Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Climatic Research Unit Hacked, Files Leaked

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the playing-dirty dept.

Earth 882

huckamania was one of many readers to write with the news that the University of East Anglia's Hadley Climatic Research Unit was hacked, and internal documents released. Some discussion and analysis of the leaked items can be found at Watts Up With That. The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine. Some of the emails would seem to raise concerns about the science as practiced — or at least beg an explanation. From the Watts Up link: "[The CRU] is widely recognized as one of the world's leading institutions concerned with the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change. Consisting of a staff of around thirty research scientists and students, the Unit has developed a number of the data sets widely used in climate research, including the global temperature record used to monitor the state of the climate system, as well as statistical software packages and climate models. An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertised an FTP file on a Russian FTP server. Here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today: 'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.' The file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files. It contained data, code, and emails apparently from the CRU. If proved legitimate, these bombshells could spell trouble for the AGW crowd." Reader brandaman supplied the link to the archive of pilfered data. Reader aretae characterized the emails as revealing "...lots of intrigue, data manipulation, attempting to shut out opposing points of view out of scientific journals. Almost makes you think it's a religion. Anyone surprised?" And reader bugnuts adds, for context: "These emails are certainly taken out of context, whether they are legitimate or fraudulent, which adds to the confusion."

cancel ×

882 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Some Funny Things About This Event (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30175978)

The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine.

Rarely do I have enough time to generate 61 MB (let alone 61 compressed MB) of data, code and e-mails that serves my political/religious purposes. So if this is tampered data or correspondence, there would almost certainly be conflicting items inside such a large repository. I'm not saying it isn't possible, it just decreases the odds that this is a hoax.

'We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents'

Why? Why a random sampling? If you're going to serve up 61 MB zipped, it might as well be 61 GB zipped. Why not release both sets ("the good stuff.tar.gz" and "everything including the inane 'what's for lunch today?' e-mails.tar.gz")?

It's borderline hilarious that the claim is made that this is 'too important to be kept under wraps' followed immediately by the 'we'll decide what you see' cloaked by the equally hilarious word "random." Random? Really? You want me to believe that you printed everything out and put it on a big spinning wheel, blindfolded yourself and then threw darts at it? I mean, come on. Nothing in the political world is random. You would have done yourself much more justice saying you've released what you feel is relevant.

Being one, I know first hand that hackers are highly disorganized. But come on, why not torrent the whole set or wikileaks it or something? I mean, I'm almost waiting for a high quality Ford Fusion ad in PDF to surface right in the middle of the compressed file saying, "Doesn't this worry you enough to go green?"

RealClimate has a big reply on this (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176026)

Since some of the emails are sent from them, it's worth reading.

Link [realclimate.org]

For the specifics read the whole article. For a general summary, this excerpt will do:

"Since emails are normally intended to be private, people writing them are, shall we say, somewhat freer in expressing themselves than they would in a public statement. For instance, we are sure it comes as no shock to know that many scientists do not hold Steve McIntyre in high regard. Nor that a large group of them thought that the Soon and Baliunas (2003), Douglass et al (2008) or McClean et al (2009) papers were not very good (to say the least) and should not have been published. These sentiments have been made abundantly clear in the literature (though possibly less bluntly).

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."

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (2, Funny)

HanzoSpam (713251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176098)

Nice to get some perspective from a clearly disinterested party....

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176402)

what kind of a comment is that? Global warning has been debated so hotly it would be wonderful to see data that doesn't have a hand driven one way or the other by government. Those of us who aren't global warming specialists don't know what to believe other than to be concerned. implying that this person has a part of it is like saying that someone is interested in politics. Like it or not, these types of things involve every person on the planet, so, you know , everyone's interested.

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (1)

gorfie (700458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176432)

I figured he was suggesting that a site called "realclimate.org" might have a bias of some sort.

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176580)

ah, my bad.

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176632)

Want to become an expert? Watch the 60+ hours of lecture videos posted at the Heartland Institute website from their AGW convention. A much shorter video (1.5h) that I love: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
 
Global Warming is not a hoax. Hoaxes are usually funny and don't hurt nearly as many people.

Check who writes the cheques at HI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176770)

Check who writes the cheques at HI.

Check out their records on second hand smoke and smoking in general.

When an institute so blatantly says what Big Business wants to be heard, how can you pass them off as a way to become an expert???

Why not go instead to www.ipcc.ch and at least learn what you're supposed to disbelieve in. Weird thing is the HI and their helpers are complaining about things being missed or unexplained etc in the IPCC reports and if you even just read the IPCC reports you find that, even if you don't believe them, they DO explain the things HI say they don't, they include the things HI say they miss and so even on that very bland and uneventful method which merely goes into the claims of HI against the IPCC reports, the HI are talking complete bollocks.

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (2, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176428)

Nobody is a disinterested party.

Whatever your views on AGW, if you live on this planet you are not disinterested in this issue.

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176528)

I'm disinterested. Until you piss all over the seats in my Hovercraft.

