's set aside for a moment any cynicism about responsibility in a representative democracy or shareholder responsibility in a corporation. If I chose to support, through the power of my vote and voice, the war in Iraq because I believed that Hussein was on the verge of using WMDs, how many deaths was I responsible for? If someone misinformed me about Hussein and his readiness to use WMDs, can I be held accountable for the use of my vote and voice? How many will die "before their time" (natural death or the direct result of their own choices) if business as usual continues re the release of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere? Have you studied the possible answers to that question, or have you been informed via science journalism and/or mainstream journalism? Drought and intense rainfall have been long predicted as the result changes to Hadley Cells and more available water vapor. Since you're willing to compare lives, set agricultural disruption in a fragile world economy of 7+ billion against the deaths that have already occurred thanks to Wikileaks (anyone have a count?).

    Surely as a blogger you must have thought at one time or another about how the information you (and other journalists) present is processed by your readers. You must have realized that the market for science blogging exists because most people don't have the time, energy, training, and/or motivation to read and understand the scientific publications themselves. The science is important for making informed decisions, yes? If the hacked emails are effectively used (twisted, rather) to dampen efforts to mitigate warming, those responsible for misinforming and obfuscating aren't without responsibility. The non-scientific, democratic global public is at the mercy of journalists (rather obviously) and especially those who willingly wear the puppet strings.

    The difference between Wikileaks and UEA is that Wikileaks did very little selection and pretty much zero interpretation before releasing the entire wad to selected major global publication houses. The UEA hacker, however, sent the emails to organizations geared toward misinformation, and a set of specific interpretations were allowed to develop and fester before context was provided--a critical and deliberate move, and standard operating procedure for misinformation campaigns in the age of mass media.

    Also, the writers of the documents leaked through Wikileaks knew that what they were doing and saying would eventually be released to the public--probably long after their deaths. Discussion of the personal occurred much less often in the Wikileaks communications, and the communications were often highly-intentioned rather than part of an ongoing, informal discussion of this or that. The UEA writers were used to a less formal atmosphere of discussion. They were also, in many cases, working together as colleagues, acquaintances, and friends. The separability of the human and the laborer is often assumed, but actually demonstrating that separability has been quite difficult. The scientists undoubtedly felt that they shouldn't have two separate email accounts: one for transmitting purely objective scientific data and requests, and one for transmitting speculation, human feeling, and the general human response to their work.

    I suspect that many (not all) on the right don't attack the UEA hacker like the Wikileaks hacker because the UEA hacking was used to support their worldview. I suspect that many liberals don't attack the Wikileaks hacker like the UEA hacker because the hacking had all the marks of a misinformation campaign, and few liberals are going to believe that university science is capable of supporting a multi-generational hoax in concert with tens of thousands of working scientists all over the globe. Manning saw something he felt was very wrong, and he wanted to blow the whistle. The UEA hacker was looking for something wrong, because s/he just knew that it must exist. Not finding anything juicy, s/he turned it over to the masters of rhetoric. If not apples and oranges, any comparison of the two is at least tangerines and oranges.

    Hank
    The reason I asked about Greenpeace: you didn't provide context for your attack. Where did Greenpeace comment on the UEA hack? What guy? A link would be handy.
    You are not reading the same piece I wrote. I never said Greenpeace endorsed or condemned the UEA email release. I don't see what difference it makes any more than I care what McDonald's thinks about the release of the emails.  A Greenpeace research director said one sentence in the mail that accompanied the links showed him it was a 'right wing group' so he got ridiculed by me for that; it's very simple. He is clueless and making a conspiratorial claim based on no evidence. 

    This other stuff about how Wikileaks was right and UEA was wrong, including your subscribing motivation to the hackers, is amateur psychology and also has no foundation in fact - you got one thing right; people who endorse WikiLeaks but not UEA (and vice versa) are filtering through their world view. 