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (1, Informative)

meson_ray (1216924) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176350)

There IS at least some evidence of the falsifying of data. From TFA: "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."

Adding temperature data from two different sources that seem to have different accuracies/systematic errors "to hide the decline" is evidence of falsifying data. In context, it is possible that this does not mean what it seems to mean. At the same time, this is evidence that there might be some systematic suppression of data that doesn't support human-caused global warming. Just because there's no worldwide conspiracy doesn't mean that these things aren't being downplayed because they're not part of the "consensus".

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (5, Interesting)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176822)

There IS at least some evidence of the falsifying of data. From TFA: "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."

Why the hell didn't you quote the rest? Stacking the deck much? Or are you just fishing for modpoints from the nutjobs 'round here?

Here's the entire quote, along with an explanation about why nothing nefarious was actually going on:

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "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) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"-see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). 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.

But, you know, way to do *precisely* what that paragraph was meant to highlight. ie, use "cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases ... pulled out of context" to try and illustrate scientific corruption amongst the science community.

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (1, Interesting)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176384)

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.

The Grays clearly used their orbital mind control lasers and a few applications of chemtrails to hide that evidence.

More seriously, why is absence of the more delusional theories considered "more interesting" than signs of unscientific bias and exclusion of certain rival research?

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (2, Insightful)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176554)

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."

I think it is funny that people would begin to draw conclusions from data and e-mails that are not received in context or understood/interpreted as truth be told.

You could look up almost any e-mail from me and deduce all kinds of crap that isn't real, but if you're not me or the person who received it, you'll never know the truth unless you ask me to explain it.

The same goes for 'data'. Unless you've got a contextual explanation for all of the data, likely by those who collected it, it is pretty reckless to draw conclusions about it.

I'm a scientist, and in what I know, aside from what is published, raw data and notebooks (and e-mails in this case) are pretty hard to deduce 'truth' from without explanation.

Example: you could look at a note of me saying I discarded specific PCR amplified DNA sequences for organism X, Y, and Z. But if you don't have me there to explain the stuff you don't know, like that that they contained nonspecific amplification or maybe had messy chromatograms... well then you would never know. You might accuse me of tampering, though really you just don't know what is really going on.

This is why you can't just publish every damn thing that you did. It makes a big confusing mess. Instead, you take the data and your methods and results, provide discussion and interpretation, and then have peers review to make sure what you've done is reproducible and accounts for as many relative scientific facts as possible.

Re:RealClimate has a big reply on this (3, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176788)

Yes, it would be reckless to jump straight to conclusions from these messages. However, this does point to questions that nobody would otherwise know to ask. I guess the question is, should this organization be expected to explain unpublished comments from internal emails/

The thing about climate science is, it's really hard to get an independent dataset from which to test for reproducability of results. To me this makes it reasonable to expect more scrutiny into what the people who are in custody of that data do - not just into what they judge to be suitable for publication.

Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176310)

The CRU has confirmed that a breach occurred, but not that all 61 MB of released material is genuine.

Rarely do I have enough time to generate 61 MB (let alone 61 compressed MB) of data, code and e-mails that serves my political/religious purposes. So if this is tampered data or correspondence, there would almost certainly be conflicting items inside such a large repository. I'm not saying it isn't possible, it just decreases the odds that this is a hoax.

I think that what they mean is that there might be 60.9 MB of real data and 0.1 MB tampered data amongst that to serve some political purpose.

Why not release both sets ("the good stuff.tar.gz" and "everything including the inane 'what's for lunch today?' e-mails.tar.gz")?

While I agree that "Random" sounds a bit odd, there are reasons not to give out everything. Even assuming there isn't anything private (Email exchange between an employee and a doctor or union's representatives)A lot of what they have must be works in progress, impartial data, etc... Stuff that could too easily be taken out of the context.

By taking a bit from here and there and then going "Let's see, what's here... Can this be released? Sure..." they have ability to give a wide representation of the data, still go through the parts they release and no need to go through all the data.

I'm not saying that is necessarily the reason or that it would be a flawless one. Just saying that I could imagine some semi-reasonable basis for them to do so.

Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176314)

Rarely do I have enough time to generate 61 MB (let alone 61 compressed MB) of data, code and e-mails that serves my political/religious purposes. So if this is tampered data or correspondence, there would almost certainly be conflicting items inside such a large repository. I smell funny. I'm not saying it isn't possible, it just decreases the odds that this is a hoax.

It's all plausible, it must be genuine!

Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (3, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176344)

You're missing the most important part of all of this, as revealed in this quote from the emails:

One other thing about the CC paper - just found another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !!

These guys are taking advice from McKittrick! That guy almost started World War III back in 1983 because some kid hacked into the WOPR and decided to play a game with it! Do we really want this guy influencing our global climate change policy?

Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (-1, Flamebait)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176386)

The climate change denialists are a coalition of christian fundamentalist young earth creationists who see science as a threat to their religious beliefs, and tobacco companies who see science as a threat to their business plan. I think it is very likely that they would be motivated enough to create 61MB of hoax documents to further their cause.

concensus != correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176550)

As a scientist with no significant religious affiliations, I take offence to that.

My reservations are based on inconsistencies in what little data is presented (Infamous and fabricated hockeystick graph from Gores presentation), the SHUT UP WE'RE RIGHT, DON'T YOU DARE QUESTION ME!! attituted I've seen in reponse to any attempt to ask questions, and the reservations expressed to me by people I trust in that very same field.

Don't be so quick to discard anyone that disagrees with the concensus just because you don't.

Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (5, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176594)

The climate change denialists are a coalition of christian fundamentalist young earth creationists who see science as a threat to their religious beliefs, and tobacco companies who see science as a threat to their business plan. I think it is very likely that they would be motivated enough to create 61MB of hoax documents to further their cause

Comments like these bug me. Allow me to wax non-eloquent.

  1. Denialists: Apparently, denying "climate change" is now a belief system and not founded on any real evidence. Of course, you may define "climate change" differently, but in the mass media and most people's minds, it appears to be taken to refer to human induced climate change. Nobody is sponsoring "climate change" legislation to put caps on volcanic eruption emissions. So, what are all the non-Christian-fundamentalist-young-earth-creationist's agendas do deny climate change even though they have apparently no evidence and are in the "faith based" grouping?
  2. Christian fundamentalist ... create ... hoax: Apparently, these Christian fundamentalists believe so strongly in their Bible that they are willing to lie to protect it. So much for being truthful, not bearing false witness, telling the truth, not lying, telling the truth ... did I mention truth? The Bible is extremely clear that truth is important. I don't know what Christians you've come into contact, but if you think they're willing to lie, then you've met some very bad people that are completely dragging the name of the God of the Bible through the mud. And you don't care, you apparently just want to go along with it as though they represent Christian fundamentalist young earth creationists all over the world. (by the way, I know some liberal atheist evolutionists that lie through their teeth, I guess all of them do!)
  3. ... see science as a threat to their religious beliefs: Perhaps in practice you see that they do because they disagree with some science; however, the way you put it makes it sound like it's logically impossible to have a Christian-fundamentalist-young-earth-creationist scientist. It's not. They exist. What's more, there are arguments and books about how their worldview is more consistent than an atheists. But that aside, most Christians that I know do not hold science to be a threat to their religious beliefs any more than they hold atheism to be a threat to their religious beliefs. If they think that any ... human "system" (whether good or bad) is a threat to their "religious beliefs," then they have their priorities wrong and are not "Christian fundamentalist." At least, not the ones I know. The Bible is quite clear about man-made vs. God-made systems and who will win. If they don't believe that, then they are just another religious group... and are not really Christians - or at least, not really Biblical. More of a cultic man-following man-pleasing group. And I'm not sure how many of them are young-earth creationists, as that tends to be a very Bible-centered/Bible-focused belief... and seems to not typically coincide with completely going against other parts of the Bible. Unless you get into some of the cults... but then they add so much to the Bible anyway...

I could go on talking about it, but that's enough. As for tobacco companies, I wouldn't know.

And by the way... what do you think about Al Gore (and the rest)? He seems to be doing ok with his business plan. Or do you think that "corruption" is only on one side of this debate? That if you believe that humans are causing global warming you are obviously free from corruption ... and hypocrisy and greed and ... ?

Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (2, Insightful)

morgandelra (448341) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176646)

Actually, I would say skeptics of anthropomorphic global warming. There are nut jobs on both sides of the issue. However, as you describe it, I would be a "climate change denialist" who is an atheist, sees that science, and more importantly the scientific METHOD as mankind's only real hope for long term survival. I guess I do not fit the deluded masses of christian fundies. I take issue with the anthropomorphic global warming crowd for the following reasons.

Unwillingness to provide source data and methods used in their papers. (This is science, if you cannot replicate it, it never happened)
Continuing to both cite and regurgitate papers and findings that have been proven incorrect. (This is the Big Lie strategy, keep saying the lie often enough and loud enough, and everyone thinks it must be true)

and, IMO for the SCAREMONGERING that goes on in the press conferences. Its not part of their science, but at in my 30 years on this planet, I have been told that we are all gonna die real soon now many times, its getting to be as bad the fundies talking about the End Of The World.

Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176556)

This wouldn't have been a problem at all if the climate researchers had released their data in the first place. Then we wouldn't care what their emails said, we could look right at their data. Instead they are being secretive, which obviously is bad science.

Even if the emails say horrible things, it really doesn't help us much to find out about the truth.....these leaks will only help us if it helps us get access to the data.

Re:Some Funny Things About This Event (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176764)

Who knows how much data they got, but I think it's fair to say it was more than 61 MB.

Assuming that, what free sites are going to allow you to upload that much data? I honestly do not know of any, especially considering how they got the data.

I do tend to agree calling it random, when it certainly wasn't random, is a misjustice, but if this turns out to be true, then it is telling at the lengths they are going to defraud us, and the government.