    The stuff you write about what those UEA emails showed is the strongest evidence that it wasn't a hack at all - UEA isn't important enough, they would have hacked into NOAA or some IPCC computer if they wanted to do real damage.   Instead, they put UEA on the map because no one had heard of them and it vindicated a whole lot of climate scientists.  If you read the emails, yes it shows Phil Jones is a rabid messianic cult leader, but is also vindicates the majority of climate scientists who tell him to stop acting like a messianic cult figure and just do good science and it will be fine. That means science is working.
    Hank: "This other stuff about how Wikileaks was right and UEA was wrong, including your subscribing motivation to the hackers, is amateur psychology and also has no foundation in fact - you got one thing right; people who endorse WikiLeaks but not UEA (and vice versa) are filtering through their world view. "

    How is my analysis "amateur psychology" and yours not? It has as much foundation in fact as your claim that Mann supports a "benevolent police state."

    Your analysis strongly suggests that you believe the UEA hack was an inside job done in order to vindicate climate science/scientists. The climate "doubter" camps (WUWT) that received the emails were then simply dumb tools used by these brilliant mastermind insiders who simply wanted to put Phil Jones in his place and put UEA "on the map" (as a place where one's email security is suspect, I guess). And you call my analysis amateur psychology? And what are the alternatives for Manning's motivation?

    If it was an inside job, it wasn't done by anyone who had the integrity of climate science in mind. It was done by someone who understood the AGW public opinion game very well. The hacker knew where to send the emails for maximum damage in that game. If this was all about Phil Jones being a "messianic cult leader," the hacker would have chosen a different set of initial intepreters--well, "would have" if the hacker wasn't a complete idiot (there is still that possibility).

    You're also wrong about UEA not being important. They provide a major surface temperature analysis. If doubt could be thrown on the integrity of that analysis, it would be a major blow to the integrity of climate science in general--at least in the court of public opinion. In case you haven't been doing your research, "ClimateGate" is alive and well in the public mind, even though Jones et al. have been cleared of wrongdoing over and over and over again.

    Where Greenpeace is concerned, I'm not defending them. Again, I just browsed to this page from Google News and found that there were several references to a Greenpeace statement that was not reproduced or linked.

    Hank
    Your analysis strongly suggests that you believe the UEA hack was an inside job done in order to vindicate climate science/scientists.
    No, I think it was an inside job done to criticize Phil Jones, who was saying they would block out opposing data even if it meant changing the nature of peer review - people who were not part of his clique at CRU and just wanted to do science didn't think much of his methods because it was the kind of thing scientists shouldn't do.  What it did do, aside from making Jones look bad, was vindicate the breadth of climate science which, as most of us have always said, is done rigorously and by people with integrity.  That doesn't get much mainstream press because of this nonsense about how the emails were illegally hacked.  Hacking only seems to be "legal" when the press likes the group doing it but to most of us it is never legal. 

    When I said UEA was not important, I was not saying they have not done valuable work, I was saying no one outside the field had ever heard of them. You have to be reaching quite far to now insist CRU was well known to the public before 2009. 
    MikeCrow
    If doubt could be thrown on the integrity of that analysis, it would be a major blow to the integrity of climate science in general


    This the temp record for the Southern Hemisphere (< -23Lat), based on stations that provided data for the entire timeline analyzed from the NCDC's global data set of ~120,000,000 records. 
    MT is daily max temp - 60, T is the Min Temp -40, R is the daily temp increase - 15, F is the daily temp loss - 15, Lastly D is the difference between Rising temp and Falling temp x 100. 
    For co2 to be causing global warming it has to trap heat as it's being radiated back to space on a daily basis. As you can see Falling temps match Rising temps to a few parts/100. It does this globally, and in fact the difference is negative starting ~1980-1981 globally. Even as the daily rising temp goes up by 3-4 degrees and minimum temp drops. 
    It's taken me a while to figure out why diff goes negative, and I believe it's due to volcanism, as starting in the 80's there's been a fairly large number of large global eruptions.
    Never is a long time.
    Halliday
    Mi Cro:

    How accurate are the numbers going into the difference D?  I see no indications of error bars on any of the points on this graph.  This speaks to how accurate, or what errors there are, in this D*100.

    I'm not saying that what D*100 is showing isn't "real", only that it needs to be calibrated for its accuracy.

    David

    P.S.  I've gotten "sick and tired" of data and models without error estimates.  This most definitely has nothing specific do do with "Climate", but with measurements and models in general (including those we use where I work).
    MikeCrow
    The National Climatic Data Center say the temps are to .1 degree (F in this case), but Because you asked, I went and looked and it got rounded off to single digits. I'll fix this the next chance I get.

    But, if you follow my name to my blog, there a graph of sample size, and by the time we get to the modern records, there's over 2 million samples/data point(edit The Southern Hemisphere has fewer samples than I quoted. NH is over 2 million/point, the SH goes from ~20k in 72 to 73k in 73,~90-100k to 1989, 200k after 1998) so I think the accuracy isn't bad, but I now know it can be better. But if you did follow the link you'll see a diff that's about the same(as the Sh here) that does have over 2m/point.

    As for your request for error bars, if i knew how to and had the tools to do it, I would, as soon as i can get to it.
    Never is a long time.
    Halliday
    Mi Cro:

    While error bars would be great, it's not so much that they are "needed".  What's "needed" is a good indication, of some sort (even in prose) concerning the accuracy/error-bound of what's being expressed.

    If the National Climate Data Center's data, from which the graph is formed, is accurate to 0.1, then the D*100 points are accurate to only 20.  So it looks like the D*100 part of the graph is nothing but noise, all consistent with zero (0).

    David
    MikeCrow
    I don't mean to be dense, but I don't quite follow how you get 20, doesn't averaging large groups of numbers reduce the error bars? (feel free to email me, so we can take this off line).

    But, if daily falling temp matches rising temps to the accuracy of the data, there's been no change in the cooling rates while the co2 level has gone up.
    Never is a long time.
    Halliday
    Mi Cro:

    I was interpreting what you were saying about 0.1 degree accuracy to mean that of the accuracy of the two values that are subtracted from each-other to arrive at D.  If, instead, the 0.1 degree accuracy is for the individual data values whose averages gave rise to the values that were subtracted from each-other, then you are, potentially, correct.  (For more on such matters see some of Tommaso Dorigo's articles on statistics.)

    David
    MikeCrow
    Then I was sloppy with my prose.
    I take ncdc's daily minimum temp (0.1 degree accuracy), and subtract that from the daily max temp, that's rising temp. I then take today's max, and subtract tomorrows min, that's falling.

    I then average a daily value from all of the stations(Global or North, South and Tropics) into a single value, then average by month or year, depending what I'm looking at(this case by year). When you look at daily or monthly averages separated by lat, you can see the precession of the sun over the year in rising/falling (it's actually pretty cool).
    Never is a long time.
    Halliday

    Mi Cro:

    Thanks for the clarification.  I was wondering about your procedure.

    However, the issue of independence of the individual measurements will still play a role in the averaging process.  The usual sqrt(N) decrease in uncertainty is only true for independent, equal uncertainty data where the errors are nearly Normally distributed.  On the other hand, almost all time series data have auto-correlations (temperature data will definitely have such auto-correlations).  In addition, the data from nearby monitors are likewise highly correlated.

    As an additional issue, if one actually wants a geographic (area) average, one should account for the non-uniform distribution of monitors.  (Unfortunately, this is far from a simple matter.  In fact, as far as I've seen, there is no [even nearly] "universal" agreement on any procedure for such spacial averages.  I think that multidimensional B-Splines may form the mathematical basis for an improved procedure, but I haven't been able to work on that, much.)

    On the other hand, the fact that "you can see the precession of the sun over the year in rising/falling (it's actually pretty cool)", "[w]hen you look at daily or monthly averages separated by lat", is a good sign that what you have is not completely meaningless.  :)

    David

    MikeCrow
    I agree that measurements from a single station will have correlated errors.
    In addition, the data from nearby monitors are likewise highly correlated.
    The measurement would be, but not any errors, correct????

    I also agree that clusters of geographically close stations will affect averages, but I don't think making up values for under sampled areas is valid for measuring weather.

    And here's monthly Diff for the NH (+23lat).


    This represents 80-90 million samples.
    Never is a long time.
    Halliday

    Mi:

    The errors between different instruments at different (though nearby) locations are likely not correlated, though, if the errors are correlated with the measurements, then the correlation between measurements will mean the errors are also correlated.