This could potentially cost us trillions of dollars in unnecessary taxes and fines. I want to see the most pointed and obvious lies they have in this haystack, which, by looking at the signatures, comes from all over.

Utter bullshit. (4, Insightful)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176002)

Reading random chunks of leaked data and E-mail is not the way science is done, nor policy made.

Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.

Otherwise, STFU, this isn't helping anything.

Re:Utter bullshit. (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176120)

Anyone else reveling in the irony of the hackers cherry-picking data to support their pre-conceived premises? :)

Re:Utter bullshit. (1, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176284)

Yeah, just cherry picking the emails that delineate the massive fraud that has been going on in AGW. Sure, no journalist ever did that. When watergate happened, they printed ALL of the papers they found, including the irrelevant ones.

ITT biased people calling reporters who report things they don't like biased.

Re:Utter bullshit. (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176146)

Email isn't science but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting. If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done. Furthermore, random chunks of data isn't science, but it does have the possibility of revealing any number of things, anything from numbers not matching what is published to problems with software to inconsistent data.

I'm not saying that is what the leaked information says, nor am I saying that the leak is real; there isn't enough information to know that yet. But your instant dismissal of this because it isn't every piece of data ever collected is a little disconcerting in my opinion.

Re:Utter bullshit. (5, Insightful)

PatHMV (701344) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176246)

Part of the problem is that the global warming proponents whose e-mails were hacked have REFUSED to release the data upon which they rely. In fact, the e-mails discovered are chock-full of references to their efforts to fight against any disclosure of much of their data. Other e-mails routinely discuss efforts to manipulate and massage the data to account for various political difficulties the data are causing them. For example, one e-mail discusses using a particular modifier to minimize a warming "blip" in the 1940s, without making the "blip" go away entirely, because it appears in both the sea temp and the land temp data. So you're right, e-mail isn't data. But that cuts both ways, and in this case particularly hard against the global warming fear-mongerers.

Re:Utter bullshit. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176654)

Have they refused to release the data at all? Or are they maybe refusing to release it until the project is done. Every experiment has to post progress and updates, but aren't a lot of the methods hidden until the final report is published?

To publish methods and incomplete data can create an alarmist and conspiratorial picture of what's going on without giving people viewing this fragment the whole picture might be dangerous and jeopardize legitimate research. Leaks like this could cause enough PACs and politicians to attempt to shut down the group before any concrete conclusions are released, and destroy an opportunity to finish the research and figure out what's really going on.

I'd dial back the paranoia a little bit, if I were you. The whole story, and all the research, will come out in due time. Let's not jump to conclusions based on half-truths and distorted views of a single piece of the puzzle.

You don't need to retrace a murderer's whole day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176332)

to rightfully convict him of a crime he committed in a matter of minutes. Prosecutors tend to "cherry pick" the incriminating evidence too.

Oh, and it is very much how policy is made. Come to terms with that.

Re:Utter bullshit. (5, Informative)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176414)

Let's see ALL the data, and let's not see the E-mail at all -- E-mail isn't data.

You do realize that some of the emails are about hiding data from public view, obstructing freedom of information requests, and campaign to discredit a peer reviewed journal that published something that disagreed with their public stance, right?

If there is one thing I know for sure, its that at least one of the skeptics is entirely open about the data and methodology (with source code, only free tools, etc..) he uses, and he even seeks input from anyone willing to help via his blog. That man is Steve McIntyre.

Publicly funded scientists should be forced to open up their data and methodology, with prison terms for them if they don't. Its time they stopped using public money to boost their own careers while playing fast and loose in their good ol' boy club of like-minded conspirators.

Re:Utter bullshit. (0, Flamebait)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176636)

That man is Steve McIntyre.

But he's bad (read the summary, even!). He can't be a REAL scientist, because he disagrees with REAL science. Thus, he's obviously lying about his data and/or methodology... trust me.

...

... yes, sarcasm ... :)

Re:Utter bullshit. (2, Interesting)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176600)

Pieces of the truth are still the truth.

I agree we should see all the data.

As for your demanding them to STFU, I think we will stick with the 1st amendment.

I hope nobody ever reads my emails, too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176010)

When you take EVERYTHING out of context, you can pretty much find evidence of EVERYTHING.

Re:I hope nobody ever reads my emails, too... (1)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176626)

Good Luck with your disinfo efforts, propaganda is not something new.

Science As PRACTISED (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176046)

More information about this topic can be found in the
journal Social Studies In Science [sagepub.com] .

Yours In Baikonur (Cosmodrome),
K. Trout

It's All About... (0, Troll)

PGOER (1333025) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176074)

Conspirasy!!! They actually probably leaked it themselves to spread conflicting data about the environment. They don't want people to know that as soon as the glaciers and polar ice caps melt aliens will invade the earth, they are just waiting for a shift in temperature. I for one, welcome our tropical overlords!

Lindzen vindicated (5, Informative)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176082)

MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen has long made these claims about global warming researchers, as he discusses in a talk from a few weeks ago: "Cooler Heads [youtube.com] ". It looks like he's slowly being vindicated in his views of both the researchers and the conclusions.