    However, you are correct that we usually assume that measurements on different instruments have uncorrelated, independent errors.

    As for whether "making up values for under sampled areas is valid for measuring weather", that's a matter of some significant debate.  For instance, the EPA "wants" people to "interpolate"/krige atmospheric measurements (especially pollution concentrations) to "under sampled areas". 

    Additionally, if one is trying to obtain some area average of some parameter, like temperature, one needs to find some way to go from the non-uniform data one may have to something that is more representative of a good estimate of an area average.  This doesn't necessarily mean that one needs to "making up values for under sampled areas", one can, in a rather equivalent manner, "devalue" the over-sampled areas.

    One can conceive of a hypothetical "interpolation"/"fitting" scheme that would use some (data dependent) linear interpolation of some subset of the data to obtain values for all spacial points ("making up values for [un-]sampled areas").  Then, the spacial average would be an integral of the values at all these spacial points (divided by the area).  However, this would be equivalent to some (data dependent) weighted average of the of the data given.

    Anyway, I hope this helps.

    David

    P.S.  The Diff one obtains is actually not just a "temperature", but something more tike a "rate" of temperature change.  So the average over time is also a rate, but over a longer period of time (like a month or a year).  This, likewise, can help in calibrating the results.

    MikeCrow
    I know there is more than a couple degrees difference measured in my yard compared to the local airport 25 miles away, and other parts of the state really have different weather.

    Originally, I wanted to get hourly data to get a rate of change, found that data was expensive, and figured out that daily min/max would also give me rate of change info.

    As far as I can tell, additional co2 in the atm has not reduced cooling rates.
    Never is a long time.
    Halliday

    Mi:

    You say:

    As far as I can tell, additional co2 in the atm has not reduced cooling rates.

    I'm not arguing against this.  I simply wanted the error estimation in order to properly calibrate this indication.

    However, I will remind you, since I expect you have already heard this, that the standard rejoinder is that "particulates/aerosols are 'masking' the CO2 warming effect", or, maybe, "the delay caused by heating the oceans is delaying the CO2 warming effect".

    Keep up the questioning of "authority", as long as it's done scientifically.

    David

    MikeCrow
    I've been looking forward to questions like this from someone who has a firm grasp on physics.
    If no one said anything either they weren't reading it, or they were dismissing it. Neither what I was looking for. So thanks!
    Never is a long time.
    How utterly predictable that Greenpeace’s Kert Davies would hint that ‘the denier community’ was behind this, he is a bit of a one-trick pony about such things. In my 12/24 guest article at JunkScience ( http://junkscience.com/2011/12/24/monumental-fault-in-manmade-global-war... ) I mention other workers, including Al Gore’s current spokesperson, at the old Ozone Action enviro-activist group. Kert Davies was there, too, as I described in an article last year at American Thinker: “Warmist Slander of Scientific Skeptics” http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/warmist_slander_of_scientific.html

    Ozone Action merged into Greenpeace in 2000, Kert Davies went with them and was partly responsible for the creation of exxonsecrets.org.... and as I've pointed out in all of my articles and blogs, there is a sea of red flags surrounding the accusation that skeptics are on the payroll of big coal & oil, which basically originates out of Ozone Action circa 1995.

    Seems mighty troubling overall how the promoters of man-caused global warming are doing everything possible to knock down any hints that there are major holes in the idea. But regarding the notion that the new email release doesn't reveal much, I'd beg to differ, considering the mind-blowing level of detail Steve McIntyre has over at his site on what new problems are revealed: http://climateaudit.org/2012/01/03/dr-phil-confidential-agent-re-visited/

    mischievous student

    So you think the crime of international wire fraud is merely the act of a mischievous student?

    You, Hank Campbell, are a scientific fraud.

    Hank
    Whistleblower or illegal hacking?  It seems it depends on which side you are.  I can tell which side you are on, because you attack anyone who doesn't agree with you - but I got no dog in this fight.  I just think it's odd WikiLeaks is not reviled the same way.  These were basically harmless emails they refused to divulge. Obviously they showed nothing.