I would just like to point out.... (0, Offtopic)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176092)

I would just like to point out that it is COMPLETELY inappropriate for slashDot to post a link to what is, according to the story, STOLEN DATA. Yes, I know it is out on the internet so anyone could find it.

But seriously slashDot it seems highly inappropriate for you to give people easy access to stolen data.

Re:I would just like to point out.... (2, Interesting)

rotide (1015173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176228)

While I don't totally disagree with you in principle, is "stolen" data still considered "stolen" if it is posted to Wiki Leaks and linked from there?

Basically, if this data set was pushed to Wiki Leaks first and SD linked to their version, would you have posted in protest?

Leaked data is leaked data is leaked data.

Re:I would just like to point out.... (1)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176558)

Probably.
They could have easily added a comment about the data being posted to website X and people, if they choose, could have gone and found it. As opposed to posting the data directly.

Re:I would just like to point out.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176272)

It's actually necessary in this case. From a journalistic point of view, it must be given to the reader to prevent speculation and theorizing. It is also perfectly legal for a news site to distribute stolen documents as long as the site wasn't involved in the theft.

Re:I would just like to point out.... (2, Insightful)

Jhon (241832) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176324)

But it's OK for slashdot to publish stores re: Sarah Palin's [slashdot.org] email getting hacked -- and linked to "what is, according to the story, STOLEN DATA", as you say.

I think it's all news worthy. Don't you?

Re:I would just like to point out.... (2, Insightful)

Slash.Poop (1088395) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176398)

No.
I think the story (and the Palin one) is news worthy but not giving people easy access to the data.

Re:I would just like to point out.... (1, Interesting)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176688)

Yes, as long as it fits the Agenda of the Agenda 21 crowd then we must supress
what woul harm the movement to help Agenda 21 happen.

LOL

Bunch of genocidal globalist scum.

Google the georgia guidestones, limits to growth, club of rome ( gore is a member ),
CFR, bilderberg, and you will start to understand what is going on behind closed doors.

If you will not admit the bilderberg meetings are going on,
and US officials attend in violation of the logan act then you are an IDIOT.

Re:I would just like to point out.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176360)

Al Gore, is that you, dude?

Re:I would just like to point out.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176606)

Yeah, baby - check out my rhythms!

Re:I would just like to point out.... (1)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176502)

There's a very real possibility that the research that generated the data was funded with public money. In which case it's not so much stolen as it is repossessed.

Re:I would just like to point out.... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176576)

I'm now wondering which one of these guys you are. Seriously.

This is SLASHDOT, bozo. Information wants to be free.

Re:I would just like to point out.... (1)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176798)

Well, that's one point of view, but I know that I am not alone in considering 'stealing' to only be inappropriate when it deprives another entity of something (i.e. I steal candy from a baby). If the 'stolen data' was copied rather than deleted from the original source, then the original researchers aren't deprived of anything (except maybe the power that exclusive information affords people). That being said, why lose sleep over it? Furthermore, why cry foul on a news aggregation site that is, in fact, linking to an aggregation of new, interesting information (aka news). I mean, I guess you could make a case about this possibly depriving the original researchers of their integrity. I suppose you could say that it only muddies the waters of an already dirty lake. I suppose you could come up with all sorts of moral/ethical/relative reasons as to why this is a terrible thing for slashdot to do, but so far as I can tell, it primarily just brings more exposure to a very interesting happenstance.

That being said, I hope you can understand that other people who don't share your strict sense of values or morals or ethics or whatever may not see it as being some horrible act. In fact, some may even find it to be a refreshing act of misplaced-but-at-least-attempted rebellion which is somewhat refreshing in an era where those who scream the loudest but perform the least activity get awarded time and again. Furthermore, I hope you can understand these things without having to stick your nose in the air and convince yourself that you are better than anyone who doesn't see a moral issue with this. The human race is not homogeneous. We all have different ideals and values. You can argue for eternity over which values are 'best,' but I think the idea of 'best' goes beyond both subjective and objective reasoning. Call me a moral relativist if you want, but I sure hope your blood pressure doesn't go due to your shock and outrage over information getting leaked on the internet and being reported on a news site....

Scepticism is universal (1, Insightful)

GofG (1288820) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176106)

I have long felt that there's too much sensationalism surrounding global warming for the crisis to be exactly what it is represented as in the media. I think a healthy dose of scepticism is always a good thing. Equally so with this. I am sceptical that this is a "random sampling", but rather probably closer to being a carefully selected panorama of all of the nastiest bits. I will read through it, as I am sure a couple people will, but I encourage scepticism.

Re:Scepticism is universal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176220)

"global warming", don't you mean "Climate Change", which the earth has been doing for how many millions of years. It was such a nice place 65 million years ago until the rock hit the planet.

Re:Scepticism is universal (1)

GofG (1288820) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176372)

"global warming", don't you mean "Climate Change", which the earth has been doing for how many millions of years. It was such a nice place 65 million years ago until the rock hit the planet.

No, I mean global warming. There is no media sensationalism surrounding climate change; the sensationalism surrounds specifically the phrase "global warming". I understand that we have been undergoing climate change for millions of years and that such a phenomenon is as "natural" as anything can be (that is, would have happened without humans) which is why I didn't say "climate change". Mod parent troll

Re:Scepticism is universal (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176702)

There is no media sensationalism surrounding climate change

Mmmm, yes there is though... because the media has so sensationalized the global warming bit (i.e., man-made) ... and I'm sure Al Gore's Nobel prize didn't help ... that I think the normal/popular reaction to anything that refers to temperatures changing ("climate change" or "global warming" or "global cooling" or "ice age" or "polar bears") immediately brings to mind human-induced global warming.

Re:Scepticism is universal (5, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176622)

Yup, Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years and will continue to do so. What Earth hasn't been doing for billions of years is supporting a single species who's civilization utterly depends on stable crop yields, stable weather patterns, and a stable climate. If humans go ahead and alter atmospheric chemistry enough to reduce rainfall and crop yields by 20% across several major agricultural regions, the Earth will be just fine with that. The atmosphere and climate have been changing for millenia. You know who won't be fine with it though?

Us.

As a species humans already appropriate well over half the productive ecological capacity on this planet (estimates I've seen range to as high as 90%), so anything we do to appreciably diminish that ecological capacity will hit one species particularly hard.

Us.

Earth, however, will soldier on, whether with a human population of around 10 billion, a dramatically reduced human population, or no human population at all.

Re:Scepticism is universal (2, Insightful)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176726)

This is funny and telling because the "movement" even started calling it climate change instead of global warming
once the temps started to drop.

I assume CO2 caused the massive decrease in sunspots and the record breaking cold temps.

Oversight (1, Insightful)

gorfie (700458) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176108)

This certainly highlights the need for oversight in organizations where their output (summaries, trends, studies, statements, etc.) are used to formulate government policy. The fact that there exists evidence suggesting that opposing points were knowingly ignored and/or oppressed is disturbing. Not to mention the fact that data was potentially manipulated to support a pre-existing point of view. We need more transparency.

Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176110)

Something most rational people have been saying for years. Quite funny that it takes an illegal act of hacking to expose the most expensive farce of our time.

Imagine a Beowulf cluster leaks.... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176142)

From HARRY_READ_ME.txt, one of the leaked files.

...This could be a result of my mis-setting of the parameters on Tim's programs (although I have followed his recommendations wherever possible), or it could be a result of Tim using the Beowulf 1 cluster for the f90 work. Beowulf 1 is now integrated in to the latest Beowulf cluster so it may not be practical to test that theory.

Random? by what measure? (2, Insightful)

mrmtampa (231295) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176176)

Or cherry picked?

More links (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176198)

The forgot bittorrent [thepiratebay.org]

Re:More links (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176370)

How big is that file, I can't exactly access it here

Re:More links (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176526)

It's about 60 MB.

A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176218)

What the FUCK is wrong with you people? If global warming is a "religion", then the anti-global warming folks have formed their own religion and have now apparently started a jihad holy war against it.

How long before anti-global warming jihadist nut jobs start shooting scientists who they think are part of the "global conspiracy"?

Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176262)

How long before anti-global warming jihadist nut jobs start shooting scientists who they think are part of the "global conspiracy"?

Probably not soon enough!

Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism (0)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176400)

AGW might or might not be real but so many different religions have gotten their hands into this that it's hard to know what the truth.

I would not be the least bit surprised if it turned out that the Global Climate Change Movement is nothing more than a front for certain political and social groups that are eager for any excuse they can get their hands on to advance their agenda. It's also possible that the skeptics are a front for Big Business.

The truth of human CO2 emissions' effect on climate is independent of both of those agendas. Whichever group is correct is so purely by accident.

Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176406)

It was someone in the AGW crowd that suggested Nuremberg style "trials" for the skeptics. Others advocated other harsh treatment of those who dared voice their doubleminus ungood wrongthink. You start saying I'm going to be persecuted or put on some sham trial for having an opinion, yeah, I'm reaching for the ammo, scumbag.

Re:A new low for the slashdot anti-intellectualism (0)

Ex-MislTech (557759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176810)

Just because someone does not agree with your opinion does not
make them a nut job.

I say opinion because 30,000 scientists have said they feel that Gore
has lied and distorted the facts.

Based on the very good EVIDENCE shown in The Great Global Warming Swindle
I'd say there is a plenty of reason to think they are wrong.

The weather balloon data does not show warming at
higher altitudes thus it is not Global Warming.

When you check the science you see it is the sun.

So the real question is, what the FUCK is wrong with you ?

All the GOREY details right here! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176226)

h ah aha ah ah haaaaaa ha aha aha aha aah ah ahahha aha ahaa h aha aha ahaaaa h aha aha aha cough cough...ha ah aha aha aha aha aha aha aha hh haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:All the GOREY details right here! (1)

tthomas48 (180798) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176714)

I'm sorry. I can no longer read articles that have 'gate' in the title unless they're referring to actual gates attached with hinges to a fence.