    WikiLeaks put lives at risk.  How many lives did some emails put at risk?
    Yikes! Hank it seems that some folks are not happy about you pointing out that the sword Greenpeace is flailing has more than one edge and is causing some self-inflicted wounds. :-)

    Whistleblower or illegal hacking?

    The fact that you are even asking that question reveals you to be the scientific fraud that you are.

    I'll hand you one thing - your fraudulence is transparent.

    Hank
    Again, one of us does not know what the word 'fraud' means - hint: it is not me.

    And again: WikiLeaks put lives at risk. How many lives did some emails put at risk?
    All lives are at risk, all the time, Hank, that's how life works, not that you would understand that, not being a scientist but a mere fraud. The only life lost in Wikileaks was the life of the leaker who was an employee of the material stolen.

    CRU emails weren't leaked, they were stolen by a third party, in a crime of international wire fraud and theft. The fact that you condone that is a reflection of your character. Not a good one I might add.

    Fraud means whatever people want it to mean. To me it means you don't understand science, or indeed, law, and are misrepresenting yourself here on Science 2.0 as a credible source of information and knowledge. You are a fraud.

    I repeat, Hank Campbell of Science 2.0 is a fraud. Google that.

    Hank
    I'm no Jean Piaget but I thought they taught reading comprehension in grade school.  Apparently not yours.  What you should 'Google' is what the word fraud actually means and then say how it applies.  Now, I get it hurts your feelings if someone ridicules Greenpeace's latest kooky assertion or whatever has sent you on your irrational, ad hominem-laced bender but you are just relegating yourself to the weird, conspiratorial fringe by continuing to throw out the same strange accusation over and over.   How can you claim that whoever was behind the emails engaged in 'international wire fraud'?  Or did you see that term somewhere, like apparently the word 'fraud', and thought it sounded cool and want to use it without knowing what it means?

    The strongest evidence is that the leak was not a hack at all, but done by someone internal.  And why do you endorse WikiLeaks criminal activity but decry it when it comes to a few harmless emails related to climate change?

    To help readers calibrate your madness, here is a quote from your site about all the other 'frauds' in the world; the entire physics community:
     Physicists worldwide have suddenly been struck dumb and speechless upon the sudden realization that their pants and legs are filled and covered with their own shit, with the instantaneous recognition that the unretarded, high energy, local pairing of electronically mediated strongly coupled bosons (bipolarons) is, in fact, a reality


    The strongest evidence is that the leak was not a hack at all, but done by someone internal.

    Ok then, feel free to supply us with this 'strongest evidence'. Feel free to point out where I claim that having a pet high temperature superconductivity theory UTTERLY DESTROYED by experimental evidence makes one a fraud, when in fact I never invoked the term fraud in my post. Being wrong in science is not fraudulence. What you are engaged in here is not science, but since you are touting it as 'Science 2.0, that makes you a fraud my by definition of the term. And my definition is the only definition that matters to me. For all I know fraud means shit in another language. You're full of shit, Hank, and anyone with any understanding of science reading this post knows that.

    You're a fraud. Hank Campbell of Science 2.0 is a scientific fraud. Hank Campbell, Science 2.0 fraud. Hank Fraud.

    Gerhard Adam
    Since you've alleged "international wire fraud" on several posts, it's time to put up or shut up.  Let's see the evidence. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank
    ha ha At some point he is just a kook.  I mean, it's fun to watch him rave but ultimately pointless responding to him.   A guy who writes under a fake name and calls all physicists 'shit' isn't really a constructive part of any dialogue, science or policy.
    "A guy who writes under a fake name and calls all physicists 'shit' isn't really a constructive part of any dialogue, science or policy."

    It's difficult to have a constructive dialogue with fakes like you who do no science and claim well established science is wrong. And of course, I didn't call physicists shit, I called their theories of low energy pairing glue of high temperature superconductors shit, now demonstrably so. Chemists have know for decades that the pair glue was high energy.

    Carry on with your science 2.0 quackery, fraud.

    You were the individual making the claim that is was an inside leak, and the only evidence I find of that is a lengthy speculative post on WUWT. Hardly credible evidence. The evidence that is was an external hack is extensive, since there is an ongoing investigation, electronic devices were seized from external locations, files were stored on Russian Servers, hacks originated from Turkey etc. A whistleblower would have simply downloaded the files and made off with them much in the way Wikileaks data was stolen. You understand the Wikileaks was a result of stolen data, right?

    Decent article. On any reasonable balance of probabilities, it was a leak and not a hack.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/why-climategate-was-not-a-co...

    Pointman

    Hank
    That's a terrific layout of how hard it is for people to do what some casually claim was done so easily at East Anglia.  Now, maybe it was - if they had no real security, one server - and Jones is not as unknown as the article thinks he was, he is pretty well known so going after him there would have made sense, but it's hard to believe.

    Some commenters are hung up on the fact that I criticize Greenpeace for invoking the right wing boogeyman without any evidence, but it is odd that they do so.  Clearly if someone could hack so easily they would hack into Greenpeace. I am sure the conspiratorial emails sent inside that group about how to take down critics would be legendary.
    Certainly in terms of target selection for a big hack, CRU would be an extremely poor choice. Scientists discussing science may mean something to people with some knowledge of science, but would be difficult to use outside those circles as propaganda. Greenpeace material would of course be much more useful since it wouldn't be so technical.

    What's often overlooked is that the CG1 release contained not only emails but other documents and even FORTRAN source code, which implies they had access to more than just a single email server.

    Pointman

    I think you make some very good points. What I find interesting are the labels - "Denier", "Frankenfood", etc. It seems once the mainstream press can find a label to attach to something they disagree with, then it is easier to dismiss it as anything valid.

    Hank
    I've often discussed the mainstream press problem and over time I have become less convinced it is journalists and more convinced it is editors that are the problem. At least in science, most of the overtly partisan cheerleaders have been drummed out of jobs (because people stopped reading science in the mainstream press) and there are good ones remaining, but editors assign topics and pick the tone and edit the copy. 'Frankenfood' is a clever name and advocacy groups pay people a lot of money to come up with clever disparaging names.  Unfortunately, scientists do not, so there is no 'we can precisely modify food so it can grow without pesticides and in barren climates to keep poor people from starving' alternative. Outside Europe, at least, people accept science and are not educated by environmental group marketing tactics. 
    Reading the comments on the piece that was actually written here, there are some pretty serious problems with some people's reading skills or basic comprehension of English. Come on, actually read it before racing to the attack. Good grief ...

    Pointman

    vongehr
    If someone talks about WikiLeaks and admires transparency and accountability but talks about ClimateGate and talks about how the emails were illegally obtained and stresses the researchers were absolved of science misconduct, you know how they vote.
    For writing stuff like this it is that I like you, although you are of course right wing, ha ha. ;-)
    Yes, science bloggers riding around on the evil illegality of the email hacking are obviously not libertarians or free-thinkers. A true left wing position cares a moist rat's behind about the illegality of revolution and would be instead criticizing the arrogant power structure internal to science that is revealed by the emails. Science bloggers are simply upper class, opportunistically exploiting a niche market with pseudo-progressive drivel.
    Hank
    For writing stuff like this it is that I like you, although you are of course right wing, ha ha. ;-)
    I'm right wing to you, sure.  :)  But you are so far left you are back on the right with me. Basically, in America, actual liberals have been overrun by progressives, who do not like freedom at all.  So a liberal like me, who thinks spending money stupidly solves little and endorsing every crank environmental position is dumb, ends up being treated with more respect by right wing people than left. 
    vongehr
    I'm right wing to you, sure.  :)  But you are so far left
    No - I simply transcend the distinction. Neither anarchos nor commies or ecos would even as much as spit at me. The definitions are location specific (you are a "liberal" in the US perhaps), but surely they should everywhere at least allow some fitting-in with others that go under the same label. You do - people like Alex may be your good chumps and agree to similar labels. There is no one on the right or left anywhere who agrees with Niklas Luhmann's system-theoretical analysis of sociological structure. The left call it fascist apologetic, the right are scared of the potentially critical conclusions of any 'materialistic' determination of social structure. This is the "next level". It is not a lame compromise, it is not all the way around arriving on the other side, it simply transcends the distinction.