I have some datums. (0, Offtopic)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176230)

I do tech for a school district.

I just installed 75 Acer Aspire Anecdotes, and I have about 10 Anecdotes that failed in the first month. I continue to have at least another anecdote fail every month.

Of course, someone will tell me that anecdote is not 15% of data or something bullshitty like that.

What I want to see (4, Interesting)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176264)

are the new CO2 emissions files, in particular, what each country emits. Everybody has it up until 2006, but after that, it stops. Why? After 2006 is important information. For starters, a number of western countries have dropped emissions (particularly, America), while others have increased greatly (Canada, Australia, South Korea). The real issue that I would like to see is what BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), along with Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, etc have done.

Re:What I want to see (2, Insightful)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176382)

By a lot of measurements, CO2 levels dont mater much. Even if we dropped emissions to zero, the existing impact on Greenland and the ice caps is enough to be very worried about. Frankly, I think we should be more focused on addressing the problems introduced by the green house effect rather then be totally focused on emission levels.

Course if we had never passed the Clean Air Act we would have a buffer of particulates reducing sunlight getting to the ice. Not that I like smog...

Re:What I want to see (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176586)

Well, first off, the world gov are all pushing CO2 emissions as being the big thing. As such, that data should be shown to all. As to the pollution issues, China and now India have massive amounts of smog that are carried around the world. LITERALLY. Yeah, that probably is keeping the temps down so there is a plus side to it. HOWEVER, I would like to see us get China, India, and other nations to quit polluting so much esp. with Mercury. IIRC, China emits almost 1/2 of the total mercury emissions due to ZERO controls. However, to be fair, a lot of the none Asian/ None USSR pollution is done for western companies. 2 of these 10 sites belong to Anglo and American companies, but are located in other countries. [time.com]

Re:What I want to see (2, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176696)

Well, first off, the world gov are all pushing CO2 emissions as being the big thing.

Of course they are. All economic activity emits CO2. This is the next big power grab, and it will create the largest system of back scratching and kickbacks this world has ever seen... and may ever see. It really and truly doesnt get any bigger than this, folks.

Re:What I want to see (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176840)

Except that by political measurements, "Carbon Footprint" (aka CO2 levels) is not just important, it's one of the most important causes of global warming, and we're so far in a hole that we have to put on the emergency brakes NOW. And that is one of the things that the AGW skeptics have a problem with.

Re:What I want to see (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176584)

Since by your own admission you miss the actual data, I wonder why you ever bother posting a list of countries that you think reduced/increased emissions.

In the spirit of transparency (5, Insightful)

snowwrestler (896305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176336)

I'm sure Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre are just about to release their own personal e-mail histories as well.

Why is climate science being politicized? (1)

dwguenther (1100987) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176422)

There is a very disturbing question here of why climate research is being handled like a political football. We don't normally politicize chemistry, or physics, or math, or even oceanography. We could and should be having heated policy discussions about how to address global warming, but the scientific evidence is not really in question, and the researchers behind the evidence are clearly not political operatives. So who has turned the public view of climate research into such a circus, and why?

Re:Why is climate science being politicized? (-1, Troll)

Knara (9377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176570)

Because without stuff like this, conservatives won't keep getting elected by protecting us from "socialism" and "communism".

Seriously.

Re:Why is climate science being politicized? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176624)

You've clearly not been paying attention - GW has gone beyond a political issue and turned into a religious one for some of the far right. Apparently, Jeebus has a sad if you can't drive a giant Hummer the two blocks to church on Sunday.

Re:Why is climate science being politicized? (1)

drizek (1481461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176728)

The people who cause global warming turned the research into a circus, because they stand to profit from it.

It seems pretty transparent to me.

Re:Why is climate science being politicized? (2, Interesting)

kyliaar (192847) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176802)

It is actually pretty simple. There are very popular economic theories that indicate that you control the flow of money by controlling what people are afraid of. Climate science would be a much smaller field with a lot less attention, money for grants and political debates if it wasn't sensationalized.

Also, look at how scientific data (data obstensibly gained through competent scientists following the scientific methods we learned in high school) winds up being consumed by the public. Being able to say you are green is a huge factor in marketing consumer products, without any regulations to explain exactly how your product impacts the climate less.

The real truth of the matter is that climatologists actually understand very little and are operating off modeling systems that can't track all factors and do not accurate predict results. I have yet to hear of a computer model that can take data from the 80s and accurately roll it forward to mirror today's climate.

Anthropogenic Causes (4, Insightful)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176430)

Many people who doubted AGW (humans causing the hockey stick graph, or the graph itself) are claiming this is some sort of smoking gun. I claim it's scientists being scientists, and failing at being politicians.

The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science. This is why there is a consensus [newscientist.com] among scientists. Doubting is a part of science and skeptics alike, but discovering the reasons for the doubt and changing a viewpoint when good, conflicting data are found are hallmarks of the scientist. Skeptics will cling to disproved data, hoping it somehow becomes true if they believe it hard enough.

There is no doubt that the earth is warmer, but mark my words: some idiot media personality will make claims to the contrary due to this. They thrive on confusion, and there's nothing more confusing (and humorous) than watching scientists wrestle with politics.

Re:Anthropogenic Causes (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176762)

Normally this thread would have hundreds of comments on this type of thread. This is not simply scientists failing as politicians. On the contrary,
it is out and out fraud on a Madoff scale.
The reason this thread is so quiet is all the AGW faithful know their cover is BLOWN. Forget it your bogus faith is DEAD.

If these grifters weren't on your side you would be calling for their heads on a stick. The only thing that will protect their lying asses is the the UKs desire vacuum every farthing from their citizens paycheck.

Oh, yes, this is the conspiracy of all time (1, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176482)

It involves THOUSANDS of scientists all over the world as well as Glaciers, Polar Bear, Penguins, Shells, Hurricanes, etc. Yup, this little bitty batch of emails from many Gigs of email truly prove it. Why over on fox news and Chevron web site, they have the full story all about it.

Well, Isn't THIS inconvenient!! (1)

krygny (473134) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176484)

(said in a Dana Carvey / Church Lady voice)

Welcome Astroturfers (0, Flamebait)

MountainLogic (92466) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176540)

No, seriously, welcome. You may find some very different views and outstanding analysis along with lots of stale jokes and Microsoft bashing. From the fast and furious posting of recent member to /. it is clear that many of you are likely from a K street lobbying form. If I had the time it might be interesting to track back which PR firm you might be from. You are obviously well funded (API/Exxon?) to bother posting this on a technology site. To improve the effectiveness of your astroturf efforts you should use the jargon and dialect of your target audience as your comments contain far too many terms that are not native to /. Mr. Gates, here is a nickle. Call your mother and tell her there is serious doubt that you will not be graduating as a computer scientist.

Creation "science" for the religious left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176566)

Cooking the books to confirm your predefined beliefs and calling it science.

Nothing to see here, move on (4, Informative)

JoeBuck (7947) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176568)

I review papers for technical conferences. I regularly try to keep papers out of the publications. It's a necessary part of the job, because the acceptance rate is typically 25%, and because most of the papers are junk. Scientific publications are not free speech platforms; to be published, an article has to meet the standards and it has to advance the state of the art of the field.

The bar for skeptics is always going to be higher. Otherwise we'd have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks every time some student messes up his lab assignment, because this will produce data that contradicts the theory.

Your opinion is being manipulated (-1, Troll)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176642)

in advance of the upcoming Copenhagen climate conference, there is clearly a campaign
on to discredit evidence for global warming. Watch for a continuing stream of new news stories
on the issue, questioning the science, in the next few weeks. I have already noticed two very
blatant examples in the last few days.

One science that is more certain, I will admit, these days than the science of global climate is the science
of swaying public opinion through careful PR and "news" management. It's scary good. You have
to be on the lookout for it at all times. Anytime you find yourself agreeing with the most recent
conventional wisdom, give yourself a slap, and start looking for who is feeding you that conventional
wisdom and why. Hint. Follow the money.

Copenhagen is apparently going to be a total failure. The politicians are all gutless wimps.
So this PR campaign is softening up the target of your mind to make it easier for you to accept
that failure.

Re:Your opinion is being manipulated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30176766)

NO, you and yours have been doing the manipulating and now, the party is over you fucking feckless idiot.

Whew! (1)

Ifni (545998) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176704)

At least it wasn't the Climactic Research Center.

secrecy and data hiding (5, Insightful)

zerosomething (1353609) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176774)

The primary issue is that most climate science has not truly been scrutinize and reviewed. I've been reading the files and it's very damming. It's almost as bad as cold fusion. For example. In note 1075403821.txt Timo Hmeranta states.

One other thing about the CC paper - just found another email - is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journals to give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.

So they are going to hide behind Intelectual Property Rights to keep their data from being reviewed!. Holy Fucking Shit! How can science do that and still remain respectable?

0880476729.txt is interesting: (5, Interesting)

inviolet (797804) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176804)

[...header information omitted...]
Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)

Dear Eleven,

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get
others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of
this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the
IPCC "view" when you say that "the latest IPCC assessment makes a
convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions." In contrast
to the one-sided opinion expressed in your letter, IPCC WGIII SAR and TP3
review the literature and the issues in a balanced way presenting
arguments in support of both "immediate control" and the spectrum of more
cost-effective options. It is not IPCC's role to make "convincing cases"
for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
statement.

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

[...]

more manipulated data (2, Interesting)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176820)

kinda hard to get a good reading of the temperature, when stations are placed next to parking lots, AC vents and other heat generating sources

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/ [norcalblogs.com]

and what happened to the Ice Age they were trying to scare us with in the 80s?

100% Bullshit (0, Flamebait)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#30176854)

This story is 100% bullshit.

Oh wait - it's global warmi... I mean, global climate change, that's bullshit.

Pure.
Political.
Bull.
Shit.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?